McLaren attempted to overturn the penalty Lando Norris received in the United States Grand Prix by focusing attention on the actions of his rival in the incident between the pair on lap 52, which sent both of them off the track.
Norris attempted to overtake Max Verstappen on the straight approaching turn 12. He moved ahead on the outside approaching the corner but Verstappen braked deep, drew level with the McLaren, and ran wide taking Norris with him.Although Norris was ahead of Verstappen as they approached the corner, the Red Bull driver’s late braking allowed him to prevent the McLaren from reaching the apex before him. This was crucial, as if Norris had done so, Verstappen would have been required to leave him space on the outside.
Norris did not get there first, so Verstappen did not have to leave him space. Crucially, the rules did not require Verstappen to stay within the track confines in doing this. Norris, as well as several of their rivals, took the view that Verstappen was never going to make the corner because he braked so late.
During the hearing, McLaren team principal Andrea Stella took time to explain why they had requested a review after he made remarks to some in the media downplaying their chances of doing so. The stewards noted they: “Advised Mr Stella that they took no account of those comments and that this matter would be determined on the merits of the current submission.”
McLaren tried to persuade the stewards that Norris should not be considered the driver who was overtaking. They argued that because Norris got ahead of Verstappen on the straight, the Red Bull driver should be regarded as the driver who was passing. Under F1’s racing rules, that would oblige Verstappen to remain within the track limits which he failed to do.
The stewards did not reject this argument, nor did they accept it: They did not consider it. That is potentially significant for the wider debate around this kind of defensive move, but it spelled defeat for McLaren in their effort to secure a review of Norris’ penalty.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
In order to secure a review of the decision, McLaren had to persuade the stewards they had a compelling new piece of evidence. The only element they presented was the stewards’ original decision. They argued it incorrectly identified Norris as the overtaking driver.
The stewards dismissed their claim on the grounds that the error itself cannot be considered the “new element” required to trigger a review. They required some other new evidence to justify accepting the existence of an error.
Most teams who have attempted to force a review of a racing incident have fallen at this hurdle. The evidence they have conjured up to support their cases range from the risible (Ferrari presenting an analysis of an incident by a television pundit in 2019) to the creative (Red Bull had their test driver simulate Lewis Hamilton’s racing line at a test in 2021). Both failed.
Even when teams have been able to brandish indisputably ‘new’ evidence, such as the video footage Mercedes seized on following a similar incident between Verstappen and Hamilton in 2021, they haven’t necessarily been successful. That no doubt explains why McLaren did not turn up with new video or GPS data showing how far Norris moved ahead of Verstappen – the stewards had access to ample evidence to prove that point last Sunday.
It’s not hard to see why McLaren believed they could overturn Norris penalty or – just as good from their point of view – trigger an equal penalty for Verstappen by persuading the stewards the Red Bull driver had been the one doing the overtaking. It would have forced them to address the issue of whether Verstappen’s ‘divebomb defence’ move should be allowed, a tactic several other drivers clearly feel strongly about.
But as has been the case before, the conclusion McLaren and other teams should draw from this case is that Right of Review hearings are extremely unlikely to lead the stewards to reconsider any incidents which occur during races, for the simple fact races are so extensively covered these days there is seldom anything new to reveal about these incidents.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
In a small victory for McLaren, the stewards pointed out to the FIA that it is very difficult for teams to request reviews of decisions which go against them during races. And if they were hoping to put Verstappen’s defensive moves under scrutiny, they have certainly achieved that.
But as things stand, there is nothing to prevent Verstappen or any other driver in F1 – or potentially other categories – from preventing a rival passing them on the outside by braking too late for the corner and forcing them off. Whether the FIA chooses to revise that in future could be significant for the final races of this year’s championship.
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
2024 United States Grand Prix
- McLaren insist stewards made ‘provable error’ after losing bid for review of Norris’ penalty
- Why McLaren’s focus on Verstappen’s driving failed to overturn Norris’ penalty
- Stewards reject McLaren’s request to review Norris’ United States GP penalty
- McLaren know Norris’ penalty is likely to stand – so what do they hope to gain?
