Max Verstappen wasn’t the only driver to pass a rival by short-cutting turn two in Jeddah yesterday.
While Verstappen took the lead from Oscar Piastri by missing the second turn at the start of the race, right behind him Andrea Kimi Antonelli did the same thing to Charles Leclerc. Later on in the race Fernando Alonso also emerged from the same corner ahead of Gabriel Bortoleto having missed the turn when the Sauber driver squeezed him in the braking zone.The difference between those cases lay in what the driver ahead did next. “I quickly gave back the position, because I was not making the corner, to avoid any penalty,” Alonso explained. Antonelli did the same. Verstappen did not.
Although Verstappen’s team Red Bull argued vociferously that he was entitled to the corner, the replays made it clear Piastri had got ahead of him after the start and the Red Bull only appeared ahead of the McLaren driver again because the pole-winner committed to running wide and could therefore carry more speed.
In choosing not to return the position to Piastri, Verstappen weighed two alternatives. Either drop behind Piastri and spend the opening stint in the McLaren’s wake, or accept the inevitable penalty but spend the opening stint in free air. He opted for the latter.
This should give the stewards pause for thought. If a penalty is so lenient a driver prefers it over complying with the rules, it’s insufficient.
Red Bull surely had a clear idea of the penalty they were likely to get for this infringement. Team principal Christian Horner confirmed he discussed this scenario with race director Rui Marques before the start.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Verstappen’s race engineer Gianpiero Lambiase urged him to keep a lid on his complaints over his five-second time penalty after it was communicated to him. But the stewards confirmed their sanction was actually more lenient than indicated by the guidelines.
The advantage Lawson gained was tiny compared to Verstappen’s, yet his penalty was twice as severe. The stewards explained they mitigated Verstappen’s penalty because the incident occured on the first lap of the race.
“Ordinarily, the baseline penalty for leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage is 10 seconds,” they stated. “However, given that this was a lap one and turn one incident, we considered that to be a mitigating circumstance and imposed a five-second time penalty instead.”
The stewards wielded this ‘first lap’ dispensation when looking into the collision between Yuki Tsunoda and Pierre Gasly. But the fact Verstappen and Piastri’s incident occured on lap one was immaterial. No other car was even peripherally involved. The same incident could just as easily have happened on any other lap of the race.
Indeed, the fact it occured at the start of the race made Verstappen’s breach even more egregious. Cutting the first corner, having lost the lead at the start, handed him the benefit of running his entire first stint in clear air.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“The first stint was tough behind Max,” Piastri acknowledged afterwards. “Once I had some clean air, it was a bit easier to manage.”
Leclerc spelled out just how valuable an unimpeded run can be. “I think free air dictates a little bit who is going to win the race,” he said. “That’s always been the case. Maybe this year a little bit more than other years.”
Last year the stewards increased their ‘baseline’ penalty for gaining an advantage off the track from five seconds to 10 precisely. They did this because teams had realised it was often better to take a five-second hit than remain stuck behind a rival in dirty air.
Softening the penalty on this occasion made no sense when Verstappen had clearly decided not to hand the position back precisely to bank the advantage of running in free air. The stewards need to wise up when drivers try this kind of thing again, and consider imposing penalties which must be served immediately, such as a drive-through, rather than one which is deferred until a driver’s pit stop.
But we shouldn’t leap to blame the stewards first for calls like this. They are being called upon to perform a service which the track has failed to do: punish a driver for failing to stick to the circuit.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
The FIA has made a lot of progress in this area in recent seasons. Many tracks which previously had forgiving asphalt run-offs have installed proper deterrents. The Red Bull Ring, Hungaroring, Silverstone, Shanghai and others have sprouted gravel traps and grass strips.
But why does Jeddah continue to get a free pass? Its first corner has been a problem since it was built, which was only four years ago. New tracks should not have flaws like these in the first place.
The defence that Jeddah is a ‘street circuit’ and therefore lacks the space to install physical deterrents for track limits doesn’t hold water. Drivers do not race on real streets in Jeddah, its track is purpose-built.
In the case of turns one and two, that purpose appears to have been to generate controversy. A better solution to enforce the track limits at turns one and two is badly needed before F1 returns to Jeddah.
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Go ad-free for just £1 per month
>> Find out more and sign up
Comment
- Doohan’s crash is on him, but benching him for first practice made no sense
- Horner said Lawson would thrive “on tracks he knows”. So why drop him now?
- 11th team in, Fastest lap point out: Keep those U-turns coming, F1
- Does F1 play the wrong anthem when McLaren win? Lawson is only half-right
- Scrap the fastest lap bonus point? But fans “love” it!
AlexS
21st April 2025, 13:33
Precisely
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
21st April 2025, 13:44
By allowing Max to keep the lead, the stewards effectively gave him control of the race.
A totally pointless penalty that any driver would secretly laugh at in that situation, whilst his team of experts at base formulated race strategies to minimise the impact of the penalty.
David BR (@david-br)
21st April 2025, 19:07
@nullapax I agree with almost all the article, but I don’t agree that the stewards were blameless. They have some discretion in interpreting the spirit of the rules and in this case misapplied them. Verstappen constantly tests the boundaries of the racing regulations (and driver briefings) – backed of course by Horner and the team – and the race director and stewards are nearly always a step or two behind, forever playing catch up after the event (and the gained advantage). Just not good enough given they’re a team who have the luxury of deciding over minutes, not seconds like other sports, with considerable data at their disposal.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:57
@nullapax Except, of course, a driver who thought they’d been given permission to do what they did, in the driver’s briefing, and thus would have expected no penalty whatsoever.
Imre (@f1mre)
21st April 2025, 13:50
Why are there no traffic line paintings anywhere on the circuit? Is this a permanent track with walls close by?
Alonslow
21st April 2025, 14:16
Yes.
