McLaren refused to take Lando Norris’ United States Grand Prix penalty lying down last week. They attempted to force the stewards to review their decision, but failed.
On race day, it was the turn of Norris’ championship rival Max Verstappen to feel the stewards’ wrath. He copped a penalty four times greater than the McLaren driver’s Austin sanction.Verstappen’s Red Bull team were just as dismissive of the stewards’ decision as McLaren were a week earlier. But in this case, the Right of Review process appears to offer Red Bull less incentive to raise an objection than McLaren had in Austin. Indeed, McLaren may be the ones with most to gain from re-litigating last weekend’s race.
This has more to do with the timing of the penalties than what the drivers did on the track. The stewards handed Verstappen his pair of 10-second penalties early in Sunday’s race and he served them at his pit stop, so they cannot be undone. But Norris’ infringement occured much later in the United States Grand Prix, his penalty was added to his total race time, so it could have been cancelled out.
Verstappen’s combined 20-second penalty is the second-largest any driver has received in a grand prix this year, after Kevin Magnussen’s double sanction in the Miami Grand Prix. So it may seem paradoxical to suggest McLaren might entertain the possibility of getting an even harsher one.
But this is where the specifics of the cases matter. One decision issued by the stewards on Sunday appears to present an opportunity for McLaren to push for a tougher penalty.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
McLaren are likely to be most satisfied with the stewards’ first ruling, regarding the initial incident at turn four. This was the decision issued and later recalled and revised by the stewards, after realising they originally failed to hand Verstappen any penalty points.
However regarding the second infringement, at turns seven and eight, the stewards ruled only that Verstappen had “left the track and gained an advantage.” He went off at turn seven, passing Norris as he did so, while sending both of them so far off track each was passed by Charles Leclerc.
The stewards stated Verstappen “left the track and kept the lasting advantage gaining the position, incidently [sic] forcing Norris off the track.” McLaren would appear to have good grounds to challenge the view Verstappen forced Norris off “incidentally” rather than intentionally. He launched his RB20 down the inside of the MCL38 from such a distance, speed and trajectory that it is remarkable Norris saw him in time to avoid contact.
If McLaren can persuade the stewards Verstappen’s offence was worse than they originally ruled, the potential exists for a stiffer penalty. A larger time drop could cost Verstappen more points by dropping him further down the classification behind Magnussen and even Oscar Piastri – the latter bringing McLaren an added boost in the constructors’ standings. More penalty points would increase the pressure on Verstappen to tread carefully over the remaining races.
Of course, to do this McLaren would have to satisfy the same requirement they failed to meet last week. In order for a review to take place they must present “a significant and relevant new element […] which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Following Sunday’s race, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner showed journalists telemetry data which he claimed was proof Verstappen did not force Norris off at turn four. It seems unlikely Red Bull could use this to push for a review as the stewards noted they consulted “positioning/marshalling system data” when making that decision. This doesn’t necessarily mean Red Bull won’t try, or might have some other new information at their disposal.
As the championship fight between the two teams intensifies, would McLaren really go to the extraordinary step of making a Right of Review request in order to get a harsher penalty for a rival? We already know their rivals would do the same, because they did, following Verstappen’s collision with Lewis Hamilton at the 2021 British Grand Prix (they did not succeed).
McLaren will be well aware that the chance of them earning a tougher penalty for Verstappen are low. But they may consider it a useful way to keep the pressure up on their rivals and focus more attention on what they believe is the intention of Verstappen’s defensive tactics, namely to delay Norris even at the expense of his own race, which he arguably achieved last weekend despite his penalties.
At this stage in the championship, both sides will pounce on every opportunity to gain an advantage. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility we could see the unprecedented situation of both teams demanding reviews seeking opposite outcomes, each reasoning that the other side will raise an objection, so they must make their case.
