Lewis Hamilton’s latest Hungarian Grand Prix penalty has added another layer to an already awkward run, but Johnny Herbert is not buying any suggestion that the five-second punishment was anything other than self-inflicted. The former FIA steward said Hamilton’s 0.1 km/h pit-lane infringement was his fault and backed the stewards’ handling of the case.
The timing matters because Hamilton has now picked up four penalties in his last three races, a sequence that has only intensified the focus on how the FIA applies its rules. At Silverstone, he was handed a five-second penalty for a false start. In Hungary, the issue was even narrower: he was judged to have gone 0.1 km/h over the 80 km/h pit-lane limit. The gap may have been tiny, but the sanction was still the same.
Herbert’s message was simple
Herbert argued that this was not a case of bad luck or bad interpretation. In his view, the guidelines are there, the stewards are there to apply them, and consistency is exactly what teams and drivers demand. He said the stewards are doing an excellent job, and that the speeding offence was Hamilton’s fault, full stop.
That is a blunt assessment, but it fits the wider mood around Hamilton’s recent form. The 41-year-old has been drawn into a broader discussion about penalty consistency, especially after driver talks with the FIA at the Hungarian Grand Prix. Those talks were already expected to touch on decisions involving Hamilton and George Russell, as well as Charles Leclerc and Oscar Piastri at Spa.
Why the criticism lands harder now
Herbert also pointed to the contrast with Hamilton’s past, suggesting the Lewis of 10 years ago probably would not have made the same mistake. Whether that is fair nostalgia or simply a reminder of how sharp margins become in modern Formula 1, it underlines the bigger issue: Hamilton is giving the stewards too many chances to intervene.
Hamilton’s own frustration was obvious. He said, “Every opportunity that I give those stewards, every single time they give me a penalty!” That quote captures the tension neatly. From Hamilton’s side, the sequence can feel relentless. From Herbert’s side, the answer is simpler: do not break the rule and there is no penalty to debate.
That is why this latest incident feels important beyond the five seconds themselves. The punishment did not decide the race on its own, but it reinforced a pattern that Hamilton badly does not need. In a sport where consistency is always contested, the stewards have made their position clear. The harder part now is whether Hamilton can stop making their job so straightforward.
