Another race, another series of stewards’ decisions that divide opinion.
Over the past two grands prix, the title battle between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris has erupted in two thrilling on-track battles, only for the outcome of both to be decided by the stewards.
At the U.S. Grand Prix in Austin, a five-second penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage dropped Norris off the podium and behind Verstappen, but in Mexico the tables were turned, with the Red Bull driver on the receiving end of two decisions.
In total, Verstappen was given 20 seconds’ worth of penalties for two separate incidents on the same lap, which dropped him from third place ahead of Norris to 15th after serving the penalties at his pit stop. He went on to recover to sixth place at the chequered flag, conceding 10 points in the championship to Norris, who finished second.
All three of the incidents between the title rivals in the past two races have raised questions about what is and what isn’t allowed when racing wheel to wheel in Formula 1. And with so much at stake, there’s a concern that loopholes in the rules are wide open for exploitation that could, ultimately, decide the title.
Concerns after Norris’ penalty in Austin have been acknowledged by the FIA, but are not due to be addressed until the Qatar Grand Prix in two races’ time and may not come into force until the start of next season. The challenge facing the stewards until then will likely be a thankless one: making tough calls based on questionable guidelines that could lead to hugely controversial decisions.
Below is a look at the main decisions made by the stewards in Mexico, the reasons they gave for them and why the controversy is nearly inescapable.
Verstappen lost the lead of the race to Carlos Sainz on the previous lap and now had Norris in his mirrors on the exit of Turn 3. With the McLaren closing in, Verstappen positioned his car in the middle of the track on the approach to the braking zone for Turn 4, meaning Norris decided to go to the outside knowing Verstappen could block the inside.
Norris left his braking later than Verstappen, meaning he was ahead of the Red Bull under braking. As they both approached the apex of the corner, Norris left enough room to the inside of Turn 4 for Verstappen to make the corner, but the excess speed of both cars saw them run deep as they passed the apex, leaving them a long way from the natural racing line in the middle of the circuit to approach the Turn 5 right-hander.
Norris continued to apply steering lock to the left as his right-hand tyres crossed the line delineating the edge of the track but then had to steer to the right to avoid a collision with Verstappen, who had drifted right to the edge of the circuit. In doing so, Norris cut across the grass on the inside of Turn 5, rejoining the track in the lead ahead of Sainz.
Norris immediately gave the position back to Sainz before Turn 6 and the slotted himself into the pack ahead of Verstappen.
Stewards’ decision: Ten-second time penalty for Verstappen for “forcing another driver off the track.” Verstappen also received two penalty points on his Super Licence, taking his total to six for the twelve-month period.
Stewards’ reason: “Norris was attempting to overtake on the outside of Verstappen at Turn 4. Norris was ahead of Verstappen at the entry, apex and towards the exit of the turn when he started being forced off the track.
“The stewards believe that the maneuver was done in a safe and controlled manner and that Norris would have been able to make the maneuver on the track had he not been forced off the track by Verstappen. Norris cut the corner but immediately gave the position he gained as a result back to Sainz. The penalty is the standard penalty in such cases.”
The current driving guidelines upon which stewards make decisions state that a driver attempting to overtake on the outside needs to be given room exiting the corner by the car on the inside if the front axle of the overtaking car is ahead of the defending car at the apex.
Onboard footage from Norris’ car shows he had his front axle ahead of Verstappen at the apex and therefore Verstappen should have afforded him racing room on the exit of the corner. Clearly the latter didn’t happen as Verstappen’s presence meant Norris was forced to turn to the right before leaving the track, which appears to be at the crux of the stewards’ reasoning.
However, the guidelines also state that in order for a move to stand, the car overtaking on the outside must be capable of making the corner while remaining within track limits.
After the race, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner leapt on this detail in defence of Verstappen by claiming Norris would not have made the corner due to the speed he carried into Turn 4. Comparing Norris’ GPS speed traces from the lap on which he attempted the overtake and his fastest lap of the race (58 laps later), Horner claimed the McLaren driver had no chance of making the corner.
“What you can see is that on the lap with the incident with Max, [Norris] is 15 kilometres an hour faster, and later on the brakes than his fastest lap of the grand prix,” Horner said while tracing the speed difference with his finger. “He wouldn’t have made the corner. He would have run off track. You can see from his onboard steering. And of course at this point of the race [lap 10] he’s got probably 80 kilos more fuel than at the point that he’s done his fastest lap [lap 68].
