This article is posted in collaboration with an outside partnership client. The opinions and information contained within do not necessarily represent Frontstretch and its staff.
Lewis Hamilton’s Singapore weekend came to a frustrating close when a five-second time penalty pushed him behind Fernando Alonso after the flag. On paper, the ruling seemed simple: Hamilton had gone off track too many times. But anyone who actually watched those final laps could see something wasn’t right.
The Ferrari driver was struggling to slow down, fighting to keep the car pointed straight as the braking system began to fail. Ferrari argued that Hamilton wasn’t pushing the limits for gain. He was simply trying to stay safe and finish. That argument, however, fell on deaf ears with the FIA stewards.
Brake Failure Turns Into a Safety Emergency
As the laps wound down, Hamilton’s brakes deteriorated rapidly. Every time he pressed the pedal, the car hesitated before slowing, sometimes not slowing at all. He slid wide at corners, crossed the lines and even brushed curbs in an effort to stay out of the barriers.
Those moments, which might have looked like sloppy driving to the cameras, were really signs of a driver nursing a wounded car home. According to sports editor Richard Presley, some fans tracking his odds live on no kyc betting sites jumped in as the drama unfolded. He began the race around +300, but when the problem became obvious, his odds stretched to +800.
When the stewards later confirmed the penalty, those who had backed him found themselves frustrated twice; once by the mechanical failure, and again by the officials’ choice to punish it afterward.
The FIA’s Official Explanation
After the race, Hamilton joined Ferrari sporting director Diego Ioverno in front of the stewards. The team presented telemetry, onboard video, and radio messages proving the brake issue was genuine. The stewards accepted that something had failed, yet still concluded it didn’t qualify as a “justifiable reason” for leaving the track.
They cited Article 33.3 of the Sporting Regulations and Article 12.2.1 i of the International Sporting Code, both of which prohibit leaving the circuit without permission. Their reasoning was simple, at least on the surface: the rule doesn’t consider intent or circumstance.
It only measures whether the car went beyond the white lines. The five-second penalty was applied without appeal, ending Hamilton’s race in frustration.
A Decision That Doesn’t Add Up
The FIA’s statement confirmed that Hamilton left the track because of a brake issue. That admission, however, makes the punishment even harder to justify. If the stewards truly believed the car had a safety problem, they had the authority to show the black flag with an orange circle, which would have required Hamilton to pit immediately.
They didn’t use it. Instead, they allowed him to keep racing and then penalized him afterward. That contradiction has raised questions across the paddock. If the car was safe enough to finish, then a penalty seems unnecessary. If it wasn’t, then race control failed to act when it mattered most.
Either way, it leaves the impression that procedure mattered more than common sense.
When Rules Ignore Context
The FIA’s regulations are strict: any driver who crosses track limits with all four wheels is considered in breach, even when no advantage is gained. That might make sense on paper, but it rarely fits the complexity of a live race. Hamilton was losing time, not gaining it.
Alonso closed the gap by several seconds as the Ferrari limped around the circuit. The penalty, therefore, felt misplaced; a bureaucratic punishment for a driver who had already been handicapped by his own machinery.
Comparing Similar Incidents
The inconsistency becomes clearer when looking at other examples. Lando Norris completed a race earlier this year with a visibly damaged front wing but was allowed to continue without a flag or penalty. A few seasons back, Kevin Magnussen suffered almost identical damage in Singapore, but the stewards forced him to pit immediately under the black-and-orange flag.
Now Hamilton’s case adds a third version of the same story: no flag, no warning during the race, just a post-race penalty. Three situations that look similar on paper, yet each drew a completely different reaction.
When the same officials can’t treat comparable scenarios in the same way, consistency stops being a rule and becomes a matter of interpretation.
Reaction from the Paddock and Fans
The reaction in the paddock was mixed, and that’s putting it lightly. Some felt the stewards were right to hand out a penalty; others thought they completely missed the point of what happened. Jenson Button, speaking after the race, admitted he was “a bit surprised” that Hamilton only got five seconds, considering how many times he drifted off the racing line. But not everyone agreed with that take.
Several former drivers and team engineers argued that Hamilton did everything possible just to finish safely, and that his off-track moments weren’t the result of reckless driving but of a car that was barely hanging together.
Ferrari, perhaps knowing how little success appeals usually bring, didn’t bother challenging the decision. The sense around the team garage was one of quiet irritation rather than outrage. Fans were far louder. Across social media, many pointed out the same contradiction: How could the FIA acknowledge a brake failure and still penalize the driver for reacting to it?
The Debate Over Rule Application
Some believe the stewards had little choice. The rules are written to prevent debate, not invite it. If they start making exceptions, teams could claim mechanical issues every time a driver runs wide. Yet motorsport has always relied on context. No written rulebook can anticipate every failure or every corner. The art of stewarding lies in understanding intent, and that’s where many feel this panel fell short. Hamilton wasn’t hunting for an advantage, he was trying to avoid disaster.
A Broader Problem at the FIA
Since the fallout from Abu Dhabi 2021, questions about FIA consistency have never gone away. Drivers and teams talk often about “gray areas” that seem to shift from race to race. Some weekends, small mistakes are ignored. On others, they trigger harsh sanctions. The Singapore race fits neatly into that pattern. Between the technical bulletins, steward notes, and post-race rulings, the framework has grown dense enough that almost any decision can be justified.
Conclusion
Hamilton’s five-second penalty might look small on a results sheet, but the implications stretch much further than one position lost. The FIA admitted his car suffered a serious brake failure, then decided that wasn’t reason enough to forgive his off-track moments. They also chose not to wave the safety flag that would have dealt with the problem in real time. Instead, they waited until the race ended and then added time to his result.
It’s the same story we’ve seen too often: different rulings for similar incidents, explanations that sound technical but not convincing, and a growing feeling that the rulebook is being interpreted on the fly. Formula 1 doesn’t lack regulations. Instead, it lacks consistency in how those regulations are applied. Until that changes, these arguments will keep overshadowing what happens on track. Singapore should have been remembered for a tense finish, but it became another example of how confusing Formula 1’s own system can be.
