Max Verstappen, Lando Norris, Circuit of the Americas, 2024

McLaren request review of Norris’ penalty for off-track pass on Verstappen

Formula 1

Posted on

| Written by

McLaren have officially requested the FIA stewards review their decision to penalise Lando Norris in the United States Grand Prix.

Norris was given a five-second time penalty for passing Max Verstappen off the track at turn 12 on lap 52 of the race. Verstappen also went off the track at the same time.

Representatives of McLaren and Verstappen’s Red Bull team have been summoned to a meeting of the stewards at 2:30pm at the Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez on Friday, one hour after the conclusion of the first practice session.

The FIA’s Right of Review process gives teams the opportunity to challenge stewards’ decisions if they can present new evidence which shows they should be reconsidered. The stewards will first decide whether McLaren have satisfied this requirement. If they have, a review will take place.

Several drivers including Norris queried the legality of Verstappen’s defensive move, pointing out he fell behind the McLaren driver as they approached the corner, then braked so late he could not make the turn himself, forcing Norris wide. Norris said it was “incorrect” that the rules should allow such a move.

When asked whether his defensive move should be considered legal, Verstappen stated Norris had broken the rules by overtaking him off the track. “You cannot overtake outside of the white line, that’s a very clear rule and I’ve been done [for] it myself,” he told Sky.

“So I don’t understand why suddenly now we need to scream for changes in the regulations when it’s been like that forever.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Stewards’ announcement of McLaren’s request for a review

The Stewards have received a petition for a Right of Review in accordance with article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code, from McLaren Formula 1 Team, in respect of the Decision of the Stewards of the 2024 United States Grand Prix, document 69, breach of article 33.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations in relation to car four [Norris].

The team representative is required to attend a video conference with the stewards at 1430 hrs Mexico time on Friday October 25, 2024 in relation to the above. Any other “concerned party” may seek the permission of the stewards to appear.

It should be noted that this hearing will be in two parts. The first part will be to hear evidence as to whether or not there is a “significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the party seeking the Review at the time of the decision concerned”.

Should the stewards determine, in accordance with Article 14.3, (in their sole discretion) that such element exists, a second part of the Hearing will be convened at a time to be advised.

Miss nothing from RaceFans

Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2024 United States Grand Prix

Browse all 2024 United States Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

67 comments on “McLaren request review of Norris’ penalty for off-track pass on Verstappen”

  1. Very clear interpretation from VER. No passing off the track so he makes sure any attempt around the outside is going to be off the track. No staying on the track and no leaving room on the outside. He got away with driving 30 feet or more off the track in Brazil and hasn’t looked back. And for the comments that McLaren are whiners, VER and Horner were the first ones on the radio whining that NOR had to give the position back.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      25th October 2024, 3:07

      @jimfromus I don’t understand how Verstappen gets away with it. If I were McLaren, I would take the stewards to court and I’d also let Mercedes take them and everyone else who might just so they end up paying a few million in legal fees out of pocket. There has to be some accountability at some level.

      I wouldn’t let this stand. At this point F1 seems to be RB1 and Max is somehow running the whole thing with Horner. No one has any say but those 2 or 3.

      1. @freelittlebirds That is the problem the rules are clear it doesn’t matter how the situation is before the corner (the stewards even explain so) it’s the situation who is the first at the apex, Max was there first so his corner that he doesn’t stay on track is not important. (If there is a collision different story) both went off and then Lando decided I can overtake offtrack which was penaltize everytime when that happens.

        That rule must be changed like first at apex but stays on track or something like that.

        1. notagrumpyfan
          25th October 2024, 8:15

          That rule must be changed like first at apex but stays on track or something like that.

          No need to review that rule.
          But they should’ve noted, reviewed, penalised Verstappen’s defending whilst leaving the track. This probably deserved a 5s penalty in itself (but then the off-track overtaker might as well have earned himself the regular 10s as there was no longer a mitigating circumstance).

        2. The rule is already there and has been applied earlier in the season.
          It is called “leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage”. In earlier rulings this is a 10 second penalty without penalty points and is enforced when the defending driver is outside track limits and forcing the other car off as well.

          The only question is why this rule only apply for certain drivers and not all…

        3. No, Andrea Stella was correct. And the stewards are clowns. Thats pretty much it. F1 is a traveling circus, not a racing series. This will continue to be the case as long as big money is steering the direction of race results and rule changes to benefit certain teams.

