McLaren say they disagree with the stewards’ refusal to reconsider the penalty issued to Lando Norris in last week’s United States Grand Prix.
The team continue to insist the stewards viewed the matter incorrectly by judging that Norris, not Max Verstappen, was the driver performing an overtaking move as they entered turn 12 on lap 52 during last week’s race. Norris moved ahead of the Red Bull driver as they approached the corner, then fell behind him again as Verstappen braked late on his inside before running off the circuit.In a hearing at the track on Friday, McLaren argued the stewards should reconsider the case as the decision they issued was itself incorrect. In an attempt to satisfy the rule requiring teams to provide new evidence in order for a review to take place, McLaren submitted the stewards’ decision document itself.
However, the stewards ruled this was an “unsustainable” argument, stating McLaren’s claim of an error could not be taken as evidence of one. “The concept that the written decision (document number 69) was the significant and relevant new element, or that an error in the decision was a new element, is not sustainable and is, therefore rejected,” they stated.
In a statement acknowledging the stewards’ decision, McLaren explained why they continue to believe their decision was incorrect. “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.”
In their decision yesterday the stewards noted the Right of Review process presented a “high bar” for teams to clear when challenging decisions made during a race. McLaren indicated they intend to continue pressing the FIA on this point.
“We would like to thank the FIA and the stewards for having considered this case in a timely manner,” they added. “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.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
2024 United States Grand Prix
- McLaren insist stewards made ‘provable error’ after losing bid for review of Norris’ penalty
- Why McLaren’s focus on Verstappen’s driving failed to overturn Norris’ penalty
- Stewards reject McLaren’s request to review Norris’ United States GP penalty
- McLaren know Norris’ penalty is likely to stand – so what do they hope to gain?
- McLaren request review of Norris’ penalty for off-track pass on Verstappen
Mayrton
26th October 2024, 11:30
I will take their stance as a political one. Let’s hope they do not really believe in it racing wise, since it would mean they will make the same mistake again. Let’s be clear (in article 20) on this topic… The penalty was totally justified given the existing regulatory framework. McLaren massively dropped the ball by not immediately giving back the position (something even the commentators agreed upon within 10 sec after the event and later on so did Windsor, Jordan, Palmer, Brundle and the list goes on..), which would have allowed them to overtake Max in one of the next laps. All other is clutter to hide their own incompetence. But maybe one good element comes from all this: having the FIA question whether to alter some of the rules. Until that time they would do best to stop whining and know and play by the rules.
notagrumpyfan
26th October 2024, 12:11
That seems a bit McLaren’s (and Norris’) modus operandi though.
Mayrton
27th October 2024, 12:57
Yes, it took them incredibly long to start favouring Lando. By that time every one else had already suggested it.
SteveP
26th October 2024, 14:10
I have to both disagree and agree with different portions of that.
They should continue with the dispute (“whining” as you put it), and play by the rules in the same fashion as MV/RBR
Mayrton
27th October 2024, 12:56
Alright, but maybe this (‘whining’ or put more positively ‘challenging’) is best done in the off season. They need to focus! Look at what happened at RedBull when you lose focus.
uzsjgb (@uzsjgb)
26th October 2024, 12:20
Imagine what would happen, if McLaren’s view were correct: cars driving next to each other on the straight, one car inching ahead, changing from attacker to defender, then the other inching ahead, becoming defender instead of attacker. And all this whilst drivers cannot know this, because they cannot see to the side. Total nonsense.
Norris had four track limit violations, I assume he did not get an extra penalty for the fourth, because he already got a penalty for overtaking outside of the track limits on that occasion. I think he should have gotten both penalties, but surely if McLaren had won the case, the fourth track limit violation would still stand and he would be punished for that, leaving us with the same race result.
Red Bull even told Verstappen about Norris’ track limit violations. It leaves you in a bad position, when your oppenent knows that you cannot risk any more violations, it makes attack/defense much easier.
JB
26th October 2024, 15:02
Is that one of the worst comments ever?
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 19:09
@uzsjgb Just so you know, the same problem exists with the “ahead at the apex” version, for the same reason.
TooComplicated
26th October 2024, 12:49
Could make it simpler…
If neither car makes the corner then they end up where they end up. There is unlikely to be any benefit then to forcing someone wide by running off yourself as the outer car will carry more speed and likely get past.
If only one car goes off, then the person who remains on the track should have the lead.
stjs16 (@stjs16)
26th October 2024, 14:43
Sounds reasonable, so it won’t be implemented!
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 19:09
Last week demonstrates why this is false.
floodo1 (@floodo1)
26th October 2024, 13:07
Much ado about nothing
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
26th October 2024, 13:58
With the current rulebook (or driving guidelines) no, they didn’t. That the guidelines are wrong (even a as a concept) is another matter.