Jere (@jerejj)
21st April 2025, 14:18
Simply because the Jeddah Corniche Circuit isn’t used by regular traffic at all, i.e., it’s basically a semi-permanent temporary circuit with everything also staying in place all year round from pit building to grandstands, barriers, catch-fencing, lighting infrastructure, etc., so if anything, more towards a full permanent circuit than even a semi-temporary one, which also allows other racing categories to use the circuit at separate times of year from the GP unlike on fully temporary circuits where all other categories need to use the GP weekend or its preceding weeks for their events like FE & Historic GP in Monaco.
Miami Autodrome is also a semi-permanent temporary circuit more or less by definition.
On the other hand, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is effectively the opposite of these two since it can be used for road car driving, cycling, & walking all year round outside the GP weekend while only the grandstands & tyre barriers are temporary features.
Ben
21st April 2025, 14:10
There really needs to be a bigger penalty for leaving the track and gaining/ keeping an advantage. Would Max do this in Monaco? No he’d back out of it to avoid hitting the wall.
The advantage they gave Max was worth way more than the 5 second penalty. Being able to drive his own race in clear air was a huge benefit. The place should have been switched immediately. As Max didn’t do so the penalty should be that he’s forced to switch plus an actual time penalty. Not one or the other.
If gravel traps aren’t an option the zones should be painted red. Enter a zone once and it’s a 30 second penalty. Enter twice it’s a drive through and enter three times and you’re disqualified. That would stamp this nonsense out overnight. Sounds too harsh? Good. These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world. They can manage to avoid these kind of situations when there’s a wall, grass or gravel and each of those would be a far bigger penalty.
The teams and drivers are wise to the weaknesses of the FIA. A driver should never be in a position to effectively choose their own penalty. It was the same last weekend with Norris. He gained a huge amount by his false start. Being stuck behind 2 cars for multiple laps would have cost him way more than 5 seconds. I
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:56
A drive-through is lighter than a 30-second penalty, for a start, and that’s before we start on people getting pushed into the zone, or going there to avoid a crash (which would inevitably get manipulated by less scrupulous drivers)…
Le Jimster (@lejimster82)
21st April 2025, 14:20
I had to watch the Lawson penalty incident a few times and honestly, that isn’t somebody trying to cheat and cut the corner. It’s just a misjudgement and I would argue he was slower for trying to take the corner properly.
BasCB (@bascb)
21st April 2025, 14:32
Yeah, the Lawson penalty for what he did, especially when compared to how Verstappen and Red Bull handled the first corner seems egregiously unfair towards Lawson. Or rather, make it clear how much Verstappen was handed a favour.
Jere (@jerejj)
21st April 2025, 14:21
As pointed out before, race control should start ordering immediate position swaps & more specifically regarding the T2 inside runoff space issue, either put a techpro sideways there or a gravel/other material to cover the entire width between the apex curb & techpro.
Alternatively, T2 could be eliminated altogether by having the existing techpro as the outright track limit edge, which would mean replacing the curbing & purple surface with normal tarmac & thus having the track width wider at that point.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
21st April 2025, 14:54
Or we just say stuff happens and we dont need to change tracks and rules every time something happens
sam
21st April 2025, 15:21
Or we could continue letting max make up his own rules as he goes….
David BR (@david-br)
21st April 2025, 19:08
Fine by his fanbase, obviously.
osnola
22nd April 2025, 12:34
The problem is not he makes up rules.. he uses them to the full extend and thats something people do not seem to notice.
The interesting part is the fact fia constructed several rules to close the gaps Verstappen found only to see other drivers penalised.
I understand people and especially fans for other drivers, do not like this attitude. But its playing by the rules. And sometimes i does not work as intended.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:54
@jerejj The almost-immediate Safety Car situation would have precluded a swap command, had it otherwise been considered. Remember the race director has to manage the Safety Car situation (including co-ordination of the steps needed to initiate it in the first place).
Coventry Climax
21st April 2025, 14:34
So the conclusion is that the stewards are still inconsistent in their penalties, when Verstappen gets a -in their own words- ‘lenient’ penalty, where Lawson gets the full thing, for what is essentially the same infringement.
I’m of a different opinion here:
Given the minimal speed difference between Verstappen and Piastri, over the first couple of laps, it is quite safe to assume that they had equal grip levels as well. Sure, average cornering speeds over those laps, that corner, should tell the real story here. Consider the possibility the Red Bull had the advantage, compare it to the option of it having the disadvantage there, and measure it against what’s posible with respect to the line driven.
A car running an inside line needs higher grip levels than a car that runs the outside line, hence the existence of an ‘ ideal race line’ and noone took that inside line when running that corner when on their own, simply because it’s slower.
Therefore, with both running the same speed, Piastri stood less chance of making the corner than Verstappen, running the wider, more ‘ideal’ line and therefor logically, would be able to brake both later and less than Piastri, which is exactly what he did.
So, when you take into account that:
– the wider line allows for braking less and later,
– Verstappen, who himself, as well as Red Bull’s car, have alway been good at braking extremely late and still make the corner (although not actually measured here),
– on similar events, where Verstappen was on the inside line, he was the one being punished for forcing another driver off,
that brings me back to line 1 of my comment: Inconsistent stewardry.
The rules mentioning a ‘braking zone’ do not take into consideration that that’s not a fixed definition, but rather varies over and depends on the circuit, the line driven as well as individual car quality and driver skills. And when there’s no battle – oh my, that shouldn’t even be possible in F1 – going on, kinetic recovery settings (brake trajectory length).
Even disregarding all that, while in the rules, these ‘braking zones’ are objective and undefined and not painted (as curved, slanted lines) on the tracks, and therefor also not -not visually, not electronically- verified and used to reach decisions. Instead, race control fully relies on objective steward opinion(!) and discussion, and the subsequent ‘conclusions’ they’ve reached, where other, less costly sports use things like Hawkeye and VAR and therefor not even need an afterwards ‘explanation’.