          The FIA/Stewards are denying whats so obvious in front of everyone, hoping people care more about authority than the truth. It is what it is. There are people who don’t need reason, evidence or an appreciation of philosophy, and then there are those who think what comes out of their own mouths is from on high.

          1. … who * care about * reason, …

        4. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          25th October 2024, 13:06

          @MacLeod Norris keeps insisting that he was completely ahead of Max and Red Bull are not claiming they were ahead as far as I can tell. Either way Max had to leave space, he didn’t run out of space, he took the space away and pushed Norris out. If he wasn’t ahead, the transgression is much higher especially in the context of Turn 1 and he should received a penalty compounded for Turn 1 – a race ban or whatever the correct punishment for such a rookie intentional move would have been.

          This is F1, it’s not Max learns how to cheat the rules with the help of the FIA. This is book 8 in the series of books.

          If he was a marginally decent racer, he should have been a 8 time WDC by now since it’s technically not permissible to overtake Max under the current rules since he can do anything he wants.

          Even at Silverstone where Max cut the corner as if he was alone on track when they were side-by-side heading into the corner with a double move from Max, the other driver got a penalty when Max jeopardized both their lives.

  2. Verstappen is hailed as an all-time racing great (racing in the sense of overtaking and defending, I’ve no doubts about his speed) but really it’s been completely FIA-assisted all along. If they actually penalized him for incidents like his defence at COTA, he might actually learn and improve. Instead the stewards enable. The question is why are they so blatantly inconsistent when it comes to one driver on the grid? About time another team asked for some explanation.

    1. @david-br Another team has already asked, then was obliged to withdraw it “to prevent the sport being put into disrepute”. For me, that answers the question in outline, if not in detail.

      1. Sport has already been in disrepute since Brazil 2021 when it comes to pushing drivers off track

    2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      25th October 2024, 12:49

      @david-br I totally agree with you and I don’t understand why they are so adamant on enabling him. There’s a completely different rule book when it comes to him. Imagine playing a sport where the rules of the sport did not apply to you. That’s been F1 for Max.

      1. I think the most egregious element is the Verstappen divebomb. I’ve heard so many times F1 pundits going on about how Verstappen is ‘perfect’ on the brakes, which he undoubtedly is, yet when he divebombs and goes off track, his excuse is always, ‘oh, I outbraked myself (but so did the other guy on the outside!’). It’s ludicrous. Either he knows what he’s doing or doesn’t (it’s the former). Same to some extent to the race start at COTA where he simply pushed Norris off-track and himself with him. It’s not even a question any longer of whether he could have made the corner without going off track. I can live with the pushing off part if you ‘have the apex’ but not when you don’t make the corner yourself. The stewards now give a blank cheque for any such driving on the first lap and he exploits it ruthlessly. Should Norris do the same? Everyone knows that if he did, the first to be moaning on the radio would be Verstappen and Red Bull.
        And ‘bizarrely’ they’d probably get the penalty for the other driver. It’s how the stewards work.

  3. I’m glad mclaren protested this, because it didn’t look like a fair penalty at all, since he was forced off; even if the penalty is cancelled, the situation in the driver’s championship will stay about the same (verstappen set to win unless he has a mechanical DNF and mclaren is consistently faster, even then it’s not a given that norris could win), but hopefully we can at least get a clarification on these kind of moves.

    I’m however aware that the fia dismisses a lot of these protests without much thinking, so won’t hold my breath on it.

    1. @esploratore1 It doesn’t look fair but it’s not the move but the bloody apex rule they should change the apex rule then Max (or anyone else) can’t do this anymore…

  4. As plenty of others have already mentioned just give Verstappen a 5 second penalty as well. It’s an opportunity for the FIA to correct last weeks mistake and set a precedent for upcoming races.

    1. @streydt The regulations do not allow this.

      If Verstappen forced Norris off the road, then the pass cannot be considered to be against the regulations because both cars were off the road. Thus Norris’ penalty would have to be cancelled, alongside Verstappen receiving one.

      If Verstappen didn’t force Norris off the road, then no penalty can be given to Verstappen and Norris must retain his…
      unless it gets treated as a racing incident where neither driver is predominantly to blame, in which case Norris’ penalty is revoked but Verstappen does not get a penalty either.

      There is no version of events where both can get a penalty for the same incident.

      1. notagrumpyfan
        25th October 2024, 8:22

        just give Verstappen a 5 second penalty as well.

        It’s too late for that as the race is finalised and thus they cannot review NEW incidents (Verstappen defending off track).

