Former F1 engineer urges introduction of 'augmented' stewarding group to speed up decisions

You cannot stop the race and say, let the stewards decide. That line from Rob Smedley, former race engineer at Ferrari and Williams, on the High Performance Racing podcast, has opened a new debate about how F1 operates. Smedley was not talking about an overtake or a pit stop strategy. He was talking about how F1 handles infringements during a race, and why obvious decisions are still often pushed back behind the finish line. According to Smedley, stewards are too busy during the race to deal with everything in real time. As a result, some incidents, even fairly obvious ones, still have to wait until the end of the race to be investigated. This creates delay and a sense of inconsistency for fans. His proposal is the creation of an augmented stewarding group to handle simple incidents immediately, while preserving post-race investigation for complex or technical matters. Smedley has credibility on this issue. He worked as Michael Schumacher's race engineer at Ferrari, then moved to Williams, and knows how decisions from race control affect results on track. In conversation with broadcaster Jake Humphrey and former Alpine team principal Otmar Szafnauer, he analysed one of modern F1's biggest bottlenecks: the speed and consistency of rulings. The core of Smedley's proposal is classification. He says F1 needs to separate two types of decisions. The first is purely sporting incidents that can be reviewed on video during the race, such as a collision between two cars. The second is technical matters that depend on post-race measurement, such as excessive plank wear on the floor, rear wing height, the DRS slot gap, or car weight. These parameters can only be checked with physical equipment after the cars return, so no matter how many stewards are added, that process cannot be sped up the same way as video review. Smedley's argument recalls post-race disqualifications, most notably the two Mercedes and Ferrari drivers excluded at the 2026 United States Grand Prix for plank wear beyond the permitted threshold. The reason is rooted in the nature of technical checks, not in steward error. You cannot measure the plank while the car is running. Therefore, any reform must accept this hard boundary. Szafnauer, sitting in the same conversation, added an important layer. He argued that provisional results must remain as a safety mechanism. If a team breaches regulations without being caught immediately, provisional results allow the FIA to correct the error later. Speeding up simple sporting incidents should not mean removing the right to investigate complex problems. This shows that Smedley's proposal is not extreme. It does not call for abolishing post-race rulings; it calls for clearer classification. How would the augmented stewarding group work? The interview gives no detail. Smedley uses the word augmented to mean additional personnel or support tools, not an entirely new software platform. But he does not mention budget, selection process, authority, or how this group would work with the current stewards and the race director. This is the biggest gap in the proposal. From a governance perspective, this is advocacy from outside the rule-making body, not an official signal from the FIA. There is no FIA document, no team publicly supporting it. Smedley and Szafnauer currently hold no operational positions in F1. However, the fact that two veteran figures made the proposal on an influential podcast shows a trend: former officials are using media platforms to shape the process debate instead of waiting for formal consultation channels. One notable consequence of the proposal is the trade-off between speed and accuracy. If F1 moves more sporting incidents to live processing, penalties could be applied while cars are still running, changing results in real time. This could create a new wave of controversy, shifting complaints from too slow to too hasty. Keeping provisional results is a layer of protection, but that same layer means some final classifications will still be suspended pending investigation. Smedley also opens a resource perspective. When he says stewards are too busy with the race, the real problem may be that the FIA does not have enough dedicated staff for the monitoring system. Stewards are often experienced people but not always full-time. If F1 truly wants faster decisions, investing in a full-time dedicated group is a logical direction. However, that is a budget and organisational decision, not a minor rule change. Notably, the interview does not name a specific team or driver. Smedley uses technical parameters as illustrations, not as allegations against any team. This keeps the proposal principled: it is about process, not about a specific offence. Fans may not agree with every detail, but they can hardly deny that the problem exists. For fans, this story touches a lasting frustration. Many races end under the shadow of under investigation, while obvious incidents still wait for a ruling. That delays the feeling of justice on track. Smedley's proposal does not promise that decisions will always be right, but it promises that obvious situations will not be locked in the investigation room for too long. In the short term, the chance of the FIA immediately accepting this proposal is low. F1 process changes usually come after major controversies, and this interview is not linked to a specific event. But if a future Grand Prix ends in ambiguity, ideas like the augmented stewarding group will quickly return as a viable solution. There is a bigger question behind the speed debate: will more people actually create more justice, or just more quick rulings? Smedley outlines a clear classification model, and that is his most valuable contribution. But F1 history shows that whenever a process is accelerated, a new type of controversy appears elsewhere. The important thing is that the discussion is moving in the right direction. Instead of criticising stewards with vague words, Smedley points out a real technical boundary: some things cannot be decided immediately because they need measurement. And some things can be handled quickly but are stalled by procedure. Separating these two is the first step to improving the system. F1 will need to answer exactly who sits in the augmented stewarding group, what authority they have, and how speed will not destroy accuracy. But that question cannot be answered if the governing body sees all issues as one indivisible block. Above all, this story reminds us that F1 operates by system, and the system needs better design, not just better individuals. An augmented stewarding group could be one piece of that design, but it will mean nothing if the FIA does not establish a clear boundary between sporting decisions and technical checks. That is the core message Smedley wants to send to the sport's management.