US GP Austin

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Norris may have gone in hot, but how do we, sitting behind keyboards, know that he couldn't have actually made the corner. Or, maybe he guessed, correctly as it turned out, that Verstappen would also overcook it and not be able to make the corner, i.e. exceed track limits on the exit.

He may have also known the driving standards protocol that should have meant that he didn't gain an unfair advantage because Verstappen would, like him, exceed the track limits. Which is what the McLaren pitwall team believed.

But then the Stewards decided to interpret the protocol in a way that it wasn't written to mean.

Mostly supposition on our part of course, agree completely - and heat of the moment in competition for a place could lead with or both drivers to do pretty much anything.

One point though - the McLaren pit wall's big mistake, based on what radio we heard, was believing that Lando had been in front at the apex, which he wasn't. I suspect if they'd got that right, then they may have recommended another course of action (ie. give back the place) to their driver.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i dont want to keep on repeating myself and sorry for making you repeat yourself, but IMO Lando went into that corner hot and to me that doesn't entitle him to space or that corner....i suppose this view point is making all other considerations/larger concern points moot to me on this?

so for sure im getting the sense that i am very much in the wrong here...might be time to add a poll to let everyone vote on just how far off the plot i am on this one?

Haha. I think you are wrong. That is my vote.

Seriously from reading your posts, I feel there is a theme that somehow the defending driver is expected to give up something to the overtaking driver and that seems to be unfair. I don't think anyone is saying the defending driver should "aid" in allowing a pass. Or if that at some specific point at the apex it's a "done deal" and the defending driver has to surrender. I don't think that is the focus of the discussion.

I think what most are saying is that there are specific responsibilities for BOTH parties. And that Max is exploiting an issue in which he has reduced his responsibility in a specific way that most feel previously existed. And that the current Steward guidelines are at the root of the problem. That a specific scenario exists that creates what seems contrary to what most consider fair racing in a corner.

More specifically to the passing attempt in question. We might say Lando was coming in too hot, or maybe he wasn't. Short of looking at data, we may not know. But one thing we do know for sure, he couldn't turn left as Max was always there... all the way until after they had left the circuit. And that type of defense just doesn't seem right to most observers.

Speaking of looking at the data... I read an article this morning that I think was on PlanetF1.com (can't find it now) that did show throttle and braking data (which is only part of the picture). But they had an argument that flipped the story around. That saying Lando was the defending driver as he was already ahead as they entered the corner. This put Max as an overtaking driver trying to pass on the inside. I can't remember the conclusion (I don't think it was kind to Max), but it was an interesting perspective.

(Edit: found it... https://www.planetf1.com/features/ve...y-fia-decision )

I am sort of done with this topic at this point. I "do" hope that this is just not one weekend of aggravation and that either the new driver conduct rules they are looking to implement in 2025 cover the scenario we have been talking about, or if not, they consider opening up that draft and consider additional revisions.

I also think it would be helpful if they had a set of permanent stewards. I think when you have an important job and it has a rotation of people doing it, you inherently both lose some level of consistency (even if you have well documented guidelines) as well as uniformity of experience and feedback as to what works and what doesn't work.

Richard

[Teretonga]

If

Originally Posted by Richard C

Haha. I think you are wrong. That is my vote.



(Edit: found it... https://www.planetf1.com/features/ve...y-fia-decision )

I am sort of done with this topic at this point. I "do" hope that this is just not one weekend of aggravation and that either the new driver conduct rules they are looking to implement in 2025 cover the scenario we have been talking about, or if not, they consider opening up that draft and consider additional revisions.

I also think it would be helpful if they had a set of permanent stewards. I think when you have an important job and it has a rotation of people doing it, you inherently both lose some level of consistency (even if you have well documented guidelines) as well as uniformity of experience and feedback as to what works and what doesn't work.

Richard

Completely understand your position on the topic Richard but the actual article is bizarre.
There is no reason to go into that much detail on who was ahead of who.
In fact, to do so is indicative of straining a gnat yet ignoring the most obvious and clear issues around the whole situation.