Regardless of this specific incident’s handling and outcome, that’s F1 unworthy and keeps controversy alive. But hey, that’s what generates the ‘fan’ attention, right?
Coventry Climax
21st April 2025, 14:42
To be clear:
I’m fine with a ‘clean air’ argument, but let’s measure it first then, shall we, before we give different penalties to drivers over different races, different track positions, different corners, different weather conditions even, but insisting on calling it ‘the same crime’.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:52
The “clean air” effect already has been measured. It’s different at different tracks, different stint lengths and between different cars. However, it is consistently proven. It is also consistently proven to have more cumulative effect if taken across a whole stint, than part of it.
The only way the stewards’ call could have been justified is if clean air slows cars down – which it doesn’t.
If Verstappen and Piastri had been at the same speed over the first couple of laps, Piastri would have been ahead of Verstappen.They were not – because Verstappen was able to go faster at the first corner, and then had the freedom to slow down a bit (to build up tyre life and prepare his tyres how he liked, thus increasing his advantage). The benefit Verstappen received to his tyre life is obvious, as well as the speed gained on the straights.
Coventry Climax
23rd April 2025, 9:30
Probably not clear enough but I was talking ‘in real time’.
MacLeod (@macleod)
22nd April 2025, 7:24
That is what I thought also very well explained Sir!
Neil (@neilosjames)
21st April 2025, 14:37
Though it may create arguments for inconsistency, I think there should be the option for something like this:
– ‘Leave the track and gain an advantage’ happens.
– Stewards determine it was penalty-worthy.
– Stewards inform race director.
– Race director instructs team to give back the position.
If team complies, all good. If team doesn’t, a second penalty for ‘failing to follow an instruction from the race director’ is applied on top of the 5/10-second penalty.
MichaelN
21st April 2025, 14:47
It’s the other way around. It’s already up to the race director, but he is content to let the stewards handle it via one of the prescribed penalties. None of which include giving up the position (only he can do that).
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:45
@neilosjames Not practical at all, because the “race director requests swapback” option is intended as clemency to avoid the rigmarole of passing the situation to the stewards. Doing that after the stewards made the decision defeats the point.
In this case, the Safety Car precluded the race director from requesting the swap, since cars are only allowed to overtake under the Safety Car under certain conditions and this isn’t one of them. By the time the Safety Car was over, the stewards had come to a decision (unusually quickly, and I’m not satisfied with that on this occasion – they were no more privy to the driver briefing that was a key part of Verstappen’s evidence than I am – this needed settling post-race with race director and driver evidence, unsatisfactory as that sounds).
Mark (@blueruck)
21st April 2025, 14:38
How hard would it be to put a sausage curb or 2 in the run off area to make sure people slow down?
StefMeister (@stefmeister)
21st April 2025, 14:48
@blueruck I believe they have started to move away from using those in runoff’s as there’s been a number instances in multiple categories where cars suffered failures or had some other issue under braking that caused them to spin & then get launched by the sausage kerbs.
Fir instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F550jL4zgXc
Coventry Climax
21st April 2025, 14:55
Yeah, let’s install those brilliant launching ramps again, and have the FiA and promotors pay for the back surgery the drives then need.
Just imagine the massive amount of ‘fan’ interest generated by the subsequent legal fights between these two over who pays how much and for what.
Edvaldo
21st April 2025, 16:20
It doesn’t need to be a sausage like those in Monza, but bollards like they had in the first corner in Russia.
If you go off and don’t follow the path, it’s a penalty.
That’s what needs to be done in every corner where going off is faster than keeping it on the track.
Of course, none of this would be needed if some drivers weren’t counting on the benevolence of stewards to bail them out every single time.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:40
@blueruck Given the wall proximity, the probability is zero.
mantresx (@mantresx)
21st April 2025, 14:42
The best solution in this particular case is to install some bollards in the runoff and ask the drivers that go off to navigate around them.
Although it’s so tight at that corner that they might need to make the track a little wider to rejoin safely.
MichaelN
21st April 2025, 14:45
The sporting regulations, namely 33.3, state that “At the absolute discretion of the Race Director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track.” As such, this was Marques’ time to act. The stewards are only allowed to give penalties as prescribed in the rules, although there are numerous and there is technically one that they can sort of fit every kind of time penalty into. None, however, have immediate consequences.
Alternatively, they can establish, through reliable precedence, that a penalty will be so severe that it compels the team to order the driver to give up a place. A meager time penalty however, is not sufficient.
The drive-through still allows a driver to complete no more than two full laps (54.4b), so essentially three since he enters the pitlane on the last one. This still allows for a lot of shenanigans to take place, especially when a driver is deliberately out to be as unsporting as possible (as with Haas last year) and basically just take Xbox lines to stay ahead.
Doh
21st April 2025, 18:17
Surely overtaking off the track is worth a drive through. What’s the point in all these of continuous pointless track limits talk if it’s pretty much allowed to pass off the track and keep the position?
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
21st April 2025, 14:51
If both sides of the argument are complaining then the penalty is probably about right. It was first corner first lap and the 5 second penalty lost him the place he gained. Where is the contention in that? Imagined IMHO
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:38
@tonymansell That is false. In this case, all it means is that the stewards had 2 options open to them in the rulebook and chose neither. Again. (This is rather like the false “going down the middle” done against Carlos Sainz when he missed part of the national anthem due to a doctor-confirmed medical issue).
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
22nd April 2025, 12:12
Maybe its the language you are writing in looking at your name but its best not calling people out and out wrong or ‘false’. Im not false, it was the first lap, they do give more leniency on lap one and they did in this case. He lost the lead as a result and that was punishment enough.
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
21st April 2025, 14:55
Just thought of something.