The clock is ticking down for the teams to make their moves. Are the championship contenders about to have another off-track face-off? We should know soon after 9pm in Sao Paulo tomorrow.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
2024 Mexican Grand Prix
- McLaren have no regrets over pitting Norris shortly before red flag came out
- Leclerc fined, avoids same penalty as Verstappen after apologising for swearing
- Leclerc not in the clear over swearing as Verstappen claims he went unpunished
- Majority of drivers wanted racing rules to change “straight away” – Russell
- Verstappen was “over the limit” with Norris but others would do same – Leclerc
Red Andy (@red-andy)
30th October 2024, 12:24
I think this is unlikely, since the new and relevant evidence presented as part of an appeal has to have been unavailable to the stewards at the time they made the decision. If it was available to them, but they just didn’t use it, that doesn’t appear to satisfy the “new and relevant” parameter. Presumably if data from Verstappen’s car was used by the stewards as part of the first decision, it could also have been used for the second one, but they chose not to do so for whatever reason.
BasCB (@bascb)
30th October 2024, 12:33
I’d say they didn’t use it since it was clear to them that he did go off and got a penalty for going off track there.
They might have looked at the intentional part, but then it would make sense to do the ruling after the race to give Max a chance to give his vision of things, which would mean potentially a post race penalty that might have taken a longer time and could have affected the podium (surely Max was in the running for the podium without that second time penalty)
Steve (@scbriml)
30th October 2024, 12:42
@bascb Even if you take the full 20 seconds of penalty off Verstappen’s race time, he still finished nearly 40 seconds behind Sainz, so I don’t think a podium was likely.
anon
30th October 2024, 13:43
@bascb it seems unlikely that he would have been anywhere near the podium positions given how poor Max’s pace was on the hard tyres. If you take 20 seconds away from his final finishing time, he’s still finishing behind Leclerc, despite the additional pit stop that Leclerc made to secure the point for fastest lap.
At best, Max might have been been in a pretty distant 4th place, and that’s assuming Mercedes would have let Hamilton sit behind Russell for as long as they did – looking at Hamilton’s pace in clean air, it’s plausible that Mercedes might have used team orders to allow Hamilton past Russell to have a go at passing Max rather than letting them race on track (they could afford to do that in the race given Max was unable to catch them).
BasCB (@bascb)
30th October 2024, 14:12
Sure – with the benefit of hindsight we know that (not to mention that he might well have finished closer behind if he hadn’t ended up in traffic after that pitstop taking the penalties), but the stewards had no way of knowing this when they handed out the penalty.
BasCB (@bascb)
30th October 2024, 12:31
Personally, I don’t think either will try to get a review – simply because it is so hard to achieve. For Red Bull, it bears the risk of getting an even harder penalty even IF they succeed. And for McLaren, sure it might feel enticing to try and get Max a harsher penalty for the second incident (I do think he should have gotten a harsher one there, and certainly penalty points), I am not sure it is worth it.
I think part of the reasoning for their attempt last time was to push the discussion forward on making the rules of what is allowed clearer to avoid Max abusing the “oh, I was first at the apex” after getting off the brakes to achieve that first thing. And it worked to get the discussion moved. The potential of maybe getting that penalty overturned would have been a bonus IMO.
Jere (@jerejj)
30th October 2024, 12:35
Certainly zero ground for a review demand by Red Bull Racing, not that they’re even attempting anyway.
grapmg
30th October 2024, 12:45
They ruled –
– so they must have used the data how else could they have come to the conclusion it was “incidentatly”. Althoug they didn’t mention it in the notes that doesn’t mean they only used the footage of the incident.
David BR (@david-br)
30th October 2024, 14:08
Norris looked level or ahead slightly at the apex at Turn 4, can’t see that changing. But though Verstappen therefore forced his rival off track and was correctly penalized, it was arguably a marginal call by the drivers and the stewards, one that MV technically got wrong this time. Turn 7 was ‘out of control’ Max, blood rush to the head stuff and again correctly penalized. But there was a qualitative difference in the ‘mistakes’ (deliberate in Turn 7) which should have elicited a different, harsher penalty in the second case.
