Last Updated on October 26 2024, 12:53 pm

The FIA have once again got themselves in a pickle over their ‘secret’ Formula One driving standards guidelines for the race officials. This unpublished document is issued to the various stewarding panels in an attempt to improve consistency in decision making.

Having seen a copy of the 2024 stewards guidelines, the RACE revealed this week there is one set of protocols for a driver making an overtake and another for one defending such a move.

For example, a driver making an overtake on the inside must remain within the track limits throughout the corner or they may be deemed to have ‘forced another driver off the track.’

 

 

 

McLaren appeal stewarding “error”

However, a driver defending the corner may do this with impunity as happened with Max Verstappen at turn 12 in the recent USGP at COTA.

The stewards at the USGP deemed it was Norris who was making the overtake and that it was Verstappen vigorously defending the apex with everything in his tool box. McLaren produced previously unseen footage from the front of Verstappen’s car which clearly shows Norris had already made the pass before turn 12 and it was Verstappen who went barreling up the inside.

If found to be true, the stewards would be forced to issue a post race penalty to the world champion which would relegate him to fourth in Austin. McLaren specifically claim the “error” made by the stewards in not recognising Norris had completed an overtake was in fact a “new element” of the case which is required to trigger a review by the stewards.

Article 14 regulates whether any such review being granted and the stewards decided there was ‘no new element’ and so rejected the McLaren call for a right to review. McLaren’s construct that the “error in the decision was a new element,” was not sustainable said the stewards, although they admit to trigger such a review requires a “high bar” to meet article 14’s requirements.

F1 star’s start-up faces financial crisis

 

 

 

McLaren mock stewarding protocol

Under article 14, there is no right to appeal for a competitor.

McLaren were quick to issue their own response which mildly mocks the decision from the stewards somewhat. “We acknowledge the Stewards’ decision to reject our petition requesting a Right of Review,” it begins.

“We disagree with the interpretation that an FIA document, which makes a competitor aware of an objective, measurable and provable error in the decision made by the stewards, cannot be an admissible “element” which meets all four criteria set by the ISC, as specified in Article 14.3.

“We would like to thank the FIA and the stewards for having considered this case in a timely manner.

“We will continue to work closely with the FIA to further understand how teams can constructively challenge decisions that lead to an incorrect classification of the race.”

Sainz wens Ferrari of “Achiles Heel” in Mexico

 

 

 

“Right” to the corner ruling problematic

With just five laps remaining the circuit of the America’s when the Norris/Verstappen incident occurred, the stewards were obviously keen to establish the final standings when the chequered flag fell. USA audiences do not like the results changing after a sporting event has concluded.

The original judgement of the COTA stewards was that Norris had lost the “right” to the corner because he was not level with Max at the apex, thus deeming him to be the driver making the overtaking move.

Had they considered the matter in greater depth and when relevant footage became available, which is not broadcast live during the race, the “error” McLaren claimed, would never have occurred.

It does also seem strange the stewards almost admit the “error” occurred but focus on the protocol required to insatiate the review which could reverse the decision.

Hamilton calls for Verstappen ‘to be stopped’

 

 

 

Norris: “They are just guessing”

Lando Norris was unimpressed by the outcome of the McLaren appeal to the stewards. “It is just a rushed decision and they don’t hear or understand our points which they should do after the race. They just want to make a decision at the time,” he said in the Mexico paddock.

“And you can’t appeal this kind of penalty which is again a silly thing because they are just guessing and I don’t think that is how stewarding should be done.”

Journalist Alex Kalinauckas reveals he was party to the drivers’ briefing at the Autodromo Romanos Rodrigues which lasted ‘several hours longer than usual.’ The F1 drivers spent time reviewing the various penalties issued in COTA with some questioning why George Russell was penalised for forcing Valtteri Bottas off the track while Verstappen escaped punishment for the same move on Norris on lap 52.

With the meeting running long this contributed to McLaren’s six hour delay in their right of review verdict. “They also had to do a very long drivers’ meeting post-FP2 and I know that because it happened in the press conference just outside the media centre,” Kalinauckas said. “I wonder why! It’s almost like there were several contentious overtaking manoeuvres that they had to discuss with the drivers.”

Piastri responds to Red Bull move

 

 

 

Chandhok reviews new TV footage

Ex-F1 driver and Sky F1 commentator, Karen Chandhok, revealed before practice one in Mexico a new camera angle not available during the race. “Now let’s go onboard and just have a look. This is a new angle, we didn’t get to see Verstappen’s onboard last week, so this is a fresh angle we’ve got for this weekend,” said Chandhok.

“As they head down into the braking zone, Norris moves to the right, he’s on the outside. Now, Verstappen is clearly at this stage, Norris has got his nose in front but he’s not fully in front of Verstappen.

“I think at this stage, Verstappen comes off the brake pressure bit, to make sure he’s racing basically, to that apex. He’s trying to make sure he gets to that apex first and the reason he’s trying to do that is because he is acutely aware of the guidelines that the stewards use.”

One response could be ‘fair play to Max’ for knowing the guidelines the stewards are given, yet another should see the FIA rework their framework of reference in terms of the “right” to the corner and accept incorrect decisions made by the stewards should subsequently be overturned.

Horner signing Alonso: “.. a 2 year deal”

 

 

 

Brundle puts down Zak Brown “naivety”

With the Indycar season wrapped up over a month ago, Zak Brown is now an ever present figure for McLaren at each Formula One weekend. The American is currently waging war on Red Bull Racing for using a device that more quickly adjusts the height of the floor at the front of the car.

The FIA were recently called upon to issue their judgement on the legality of the Red Bull component in question which they subsequently stated complied with all the relative design regulations. They did however take the precaution of sealing the Red Bull adjuster for parc ferme purposes, to completely ensure Zak Brown’s accusations were unfulfilled.

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner told Sky Sports on Thursday he believes the FIA has taken action on his team’s cars to “perhaps satisfy some paranoia elsewhere in the paddock”… READ MORE