The governing body has provided clarity on why technical disqualifications, such as those handed to McLaren‘s Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri in Las Vegas, cannot always be prevented under current regulations. Nikolas Tombazis, the FIA’s head of single-seater technical matters, addressed questions about why more cars are not subjected to post-race scrutineering after Max Verstappen suggested other teams may also be operating beyond acceptable limits. The explanation centres on the practical challenges of policing Formula 1’s technical freedom while maintaining the sport’s engineering diversity, a balance the governing body remains committed to preserving despite the complications it creates.
The technical challenge of plank wear inspections
Every Formula 1 car features a wooden plank and titanium skid blocks mounted beneath the floor. Excessive wear on these components after a Grand Prix indicates the car has been run too low to the ground, breaching technical regulations. When this occurs, disqualification follows. However, the FIA does not inspect every car after each race. Post-race scrutineering targets vehicles deemed most suspicious based on performance data and on-track behaviour. Different chassis philosophies and tight logistical schedules compound the challenge. With the F1 circus often departing Sunday evening for the next destination, the governing body lacks sufficient time to conduct comprehensive checks across all twenty entries.
Tombazis acknowledged this limitation but insisted it reflects a deliberate choice rather than an oversight. The FIA could simplify enforcement by mandating standardised components, but doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of Formula 1’s technical competition.
Why Formula 1 resists standardisation
When asked whether enforcement would prove easier if Formula 1 adopted a spec-series format, Tombazis offered a candid response that underscored the sport’s governing philosophy. “Please do not take this statement without the surrounding context, but all these problems would disappear if we moved towards a standard car,” the Greek engineer told Autosport. “You could easily take a Formula 2 car, give it more performance, and immediately you would have no porpoising, no loopholes in the regulations, no plank issues. You could solve all those things with more prescription.”
Yet such a path contradicts Formula 1’s identity. “It is clear we want Formula 1 to remain a technical battle,” Tombazis continued. “We do not want everyone using identical cars with different stickers on them. That is why we must give designers some freedom to operate.” This commitment to engineering diversity creates the very complexities that make universal scrutineering impractical, particularly when teams develop vastly different solutions to the same regulatory framework.
The decision reflects a broader trade-off between ease of policing and the innovation that distinguishes Formula 1 from junior categories.
Design variation complicates standardised solutions
Beyond philosophical considerations, practical engineering realities prevent simple fixes. Tombazis highlighted the plank issue as a case study in competing priorities. “With the plank specifically, there was an additional factor,” he explained. “Different teams kept finding different ways to address reliability problems caused by cars bottoming on the asphalt.” Teams working with particularly stiff floor designs face pushback when regulators suggest standardised reinforcement. “If you said, ‘This is your design and it must be extremely strong,’ some teams would respond, ‘But you cannot do that, because if your power unit takes an impact, components will fail,'” Tombazis noted.
Energy recovery systems and other sensitive elements create cascading constraints. A solution that works for one team’s packaging philosophy may prove incompatible with another’s mechanical layout. “You must account for all sorts of other considerations before introducing a standard system,” the technical chief added. This reality means scrutineering will continue targeting suspected violations rather than examining every car, accepting occasional controversy as the price of preserving technical diversity.
What this means going forward
The FIA’s position indicates disqualifications will remain part of Formula 1’s regulatory landscape, particularly at circuits where teams push ride height limits to maximise aerodynamic performance. Teams operating closest to legal thresholds face the greatest risk when selected for detailed inspection, while others may escape scrutiny even when employing similarly aggressive setups. This selective enforcement creates tension, particularly when championship positions hang in the balance. However, Tombazis made clear the governing body views this as preferable to the alternative: a homogenised technical formula that would eliminate enforcement headaches but strip away the engineering competition that defines the sport’s highest level. For drivers like Verstappen and his Red Bull team, navigating these grey areas while avoiding detection will remain a calculated risk worth taking in pursuit of marginal gains.
