Karun Chandhok has politely swerved Carlos Sainz’s left-field suggestion that he swap the Sky Pad for the stewards’ room, even if he appreciated the compliment.
Sainz, stung by a 10-second penalty at Zandvoort last year after tangling with Liam Lawson around Turn 1, floated a new stewarding model during the drivers’ end-of-season summit in Qatar. His pitch: bring in recently retired F1 racers with a proven eye for incidents — specifically naming Chandhok, Anthony Davidson and Jolyon Palmer — and let them call it like they do on TV.
Sainz’s own case fed the argument. After Williams asked for a right of review, stewards accepted Lawson’s momentary loss of control as the root cause of the clash, leading to Sainz’s penalty points being scrubbed — but not the in-race time penalty that wrecked his afternoon. He wasn’t alone in his frustration. Charles Leclerc bristled at Oscar Piastri’s 10 seconds for the Kimi Antonelli tangle in Brazil, calling it harsh on a rival he felt hadn’t overstepped.
The mood music was clear by the time the FIA hosted its Driving Standards Review in Qatar: drivers want fewer grey areas and more decisions that feel like they come from racers, not a rulebook. Sainz laid it out in disarming plain speak: he’s been impressed by the clarity and accuracy of post-race breakdowns on Sky and F1TV — often from Chandhok, Palmer or Davidson — and argued that a panel of similarly minded ex-drivers, working with minimal prescriptive “guidelines,” would land at the right verdict 90 percent of the time.
It’s an idea that’s done the rounds before. George Russell has argued for a more permanent core of decision-makers. Plenty of drivers have pushed for more continuity and transparency. The rotating steward model does bring breadth of experience and helps avoid conflicts, but it also breeds inconsistency — and when penalties swing podiums and points, everyone feels it.
Chandhok’s response was on-brand: gracious, open to helping, but not packing up the touchscreens just yet. He thanked Sainz for the vote of confidence and suggested he’d be happy to work with drivers and officials “for the betterment of the sport,” with the caveat that he’s not giving up his day job. No flounce, no grandstanding — just a reminder that the best TV analysts are valuable precisely because they can spend time poring over angles and telemetry the stewards don’t always have the luxury to study mid-race.
And that’s the crux. Pundits arrive at their calls after the dust settles, with clean replays, data overlays and no pressure to restart a race on schedule. Stewards are making high-stakes judgments at speed, under procedural constraints, fielding team radio lobbying and precedent. You can import racing IQ into the room; you can’t import extra time.
None of that means the drivers’ call should be ignored. Quite the opposite. Bringing a consistent cadre of experienced ex-racers into the stewarding framework — whether as a standing advisory group, a rotating pair attached to a permanent chair, or a formal post-race review body that can tidy up anomalies without rewriting results wholesale — would go a long way to detoxifying the conversation. The technology exists to share more of the decision-making process with fans too, from excerpts of the evidence to short, timely video explainers. F1 has made strides on that front; it still feels like low-hanging fruit.
For now, don’t expect the Sky Pad to go dark. Chandhok’s become a fixture of how fans make sense of modern F1 — his touchline deconstructions are half tactics class, half crime scene investigation — and the sport benefits from having clear-eyed analysis outside the cockpit and away from the FIA’s stamp. If the governing body’s smart, it won’t try to recruit him out of the studio; it’ll invite him, and others like him, into a structured dialogue that tightens standards without turning race control into a TV set.
The 2025 grid hasn’t forgotten last year’s flashpoints. There’s appetite for cleaner, quicker, more consistent calls. Whether that comes from permanent stewards, more ex-drivers in the room, or simply better tools and communication, the goal is the same: fewer headlines about penalties, more about racing. And, for the time being at least, Chandhok will be explaining them — not handing them out.
