Is Formula 1 going against the rain?

Analysis | 25 October 2026

Cover photo: the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal, 12 June 2011. Photo by Mark McArdle, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Rain promises a different kind of Formula 1. Braking points move, familiar racing lines become traps, and a driver’s judgement can matter as much as the speed of the car. Yet a wet forecast now brings another expectation: a delayed start, laps behind the Safety Car, and a restart after much of the water has disappeared.

That frustration deserves to be taken seriously. So does the reason for waiting. The question is how much competitive running F1 can safely preserve when the weather turns—and whether the sport is doing enough to make more of it possible.

Verstappen’s warning

After the Belgian Grand Prix on 27 July 2025, Max Verstappen gave the debate its sharpest line: “You will never see these classic wet races anymore.” Autosport reported his criticism following an 80-minute delay to the start at Spa-Francorchamps.

There was a competitive grievance behind it. Red Bull had prepared for rain, accepting a setup compromise that became less useful as conditions improved. In his comments published by Formula 1, Verstappen explained that the team’s rear-wing choice had hurt it during a predominantly dry race. He believed more running behind the Safety Car could have allowed racing to begin sooner.

His interest in the outcome does not invalidate the argument. Preparing a car for rain is part of racing strategy. If competitive action repeatedly starts only once the track is drying, teams have less reason to prioritise performance in genuinely wet conditions. That is a sporting consequence worth examining, even when a particular delay is justified.

Less wet racing—or less racing in heavy rain?

The distinction matters. A rain-affected Grand Prix, a race on intermediates and sustained competition in heavy rain are different things. Counting all three together can conceal what supporters feel they are losing: the chance to watch drivers compete while conditions remain properly wet.

The examples here do not establish a measured, decades-long decline in wet racing. That would require comparable data on rainfall, competitive laps and neutralisations across seasons. They do show why the perception exists, particularly when the heaviest rain passes while cars wait.

Nor has wet-weather spectacle vanished. The 2025 British Grand Prix produced a rain-affected victory for Lando Norris and Nico Hülkenberg’s first F1 podium. More recently, Formula 1’s report of the Bahrain Grand Prix staged at Sepang on 4 October 2026 described Verstappen winning after rain, interrupted starting procedures and a transition from damp to dry conditions.

These races complicate any claim that F1 simply refuses to race in the wet. The argument is about how much of that challenge survives the decisions made before and during a race.

The limit is often visibility

Better wet tyres cannot solve every problem. Pirelli distinguishes intermediates, suited to wet surfaces without standing water, from full wets designed for heavier rain. It also identifies visibility as a potential reason to stop racing even when wet-weather tyres are available.

A tyre may help a driver maintain contact with the road without giving that driver a usable view through the spray ahead. Holding the car on the circuit and seeing a slowing or stranded rival are separate requirements. Courage cannot restore a sightline.

This is why the opinion of a driver willing to continue cannot settle the issue for the whole field. Conditions experienced in clearer air may differ sharply from those inside a tightly packed group. Race control must consider the drivers with the least visibility as well as those asking to get on with it.

The danger is concrete. At Silverstone in 2025, Isack Hadjar hit Kimi Antonelli’s car before crashing; AP reported that Hadjar said he could not see the Mercedes in the rain. The same afternoon can produce memorable racing and evidence of why limits are necessary.

Caution has a cost, but so does getting it wrong

Other drivers disputed Verstappen’s assessment of Spa. Carlos Sainz and Pierre Gasly defended the cautious approach, stressing the circuit’s history and the consequences of restarting too soon. Gasly said visibility on the initial lap justified the red flag.

Spectators can reasonably regret the lost racing without dismissing those concerns. Waiting in a wet grandstand is disappointing. Losing the opportunity to see exceptional car control is a real loss to the sport. Neither creates an obligation for drivers and marshals to accept conditions they cannot safely manage.

Equally, safety decisions should be open to informed scrutiny. Explaining whether the obstacle is standing water, spray, an approaching storm or another operational constraint would make delays easier to understand. Fans need a clearer account of what must improve before racing resumes.

Make more wet racing possible

The most useful response to Verstappen’s criticism is to improve the conditions under which racing can happen. That means sustained work on spray, drainage, tyre behaviour and representative testing, alongside clear communication from race control. Each measure should be judged by whether it increases the scope for safe competition.

There is also room to recover racing time without lowering safety standards. In September 2026, the F1 Commission agreed changes intended for 2027 that would replace the three-hour elapsed-race limit with a fixed end time, while retaining two hours of actual racing. The announcement said the changes remained subject to World Motor Sport Council approval. Such flexibility addresses the opportunity to complete a race; it does not resolve poor visibility.

Verstappen is right to defend wet-weather racing as a valuable test of skill. The drivers urging restraint are right that some risks cannot be overcome by talent. F1 should treat both positions as a reason to improve, rather than allowing the debate to end with either nostalgia or an unexplained red flag.

The ambition should be more racing in conditions that test judgement and control, supported by cars, circuits and procedures that make it possible. Rain should remain part of Formula 1’s sporting challenge. Drivers must still be able to see the challenge ahead.