I used to do some sailing, and the decks were painted with a rough/abrasive paint to help you keep your footing in rough seas.
Couldn’t these run-off areas be painted in a similar way that might not slow you down much, but could easily strip off a few laps of life from the tyre?.
“Go ahead – cut the corners – but you’re going to be driving a car with rubbish performance and needs a lot more pit-stops than anyone else!”
Coventry Climax
21st April 2025, 15:06
Which would effectively most likely be an invitation to try and run off your competition without being punished yourself.
“No, see, I locked up and had no other option but running a bit wide.”
And even if you do get punished for not leaving enough room, you get the identical, calculated balance between taking a penalty for that against ‘your gain’, meaning the disadvantage you caused for your opponent.
Things like that. Just more controversy, no real solution.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
21st April 2025, 14:57
I’d argue not only this corner is bad but the whole circuit. Why make it a street track if there’s no streets? It’s very fast but it’s impossible to go side by side at 90% of the track. It’s like an endless last sector at Valencia.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
21st April 2025, 15:10
Piastri did ok on Lewis
StefMeister (@stefmeister)
21st April 2025, 15:04
I think people will say the fact following/overtaking has gotten so difficult now is proof that the 2022 regulations failed but I just see it as an inevitable consequence of what F1 is in terms of teams developing there own cars.
Early on the 2022 regulations did allow cars to run closer and we did see overtaking become more possible (So i’d argue the initial draft of the 2022 regulations did work) but over time as the cars have developed things have gotten harder which to be honest was something I was always expecting to happen regardless of what anybody within F1 was saying about restricting/banning areas of development that hindered what the 2022 regulations were aiming to achieve.
And then having tyres that seem like they are more prone to overheat if pushed when following another car just makes that issue worse.
I said this when the 2022 regulations were announced and it’s something I still fully believe now. In F1 they will never be able to come up with a set of regulations that produce cars that are that good at racing long term because the very nature of F1 will never allow it to happen & the only way around that is to essentially completely change what F1 is and make aero dependant parts of the car spec which is something I never want to see them do.
Even looking at next year maybe at the start they will have an aero package that allows following closer but we all know that by 2027 teams will have development the cars in such a way that following will have gotten harder because the teams primary focus is and always will be performance because the whole purpose of the sport is to win, Always has been and always will be. No technical development or clever innovation was ever put on the cars for the benefit of the racing, It’s always been about what brings the most performance because winning is all that matters.
Coventry Climax
21st April 2025, 15:38
A large part of the ‘dilution’of the initial GE rules return, was due to a certain, influential team complaning that the bouncing they could not control without sacrificing pace, was dangerous, with the FiA falling for it and issueing a certain TD.
For cars to go fast(er), they need a flat surface. For cars to go fast around corners, they need additional grip to counter inherent centrifugal forces.
To create the additional grip, you need oncoming airflow that is laminar (undisturbed, non turbulent). Heavily wing dependent cars need this more than GE dependent cars, but still, both need it. GE cars benefit more from flat surfaces than wing dependent cars, but still, both need it.
So we have the philosophy of (solely) GE at one and of the spectrum, and Wing dependent on the other.
But anything inbetween is possible, and we effectively run that in F1 these days, even if GE plays a more pronounced role.
Therefor the only solution is to have cars that do not leave turbulence in their wake, and do therefore, thereby, not impede cars behind, however close. Making that zero though, is not possible – and probably not even desirable, given how good oldfashioned slipstreaming came about.
That is why I’ve already argued for some time now, that the amount of dirty air that a car generates, should be quantised, restricted and made measurable by the FiA. And then put in its rulebook, with disqualification for cars that do not comply.
As far as I’m concerned, I then don’t even care anymoe what mix or end of the philosophy range teams prefer.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
21st April 2025, 17:58
I had a similar thought a while ago but didnt post as i thought id be lynched by the more tech savvy element of the internet. I couldn’t have written it as well as you have but you have to ask why its not part of any FIA discussion.
I do also wonder if someone like Colin Chapman and co would’ve come up with aero that works in dirty air. Newey is a genius at what he does but im not sure he’s a game changing innovator in the Chapman mould
MurasamaRA300 (@murasamara300)
21st April 2025, 19:42
I miss Colin Chapman.
Unfortunately I’m fairly sure he would have his hands tied today and effectively prevented from doing what he did best – pushing boundaries.
The tendency was already there back in 1981 with the banning of the Lotus 88.
The Lotus 88 supposedly had an FIA approval sticker on it, declaring it legal for the 1981 season. But protests plus Balestre changing his mind led to the car being banned before it got a chance.
So we have no idea of the performance from the 88.
It may have been too dangerous.
It is possible.
But we don’t know that.
Since the 88 was banned, assumptions of perceived danger could never be tested (and right there goes the “pinnacle” out the window imho).
The 88 may also have been a game changer, like its predecessor, the 72.
We will never know that either.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
21st April 2025, 21:22
The Lotus 88 was genius…in the wind tunnel but on track it was totally unpredictable as air would get underneath it and create lift and when it was working properly, massive downforce so you could go into a corner at tremendous speed and then almost literally fly off if air got in. They may have ironed that out but it remains an amazing direction change for F1 that never happened
MurasamaRA300 (@murasamara300)
21st April 2025, 21:34
@tonymansell
There’s a video on Youtube: “Dario Franchitti drives the banned Lotus 88”.
It may be of interest if you haven’t seen it already.
2 minutes 12 seconds.
Coventry Climax
23rd April 2025, 10:19
I’m a huge Chapman and Lotus fan, and there’s two things I can say:
– F1 one took a completely different route from the one Chapman would have chosen. (We’d never be racing 800+ kg cars, for example.)
– The engineering qualities, inventiveness and out of the box thinking of Chapman still exceeds the combined capabilities of those currently involved in determining the F1 formula.