        There is no version of events where both can get a penalty for the same incident.

        They could’ve, and should’ve, reviewed it as two separate incidents. Both drivers made a punishable mistake. Verstappen defended off track and Norris overtook off track (he should’ve filed in behind Verstappen and protest the three off track excursion of Verstappen).
        Had they done it like that, then there is no need to change or even clarify the rules, and it would be fair for all.

        1. I agree, the rules are actually not the problem here, but the stewards interpretation or simple lack of knowledge is.

          They shouldn’t even consider who is ahead when in the apex, because the situation is called “Leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage”. Go through FIA rulings and it can be found.

          In one of them FIA clearly outlines that this is a 10 second penalty with no penalty points – case closed.

          If the stewards find aggravating circumstances (like a driver repeating the offense) the may hand out penalty points as well.

        2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          25th October 2024, 12:50

          I don’t think Lando’s overtake was a punishable offense. He was forced off track by Verstappen in a punishable offense. I think Verstappen was responsible for both offenses. Since he caused both, he should have served both.

          1. notagrumpyfan
            25th October 2024, 13:19

            I think Verstappen was responsible for both offenses.

            Based on your previous comments I had expect you to say: “I think Verstappen was responsible for all offenses”. ;)

  5. Well, i guess it’s fine to ask for a review in light of all the contradictions in what got penalised how during Austin. However, they will need to show some new evidence that the stewards did not have available, and well, let’s say I am curious what they will be able to bring forward there.

    1. @bascb I hope they adjust the apex rule because now it doesn’t matter what NEW McLaren comes with as the rules are clear.

  6. Wow, this is article 11 or 12 on an incident that was merely an afterthought. I haven’t found a single ex-driver, ex-team boss or alike expert (Palmer, Coulthard, Jordan, Windsor.. and the list goes on) that doesn’t agree with the penalty.

    1. Those article must be adjusted if all those (ex) drivers say that penaulty is right but all Non drivers are shouting fail not fair explains a lot.

    2. Jean Alesi and Jenson Button both said they didn’t agree with the penalty, there may be others.

  7. McLaren should’ve requested a review on race day rather than wait until being in Mexico City before doing so unless a certain camera angle affected the timing.

    1. notagrumpyfan
      25th October 2024, 8:26

      There is no opportunity to do it after the result is final and the stewards go home.

      Only now, the next opportunity when the stewards convene, is the first opportunity they can do this. But they can only do this if there is new evidence which wasn’t available last week. I doubt there will be any, and I expect the protest to be judged inadmissible.

      1. Shortly after a race is possible within a given minute amount.

        1. notagrumpyfan
          25th October 2024, 13:15

          Shortly after a race is possible within a given minute amount.

          That’s what I said (italic bit): “There is no opportunity to do it after the result is final and the stewards go home.” ;)

      2. Coventry Climax
        25th October 2024, 14:09

        There is no opportunity to do it after the result is final and the stewards go home.

        I think you’re mixing up opportunity to request it (McLaren) and opportunity to deal with it (stewards).
        The request is, in all likelyhood, through mail, so anytime, but dealing with it requires the stewards to actually be in session.

        1. notagrumpyfan
          25th October 2024, 15:13

          I’m talking about the ‘request’; even that is a formal process and can only be done to the stewards at the next race (if they have they go home after the race in question). They might have sent the email/fax/pigeon earlier, but the ‘request’ is only submitted at an actual stewards meeting, hence yesterday when the (new) stewards convened the first time since Austin.

          The ‘dealing with it’ is today’s session.

          1. Coventry Climax
            25th October 2024, 16:33

            If that is indeed the official procedure, it does not exactly scream ‘pinnacle’ in the year of 2024, so your refencing a pigeon was quite spot on.

  8. has any of these requests ever worked in favor of the applicant?

    1. you know those countries with like ~99% conviction rates ?

      These people don’t care about doing whats right, only doing what is proper for the stakeholders.

  9. I personally could except the Max and Lando incident as the rules say. Tough on Lando and smart use of the rules by Max if Max has stayed with the white lines.
    Also, Max did the exact same thing with Sainz on lap 1. Sainz dived down the inside and force Max off. Max floored it to keep ahead of Sainz but Ferreri dis not protest as Saniz had gone off as well.

  10. I don’t understand why the stewards are not allowed to use common sense whenever deciding the punishment of a given racing incident.

