Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has admitted the team made a tactical decision not to give up the lead of the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix despite Max Verstappen facing the threat of a penalty.
Verstappen narrowly lost his lead from pole position to Oscar Piastri on the run to the first corner. The Red Bull driver then cut across the run-off area at the first corner to retake the lead.The stewards immediately placed the incident under investigation. Horner acknowledged they could have avoided a penalty for Verstappen by relinquishing the lead to Piastri but chose not to as they wanted to avoid running in dirty air and damaging their tyres.
“If we had given the position back… we chose not to at the time, because it would have put us under pressure from the cars behind, plus the benefit of clean air is never to be underestimated,” Horner told the BBC.
Piastri went on to win the race. Horner said allowing the McLaren driver into the lead to avoid a penalty would not have given Verstappen a better chance to win.
“No, I think overtaking at that circuit, as you saw, is so hard,” he said. “And when you run in the dirty air, to get close, particularly in that awesomely quick first sector. There would have been no chance.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Horner gave a different account to the stewards for why they chose to reduce Verstappen’s penalty from the usual 10 seconds to five. He said this was because the decision was “a very marginal call.”
However in their decision the stewards stated “it was [Piastri’s] corner and he was entitled to be given room,” that Verstappen “left the track and gained a lasting advantage that was not given back” and “stayed in front of [Piastri] and sought to build on the advantage.” They only gave one mitigating factor for reducing the severity of Verstappen’s penalty, which was that “this was [a] lap one and turn one incident.”
Verstappen’s performance in Jeddah is an encouraging sign for Red Bull, said Horner. “On that first stint we were able to pull away,” he said. “On the second stint we were 4.8 seconds behind when we left the pit lane and we finished the race 2.6 seconds behind Oscar.
“So we had the pace in that race to win it outright, which has really been the first time, I think, this year that we’ve had the upper hand in pace on race day to the McLarens.”
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2025 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix
- Red Bull made tactical decision not to avoid a penalty in Jeddah, Horner confirms
- Norris’s starts were far poorer than Verstappen’s but the balance is shifting
- McLaren’s rivals “just one upgrade away from being the lead car” – Brown
- Russell told race control what he thought of Verstappen’s first lap corner cut
- Doohan’s final corner pass on Bortoleto was F1’s closest fight for last place in seven years
Sgt Chevski
1st May 2025, 10:22
This definitely shows a flaw in the penalty system, why do they allow teams to gamble with whether a 5 second penalty is actually worth it because in the end they get disadvantaged less than giving the position back? After the FIA let teams decide whether to give the place back or not, I wish they’d take this back and order that themselves!
Jinto
1st May 2025, 10:59
That’s a big point there, because the leader who dosen’t give up postion still have track position, therefore he will have the advantage to create a gap. Plus, 5 sec penalty is ridiculous
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
2nd May 2025, 0:35
Pretty much. I can guarantee you Max was going to skip (planned before the race) the corner if he wasn’t in the lead.
The only way to counter this is to institute drive-thrus for people who intentionally skip corners. And don’t give the place back immediately.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
1st May 2025, 11:46
Yeah clean air should’ve been taken into account and applied a 10s penalty because it was a battle for first place. Don’t know how you’d police it, but exploitation of penalties should result in further penalties.
baasbas
1st May 2025, 11:59
@justrhysism
While what you say makes sense, I think it’s the wrong argument to pick. What we don’t need is more discussion on the correct size of penalties taking even more into account, when there already is a problem with stewarding consistency anyway. So we need less intervention. I’d say: the penalty for going off should be implied (and therefore applied?) by the track itself. If there was grass there, you can bet your savings on Verstappen not trying to hang on the outside. Or gravel. Or, since it’s a ‘street’track a (tire)wall/barrier.
Did you tap the barrier but the car is okay? Then you got lucky.
Did it throw a shaft into the gearbox? Well, s#cks to be you.
Did you go off on a wet patch in Australia but you kept it rolling and you only lost 1 place?
Did you go off on a wet patch in Australia but it ruined your race by being stuck?
We need less stewarding imho
Richard
1st May 2025, 18:36
Agreed if it was a street circuit with a wall there Max doesn’t make that move, Ocon would still make that move but Max would be a bit smarter.
Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
1st May 2025, 13:48
At the moment the teams can weigh up giving it back versus holding and taking 5 seconds, and choose what is best for them.
Previously, when the FIA would order them to give the place back, they could chance their arm and wait until the FIA said something.
Could the answer lie in doing both? If the FIA has to ask you to give the place back, you have to give the place back, and take a 5 second penalty?