“It used to be a reward of the bravest to go around the outside, I think we’re in danger of flipping the overtaking laws upside down, where drivers will just try to get their nose ahead at the apex and then claim that they have to be given room on the exit. And you can see quite clearly he’s effectively come off the brakes, gone in super, super late to try and win that argument as far as the way these regulations are written, and then at that point you’re penalised.”
Horner may have a point to argue, but the comparison between the two approaches to Turn 4 on completely different laps is hardly definitive. For starters, the racing line for a fast lap is much tighter than one where the driver is attempting to overtake around the outside (the helicopter view of the incident shows how much further wide Verstappen and Norris go compared to Sainz, who is on a normal line, as a result of fighting for the corner).
A racing line, like Sainz’s, does not come close to using all the track on the exit, but instead sees the driver position the car to the left of the middle of the track to open up the line for the right-hander at Turn 5. That means more speed has to be sacrificed on entry to achieve the racing line for a fast lap, while an overtaking move around the outside is always going to take a driver much deeper into a corner.
Whether the 15 km/h difference on corner entry — as noted by Horner — would have sent Norris beyond the white line regardless of Verstappen’s presence on the inside is arguable, but it’s also very hard to prove definitively.
What is clear is that when Norris was forced to steer away from the corner to avoid Verstappen, he still had half a car within track limits and had been turning on an increasingly tight radius to stay within the lines. Whether he would have successfully kept his car on the track without Verstappen’s presence is also hard to prove definitively, but the onboard video isn’t as clear cut as Horner suggests.
That means the stewards were left with a judgement call over whether Norris could have clung on to stay within track limits. The stewards have access to all available camera angles and data from the cars, meaning they are best placed to make a decision, and they ultimately decided in Norris’ favour.
With that taken into account — and based on the guidelines that require Verstappen to leave space on the exit — the stewards were justified in their decision. Whether the rules should be revisited to reduce the right to space for drivers overtaking on the outside is another matter however, and one Horner believes should be addressed.
“On every karting circuit around the world, if you’ve got the inside line, you control the corner,” Horner added. “It’s one of the principles and the physics of racing.
“So they just need to get back to basics that if you’re on the outside you don’t have priority, otherwise we will end up with a mess over these last five races. So I think it’s really important that the driver stewards, together with the drivers, agree something that is sensible rather than what we’re getting.”
As the cars approached Turn 7 on the same lap, it initially seemed like Norris had left space on the inside for the Red Bull to repass, but it quickly became apparent Verstappen had in fact forced his car into that space.
On the approach to the corner, Verstappen launched his Red Bull to the inside of Norris with no hope of making the corner on the exit. As the car on the outside, Norris had little choice but to join Verstappen in the run-off and narrowly avoided a high-speed collision in the process.
Charles Leclerc took advantage of the situation to pass both cars, while Verstappen emerged from the incident ahead of Norris, effectively taking third place while off the track.
Stewards’ decision: Ten-second penalty for Verstappen for “leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage.” No penalty points.
Stewards’ reason: “Following the incident in Turn 4, Verstappen attempted to pass Norris on the inside at Turn 8. Verstappen was ahead at the apex of Turn 8 and would have been entitled to racing room.
“However, he was not able to complete the maneuver on the track, left the track and kept the lasting advantage gaining the position, incidentally forcing Norris off the track. The penalty is the standard penalty for leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage.”
Even Horner didn’t try to defend this one. When Verstappen was asked to explain what he was attempting with the move, he first spoke about the Turn 4 incident before saying “it is what it is” about Turn 7, which appears to be as close to an admission of guilt as he was willing to give.
There was no doubt that Verstappen gained an advantage by leaving the track. His move to the inside of a corner where clean overtaking is nearly impossible, resulted in both cars going off track and Verstappen taking the place. That much is indisputable.
Arguably a harsher penalty was due, though. The rules for overtaking on the inside require attempts to be done in a “safe and controlled manner,” while ensuring “the car remains within the track limits.”
Although Verstappen didn’t cause a collision with the lunge, it was only because Norris took evasive action right at the last moment. The stewards would have been within their rights to also investigate whether Verstappen forced Norris off the track at Turn 7, which could have resulted in a further 10-second penalty.