    There is no way they can put in writing such rules that will not be exploited in some way by a driver or team, and there is no way that a extremely verbose and strict rule, will not force the stewards to hand out punishments for situations that does not warrant any.

    Aren’t many of the stewards previous racing drivers themselves, how come there is no trust in their judgment?

    As a racing fan, I can perhaps understand that the first lap is a bit of a special case, but this incident with NOR and VER is a clear cut of pushing a driver off the track, which is already not allowed in the rules. But no punishment for that then, ey?

    Add to that the main perpetrator is, again, VER. The guy who has built his entire career on pushing fellow racers off the track, and parking his car on top of his rival’s cars. At this point, stewards should overlook any “1st lap is special case” considerations and make it clear to this clown that pushing rivals off the track is not allowed.

    Hell, why don’t the backmarker teams’ drivers prove a point, and just push him off the track in kind.

    1. Because they get penalized for doing it ;)

      1. The only reason VER drives the way he does against NOR, is because NOR is the one who has more to lose in the event of contact. VER really only needs for them both to DNF for the rest of the season, and the championship is his.

        Backmarkers suddenly forgetting where VER is, and driving him off track during blue flags, would very quickly work as a form of group discipline.

        1. Two title rivals fighting it out, one with all to gain – the history of formula 1 and motor racing.

          Biased, unprofessional and corrupt stewardship – even more history 😉

      2. Yep, the sick thing about branding and pitching ‘idols’ to people, is that they have to look bigger than life, and beyond the reaches of normal men. Even if it means breaking rules for the guys who are MEANT to be winning races.

        Its okay if Max steers his car in to his competitor (see Austria, post turn incident) to run them off the track, because the commentators and FIA won’t say anything about it. and good luck getting any replays. You will have to download the race and hope it wasn’t cropped out.

        Its okay for guys to push other people off the track, because that makes it more exciting and dangerous, more risk, because the idea of risk, is abhorrent to the people playing with all the money.

        It’s a lie, and they lie, and thats all there is to it, and if you can get people to want to believe in a lie, you can take them for a fool, and their money. It doesn’t have to be a lie, but the stewards, they are clowns, and the big money investment firms taking over F1, want as much foolery as possible.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          25th October 2024, 12:56

          @pcxmac I have also noticed that you don’t get replays when Max commits a crime on track and the commentators are definitely singing a different tune than they did before. In the past, I’m sure commentators would have condemned Max for his driving during the race.

    2. Aren’t many of the stewards previous racing drivers themselves, how come there is no trust in their judgment?

      Because human judgement can no longer be accepted, let alone trusted. This is what humanity has (d)evolved to.

    3. Coventry Climax
      25th October 2024, 16:57

      I don’t understand why the stewards are not allowed to use common sense whenever deciding the punishment of a given racing incident.

      Well, the point is that even if they are to use common sense, they’d at least need some context for it, and that is the rulebook. Without which it would be total anarchy.
      And that’s where the trouble starts: The rules are -unfortunately- formulated as watertight as a sieve, and hence require interpretation. Now if they were the exact same stewards every race and every season, you might expect some consistency in that. But as they differ, they each have different views on situations, and even if these situations were identical, which they seldom are, and even if they were the exact same stewards every time, they still have likes and dislikes for certain teams and drivers – even if they say they are absolutely professional about it.

      What I don’t understand is that in a world of sports where everyone resorts to VAR’s and Hawkeyes, the sports that probably has the most money to spend, and claims to be the pinnacle, still does it by means of a jury panel.

      It’s not that hard to come up with electronic systems for track limits, corner entryspeeds (would he have made that corner, or is he pushing someone wide on purpose?), lockups (often the excuse for ‘not being able to’ steer into the corner), visibility in the rain, post race scrutineering, and many, many others.
      Will it be perfect? Certainly not, and certainly not at first, but then think of how far of from perfect the FiA jury panels have been over the past years, and it’s bound to be an improvement regardless.

  11. I feel that Norris had the right to be on the outside courtesy of being ahead before the turn. Essentially, Max Verstappen tried to re-pass Norris and missed the apex. If anything, if Norris came out ahead then all we had was a failed overtake attempt. Norris did not overtake off-track, he was forced off-track by a failed overtake.

    1. Now I know this may not align with the current regulations, but it’s my interpretation of how the regulations should work.

    2. If a driver is ahead ‘before the turn’ then basically you are outlawing overtaking. If a driver looking to out brake another driver has to leave room at the exit, no matter what the situation, then they’ll have to alter their braking distance accordingly. This means that to make a move that allows you to win a corner becomes almost impossible in many circumstances.