This would put a lot more onus on teams to not hang it out for an unfair advantage when they know they are in the wrong.
AlanD
2nd May 2025, 1:09
Pat: “Could the answer lie in doing both? If the FIA has to ask you to give the place back, you have to give the place back, and take a 5 second penalty?”
I agree it needs something along those lines, but I don’t like time penalties applied after the race, and no matter what time penalty you choose, it never really changes the fact that someone has passed off track and gained the advantage of clean air. I’d rather see drive-thru penalties which must be served on the first possible opportunity, even if it is on the last lap.
SteveP
1st May 2025, 18:09
Exactly that.
A time penalty does not scale with the duration of the advantage gained.
At the beginning of the race 5 seconds would put you amongst the back markers – say 10 places or more.
Wait half the race to serve the 5 seconds at a pit stop, after pushing in clean air, and you exit the pits just behind the guy you stole the place from.
Make it a position loss equivalent – e.g. 10 places – unless the driver gives back the place immediately (allow the team a part lap to inform the driver maybe) and the teams would lose interest in strategising penalties very quickly.
While it is possible to game the system, without penalty, the teams will do it.
Using the most recent example (it’s the story here) – would RBR have given up the place within a few corners or said “well we don’t mind finishing 10th and almost out of the points” and left Max leading the race?
Ferdi
2nd May 2025, 9:13
Theoretical discussion imho as in the example mentioned it shouldn’t have been a penalty in the first place. A pity the stewards are underqualified to judge these situations properly.
Stoo
2nd May 2025, 16:23
+1 dead right, allowing him to have clean air (when he cheated) just rubs salt into the wound.
Peat Smoke
1st May 2025, 10:22
Smart. Cynical. Rational. Overall good decision.
cookie71 (@paulcook)
1st May 2025, 10:42
I’ve mentioned before, but the moto gp long lap penalty could be an answer to this. Applies the penalty very quickly and avoids this sort of situation. Good solution also for track limits violations.
PeteB (@peteb)
1st May 2025, 11:21
You don’t really need a long lap penalty because drive-through penalties already exist. From the point the FIA confirm a pass is illegal, teams/drivers should have the option to give the place back or serve a drive-through penalty within a set number of laps. If they fail to do that, it’s an immediate black flag.
Craig
1st May 2025, 11:36
I’d say a building penalty would work, with initial instruction of “give up X number of position(s)” within 3 laps, followed by drive through for ignoring giving position(s) back within the next 3 laps and finally black flag (if the race ends before these can be carried out then it’s a time penalty or disqualification depending on the severity or team trying to game system)
Jack
1st May 2025, 14:15
Completely agree, instead of the traditional 5, 10 second penalties use something much more punishing.
A drive through penalty would be a massive deterrent to drivers.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
2nd May 2025, 0:36
this.
Jojo
1st May 2025, 11:38
Long lap penalties work in Moto GP, but would be too awkward for F1 cars due to their size. Also the visibility is pretty good on a bike, so they can rejoin safely whereas in F1 it would likely result in unsafe rejoins. In MotoGP they also can get the instruction to drop one place.
In F1, they should just go back to the stewards / race director instructing to give the place back and then more severe penalty if it isn’t adhered to.
Philip Roden
1st May 2025, 10:44
So we can expect regular illegal overtakes in future then?
Sham (@sham)
1st May 2025, 10:45
Give the place up, or get a drive through is the correct response from the FIA.to this sort of nonsense.
ben
1st May 2025, 15:50
+1 with the drive through needing to be served the next possible lap. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Teams and drivers shouldn’t be in a position to dictate their own punishments.
Lando did similar the week before with his false start. Gaining 2 positions and only getting a 5 second penalty. The advantage of those positions into turn 1 was easily worth the 5 seconds.
The FIA really are the worst organisation in history. So weak and always focused on non-issues.
AlanD
2nd May 2025, 0:34
Once again, Lando didn’t gain any places from his false start. Why do you try to equate it to Max’s cynical decision to keep the advantage he gained from a foul move?
Yes (@come-on-kubica)
1st May 2025, 10:50
Can’t blame red bull or horner.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
2nd May 2025, 0:39
Of course, the stewards, for the sake of the show, are not going to penalize Red Bull, because it adds to the championship if Max is featuring and finishing on the podium.
The Stewards don’t have anything to do with safety or fairness, only the integrity of the stake holder’s positions. It’s alot like the for profit prison system in the US, where people pretend slavery was done away with when New York won the civil war. Boggles the mind.
rprp
1st May 2025, 10:59
“It was a marginal call”. So if somebody exceeds track limits by a marginal amount, that only counts as half a violation?
