The stewards of the United States Grand Prix have rejected McLaren’s request for a review of the penalty which cost Lando Norris a podium finish.
McLaren’s request was denied because the stewards deemed they did not supply a significant, new and relevant piece of information, as required by the rules. The stewards of the previous race held a hearing via videoconference involving representatives of McLaren and their rivals Red Bull.Norris and his team were infuriated by the stewards’ decision to hand him a five-second time penalty for overtaking Max Verstappen off the track at the exit of turn 12 on the 52nd lap of the race. Norris claimed he was forced off the track by Verstappen, who had fallen behind him as they approached the corner, but ran off the track himself at the exit. The decision cost Norris third place in the race to his championship rival and resulted in a six-point swing between the pair.
McLaren attempted to persuade the stewards to reconsider Norris’ penalty by presenting the decision itself – document number 69 of the United States Grand Prix – as a new piece of evidence. The team argued the decision contained a factual error which they had not been aware of at the time of the decision.
The team claimed the stewards incorrectly described Norris as the driver who was overtaking. They argued Norris had already passed Verstappen before they reached the corner, and he was therefore no longer the overtaking driver, and the case should therefore be considered differently.
Red Bull, represented by sporting director Jonathan Wheatley, claimed McLaren had failed to provide evidence which met the required standard. The stewards agreed with them, ruling it was not “relevant” to the issue at stake.
“McLaren appears to submit that the stewards finding that ‘car four [Norris] was not level with car one [Verstappen] at the apex’ was an error and that car four had overtaken car one before the apex (and therefore that car one was the overtaking car) and that this asserted error is itself, a new element,” the stewards ruled.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“This is unsustainable. A petition for review is made in order to correct an error (of fact or law) in a decision. Any new element must demonstrate that error. The error that must be shown to exist, cannot itself be the element referred to in article 14.”
“In this case, 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 added.
However the stewards did note that the right of review process sets a “high bar” for teams to challenge decisions. They noted the decision against Norris was taken without the team having an opportunity to present their case.
They drew the FIA’s attention to “the current ‘high bar’ that exists in article 14 [of the International Sporting Code] and the fact that it appears to have been designed more for decisions that are taken as a result of a hearing where all parties are present, rather than in the pressurised environment of a race session, when decisions are taken, (as is allowed under the International Sporting Code), without all parties being present.”
Speaking before the hearing began, McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown explained why the team rejected the stewards’ original decision. “These things are difficult but we have a different view,” he told Sky. “I think a lot of people agree with our view that Lando [was] in front, and if you look at it from that perspective, you maybe have a different outcome on that corner.”
The incident has triggered a fresh debate over what F1 should consider a legitimate racing move. Several other drivers sided with Norris and called on the FIA to revise the rules of racing to outlaw drivers from defending their position by going off-track.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Brown suggested F1 should relax the rules of racing and leave it to the stewards to determine what infractions need to be penalised.
“We maybe have too many rules. There’s a reason why we have former F1 drivers and racing drivers as stewards. They know best what’s going on.
“I think we’ve got to free up the rules a little bit and let the FIA stewards have a little bit more discretion, because they know what’s really happening, versus the very technicality of who got to the apex first – well, if you put your foot down, you’re going to get to the apex first, but maybe won’t make the corner. So I think we need to open up and just leave it a little bit more to the F1 stewards to use their discretion.”
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said before the hearing began he doubted McLaren had new evidence to present.
“I don’t think there is any new evidence,” he said. “You have to trust in the process. I think the stewards are in difficult positions. I felt that the calls they made were absolutely fair and right at the weekend. You can’t overtake a car off the circuit.
“So that’s where we are. It’s McLaren’s right to invoke that. They’re probably ruing the fact that they didn’t let Max back past because they had such a pace advantage at that part of the race with the overlap of the fresher tyre that they would have probably quite easily passed Max in those last four laps anyway.”
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
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 3:50
Why would they need new evidence when the original decision was condemned universally as incorrect especially given other penalties that weekend and in general? If you screw up, you have to own up to it. McLaren should take them to court for revenue loss.
RT
26th October 2024, 4:04
Condemned universally? it wasn’t at all, most pundits agree you cannot overtake off track.
GK
26th October 2024, 9:29
British pundits being unhappy doesn’t count as a universal condemnation.
The penalty was correct, because Norris gained the position off the track. Verstappen did nothing wrong as per the guidelines, because they specify that attacker has to finish the overtake within the limits. They say nothing about the defender. So technically there is no requirement for the defender to stay on track. Norris wasn’t ahead of the apex, so he wasn’t entitled to be given room.
This protest is just another McLaren’s PR stunt, just like the Sky Sports’ push to change the rules and make them more beta friendly, because Verstappen is too big of an alpha.
