- Norris supports driver representation push but admits grid has its blind spots.
- Hamilton cited a Pirelli tyre test to argue for direct collaboration with drivers.
- F1’s 2026 power unit rules were shaped by manufacturers, with no driver input.
Lando Norris has endorsed Lewis Hamilton’s push for Formula 1 drivers to have formal input into the sport’s rule-making process. However, he also conceded that drivers do not always see the full picture.
The McLaren driver and reigning world champion spoke out after the Miami Grand Prix, in a year in which widespread frustration over the new technical regulations has pushed the topic of driver representation to the fore.
Hamilton made his position clear in Miami. “All the drivers, we do work together, we all meet, but the fact is we don’t have a seat at the table,” he told media, including PlanetF1.com.
He acknowledged that the FIA and Formula 1 do engage with drivers, but said that it fell short of real inclusion. “Being that we’re not stakeholders, we don’t have a seat at the table currently, which I think needs to change,” he said.
Norris was direct in his agreement. “He is completely correct,” the McLaren driver told RacingNews365. “It’s something that we want. It’s what they have in a lot of other sports.”
Why drivers are frustrated with the 2026 regulations
The 2026 season introduced a new power unit formula built around a 50:50 split between internal combustion and electrical power.
That requirement forces drivers to manage battery charging throughout a race. Critics on the grid say it has hurt the quality of both qualifying and racing.
Max Verstappen called the formula “anti-racing” and compared the cars to Mario Kart. Fernando Alonso went further, renaming the new era “the battery world championship.”
The regulations were developed and agreed upon by the teams, Formula 1, the FIA, existing manufacturers and new entrants such as Audi. Drivers had no involvement in that process.
Safety concerns have also surfaced. Ollie Bearman suffered a 50G crash at Suzuka under the new formula, a moment that added urgency to the conversation about whether the current rules are fit for purpose.
Several meetings took place in April before a set of changes was approved ahead of the Miami Grand Prix. Those decisions were reached by the teams, Formula 1 and the FIA, with drivers playing little part.
Further amendments have since been confirmed for 2027. The power split is set to move to 60:40 in favour of the internal combustion engine.
Hamilton’s plea and what it means for F1’s future
Hamilton drew on a tyre test with Pirelli to illustrate how more collaboration could work in practice. He told media he had urged the tyre manufacturer to speak directly with drivers rather than rely on feedback from people who had never driven a car.
“We don’t want to be slagging off the Pirelli tyres, we know you can build a good product,” he said. The point he was making was simple: drivers have information that decision-makers do not.
George Russell, who serves as a director of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association, offered a more measured take. He told media that the FIA has become more open to dialogue than it was before.
The Mercedes driver expressed hope that drivers would be included more formally in future regulation discussions.
Russell also flagged a tension at the heart of the debate. He noted that what drivers find exciting to drive does not always produce the best racing for spectators.
He pointed to the V10 era of the early 2000s when cars were fast and thrilling, but races were often processional.
Norris agrees, but admits drivers have their own blind spots
What gave Norris’s comments particular weight was his willingness to acknowledge the limits of the drivers’ perspective.
He said drivers from first to last on the grid share the same basic wish: to race flat out and race closely. He argued that those instincts align with what fans want too. But he did not stop there.
“Sometimes I think we have to accept, as drivers, we’re very blindsided to the externals from a business side of things, how teams work, how all of that is organised,” he said.
He added that while drivers may not always be completely correct, most of what they want for the sport is a win for both drivers and fans.
Norris also explained to Motorsport.com that commercial realities make the situation more complicated. Manufacturers, partners and teams all have stakes in how the sport is run. That means some decisions are not as straightforward as drivers might wish.
The case for and against driver involvement
Drivers do not contribute directly to Formula 1’s finances. However, they generate significant value through their public profiles and the fanbases they bring with them.
That is the broad case for giving them, through a body like the GPDA, a formal role in rule-making discussions.
F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali and FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis have both acknowledged that the 2026 regulations were shaped heavily by manufacturer demands made back in 2022.
The landscape has changed considerably since then. That shift has lent credibility to the argument that future regulation cycles should involve a wider range of voices.
Norris was careful to frame what drivers are actually asking for.
“It’s more of just a louder voice at times, rather than ‘drivers want this, why are you not doing it?'” he told media.
He described what they were seeking as a greater say and the ability to help steer the sport’s direction. “At the minute, we don’t have that,” he said.
Whether Formula 1’s decision-makers move to change that, or continue with the current arrangement of informal consultation, will matter a great deal when the next round of regulation talks begins.