What’s more, by only penalising Verstappen for leaving the track and gaining an advantage, had Verstappen given the position back to Norris later in the lap, the move would have gone completely unpunished. It should also be noted that no penalty points are applied for leaving the track and gaining an advantage, meaning Verstappen’s Turn 4 move, which appeared more debatable, carried a harsher punishment than his Turn 7 move.
The nature of motor racing means no two incidents can be identical. As close as two separate examples of cars going wheel to wheel can seem, there are multiple variances that can lead to vastly different outcomes.
For the sake of consistency, though, it’s vital that stewards cross reference incidents to some extent and issue penalties in line with past precedent. After Sunday’s race, there were suggestions that two other overtaking moves at Turn 4 were not treated as harshly as Verstappen’s defence against Norris, and both included Verstappen’s Red Bull teammate Sergio Pérez.
Pérez attempted to overtake Liam Lawson on the inside of the corner but was squeezed over the inside kerb by the RB driver. Now running wheel to wheel, the two cars went deep into Turn 4, with Lawson briefly going all four wheels over the white line before returning to the track ahead of Turn 5, resulting in contact between the two cars. Pérez then ran off the track on the exit of Turn 5, losing the position to Lawson into Turn 6.
Stewards decision: No further action after investigating Pérez for “allegedly forcing another driver off the track” and “allegedly leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage.”
Stewards’ reason: “Pérez was attempting to pass Lawson on the inside of Turn 4. Pérez had a significant portion of the car to the inside of Lawson at the apex of Turn 4, however, to do so he was significantly on the kerb, and in the view of the stewards the maneuver was late.
“As a result his exit was not anywhere near the racing line, ran wide and Lawson had to go off track to avoid a collision. Pérez gave room to Lawson to stay on track at Turn 5, but then Pérez went off track at the exit of Turn 5. Pérez then conceded to Lawson and did not keep any advantage. In the view of the stewards, this was a racing incident and take no further action.”
The fact Pérez was investigated for two reasons — forcing a driver off the track and gaining an advantage — raises the question of why the same wasn’t the case for Verstappen’s move on Norris at Turn 7. However, suggesting Pérez should have been penalised for running Lawson wide in this incident because Verstappen received a penalty for his Turn 4 incident with Norris does not hold water.
While Pérez was also on the inside of the corner, he was the one initiating the overtaking move whereas in Verstappen’s case, he was one defending. The right to space on corner exit only exists for an overtaking car and is reliant on it being ahead at the apex, not when the car on the outside is the defending car (as was the case with Lawson) and when the overtaking car on the inside (in this case Pérez) was alongside at the apex.
Pérez then left the track on the exit of Turn 5, but as the stewards pointed out, did not gain a lasting advantage.
This incident had clearer similarities with the Turn 4 incident between Norris and Verstappen, but there were still key differences.
Lance Stroll was attempting to pass Pérez and went to complete the move on the outside, with Pérez holding his defensive line on the inside. As they reached the apex, Stroll wasn’t as far alongside Pérez as Norris was on Verstappen, and then on the exit washed wide and off the track as Pérez used the full width of the circuit. Stroll cut the inside of Turn 5 but emerged just behind Pérez on the short run down to Turn 6.
Stewards’ decision: No further action after investigating Pérez for “allegedly forcing another driver off the track.”
Stewards’ reason: “Stroll was attempting to overtake Pérez on the outside of Turn 4. However, Stroll was never fully alongside, and was not ‘entitled’ to racing room at the exit and Pérez’s line was normal for that turn. The stewards considered that Pérez never left the track during the maneuver, and did not unfairly force Stroll off the track. Therefore, the stewards take no further action.”
Unlike Norris on Verstappen, Stroll was not ahead of Pérez at the apex and therefore had no right to space at the exit of the corner under the current driving guidelines. It’s a fairly simple explanation, but raises further questions over the driving guidelines and the need for changes.
In theory, it creates the danger of a “race to the apex” whereby the defending driver driver might come off the brakes and risk taking both drivers into the run-off, simply to claim the apex first and avoid the risk of a penalty.
Once the two cars are off the track, then the defending driver will always be entitled to retain the position as the attacking driver would be considered to have gained a lasting advantage by leaving the track. It was exactly that point that formed the crux of debate after the incident between Norris and Verstappen in Austin and will likely be reconsidered ahead of the Qatar Grand Prix.