- McLaren request review of Norris’ penalty for off-track pass on Verstappen
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
26th October 2024, 4:54
I get the sentiment of the new evidence rule, but it is clearly somewhat flawed.
First up there are often comparisons with football referees where an incorrect ruling will stand. But I don’t see this as a fair comparison given that the F1 review process exists for the very purpose of evaluating whether a decision will stand. And given this, it should not matter if there is no new evidence, but whether all approriatte considerations were made.
As it stands a weak case could be allowed a review where new evidenced exists, and a strong case thrown out because of the lack of it.
Part of me thinks it may just be more definative to scrap the review process completely.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
26th October 2024, 6:31
The evidence rule is there to shutdown appeals. Because the stewards have become indefensible in their behaviors.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
26th October 2024, 21:30
The evidence rule is indeed there to shutdown appeals, but there is a good reason for this.
If a driver gets a time penalty before he has completed his pit stops then he has to serve it during the pit stop. If the penalty is given and there are no more pit stops then the time penalty is added at the end.
Therefore, the rule is there because it would be unfair to give the right to appeal only to drivers who happened to have been penalised later than others.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 9:12
@cairnsfella As has been made apparent today, stewarding misconduct severe enough to attract legal risk is not considered sufficient to count as “new evidence”.
An Sionnach
26th October 2024, 8:06
McLaren didn’t expect much from this because they know the stewards’ decision was correct by the rules. The point is to push for a change in the rules. That change can’t be because a lot of people and media want driver X to pass driver y, it has to be a matter of fairness.
Since the rule is about who is ahead at the apex and this is more easily achievable if you don’t make the corner, there does seem to be a loophole there. I’m not sure how to resolve it. Verstappen didn’t miss it by much so the characterisation of him as being in some way bad or cheating is unfair and incorrect in this instance. At least Norris acknowledges this. Some sort of track limits violation that would mean this sort of move can only be tried a limited number of times seems reasonable, although I wonder if it should be allowed to happen up to three times. This is probably the way it is at the moment? That said, perhaps this isn’t unfair. Verstappen seems to rarely bring out the black and white flag, whereas Norris does. The number of times you can defend like this would be limited if you have already breached track limits, so you may not even be able to do it three times without triggering a penalty. This seems fair enough.
What strike was Max on after the incident? I assume it was either the first or second one.
It could be worth tweaking how track limits is policed so that the overtaking driver does not pick up a strike if the defending one doesn’t make the corner. The overtaking driver does not deserve space, but they do not get a strike so they can keep trying until the defending driver picks up a penalty or they get past. If the defending driver makes the corner then their move is a valid one. They do not push a driver off if they are not entitled to space. Only drivers who have not committed track limit violations will be able to do this three times. In this instance, Norris would only have been able to do this once, whereas Max would have been able to do it two or three times. This makes observing track limits more important. The rule can’t be that if the British driver tries to overtake and does not succeed then Verstappen gets a penalty… even if he’s somewhere else on the track!
They should review the rule on lap one incidents. Would Max have gotten a penalty for that if it wasn’t lap one? I think both Max and Lewis get away with too much on lap one and the rule is only there for accidental incidents. In Max’s case I don’t think they are accidental and in Lewis’s case the clumsiness of some of his moves invites accidents. This applies to all drivers, however.
SteveP
26th October 2024, 8:27
There you touch on something that is the nub of the issue. Not all drivers get penalised equally.
e.g. track limits offences last season – this site gave stats that showed Albon exceeded track limits about 10 times more often than the average driver, yet his penalty totals were average. Video of him doing so was not accepted as evidence.
Another example shows in the running joke about Tsunoda getting penalties for pretty much everything anyone else did, he merely needed to be on track, somewhere.
SteveP
26th October 2024, 8:13
Because the first requirement of the review process is that you bring new evidence.
Since Verstappen has been driving that way for years, it isn’t new.