I’m amazed Horner was actually open enough to suggest that they didn’t give the place back for tactical reasons. That just opens up the can of worms further.
And the “lap one, turn one incident” excuse doesn’t work either, and this needs to stop being an automatic mitigation of penalties for poor/unfair driving. If there was a wall or gravel on the outside, there’s no way Max wouldn’t have just tucked in behind in 2nd place. This wasn’t avoiding first corner accident, it was a tactical foul.
Craig
1st May 2025, 11:38
Thing is it wasn’t marginal, it was clear as day and Horner knows it, even as he tried to bring “proof” to the contrary that only showed how clear it was. It’s his standard working procedure; if caught clearly cheating just lie about it over and over.
Coventry Climax
1st May 2025, 11:16
The root cause here, is the combination of the current car design philosophy and the tracks that they have to race on.
Regarding the severity of penalties you can play Yes/No games until the end of times, but they will not solve the problem.
Solve the actual problem is good for the sport, bickering over penalties isn’t, that just helps with the clicks. Granted, most people nowadays seem to think that’s the same thing.
Matthew Archer
1st May 2025, 11:19
So the team that cheats just cheated again?
Standard.
baasbas
1st May 2025, 11:44
@Matthew Archer
That reads like confirmation bias.
I think a better suited description would be:
The rule makers turned it into a game. RBR played the game.
They didn’t cheat. They made the foul and chose to take the penalty.
It’s ridiculous, yes. But it’s the game’s fault that this was the best outcome for them.
I like what Alonso did in Russia ’21.
sam
1st May 2025, 17:49
They lost the race because of their silly move. I say keep it up Red bull.
baasbas
2nd May 2025, 9:27
@sam
No they lost the race because they fluffed the start.
Their silly move helped them to maximize the result after said fluffing
Ascoplan
2nd May 2025, 14:09
By losing you mean had Max not got the 5 second he would’ve ended up ahead of Piastri but the thing is had Max been behind Piastri in the 1st stint, they would never have been in contention…So they did not lose 1st, they iron locked second.
PeteB (@peteb)
1st May 2025, 11:35
Red Bull are openly saying the penalties are too weak… I can’t blame them for exploiting loopholes in the rules because that’s what everyone in F1 does but you’d hope it’s a loophole the FIA would close. A penalty has to be something that is significantly worse outcome than if you’d followed the rules.
BasCB (@bascb)
1st May 2025, 20:29
Exactly, this is the best proof the stewards made the wrong decision when they gave Verstappen a 5 second penalty instead of the now standard 10 seconds.
Kata
1st May 2025, 23:14
The stewards did not give a “standard” 10-second penalty because it is “standard” to consider incidents in the first corner as a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, they gave a 5-second time penalty.
An Sionnach
1st May 2025, 11:36
It shouldn’t be preferable to take the penalty. At the same time, there will be marginal calls where the stewards simply have to work it out, and those will be cases where a resetting penalty without a heavy penalising component are appropriate. That is now clearly not the case here and a 10s penalty would have been more appropriate. I liked the old 10 second stop-go penalties and black flags. Real penalties. I’m playing the same record here, but for sufficiently dangerous moves regardless of intent, the black flag should be waved. That isn’t the case here. I can think of two black flaggable offences from 2024. There may be more.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
1st May 2025, 11:43
We dont need rule changes every time something happens. If it becomes endemic then you change it as they have with the rule whereby Max’s being ahead at the apex but zero chance of making the corner allowed him to maintain his position. He abused it too often and too long so they tweaked the rule. See also grass being singed ONCE in history and talk of rule amendments.
Im a little surprised that in a sport that’s DNA is pushing the boundaries there is so much pearl clutching going on.
An Sionnach
1st May 2025, 12:39
It used to be that he who was ahead was entitled to the racing line and is entitled to hold it or close the door should he be turning into a corner. This should have discouraged dives down the inside or moves that would not be clean unless the driver in front yielded. Self-preservation might have made this kind-of work, but then Senna came along. The imperfection with this rule is that the leader would be out of the race too if he does turn in (Prost, 1989, Suzuka) and it becomes “move or we crash”.