      As a racer I know if a driver is attacking and they will always leave room on the exist, no matter the circumstance, then quite frankly, you’re not going to get past me. I’ll always run it on the outside because the other driver will never have enough entry speed to make me reconsider

      1. Well, had Max stayed on-track then his overtake was good. Essentially, by leaving the track Max forfeited any “advantage” he may hold.

      2. Davethechicken
        25th October 2024, 10:03

        I understand your view Alan but disagree.
        If we judge Norris was ahead on the straight it was in fact Max that left the track completely in his overtaking attempt to repass Lando.
        Ergo Max should be forced to give up the position for leaving the track to overtake.
        Lando left the track to avoid a collision with an out of control competitor, Max saying he attempted to make the corner (but didn’t by leaving the track therefore he wasn’t in control!!!).

        1. And this is why they brought these rules in. Beforehand, we had ex-racing driver stewards trying to decide, and it was still hit and miss, and decisions up for debate.

          Now we have written rules (which begs the question, what’s the point in paying ex-drivers) which have gaps in them, which are open to gaming. So it will become an even more complicated set of rules, and then we’ll have things in the hands of lawyers arguing over exact wording (anybody for ‘any’ vs ‘all’?).

          Nobody seems to know what the solution is.

          1. Davethechicken
            25th October 2024, 13:53

            Agree with you rprp.
            Today’s appeal will be dismissed as the FIA have the “get out of jail free” card to play of “no new information”. The correctness of the original decision is irrelevant to them by their own rules.

          2. Davethechicken
            25th October 2024, 13:59

            My view would be if a driver is judged to deliberately force another driver to take evasive action to avoid collision or cause a deliberate collision that should be a black flag and a further penalty at the next race judged on the severity of the incident. This should include possible points deductions in the WDC to avoid a Schumi -Hill scenario again.
            There would of course be many variables on case to case, but as a basic rule it would stamp out some questionable tactics we have seen from many drivers not just Max.

    3. You are right and indeed it seems to be the fallacy involved in that case. Who was ahead at the previous corner is completely irrelevant, or at least, it should be. This case has to be seen as a Verstappen overtake attempt, and although those famous racing guidelines were unfortunately never published, I bet that suddenly they would read quite differently.
      Whether that would count as a “new element”, I am not very optimistic about.

  12. notagrumpyfan
    25th October 2024, 11:07

    Representatives of McLaren and Verstappen’s Red Bull team have been summoned to a meeting of the stewards

    This is actually NOT true.
    Only McLaren is summoned to the meeting; other ‘interested parties’ could seek permission to attend (I guess RBR will do that).

  13. Max isn’t stupid – he only does this ‘chop’ move when it’s asphalt run off. The optics are so much better.

    If there’s a strip of gravel and the other driver ends up kicking up clouds of dirt, I think the situation suddenly looks different.

    TL/DR – use gravel.

  14. Given the fastest lap issue, the bib becoming a massive thing but McLaren’s rear wings being ignored, and now this – I do start to wonder if positions were reversed would there be such outcry? Its getting weird.

    1. McLaren already said they would not use the wing again and the FIA already confirmed the wing complied with the regulations at the time so they were not going to penalise them for it’s use. A line was drawn under that one.

      The outcry about the Red Bull bib is the FIA have effectively said they cannot prove Red Bull haven’t been cheating by using it in the past and they weren’t reviewing further. That is effectively wrong though and they should have investigated to make sure there has been no systemic infringement of the regulations because if it has been used even once then it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of their cars for the last 3 years. It’s not weird that other teams want a possible cheating scandal to be properly investigated.

      The fastest lap issue is a complete non issue but McLaren are just using it to push their agenda that they think B teams have no place in the sport which I tend to think a lot of people agree with to be honest. I’ve never agreed with the bonus point anyway as it seemed to be a free extra point for whichever of the top 3 or 4 cars had a free pit stop at the end of the race.

      The weird part in all this is how badly the FIA handles these situations.

  15. McLaren messed up by instructing Norris not to give the place back.
    The real test then would be whether FIA’s supposedly impartial stewards would then – for mere consistencies sake – penalize Verstappen for forcing another driver off track.
    That’s the real question. Because when Norris kept the advantage, the stewards never had to be stress-tested on penalizing Verstappen.