Doh
21st April 2025, 18:25
That’s a great point 2nd to last paragraph but could it realistically be quantised and then regulated. I hope so. But then simple changing brake ducts, or front wing levels could make the car illegal. Especially considering the margins would be tight. If would be fantastic if it could be done though!
The only drawback to the early 2022 cars was that the slipstream effect was drastically reduced. But overall it was great and dra helped mitigate that somewhat
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
22nd April 2025, 6:03
By their nature, all FIA tests can only be performed when the cars are stationary so how would they measure dirty air?
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:37
@exeviolthor Some tests are done while the cars are running nowadays (the most obvious example being the rear-facing camera to assess DRS behaviour). However, the definition of “dirty air” would have to be put in binary terms for sensors to be able to run that test (while running or stationary).
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
22nd April 2025, 7:17
Unless I am wrong, the cameras are there to assess if there is something going on that the current tests cannot spot. Penalties cannot be imposed based on these cameras as their footage is not part of the regulations.
When it comes to measuring “dirty air”, factors such as circuit layout and weather conditions will affect the behaviour of the cars. I find it unlikely that it can be monitored correctly.
Also dirty air is behind the cars so how could they even measure it?
Coventry Climax
22nd April 2025, 11:21
@exeviolthor
Measuring and quantising turbulence/laminarity is not an easy thing. There are several techniques available, with, obviously, windtunnel tests being one of them, but those are hardly practical to use on track, by the FiA.
There’s a technique called ‘Optical Langrangian Particle Tracking’ (google it if you’re interested and up for high level science), which, as the name implies, involves particles (seeds) let ‘loose’ and visually tracked (photographed/filmed). But this can be reproduced in a simulator, thus becoming part of CFD.
There quite a number of science institutes and universities carrying out work in the field. (Much to a certain president’s dislike, it would seem.)
I’m not going to give you an extensive list, but here’s one of note. (It happens to be German, but I opt to consider that irrelevant – as opposed to said president.)
Then there’s another option. It is more simple, and possibly less accurate, but still, in a nutshell: Measure, in real time, all downforce levels of the front axles of all cars. That’s easy, using strain gauges. Plot their values against the distance to the car ahead (easy to establish as well), and you know how much the car ahead influences the downforce of the car behind.
I’m sure that F1, with all the knowledge and money that goes around in it, can come up with a workable solution, if they just set their mind to it. And that’s where the problem comes in: show and controversy over science and sports.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
22nd April 2025, 12:32
@Murasama yeh its a decent clip, thanks. Just wish id see them at ful chat a la Alonso in the 2006 Renault last season.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
22nd April 2025, 16:59
Nice post and thank you for it.
Wouldn’t the weather conditions and circuit layout affect dirty air, though?
How could they come up with a rule that covers everything?
Coventry Climax
23rd April 2025, 2:00
@exeviolthor
You could actually even argue it’s the other way round: The state the air is in – pressure, temperature and humidity – determine the weather, with the driving force behind that being the sun.
But yes, weather conditions, circuit layout, its geographical height, presence of obstructions of any type, those all do affect the state the air is in and for how long.
The second option I mentioned however, would measure the delta, irrespective of weather conditions.
Can you define ‘everything’ please, for the rule that would need to cover that?
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
23rd April 2025, 6:28
What I meant by “everything” is the various variables that would change the dirty air effect even if the cars do not change.
Without having any real knowledge in this area, I would assume for example that if there is a drying track then the dirty air effect would change over the course of a race.
Coventry Climax
23rd April 2025, 10:08
@exeviolthor
OK. So option two it is then: Measure, real time, downforce deltas in relation to distance from car ahead. Like I said, that’s irrespective of weather conditions.
Still not an easy or straightforward thing to do, but certainly gives an indication. Then automate it, use AI for all I care, and have a computer come up with:
– by what level the allowed maximum influence is exceeded
– the penalty that goes with it
Saves a lot of discussions and from all sides.
Mind that you measure on the car behind to determine the level of dirty air that is left behind by the car directly in front.
If it were a military issue, there’d be a solution already. Which says a lot about the human mindset.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
24th April 2025, 5:33
Wouldn’t deltas also be affected by changing conditions?
Also wouldn’t it be possible to create a car that faces extreme delta when it follows another car so as to get them disqualified?
Coventry Climax
24th April 2025, 23:29
@exeviolthor
Possibly, but I don’t think it’ll be to a huge extent, and while during race conditions. For ambient airpressure to change significantly in a short period of time, that would mean a heavy storm coming over, which are hardly race conditions anyway. Besides, there’d be 20 cars ‘measuring’ eachother, so it would show up as a tendency in the data. What you’re talking about is changing conditions altering the severity of wake to a different extent than altering the amount of downforce. If that even is of impact, it should be possible to account for it in the modelling.
As for your second question, that would mean car 2 would need to actively change (lower) it’s downforce levels. That’s possible ofcourse, with either active or passive aero. If it’s active, there’s a signal somewhere that the FiA can mandate to be ‘public’. If it’s passive, it’s speed dependent, so still known/deduceable.
I’m not saying this solution is the only, holy grail option, but something like it should be possible.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
25th April 2025, 8:02
Thanks a lot for being so patient in explaining all of this!
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
21st April 2025, 15:11
I’d better not comment on Horner except to say they’d prepared thoroughly for the race. It’s a poorly designed corner. Just like the chicanes after the straights at Yas Marina. They’ve been getting away with it and ruining races for years now, because of… money.
The prescribed exit routes are more successful (provided nobody whacks the bollard out of the way) making a time penalty for exceeding track limits. Les Combes at Spa, and Monza’s Variante della Roggia are examples.
M2X
21st April 2025, 15:20
FIA messes up time and time again.
The messed up the ground effect era technical regulation by making floor changes in the first year because of porpoising, thereby eliminating what it wanted to achieve in the first place.