Dodgy driving it may well be, but it is definitely not a new thing.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 9:10
It is only not new evidence because this specific incident was known to the stewards at the time of the decision.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 9:09
The stewards’ argument, on its face, does not work. A stewarding falsehood is, itself, new evidence, quite apart from anything happening on track.
If it is not, stewards would have the power to tell any falsehood and have a decision cemented because a steward lying would not constitute new evidence. There is precedent from USA 2001 (when Jordan had a weight limit failure overturned because one of the stewards’ signatures was forged) that stewards are not allowed to give falsehoods, nor have anyone give falsehoods on their behalf, and have the decision stand.
That the stewards cannot be allowed to have their decision stand because of a falsehood is obvious, since if that was permitted, no stewarding decision could ever be appealed unless the FIA felt like doing so independently of the appeal. Since the FIA charges for appeals, then this would be breach of contract and would give McLaren sufficient reason to take the FIA to court (civil court, not the FIA/Swiss Court of Arbitration route) for breaching the accords under which it entered to race and for failing to run a sporting competition according to the law of the land (which requires appeals to be effectual when the governing body is at fault).
The stewards have put the FIA into much hotter water than it was in before the appeal was entertained.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
26th October 2024, 9:37
@alianora-la-canta I don’t know if there’s any separate clause in the rules that allows teams to appeal an obviously incorrect or even corrupt stewards’ decision, but if the stewards’ decision itself was enough to constitute ‘new evidence’, then by default every stewards’ decisions would be open to review.
notagrumpyfan
26th October 2024, 9:18
That’s nonsense.
It happens all the time; it’s called the switchback and smart drivers use it to overtake a car which brakes late into a corner and significantly reduces its speed through that corner.
Note: the overtake in the end is not on the outside, but on the inside.
Laurent
26th October 2024, 11:09
+1
SteveP
26th October 2024, 11:17
You’re thinking of a move where the driver diving down the inside actually has an intention of making the corner and was almost alongside before the corner, Keith is talking about what many call a dive-bomb, but since Verstappen seems to have virtually a copyright on it maybe the EmVee should be the label.
It’s a move from further back where the defending driver is surprised away from taking the corner by a rapid moving dive attack down the inside with no possibility of making the corner, but that doesn’t matter as the defending driver has either straightened out or lost part of their front end.
notagrumpyfan
26th October 2024, 12:07
No!
N
26th October 2024, 11:23
The switch-back is only possible when the driver on the inside brakes as late as is possible (too late) and ends up too deep on the exit, but that’s not what Verstappen does, he brakes at a point where he can still make the turn, but then eases off the brake pressure to match the cars speed on the outside, then guides them off the road. If the driver on the outside tries the cutback line, the driver on the inside just gets back on the brakes.
If you look at Brazil for example, Verstappen ends up many meters off the road, but he didn’t actually brake that many meters later than normal, that would be a gross misjudgement from one of the most talented racers in the world. He just comes off the brakes when he could see Hamilton was trying the outside line, then made sure Hamilton followed him off the road. Same thing in Imola, Spain, Silverstone (2 turns before their crash), Saudi, to name a few examples.
MichaelN
26th October 2024, 11:53
That’s it exactly. Every F1 driver, and people like Verstappen in particular, are extremely skilled, competent and clever at this game. They’re not “overshooting the corner” like some 16 year old dude on a rental kart. They’re blocking the entry to the corner, and they’re blocking the exit by – in clear violation of the FIA Code – ‘crowding another car off’. On purpose.
Again, none of this ‘just happens’. This is a game, and as Leclerc correctly understands – but Norris seems oblivious to – Verstappen is pushing right up against what is allowed and often skirts over the line. Knowing that the stewards are hesitant to penalize what the F1 community has long called ‘hard racing’.
notagrumpyfan
26th October 2024, 12:04
I doubt that (in this case) Verstappen could ‘still make the turn’.
If he could’ve, he would’ve, and there would be no discussion about a possible penalty for him.
The reason that he ended up off track is not per se that he braked later, but because he braked on the far inside and thus had to make a smaller arc (thus lower speed) to stay within the lines.