  16. If you look at the onboard from Verstappen it’s clear Norris was ahead down the straight before the corner, so you could argue Verstappen was the one doing the overtaking.

    Do the FIA have definitions for overtaking?

    1. David: “Do the FIA have definitions for overtaking?”

      The short answer is no. They have guidelines which they can vary at a whim and which are explicitly stated to be guidelines, not rules, and it is up to the stewards to interpret them. They seem to base it on who was ahead at the apex, when it would be much more meaningful to base it on who was ahead at the point where the corner starts.

  17. Unless someone knows better, the overtaking “rules” are not actually rules, just guidelines issued in the driver standard guidelines which says, right at the top, that these are not rules, and are subject to interpretation by the stewards. If anyone knows different, please post the sporting reg number so we can look it up.

    The FIA does not make it easy to find its current driver guidelines.

    The first question to be answered is which driver was doing the overtaking, and which was the one overtaken? The opinion I am hearing here is that Max was a fraction ahead at the apex, and therefore Norris was the one trying to attempt an overtake around the outside. The guidelines for this situation mention:

    “In order for a car being overtaken to be required to give sufficient room to an overtaking car, the overtaking car needs to have a significant portion of the car alongside the car being overtaken”

    and also

    “The car being overtaken must be capable of making the corner while remaining within the limits of the track.”

    but again, these are merely guidelines for the stewards, not rules, and it doesn’t define what a “significant portion of the car” is. I think McLaren will argue that regardless of who was overtaking who, Norris clearly had a significant portion of his car alongside Verstappen, and therefore Verstappen was required to give Norris sufficient room to stay on track.

    If Verstappen is judged to have forced Norris off track then you cannot penalise Norris for actions which occurred as a result of another driver’s transgression. It is high time the FIA and stewards agreed on clear rules which make overtaking possible.

  18. In my view there should be no penalty for either driver as both gained an advantage by going off the track, so “let them race”

    1. Have you ever heard that expression used to Verstappen’s disadvantage?
      Nope, me neither.

  19. There’s a lot of good discussion here, and a fair bit of heat, and for good reason. I find myself confused that the stewards and many commentators seem to think like VER that the sole interpretation of not gaining an advantage by going off track is that “you cannot overtake outside of the white line”, but since we don’t get to see the rules maybe that’s correct. But I’m pretty sure it should be interpreted to mean “you cannot overtake OR defend outside of the white line”. But this still wouldn’t really prevent a feeling of injustice should a situation like Sunday’s occur again but without the “leading” car leaving the track in order to push the other off – what if VER had managed to keep on track himself but pushed NOR off, but again had only been able to do so by outbraking himself having been overtaken earlier in the corner? As others point out, this is the crux of the matter: after NOR got his nose ahead in the corner VER appeared to have regained a lead at the apex only by braking too late on a suboptimal line, such that he went off at the exit. NOR, having taken in a suitable amount of speed at a better angle, could likely have made the corner fine otherwise (we can only guess). A car that has been ahead all through the braking zone (not only at the apex) can justifiably take the racing line and run right up to the track limit (though obviously not outside it…). But when they have been behind yet still somehow make it to the apex first, they have to show they made it there under control.

    So my humble suggestion for a rule change, if we must have a rule change, would be: if a car is behind another car AT ANY POINT IN THE BRAKING ZONE then they must leave enough space for the other car on the outside at the corner exit. It would not be enough to say, I was ahead at the apex so it was my corner. It would demonstrate that they had braked sufficiently to allow their competitor – who had been ahead during some phase of braking – to stay on-track.

    One complexity too many? Maybe, and doubtless hard to assess in the heat of battle but this is always the case. And at least the stewards can see when each driver starts braking, who is ahead at what time, and whether there was space at the exit. I think the key thing is to make the principle clear, that pushing another competitor off-track because you braked too late isn’t OK, whoever was ahead or behind when you actually entered the corner.

    1. This call by the stewards is indeed questionable but what I think is the most disturbing is that it seems like they substracted 5 seconds of Norris’s penalty as a mitigating factor because he was pushed out instead of giving a 5 to Verstappen.

      The net result is that Max avoided any penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage, which he clearly did.

      I think that a 10 seconds penalty to Norris and a 5 seconds to Verstappen would have been a perfectly measured outcome for the situation but this would promote Piastri in 3rd position.

      I assume this is something Mclaren team will bring up on the table.

  20. I hope, this verstappen dive bomb thing can finally be addressed and regulated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.