Further policing of either flexiwings or wings that produce dirty air they have failed to do.
They keep inconsistently applying rules, if you have a problem with the alongside at the apex rule, rewrite it. The rules are as they are written, using the rules by any team or driver isn’t unfair, unsportsmanlike, cheating etc, it’s the way the game is meant to be played. Arbitrarily deciding when, how and on what criteria to police is unfair, unsportmanslike, disingenuous and has turned the sport into jury sport where behind the scenes politics and lobbying is more important than whatever happens on track.
Apparently it’s very difficult to write technical regulations that allow racing on the tracks that are being used, the FIA has failed at it for 40 years now, a tender for functional tires, and sporting rules.
Esmiz (@esmiz)
21st April 2025, 16:00
I can only applaud the last three sentences of this article. And I would add, why was a circuit built with walls right up next to the track in the first place when it’s clearly not necessary? It’s not like the houses or buildings are right up against the track here; there are gardens, lakes, and squares, and it was all built at the same time. Why was it done this way? Why did F1 accept it? I think we know the answer.
Edvaldo
21st April 2025, 16:10
Had they installed bollards there, forcing the drivers to zig-zag, therefore, losing time compared to going through the corner, it would be enough.
It’s something so simple that, yeah, the possibility that they keep leaving it as it is just for the controversy does not seem absurd at all.
Edvaldo
21st April 2025, 16:07
The argument that it was the first lap and they should’ve let it slide is laughable.
This was going to be the only shot Piastri would get at the lead had they not penalized Max. It would be Japan all over again. So he would lose the lead he worked for by having a better start just because it was the first lap?
And of course, Max promptly gave up the corner to retake the position off-track expecting that.
Palindnilap (@palindnilap)
21st April 2025, 17:08
“But the fact Verstappen and Piastri’s incident occured on lap one was immaterial. No other car was even peripherally involved.”
Spot on. The “lap 1 turn 1” exception sounds more and more like lazy rulemaking. It would make more sense to take the number of cars involved in a restricted space.
In a more general way, it is not correct to base rules on unrelated circumstances. The silly rule taking in account who came first from the previous corner in order to make a difference between the overtaker and the overtaken was notably exploited to good effect by Verstappen against Norris at Austin 2024. There was no way he would have gotten away with that one if he had been regarded as the overtaker, which he in fact was since he was attempting a re-pass.
There are many ways in which the rulebook could be make more consistent, more compact, and more self-explanatory. But it is hard to point out to precise possible improvements since the rulebook seems to be private FIA property and not open to publication. That is not how you make a good ruleset.
Martin (@f1hornet)
21st April 2025, 18:03
While I generally agree with the article, I do worry if we would see the opposite action from drivers if some form of track furniture was added to the run off to deter people running wide. For example, if there was a gravel trap, drivers on the inside might find it worthwhile to force a driver off into the gravel. Might get a penalty, but if your rival retires then great. Even if not done in such a cynical manner, would drivers retiring due to being run off the road create a worse race? I’m worried about the unintended consequences.
WimB
21st April 2025, 19:30
“Track furniture” made me think of Fernando Alonso in his deck chair. Ha, good times!
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:33
@f1hornet Would putting some gravel or less grippy tarmac on the re-entry help with this? That might require more space to be provided for the re-routing (the idea is to force drivers to lose a place if they skip the chicane, not to retire them), but it would solve both the beneficial skipping issue and the cynical crashing issue.
Terrion (@terrion)
21st April 2025, 18:15
Jeddah T1 fix should not be that difficult.
See what they did at Oschersleben with basicaly the same layout
David BR (@david-br)
21st April 2025, 18:59
Succinctly and elegantly put.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
21st April 2025, 19:34
Do we still have lap times?
Gerrit
21st April 2025, 20:22
Stewards did Lawson in with the time taken to officially hand down the penalty, Incident occurred on lap 28, Decision communicated to the team on lap 41. Nearly 15 minutes later. Surely the FIA should have a time limit when penalties have to be imposed by? Sterling drive by Lawson in the last 9 laps to cut the deficit 5 second deficit to Hadjar to less than 1 and extend from Alonso the 1 second in front to, an ever so close to overcoming the penalty, 9 seconds. If the penalty had been advised to Lawson earlier he may have done much better in overcoming the deficit. Again no favours to Lawson by the stewards.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:28
Gerrit, there used to be a time limit. However, even then the limit was 20 minutes (provided the incident was not subject to team protest, was not in the last 5 laps of the race and was not subject to a potential black-flag penalty), and that was when the stewards had much less evidence they were expected to work through to reach a decision.
BenjaminS (@benihana)
21st April 2025, 22:21
Why are there so many folks talking about applying penalties asap, creating more rules and such? Are we not suppose to be watching a sport that is the pinnacle of what is possible with the top of the top? If so then why add more rules, why control to the drivers to such an extent? F1 has always been about the best being the best and such always pushing, always exploiting loopholes and trying to max out performance. The real issue is not Max playing with the rules and either giving or not giving the rules, no, it’s the way the sport is managed, marketed and produced. Tracks are designed and built to be the closest to the richest folks in the richest countries to provide Liberty Media the maximum amount of money. Maximum amount of profit to just a few already rich folks. Sport does not even enter consciousness or do they even care about the product in track. They prefer the childish squabbling between team principals, drivers and the FIA and themselves, creating a media drama show we all buy in bulk.we are losing purpose built tracks, famous for historical highs and lows created by folks that cared about competition, hard work and fanatical entertainment. What this article fails to even explain is how the modern world wanting fairplay above all else along with the rich folks buying more of our sports only to use to get richer without giving a damn about what they are buying we are losing the essence of F1. Too many complicated rules at venues not fit for purpose decided upon by folks without any interest in the sport have simply lead to ridiculous discussions on who did what and why and wether is tire was beside the mirror, or ahead at the apex to the point we will never agree on anything. 2025 and the F1 championship is simply slowly killing off a great sport built upon folks that were not necessarily rich, but passionate about competing, not in a vacuum of fairplay, but in a sport that everyone pushes the limits to see what will work to win.