For me Verstappen was definitely the defending driver and by going so deep he went off the track and took the other competitor with him negates any argument about overtaking.
You can only overtake on the track, not off it so taking competitor of the racing surface it is not an overtake.
He took the other competitor off the circuit with himself, just as he earned two penalty points last year for taking Leclerc off the circuit.
The fact that the other competitor was able to rejoin ahead of him simply means that Norris was able to rescue his situation more quickly than Max.

And if Norris was penalized for his part Max should certainly ben penalized.
If Max made a driving error, it impacted Lando's race.
You can't take a competitor off the track.
If the car was at fault and had a problem, it shouldn't have continued in the race. If it was that dangerous it should have been retired.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I watched the incident live during the race and numerous times since and both drivers went in hot, with Norris ahead of Verstappen and on the outside. Verstappen goes down the inside and brakes later than Norris, which forces Norris off. He rejoins the track ahead of Verstappen and incurs the penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage, as in the rules. The problem lies with the stewards not taking into account Norris was forced off in the first place.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I watched the incident live during the race and numerous times since and both drivers went in hot, with Norris ahead of Verstappen and on the outside. Verstappen goes down the inside and brakes later than Norris, which forces Norris off. He rejoins the track ahead of Verstappen and incurs the penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage, as in the rules. The problem lies with the stewards not taking into account Norris was forced off in the first place.

Sorry, but the stewards specifically did take that into account - it is in their decision statement on the incident and it is why they only imposed a 5 second penalty, rather than the usual 10 second penalty for overtaking whilst off the track.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Sorry, but the stewards specifically did take that into account - it is in their decision statement on the incident and it is why they only imposed a 5 second penalty, rather than the usual 10 second penalty for overtaking whilst off the track.

Unfortunately, I cannot find the document from that hearing now as it appears that they take them down after a period, but my recollection of the findings was that they acknowledged that Verstappen also exceeded track limits and for that they reduced the penalty for Norris down to 5 seconds.

However, I do not think that they also stated that the probable, or may be possible, reason that Norris had to exceed track limits was because Verstappen likely forced him to do so. I appreciate that it may be a subtle nuance, but it does make a lot of difference.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Sorry, but the stewards specifically did take that into account - it is in their decision statement on the incident and it is why they only imposed a 5 second penalty, rather than the usual 10 second penalty for overtaking whilst off the track.

I tried Googlng the Stewards' report but couldn't find it.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I feel there is a theme that somehow the defending driver is expected to give up something to the overtaking driver and that seems to be unfair.

I don't think that the defending driver should give up their place.

There's a wide grey line between late braking and divebombing. We may discuss those borderline cases.

I think that drivers shouldn't push each other off the track. My complaint is that this rule has been widely ignored in most cases.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Unfortunately, I cannot find the document from that hearing now as it appears that they take them down after a period, but my recollection of the findings was that they acknowledged that Verstappen also exceeded track limits and for that they reduced the penalty for Norris down to 5 seconds.

However, I do not think that they also stated that the probable, or may be possible, reason that Norris had to exceed track limits was because Verstappen likely forced him to do so. I appreciate that it may be a subtle nuance, but it does make a lot of difference.

Don't know where you are looking Mike but the stewards decision (along with many others from pervious Grands Prix) is still there and readable on the FIA site.

You can find all the decisions from the US Grand Prix at this link and the landing page that leads to all GPs is at this link.

The relevant part of the decision when it comes to Lando being off track and the penalty being reduced is as follows:

A 5 second penalty is imposed instead of the 10 second penalty recommended in the
guidelines because having committed to the overtaking move on the outside the driver
of Car 4 had little alternative other than to leave the track because of the proximity of
Car 1 which had also left the track.
In view of the above, we determine that this will not count as a track limit “strike” for
Car 4.

Nothing about "possible" or "likely" just a polite way of setting out what happened from the stewards POV.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I tried Googlng the Stewards' report but couldn't find it.

Google took me there immediately - see post above. FYI I googled FIA stewards decisions. Has worked consistently - might be a case of the best choice of wording for the google search.

[NaBUru38]

See these photos.

On 01, Verstappen is behind Norris, but booth are braking in a straight line. It's clear that Verstappen can do a clean pass, and Norris can do an over-under.