Still, any appeal they’ll probably dismiss as lacking further evidence. Does just making the appeal help or hinder Verstappen’s obvious wish to keep driving the same way? I mean would it affect future stewarding decisions, as McLaren’s appeal may have done between COTA and Mexico, or does it make no difference? Could back fire for Red Bull.
An Sionnach
30th October 2024, 17:54
From the last two races stewarding is very difficult. Other than the second incident in Mexico they were close. The rulebook states what to do in each case.
For the second incident he deserved to be taken out and flogged. Or, perhaps a ten second stop-go penalty that would have to be promptly served or be black flagged. The possibility of further disqualification would then loom if the black flag is ignored or the team fails to adhere to procedure.
An Sionnach
30th October 2024, 18:11
All that said, the stewards can’t make up rules on the hoof (unless they’re dealing with Alonso), so if there’s a problem new rules can be brought in for the future.
Of course, when Max gets it right (which is often) any rule change has to seem fair if you consider him both defending and attacking at the very limit of the rules. It can’t be the case that he should lose out if he’s first to the apex and remains on the road when defending and that he should also lose out with a change in rules where he’s going around the outside when second to the apex and claiming to be pushed off.
He will drive to the limit of the rules more effectively than the others. This cannot be seen as being wrong or that the rules should be applied differently when penalising him.
Jonathan Parkin
30th October 2024, 19:07
But it has to be said, does he NEED to be this aggressive. Lando already has an uphill battle to win the WDC so he shouldn’t need to get his elbows out
An Sionnach
30th October 2024, 19:51
I said nothing of aggression other than the second move in Mexico. Max has been unnecessarily aggressive off the line with drivers other than Norris. That’s just stupid and deserves a DNF. Whatever he does, if it’s within the rules that should be the end of it. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest he’s the only one who hasn’t been aggressive or to fall back to calling him names when what he does is legal.
I don’t consider his position a safe one. If Piastri gets it together, Max can only finish as high as fifth with this car. If he has to take an engine penalty and Norris wins that race I don’t think Max will be able to cling on. It doesn’t matter if such a reversal is unprecedented. If it is possible and there’s a decent likelihood that it can happen, then why not? Four races; two sprints; 47 points between them. If Lando needs 11.75 points per event over Max. If Lando can win them all with Max coming fifth, that’s 15 per event. The sprints will give him another four each. That’s 68, or 72 if he gets all the fastest laps.
With Ferrari where they are, Norris isn’t guaranteed to win them all, but he has some wriggle room. We can remove fastest laps from consideration and say that every time he doesn’t finish first that cannot all add up to 20 points dropped from the maximum. Also, Max may find it easier to finish higher up in the sprints as he qualifies well and may not drop to fifth from the front row in fewer laps.
The sprints may be critical.
An Sionnach
30th October 2024, 20:04
Here’s a reasonable path to victory for Norris: 2x wins (+30), 2x second places (+16). Now he’s one point behind Max, but since he won’t win the tiebreaker, he will need two more. If he finishes only one place ahead of Max in the sprints, he wins. If Max can’t get fifth in all the remaining races, Lando has even more wriggle room. How Lewis and George perform will also be important, especially if Max is coming from behind due to a grid penalty.
Mayrton
31st October 2024, 7:48
But that’s the thing. Apart from it being difficult to create a solid set of rules, their enforcement is left to the Herberts of this world, reacting to the delusion of the day and whether they got out of bed well that day. So you can make up rules as much as you want, but if you put clowns in that room, you get a circus. At the bare minimum you should no longer allow nationalities in that room that are also contending on track. I am sure a lot of nations are not represented in the current driver line-up.
SteveP
1st November 2024, 8:23
It’s interesting how the failing fortunes of some people’s favourite driver(s) turn the race stewards into “clowns” in a “circus”