I particularly dislike dives down the inside, slower line and the idea that the leader should afford space for such a move. It’s also difficult to make the marginal calls or calculate what is going to happen when both cars are moving at high speed in those seconds when it is happening. It ends up being a matter of going for it and having to rely on the replays (and stewards) to decide what has happened. In this case, Max moved out to take the racing line and found Oscar in the space, which I don’t think he was expecting. Max did not turn in so he must have known he was sufficiently alongside. It wasn’t really a dive down the inside as Oscar had been there for a while. Max should have yielded and attempted to carry more speed so he could use it on exit to attempt a pass. That would use Oscar’s disadvantageous position on the inside against him as well as possible seeing as the first corner was already lost.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
1st May 2025, 13:46
Its Max’s flaw, he cannot accept being overtaken or not being allowed to overtake, whatever the cost. As his powers wane it will become all too obvious. Think Hill’s 1995 very ill advised dive bombs ( not that they are comparable as drivers) but poor racecraft is shown up when you are no longer the quickest
An Sionnach
1st May 2025, 15:08
We’ll see. Some of those Hill moves were triumphs of optimism over reality!
M2X
1st May 2025, 16:54
It’s not a flaw, it is an understanding of the limits of F1 cars and tyres.
Being in dirty air severely limits the performance of the car.
Attempting to make an overtake severely wears the tyres.
It is, and has been for 4 decades, always perferable to have track position, and therefore one must protect that at all cost.
This is a world class competition with hunderds of millions on the line, not your friends amateur rent-a-kart once every weekend just for fun competition.
Thinking that a true competitor isn’t going to do everything within the rules to win, is a logical falacy.
An Sionnach
1st May 2025, 17:32
Max clearly understands the rules. He won’t talk if there’s a chance he could be penalised for it. He also won’t hold on to track position like this if a 10 second stop-go penalty is coming his way.
Seeing as this could have been a marginal decision, the stewards should be able to direct that the position must be given back. Failure to comply means a 10 second stop-go penalty to be served within N laps. Failure to comply with this will mean a black flag.
Jere (@jerejj)
1st May 2025, 12:11
All the more reason for race control to start ordering immediate position swaps instead of leaving the matter up to teams.
Simply zero justification or valid argument even exists against this frequently suggested (not only by me) action, which would instantly & permanently solve everything without any ambiguity.
Giving any chance for the stewards to take action is equally foolish despite the clean-air factor, which is a pretty dumb excuse anyway even though following has been getting harder season by season within stable aero rules.
oweng (@oweng)
1st May 2025, 13:41
The only surprising thing about this is that he’s admitted it. I thought it was obvious what had happened and was probably discussed pre-race – if you lose the first corner at the start, cut the corner, keep the lead and we’ll take the penalty as it’s preferable to running in dirty air.
This should, but almost certainly won’t, be a wake up call to the rule makers. It should not be a strategic decision whether its better to break the rules and take the penalty. It should be totally without question that the penalty is not the better strategy.
If someone does this, the penalty should be that they have to drop back behind the car or cars they gained the advantage over. Simple. Time penalties for these infractions leave it open to it being worth the risk.
Svelt_chubby_dingo
1st May 2025, 15:20
+1
slowmo (@slowmo)
1st May 2025, 14:08
If the teams choose to gamble it should be at minimum a 10s penalty, not the most lenient penalty possible for chancing it. My preference would be if teams gamble on a time penalty and don’t swap back then it should be upgraded to a drive through if they’re judged at fault. It would stop this cheating at the next race.
Jere (@jerejj)
1st May 2025, 16:21
Even though I’ve been advocating for immediate position swaps by race control order, I’d be equally okay with handing a drive-through penalty if teams deliberately game the system for clean-air running.
PeteB (@peteb)
1st May 2025, 20:06
Both make sense – order an immediate position swap and if that hasn’t been done by the end of the following lap, it gets upgraded to a drive-through. There will be situations where a driver genuinely believes they were ahead at the apex and were pushed off so I don’t think instantly punishing them with a drive-through is fair without first giving them the opportunity to hand the place back.
Edvaldo
1st May 2025, 17:13
For a moment it really looked like it would work, and that would be unfair as hell.
Bring back the drive-through penalties.
dutchtreat (@dutchtreat)
1st May 2025, 17:14
not give the place back, penalty points
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
1st May 2025, 21:36
That’s not a deterrent, as the fia will bend over backwards to avoid giving a race ban due to penalty points, they only gave one to magnussen in an extreme situation.
Leo B
1st May 2025, 17:39
Obviously the minimum penalty for anything should be 10 secs from here on.
A penalty that his a joke is a disgrace to the sport and its integrity. Lesser misdemeanours should be met with an appropriate financial penalty.
Edvaldo
1st May 2025, 17:48
As it has been said since, it only did not work because Piastri could keep up with him.
If it were Russell or Leclerc there, it would’ve been a free pass to win.