AlanD
26th October 2024, 13:31
GK: “Verstappen did nothing wrong as per the guidelines”
I am glad to see you refer to guidelines rather than rules. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules about this, and the guidelines are specified as being open to interpretation by the race stewards. If anyone knows different or can give the exact wording of the rules involved, or even the guidelines, it would be most welcome.
“Norris wasn’t ahead of the apex”
The only guidelines I have been able to find say nothing about being ahead at the apex, only that a car needs to be substantially alongside, which Norris certainly was. Again, can anyone tell me what the actual rule or guideline is, as opposed to what they think they’ve heard the rule is.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
26th October 2024, 10:47
I don’t think the stewards made the wrong decision. Lando is not ahead at the apex and the completes the move off track – there must be a penalty for that.
The right of review rules are fairly simple – you can introduce new evidence otherwise they will go with the verdict on the day. That’s the way it should be otherwise we’d have every penalty taken to a midweek panel and results changed in the courtrooms with teams hoping for a different reaction from different reviewers.
There’s nothing wrong here to the letter. It’s ironic you ask for a court to look into something and argue a point that the ‘right’ thing should happen rather than the legal one. Stewards can only use the information they are presented with and should only make a decision with the same body of facts once.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 14:45
@rbalonso
I just watched it again – that’s Lando’s corner based on position. He’s 19 miles ahead going into the apex. Max had to back out.
Clear penalty for Verstappen and clear overtake without a penalty to Lando. Well done to Lando for making it stick even going the long way around which takes longer. Not a penalty at all. I’m not even sure how he managed to overtake there – it just shows you that Verstappen had slowed down too much on purpose.
Every time I talk to someone about these incidents they don’t watch the video or point me to a video of 2022 for another driver. It’s enough with the lies and the misinformation. This is bordering on organized crime between Red Bull, the stewards, the FIA, and the fans.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
26th October 2024, 15:36
Not according to the rules. It’s who’s ahead at the apex not at an arbitrary point on the straight. Max goes deep but he makes the inside kerb at the start of the move. As a result Norris has no right to that corner. He has even less right to overtake totally off the road.
For what it’s worth I think as Max doesn’t make the exit, I’d have penalised him 5s. But I’d have penalised Norris 10s for overtaking off the road.
None of this is misinformation; it’s a question as to whether you view Norris as already completed the pass on the straight and then Max is performing a failed overtake rather than a defense. The stewards will argue it’s not a completed move as Norris only becomes a full car length ahead at the 100m board, ie in the braking zone so the onus then becomes – who is ahead at the apex?
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 17:27
@rbalonso Max did NOT have that corner.
Any driver can have any corner if they drive straight through as they will be ahead of the other car in the apex.
Lando was ahead and Max divebombed. It’s a divebomb and it’s why he took the whole track which he’s not enitled to and slowed down unnecessarily to the point that a MotoGP going around the other car ended up being quicker.
This sort of rationalization that you’re trying to apply is exactly what is wrong with this sport. Anyone can rationalize anything anyway they want but the facts are clear.
This is no different that Schumacher’s ban, the only difference is that Lando avoid the crash and was able to overtake him adding more time and distance for which he was penalized instead of Max.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
26th October 2024, 18:58
Michael, Lando didn’t have the corner.
He is level with Max until the braking zone. You accuse Max of divebombing, but Lando is only ahead as he brakes super late (and doesn’t make the corner).
Max didn’t take the whole corner he’s on the inside kerb. Compare that to Austria 2016 where Rosberg takes the whole corner.
This isn’t my rationale, it’s the rules as they currently are. You can’t call for a race ban and not point out which rules are broken.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 22:45
@rbalonso Watch it again – there are a few videos and it’s quite clear that Lando is actually ahead. I don’t know if I can link here but
Here’s a clear shot of Norris leading.
https://youtu.be/PNycX86HLcI?si=3RcMH3opDQtNzhaZ&t=436
It’s a complete and utter disgrace how Max took that corner without any space. Had Norris stayed on track, he would have been rammed by Max which is Max’s trademark move.
Like I said, there’s absolutely no difference between Senna and Schumacher with the exception that Max not only gets away with it for a decade but other drivers get penalties instead.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
27th October 2024, 5:36
I’m not disputing that Norris is ahead.
As I’ve pointed out above, he’s not ahead where it matters in the rules. Karun Chandok has a clear
https://youtu.be/O-B9eEuLBqM?si=LADhrWTAlQEWoQTH
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
27th October 2024, 5:42
Sorry posted too soon.
Karun has a clear analysis of what happened and the reasons.
It’s not a disgrace. Brazil 2021 was a disgrace when Max made no attempt to make the corner. In Texas he clearly made the apex. Norris, as in Monza and Hungary and Spa, showed that his wheel to wheel acumen simply isn’t good enough and McLaren failed to see the bigger picture and didn’t know the rules.
You’ve been calling for a race ban in about 10 comments across 3 articles, there is nothing here that constitutes a penalty so that argument looks delusional. I’ve been watching the 1993 season this week and what Senna has done in Kyalami and Silverstone is 10 times more aggressive than this move.