Illusive (@illusive)
26th October 2024, 13:09
Its just fascinating that how much Mclaren keeps beating a dead horse. Maxi is right these guys complain a lot.
BenHur
26th October 2024, 13:32
The way I see it, it is debatable whether Max should have been penalized (I am afraid not, Max’s driving seemed to be within the rules. That is because the rules are flawed, but that is another discussion. But anyway I still see this as open to debate).
But to me is absolutely clear that Lando overtook Max while on the outside and did not give back the position, so it is a slam-dunk penalty. You cannot overtake in the outside and make it stick, period. What the other driver did is immaterial.
Therefore McLaren had no business trying to overturn Lando’s penalty (If anything, they should have pushed for an equal -or larger- penalty for Max, which would have given Lando back the position). They surely knew this, so probably what they were trying to do was not so much getting the position back, but furthering the discussion for a change in the rules. Whatever.
This has been said before but I agree that what Lando/McLaren should have done was: give back the position, no matter how unfair they felt it was, so they could stay within the rules and avoid a penalty, and then go for the overtake again. Which Lando probably would have been able to achieve. And it was McL’s mistake, Lando would have given back the position, but the team gave him the instruction not to.
MichaelN
26th October 2024, 13:54
The main issue with this is Austria. Both in 2019 and in 2024. In both cases (Leclerc and Norris) they tried to race Verstappen fair and square, one defending the other attacking. In both cases, Verstappen eventually barged them out of the way. In the most recent case, ending Norris’ race.
Norris’ attempt to build a five second gap to Verstappen (I think he was about 4 seconds by the end) is a much safer option than going back for round 2 with a driver known to bump into others or push them off. That this continues is partly the fault of the FIA, partly the fault of Red Bull for constantly egging Verstappen on, and of course something he has a major role in as well. But apart from that, it’s also on his competitors to not let it stand. Verstappen’s antics in Austria, and his subsequent sweep across the track to barge Norris off a second time (!) should tell Norris all he needs to know. What Norris needs is some Montoya-energy; refuse to give way. Make Verstappen second guess.
BenHur
26th October 2024, 14:16
The problem with trying to open a 5-second gap was not only that it was a tall order with so few laps left, it was that (if I remember it right) the penalty was uncertain, the standard penalty for overtaking in the outside being 10 seconds, not 5. It was well nigh impossible to open that kind of gap, and besides it would have positioned Lando also behind Oscar.
I totally agree that what Lando needs is to stop being a pushover. But of course accepting the risk of collisions that leave both drivers out of the race goes more against Lando than against Max, as long as Max is ahead in the WDC,
David BR (@david-br)
26th October 2024, 14:44
I’d say Leclerc, Hamilton, Piastri and Russell know (or would know) how to race him in ultra-competitive situations. And no, it’s not always a pleasant outcome. Norris most definitely has no idea.
David BR (@david-br)
26th October 2024, 14:31
It’s not a difficult rule to introduce: even if you’re first to the apex when racing on the inside (defending) then you can force another driver off the track, so long as this doesn’t constitute dangerous driving, if you remain with track limits. In other words, you have to make the corner. If not, then a 5-second penalty for forcing the other driver off or you give the place.
Verstappen’s defending at Interlagos 2021 was generally viewed by all other drivers and teams as unacceptable. I’m pretty sure (can’t find an article searching) that the race director introduced new racing guidelines specifying that drivers had to stay on track when defending a corner on the inside, as Verstappen did at Abu Dhabi the same year. So the message was understood. Basically he’s reined in the extreme defence but using (correctly guessing) the ‘tolerance’ level stewards have for this tactic, knowing that past steward decisions have tended, for whatever reason, to be especially lenient with him.
McLaren need to keep pushing on this. Or someone needs to do the same repeatedly to Verstappen. Of course when someone does, he and Horner are the first to whine away. But, sure, nobody expects a lack of cynical hypocrisy from Red Bull. They are what they are (and unloved by most fans because of it).