David BR (@david-br)
21st April 2025, 22:48
Overtaking on track is a pretty basic rule.
BenjaminS (@benihana)
21st April 2025, 22:52
If it was there would not be so many discussions on that very topic, not just this article but many on many websites written around the internet. But you kinda missed my point and that saddens me.
David BR (@david-br)
22nd April 2025, 1:49
@benihana Sorry if it seemed a flippant response, but I’ll stick by my assertion that overtaking on track is a basic rule, not any kind of complicated additional rule as you appear to be implying. Piastri was first to the apex and had the racing line into the first corner. He wasn’t therefore forced off track against the rules and in going off should have returned the place. There’s nothing complicated about that. The complication is FIA deciding that it’s now down to the driver’s own discretion to return the place or not – and if not the incident may be noted, reviewed and a penalty issued, Which is what happened – only the penalty was too lenient for the advantage gained. There are no extra rules involved, just poor interpretation.
Personally, watching F1 for years, it was instantly clear what had happened and I’d prefer a time when a smart and savvy race director would just tell Red Bull within a few seconds for Verstappen to give the place back. Issue resolved.
On your over point, which doesn’t seem that connected, I agree, I dislike many of the new circuits too, there for commercial reasons, not as the best race tracks. Indeed some of them don’t even qualify as race tracks (Vegas and Monaco for example; Jeddah, barely).
BenjaminS (@benihana)
22nd April 2025, 10:13
@David BR – But here is the rub as they say in my eyes. Plenty of race series do not have all these interpretive rules. I mean plenty of corners on F1 circuits are designed with alternative racing lines meaning the apex and such change based on the driver line chosen. If we simply stopped looking at footage of who was ahead, who has to give way and just let them race, to me that would be a sport. What Max did in the eyes of many based in their understanding of the rules was wrong, fair enough. But what if there were no rules, nothing to pick over in terms of who was ahead, who was going to make the corner or not, all gone. Bring a tire that lasts, fuel them up and let them rip. Some of our favourites will lose a few times and win a few times. If Oscar is suppose to be an F1 champion in the making then let us see it, let him race for it. The other thing to me is that if the driver who is first to the Apex and has the corner and the other has to give way, then does it matter if he was going to make corner? Should it? These subtle questions make driving an F1 car more about driving to a standard than can move based on who makes the calls, much like calling the team seconds afterwards and asking to give the place back. Something drastic changed when we lost Charlie Whiting and the sensible, sometime controversial as always, officiating turned into the farce we have today. Some drivers penalised, some less, some not at all and the calls take too long. If what you say, it is a simple rule, why has been distorted to such an extent? Why are we allowing drivers on the inside who “have” the apex take the whole corner, why not allow the other driver on the outside have more room, that way both drivers have a chance at a battle, side by side? My point is that I don’t like these new fangled ways of standardizing how drivers drive, therefore making it less likely we will see outstanding moves in corners no one knew it could be done at tracks we can be proud to watch. In my mind, watching Max and Oscar whine on the radio was absurd, ridiculous and nothing to do with sport. All that was wrong was Max was beside Oscar and they both had a chance at making the corner and give us a great start to the race. Why should Max end up behind Oscar just because an inch or so of his car was behind the other drivers at the specific piece of track? It is absurd. Maybe allow them both to end up back beside each other and let the fight resume. Maybe I am wrong or in the minority, but I swear the driving today cannot compare to yesteryear. Call me nuts, but the tiny points of rules just ruined what could have been a good race. Maybe at Spa? Yeah.
Coventry Climax
22nd April 2025, 12:49
I can draw you a 90 degree corner and the trajectory of two racing cars, one taking a full inside line, and the other the outside. With a track as narrow as this one, these lines sort of come together at the apex, yet the outside line will always be the faster.
Therefore getting at the apex first and claim the corner is a complete quatsch rule, or at least where it punishes the other driver. It hampers the car that already WAS at the race line. That could just as well be the rule. It’s very apptly named -by someone here- running Xbox lines, yet apparently it’s become a holy grail or a type of ‘first amendment’ if you like. Let me tell you, an amendment can be amended; that’s why they call it that.
Backmarkers get a blue flag for being on the racing line (which I just happen to think is their every right: You wanna get past? Fine, be faster then, but I’ll try to defend.) yet on the same lap it’s allowed to run in the way of others? That doesn’t really make sense to me.
Not saying Piastri was wrong, not saying Verstappen was wrong either. It’s track design, rules design and the policing that are wrong, and in that I fully agree with @benihana
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:26
@benihana Adding rules tends to happen when the best of the best take on an activity – they see ways of doing things others would not. It’s part of the excitement of watching the best of the best, come to think of it.
BenjaminS (@benihana)
22nd April 2025, 10:20
But that is the point no? Remember DAS from Mercedes? Extra little winglets for more downforce? Why did they get outlawed? It was great work from engineers that still care about creating the best and their wings get clipped. When the purposing(sp?) was happening, why not bring back active suspension? So many great ideas, challenges and great drivers clipped and we get hours of debate over one incident.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
21st April 2025, 22:35
The best solution to track limits issues at Jeddah is to simply not race there.
ryanoceros (@ryanoceros)
22nd April 2025, 4:30
I thought max would have gotten a 10 second penalty. The 5 second penalty wasn’t enough.
Coventry Climax
22nd April 2025, 12:54
I thought Piastri should have gotten the penalty; he was in the way of Verstappen.
Not really, but to illustrate your line of thinking with zero argument.