Avto
26th October 2024, 13:59
“Provable error” like letting you race with a flexi-wing?
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
26th October 2024, 14:54
The problem is with the term “apex of the turn” because there is no apex of the turn because there are an infinite number of apex of the turn. Even for the same car and driver the apex changes as tires wear, brakes wear, and the fuel load is lighter. So to say that a driver is ahead at “THE” apex is wrong think. By the rules, drivers that turn outside track limits have broken the rules and the apex of a turn that results in going off track is an illegal apex so that apex can’t be used to determine if the driver was ahead at the apex. Please look up the definition of apex before commenting. I did.
MichaelN
26th October 2024, 15:29
This whole stuff about the apex or racing line is just made up by the race director and put in a little PowerPoint presentation that he hands to the stewards. It’s not in the real rules and shouldn’t be followed.
The FIA Code and F1 Sporting Regulations are quite simple: Verstappen isn’t allowed to crowd Norris off the track (penalty). And Norris is not allowed to leave the track on purpose (he didn’t) but can be made to give up his advantage gained (surrender the place or get a penalty).
AlanD
26th October 2024, 15:30
Totally agree, if they must have a rule about who was ahead, it should be based on something like the start of the braking zone, not on subjective concepts like apex and racing line.
jeroenJ
26th October 2024, 19:44
Just checking, this was meant as sarcastic, right?
notagrumpyfan
26th October 2024, 16:15
A bit weird that you think an apex can be ‘illegal’ after you looked up the definition :P
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
26th October 2024, 18:58
pretty much, the apex is determined by the line you take, and there are many lines to take. Its a bad rule, but the stewards are using the rules to protect the status quo, because that is really what rules are for.
its obvious Max is driving people off the track. Like its so obvious its like watching a bad parent beat their child in public, but whats not so obvious is why nobody will stop it or or say anything.
This is the real problem, how authority really incapacitates peoples’ ability to think correctly and critically. Because its obvious the stewards are clowns, what does that make people who believe the clowns.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 14:54
It’s a race ban for Max – clear as day.
Ronny
26th October 2024, 16:40
Yeah if you are blind..
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 17:07
If this is not a race ban, then what is? You’re behind coming up on the turn, you divebomb to take out the WDC challenger, you push them out to collide and you slow down to the point that they overtake you while going around you.
Care to change your comment or seek an opthalmologist’s opinion.
Robbie1
26th October 2024, 18:34
If this is not a race ban, then what is?
Sending a rival to the hospital because you choose to deliberately place your front left on his rear right in Copse.
Davethechicken
26th October 2024, 21:28
Rather poorly thought our comment.
If Lewis hadn’t have braked it would have been Max’s own fault by.this rule. Lewis would have been ahead at the apex so he could run both himself and Max off the track quite legally.
Lewis braked and made the corner.
Jo
26th October 2024, 16:28
In my view Norris never completed the overtake on Verstappen before the corner, because crucially Verstappen was always partially alongside by the end of the straight. Therefore Norris was still the attacking driver and he finally completed his move around the outside of the corner, off the track. Obviously the stewards saw it similarly.
As to whether the rules need to be updated, that’s another question. Some drivers will always find a way to exploit the grey areas. Also, if you take away all the ‘weapons’ that a defending driver can use, it could make it too easy for an attacking driver and lead to boring passes.
Bob C.
26th October 2024, 18:33
I am of course aware that different sports have different cultures, rules, complexities etc, but, boy, this makes me miss legendary rugby referee Nigel Owens telling off a complaining player: “I don’t believe we have met, but I’m the referee on this field, not you“. Case very much closed, right there
ryanoceros (@ryanoceros)
26th October 2024, 18:36
McLaren complains too much.
Leo B
26th October 2024, 19:10
McLaren please stop flogging a dead horse. Try to improve race strategy: give the place back and get Max next lap while staying on track. That’s what Max and RB would have done in your situation.
May I suggest laxatives early morning to unblock the system and unclog the mind before a race.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 19:14
A reasonable judge of a court would likely consider the stewards’ attempted defence of the denial of Right to Review as an admission of fault on their part. The FIA needs to be aware of that, because it’s incentivised every team to skip the FIA (which they have as good as been told considers itself allowed to cheat against them, on purpose, without consequence) and go straight to the French civil court every time they have an objection to a FIA decision. These documents are such that the FIA would be at risk of losing its right to uphold that decision due to openly encouraging corruption in its rulings.
Tacit
26th October 2024, 19:26
At this point I think they’re just trying to keep Landos hopes up by trying to convince people that neither he nor the team made a mistake. Doesn’t really help the McLaren leadership clown show reputation though.
baasbas
26th October 2024, 20:26
I guess they could always open another topic about it on racefans.net