Lucas di Grassi on letter to the FIA: "There are many ways to make the sport better and fairer"

A private letter from the Formula E drivers to FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has been made public and has since sparked controversy. Lucas di Grassi, however, firmly rejects the impression that it was a frontal attack or even a revolt. Instead, in an exclusive interview with e-Formula.news, he primarily accuses the media of unnecessarily blowing up the issue and portraying the letter as far more inflammatory than it was in his view.

The leaked letter from the Formula E drivers to FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has caused a stir in recent days. In particular, the direct address to Ben Sulayem and the criticism it contained of procedures and decision-making have been widely discussed. Lucas di Grassi, however, made it clear that the drivers were not seeking escalation. "The motivation was to make the sport better, how we can improve the sport, how can we improve the process, the methodology, the decisions."

No break with the FIA, but the result of a longer process

Di Grassi explicitly rejects the idea that the drivers had deliberately bypassed the usual route via the FIA representatives on site. According to him, the drivers have been in close contact with the relevant officials for many years. "We spoke to Pablo, we speak to Pablo every weekend. We’ve been speaking to Pablo and to FIA for every weekend for the past 12 years." The letter was therefore not a sign of a breakdown in communication, but rather the result of a longer process.

The Brazilian points out that past discussions with the FIA have in fact already led to improvements in several areas. He cites earlier changes regarding how chicane-cutting was handled, as well as changes to the qualifying format. From the drivers’ point of view, however, there are issues that cannot be resolved purely at an operational level. "There are many decisions and there are many processes that needs to be changed within FIA so we can do better steps forward."

Di Grassi criticises coverage: "Clickbait"

Di Grassi is particularly clear in his assessment of the public debate following the leak. In his view, the letter was never intended as a public attack, but as a joint internal document containing suggestions for improvement. He accordingly said he was surprised by the way parts of the media had handled the story.

"It was a surprise to me, especially on the clickbait side of it that it was framed as an incendiary or this or that it’s not true at all," said di Grassi. In his view, the letter had a far more matter-of-fact purpose: “It’s a simple letter saying we think we can make the sport better."

The unity of the driver field, he added, gave the letter particular weight. "At least in that letter, it’s clear that all the drivers agree with all those points." The fact that every driver got behind the same demands was anything but a given in such a highly competitive environment.

Formula E needs more expertise and consistency, says di Grassi

A key point of criticism for di Grassi concerns the specific nature of Formula E. "One of the things that makes Formula E very complicated, it’s a very specific type of motorsport." In his view, changing stewards from one race weekend to the next means they often do not fully understand the specific demands of electric racing. He therefore sees room for improvement, particularly in areas such as energy management and race situations that differ from those in conventional categories.

His demand is correspondingly clear. "I think the stewards they should get paid and be professional stewards." Beyond that, he would like to see more continuity in personnel. "I think there is a scope to have one chief steward that goes to every single race and one driver advisor that has Formula E experience well-paid, professional." For the Season 3 champion, that is "not something revolutionary", but something entirely reasonable.

Concrete criticism of decisions

The fact that the criticism in the letter was not merely theoretical is illustrated by concrete examples. Di Grassi points to the season opener in Brazil and an incident involving Nick de Vries on the opening lap. The Dutchman had cut the opening chicane and, according to di Grassi, did not stop afterwards. Nevertheless, race director Marek Hanaczewski did not even refer the matter to the stewards for investigation.

"That’s one example, but there are plenty of examples," he explained. For him, the key issue is less the individual incident than the question of how decisions are made and how mistakes can be avoided in future. "If we find why this decision was done, and if we could change the process, the leads for that mistake, we could change the process and make it better." That, at its core, is what the drivers are aiming for.

More automation as a possible solution

Di Grassi becomes especially concrete when discussing possible technical solutions. "If you cut the chicane, your power goes down." The Brazilian is effectively thinking of a kind of "negative Attack Mode" that would penalise a driver immediately and automatically. "So the race director does not need to interfere."

He sees similarly straightforward options when it comes to track limits. "You don’t need camera with AI. You just need a sensor in the car doing exactly the same thing." In his view, Formula E could benefit from automating certain processes so that race control can focus on the most important matters. "If one of the problems is a lot of things going on in Formula E, let’s try to reduce to make it easier for the race director to focus on what he can make a decision on."

The underlying idea is simple: less room for interpretation, more consistency, more fairness. Or, as di Grassi himself puts it: "There are plenty of ways to make the sport better and to make it more fair. If we can open this discussion and start to innovate, I think it’s good for everyone."

FIA has signalled willingness to talk

At least the letter does not appear to have gone unheard at the FIA. According to di Grassi, the governing body has already indicated that it wants to talk. He is not expecting an immediate breakthrough, however. “For sure, a lot of things we’re asking, it’s not possible, but we need to see where are the low-hanging fruits, where actually we could improve.”

What now matters, he says, is that the letter leads to a structured process rather than merely a debate over the course of a race weekend. “If it’s not for this year, for next year, but at least have a vision, right?”