It’s an opinion, which is allowed obviously, but hardly worthwile.
Steven Williamson
22nd April 2025, 5:26
The rules aren’t what matters, as Max has said before, “It was OK because I didn’t get a penalty”. So it all depends on if something is egregious enough the stewards are willing to take the heat for a decision.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd April 2025, 6:25
This is only Jeddah’s second biggest issue. The actual biggest issue is that its inadequate service roads delay clearances of incidents, which means that technically it’s not eligible to hold a race licence at all.
However, if F1 is going to insist on pretending it is eligible, then it definitely needs to find a way of incentivising following the route. Discounting the most advantageous time to get track advantage is bad. If Verstappen’s statement that the drivers were told skipping the chicane on lap 1 was OK is true, that’s even worse. Taken together, that would roll out the red carpet for people to do as Verstappen did, and if anything the surprise is that others didn’t follow (even accepting they wouldn’t benefit from a free pass, they’d still take less time to do lap 1 than the official route).
Coventry Climax
22nd April 2025, 13:02
First issue with this circuit – or the car-circuit combination- however, is that it is totally unsuitable to ground effect cars.
The dirty air get’s dirtier and dirtier with every car that runs through it, with the track narrow enough and the walls high enough to make sure that dirty air stays right there, right on track. That means that cars further down the field increasingly have to rely on their tyres, which are – by design for c s – not suitable to that job.
And there’s still those who wonder why it’s advantageous – and worth a risk – to be in front.
This is not Verstappen’s or Piastri’s issue; it’s an F1 issue.
Ditch these tracks or change the car and tyre design.
Jordan (@hunkulese)
22nd April 2025, 7:00
That quote from the stewards is wild. How can you have a group stewarding a race that doesn’t understand the most basic concepts of modern F1. Take out the part in the rulebook where there’s allowed to be leniency on lap one. Time and time again, the stewards have shown they’re going to get it wrong if they’re allowed to make any type of interpretation of the rules.
They should also change the rule back where they can order drivers to give places back.
Ferdi
27th April 2025, 11:50
Because their role is to defend the commercial interests of FIA/Liberty over enforcing the racing rules. Ever since Liberty stepped in it has become clear they script race outcomes to favour their commercial interests. So you need clowns to follow that objective. Subsequently you can’t have that exposed so you silence criticism directed at them. They are not even hiding it.
Ferdi
22nd April 2025, 7:44
The usual suspects on here, venting the usual stuff. The point is however
that isnt true. Every different footage with different angles to it, will show you a different picture of who is ahead. So at minimum/the very least, it is up for debate.
Had I been asked to make the call, I think I would rule against Max in this case as well, but purely since Oscar managed to keep 1mm of left front tire on the track. It is clear that that had an element of luck in it and could have easily have been 1mm over. So it is clear that both drivers stretched to the limit – which you should want to as fan and organisers – and Oscar technically came out on top since he (barely) kept it on track. Then why not judge it exactly like this.. like two guys pushing. Do not interfere. If the level of stewarding remains this unprofessional, the Liberty Entertainment Car Show (F1 will be rebranded to LECS soon I have heard) becomes even more of a joke sporting wise.
Coventry Climax
22nd April 2025, 13:14
And how relevant even is ‘ahead’ actually, when there’s also the aspect of which line you’re on, which allows for different amounts of braking and having to brake at different points of the track. Verstappen had that advantage, as far as I’m concerned.
‘The Apex’ actually is a mathematical, single point of a corner, which does not take car trajectory, car speed and moment and amount of braking into account.
That’s where the ‘braking zone’ comes in for most people. But that too, isn’t fixed at all, and at the very least should be a very slanted, curved line on track, as on the inside you will need to brake heavier and/or sooner than when on the outside.
matt90
22nd April 2025, 10:27
The premise of leniency on the first lap makes some sense in the middle of the pack where things are unusually tight. The front 2 cars are not similarly affected.
What Verstappen did shouldn’t have been treated any differently to if it had been on any other lap. All a 5-devine penalty did was allow him to potentially keep the lead after the pitstops.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
22nd April 2025, 12:20
But he didnt so it worked. The f1 fan fallacy is that with just one more rule change all will be fine. It wont, by its nature drivers and teams push against the rules whatever they are. Enjoy what it is, not what it isnt or you may as well have stopped watching in 1904
Coventry Climax
22nd April 2025, 13:20
While true to an extent, I still prefer – as that’s my passion with motorsports – to see great action on track over DRS passes and stewards unpredictably holding up their jury points deciding who gets what amount of penalty this time.
I don’t care about their explanations, those should already be in the rule book and subsequently executed without any debate, like Hawkeye and VAR.
Picasso 1.9D FTW (@picasso-19d-ftw)
22nd April 2025, 14:34
I agree that, whilst some latitude for first lap craziness is a reasonable guideline, it makes no sense here. The penalty was for the subsequent team/Max decision not to return the position to Piastri and thereby elimitate the “lasting advantage” gained through cutting the corner and re-entering the track miles ahead. That decision wasn’t subject to first lap craziness, and should not be seen as somehow worthy of a lesser penalty: it was a deliberate choice.
I’m with the school of thought that gaining places in this way (or, for instance, by punting another driver out) is best dealt with by requiring the immediate return of the place (read: within one lap). I’m fairly happy that teams are expected to make the call themselves, and second-guess the stewards – as long as that doesn’t mean they get a longer definition of what “immediate” is. But if the place is not then returned I’d like the penalty to be a drive-through to be served at the first time the driver passes the pit lane entry (under racing conditions) once the penalty is announced. Better still would if the offending driver was classified no higher than one place behind the person they passed illegally (or punted out of the race).
Picasso 1.9D FTW (@picasso-19d-ftw)
22nd April 2025, 14:37
* But if the place is not then returned and the stewards or director subsequently determine that it should have been…