On 02, they are turning side by side, with Norris giving Verstappen enough room to make the corner.

On 03, Verstappen pushes Norris off track.

On 05-07, it clear than Verstappen swipes the track from the apex to the outside kerb, as he loves to do.

Norris did no wrong move. Maybe he could have braked a bit wider to attempt an over-under, but that would have let Verstappen make the turn faster. Instead he went side-by-side, so he would have the inner side on the next turn.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Nothing about "possible" or "likely" just a polite way of setting out what happened from the stewards POV.

That's the whole point; they have totally ignored the fact, as the pictures from NaBUru38 clearly show, that Norris was forced off track which other parts of the Drivers' protocol is not permitted.

All this discussion does not address that fact. And nor did the Stewards.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Nah mate - can't excuse your "bad English", hoping that a driver gets slammed against the wall isn't acceptable, regardless of who the driver is. Very poor on your part - childish too.

Sorry to be so blunt and accept that English is not your first language but desire for violence / injury and death threats from Argentinian "fans" of Indycar driver Agustin Canapino were roundly condemned and what you have said here also should be condemned - I'm happy to be the first (or maybe only) person to do so.

Unacceptable.

Sabe que decidi responderle en español, use el traductor de google como yo lo hago!!!!
YO NO ESTOY PIDIENDO QUE NADIE SE LESIONE!!! eso lo esta inventando usted!!!! Simplemente lo que yo digo es que Max tiene un alto nivel de arrogancia y me encantaria que alguin le bajara esa arrogancia y lo pusiera en su lugar como hizo Hamilton en Silverstone 2021, pero por favor no invente cosas que yo no eh dicho!!!

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Unfortunately, I cannot find the document from that hearing now as it appears that they take them down after a period, but my recollection of the findings was that they acknowledged that Verstappen also exceeded track limits and for that they reduced the penalty for Norris down to 5 seconds.

However, I do not think that they also stated that the probable, or may be possible, reason that Norris had to exceed track limits was because Verstappen likely forced him to do so. I appreciate that it may be a subtle nuance, but it does make a lot of difference.

Can find it here Mike.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...0advantage.pdf

It states that Lando had lost the right to the corner by virtue of Max being ahead at the corner apex, and although there is no mention of Max's action being deliberate they mention lenience (5 secs instead of the usual 10secs penalty) as Lando had little alternative as Max also left the track.
In fact here is a screencap of the statement.


Edit: Apologies as I happened to have the page at the FIA opened as I read Mikes post, so captured the image of it and posted not realising others had covered the contents already. I should have checked down the page before posting.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Google took me there immediately - see post above. FYI I googled FIA stewards decisions. Has worked consistently - might be a case of the best choice of wording for the google search.

I Googled, Stewards' report on Norris/Verstappen incident Austin; clearly not the best wording.

Anyway the bit about Norris going off says:

''A 5 second penalty is imposed instead of the 10 second penalty recommended in the guidelines because having committed to the overtaking move on the outside the driver of Car 4 had little alternative other than to leave the track because of the proximity of Car 1 which had also left the track.'

It doesn't say the driver of Car 4 had little alternative other than to leave the track because they were pushed off by Car 1. The way that section is worded reads more like Car 4 was trying to avoid Car 1.

[Mike Harte]

I'm totally with you, BJ; that review by the Stewards, to my mind, quite biased and not at all balanced.

[Richard C]

I find two issues with the stewards documented logic.

1. As to Max owning the corner... it ignores the existing guidelines that requires Max being able to make the corner

2. That any type of math was applied that reduced Lando's punishment by negating Max's punishment. While both drivers broke the rules in the same incident, they each broke the rules. And both should have been independently punished. Max effectively was able to break a rule and escape punishment by their convoluted logic.

Max should have been punished. I don't know what the guidelines are, but if they reduced Lando's by 5 seconds, then Max should have gotten 5 second penalty. If Lando was supposed to get 10 second penalty, then give that to him. That may have elevated Oscar above both of them. And frankly that might have been a good thing as Max felt some pain, and Lando felt some pain. As it stands... Only Lando experienced any negative outcome. Which goes back to... Why would Max change his behavior at all as this seem to keep working in his favor?

Richard