The late safety car at Formula 1’s Emilia Romagna Grand Prix provided a late chance for a number of drivers to improve their positions and left others hanging onto their places as strategy was turned on its head.
Lando Norris was the main beneficiary, moving past McLaren team-mate and championship leader Oscar Piastri for second by using new tyres compared to the Australian’s worn compound, while Lewis Hamilton climbed to fourth after a late charge.
But questions were asked about the consistency of the decision-making from race control in the aftermath. Kimi Antonelli’s Mercedes ground to a halt on the run between Tosa and Piratella to bring out the safety car, though when Esteban Ocon stopped his Haas just a few hundred metres further back earlier in the race, a virtual safety car was called for.
Grand Prix Drivers’ Association chairman and former F1 driver Alexander Wurz backed the calls from the FIA, explaining why it was important that the two situations differed.
“As I got a lot of questions in the last 24 hours, post-Imola from journalists and from fans as a TV pundit, media expert, and of course, it also touches my role as a chairman of the GPDA,” said Wurz in a video posted to social media.
“The question was about, was there an inconsistency in the decision making of race control, of the FIA about the virtual safety car with the incident, or the stopping, of the Haas, Esteban Ocon, in the exit of Turn Seven in the race, and then a little bit later, Kimi Antonelli and his Mercedes came to stop also in the exit of Turn 7, a little bit later.
More from the Singapore GP
Catch up with Total Motorsport's latest Singapore GP coverage, including Max Verstappen's victory at Marina Bay, Ferrari's costly strategy gamble, the full race classification, and the updated 2026 Formula 1 Drivers' and Constructors' Championship standings.
“It seemed to be a similar incident, but already live on Austrian TV I stated: ‘I think the race director has done the absolute right decisions, because where Esteban Ocon’s car came to a stop, it was reasonably simple to push it back into the opening’.
“Kimi Antonelli stopped a little bit higher, the grass is not even there, there’s a compression in there, and it was just too far, so the race director had to deploy a lifting vehicle.
“And the moment such a vehicle is on track and needs to go over the track to get to that car, he has absolutely the right decision made to call it a safety car.”
On why it was so important that the call was made with safety in mind, Wurz added: “Let’s not forget what happened in Japan with Jules Bianchi, and the drivers and everyone said: ‘We need to learn from this’, he added.
“So this decision was not inconsistent, very much the opposite. It was a very good decision in the name of safety.
“And this is what I’ve stated straight away on live TV, and [I] want to address these concerns here, and thank the Race Control and FIA for this decision, because it is absolutely in the name of safety – and it is very consistent to what we have agreed and said over the last few years.”
Wurz is spot on. Too often in recent seasons, decisions regarding the safety car deployment has, rightly or wrongly, felt connected to the racing action: where is the leader in relation to the pits? How many laps will be lost to the safety car? Will the race end under green flag racing?
Yes, we lost seven laps of racing while Antonelli’s car was removed from the firing line but so what? That’s what happens sometimes. Safety has to be paramount – not just for the drivers but for marshals and spectators alike.
So any criticism for the FIA’s decision-making on safety cars and VSC’s at Imola is wide of the mark.