With the fastest cars, these 5 sec penalties don’t work, we need the return of the drive-through penalties. Teams should not be allowed to take a penalty “strategically” and these 5 sec ones are small enough to enable that.
Seppo (@helava)
2nd May 2025, 0:37
20+ year game designer here. The simple view of this, which is really the “complete” view is – if the penalty for doing something isn’t obviously worse than doing something, it’s not a penalty. It’s a cost.
I 100% agree with a comment above that the track design should *be* the penalty, when it can. That going off track should be significantly slower/worse than staying on it. But for safety reasons that’s not always possible.
In those cases, the penalty has to be *significantly* worse than the event. And in this case, 5 seconds wasn’t even kind of close to the benefit that Verstappen gained by staying in 1st place for the 1st stint. Saying “1st lap, therefore lenient” only actually makes sense for ever position *except* first, where the benefit is “track position”, and not “track position + clean air.”
For me, if you want drivers to make the call to stay on the track at all costs, think of it like this: If there was a wall there, their race would be over. Therefore, a penalty that is large enough to have a significant impact on their race result is *significantly better* than a wall, even if that penalty is not “optimal”.
In order to change a “player’s” behavior, you can’t incrementally increase penalties. If you want to *change their behavior*, you make the penalties 2-5x the size. If cutting a corner was a *thirty* second penalty, and on-track would drop you from 1st to 18th, that’s a *penalty*, and drivers would avoid it like the plague. When they cut the corner because they couldn’t avoid it, and there was some extenuating circumstance, then you give the stewards discretion, but they’re dialing it *down* from something that would otherwise utterly ruin your race.
The current five-second penalty, even a 10-second one in the case of “clean air” for 30 laps being at stake – those things are gameable, and when you have a team that’s playing to win (as most of these teams are), they will exploit them to the maximum. So you change the penalties to make them un-game-able. If you cut the corner, 30 seconds. It’s better than a wall.
Once drivers are staying on track, and not gaming the penalties, you can work to dial them down to something more optimal. But that’s how you “tune” a penalty. You don’t squabble about a second or two. You crank them *way* up, and then dial them back.
XM (@xmf1)
2nd May 2025, 4:16
As a gamer of 20+ years, I hate it when Devs do this but yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this lol
baasbas
2nd May 2025, 9:40
@helava
it’s a cost
Good call out.
But I still see a problem with not changing the track. Even if you bump penalties to get that cost vs reward equation out the window, in the end there will still be a fake painted chicane on a huge slab of tarmac. Which means you still need enforcement to police the lines and in case of 2 cars fighting, a judge to rule who was at fault. Who will get that penalty? With higher stakes it is even more important to get it right. Let’s look at these other camera angles too. Gee, we really need the steering wheel inputs to see if driver x opened their steering before or after the apex. And get the throttle maps here too… It’s not like the video judge with football where play is suspended for a minute or something. They’re still driving and new stuff is happening to judge on..
In short, the higher stakes of better penalties will not make this stewarding go away. And I feel better track design will
AlanD
2nd May 2025, 1:01
Looking at the sporting regs, I cannot see anything in there by which the stewards can order someone to give the place back. It does say that, at the discretion of the race director, they may decide not to penalise a driver if he gives up any advantage gained, but if the driver doesn’t give the place back, the only option left to them is to give a time penalty. If I’m reading that correctly then clearly it needs a penalty so severe that giving the place back immediately is a no-brainer. Perhaps instead of a time penalty, it should be a place drop, i.e. if you pass two cars off track and don’t attempt to rectify the situation by the time the stewards look it, you drop two places in the final results.
DavidS (@davids)
2nd May 2025, 1:17
Deliberately ignoring the rules for competitive advantage?
That’s called cheating.
How is that not worthy of disqualification?
Brendan
2nd May 2025, 4:55
I think a 5 second penalty for an infringement at the start of a race is generally fine. However where it is obvious a driver/team are deliberately gamed the system, then the penalty should be 10 seconds. The stewards could see from the onboards that Max made no genuine effort to make the corner, and no intention of tucking in behind the car which did make the corner first. No wonder Max didn’t want to speak about it after the race, because despite their best efforts, they couldn’t quite pull out that five second gap. He was frustrated as much as angry that it didn’t quire work out.
Simon Hall
2nd May 2025, 21:49
Time penalties like this should increase relative the number of laps that it takes to serve them. 1 second per lap would be a good benchmark, so if the penalty was given on lap 2 and served on lap 12 the total time penalty would be the original 5 seconds + 10 seconds for additional laps covered.