Jere (@jerejj)
26th October 2024, 6:48
FIA just needs to be both fully unambiguous & consistent with their rule applications.
Simon
26th October 2024, 14:25
Perhaps you could apply the same to your posts?
Jere (@jerejj)
26th October 2024, 16:25
Simon How exactly are my posts ambiguous & inconsistent?
I’m always fully unambigous & consistent with everything or at least as much as possible, as well as with everything I do generally in life, unlike many people, which is what generally annoys me.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th October 2024, 23:31
I’m guessing he’s probably referring to some predictions you made over the years, which, if I recall, weren’t always accurate (think in the time in which ricciardo was injured last year and about him coming back this or that other race), however I haven’t looked a lot into that stuff, so that’s just what I assume he means, not that he’s necessarily right.
SteveP
27th October 2024, 13:29
Perhaps you could try posting with some content other than ad hominem attacks ??
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 14:48
@jerejj I just watched it again in slow mo and clearly Lando is leading into the corner and Verstappen divebombs and slows down.
It’s actually impressive that Lando managed to overtake going the longer route on a corner – that’s like a penalty in MotoGP where you come out ahead of the other rider. The stewards should have given him a medal in recognition of that feat.
What happened was that Max slowed to a crawl as he pushed Lando out. It’s actually a series of penalties imho based on intent and driving. There are a few things wrong with Verstappen’s driving (leaving no space, divebombing, and intentionally slowing down).
It’s a race ban for sure and he should have been given a race ban, instead of Lando getting Max’s penalty.
Jere (@jerejj)
26th October 2024, 16:24
@freelittlebirds Indeed
Sham (@sham)
26th October 2024, 7:41
I’m shocked – shocked, I tell you!
Well, OK, not that shocked.
Happily, I don’t think the noise on this one is going to go away without the Verstappen defense being outlawed – fingers crossed, because it’s long overdue.
Mayrton
26th October 2024, 7:55
I’ve felt for quite some time now, that we should move on…
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 9:15
Only people who are OK with the idea of F1 being a criminal enterprise have that option, unfortunately, due to the severity of the stewarding fail on this occasion. Short version: the stewards’ reasoning indicates that a steward’s falsehood is not considered new evidence, which means according to their judgement, governing body wrongdoing is now formally considered valid reason to issue a penalty and keep it issued.
S
26th October 2024, 9:50
You can accept that F1 is a business focusing on entertainment, or you can choose not to – but that won’t change that F1 will remain an entertainment business.
You say criminal – but which laws have been broken? The FIA only deals in sporting rules in terms of competitions – not laws.
Ludewig
26th October 2024, 10:27
LOL, a ‘criminal enterprise’ for making a decision you disagree with.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
26th October 2024, 10:49
Where was the falsehood, which rule was disregarded?
AlanD
26th October 2024, 13:41
Alia: “Short version: the stewards’ reasoning indicates that a steward’s falsehood is not considered new evidence”
To be strictly correct, it is not the steward’s reasoning, but rather it is the appeals process reasoning, and it is correct to say that in any appeal system, simply disagreeing with the judegement cannot be considered new evidence. There is a good argument for saying that a team should be allowed to ask for a review of a judgement they believe was faulty, which is essentially what VAR is in football, DRS in cricket, etc, but those systems themselves introduce new evidence not available to the referee or umpire. It is interesting to note that tennis is now using electronic line calls in preference to human, because the technology is more accurate, consistent, and unbiased. Surely F1 can find a way to automate its own line calls for track limits which is both consistent and fair.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 14:50
No, that’s a race ban Mayrton – watch the incident again. Lando is fully ahead, Verstappen divebombs, leaves no space, and slows down intentionally, pushing the other car completely off track and then the other car is somehow able to overtake going the longer route.
Max should be given a race ban for the 3 violations in a single corner.
oweng (@oweng)
26th October 2024, 8:46
The problem with more rules is that it could stifle the racing. The problem with fewer rules is that it could lead to more controversy as different stewards could interpret a situation in different ways.
I don’t recall these sort of incidents happening with any other driver other than Max Verstappen. I think the majority of drivers have an in built instinct for what’s fair. He’s been developed as a driver in a way that he cannot be wrong, this is backed up with how he’s treated by Horner and Marko too.
Is there another driver who’s overtaking/defending has been involved in this many issues which lead to discussions about rule changes over their career?
SteveP
26th October 2024, 9:16
That suggests you either have a short memory, or you haven’t been watching F1 for very long.
Michael Schumacher.
oweng (@oweng)
26th October 2024, 9:25
Yeah I thought about that but other than the major title deciding incidents was he regularly under scrutiny in wheel to wheel combat? Similarly with Senna. I know they were uncompromising but were they regular rule benders in this way?
I’m definitely old enough to remember I just phased out of a lot of that era because of the dominance! So can’t remember more detail.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
26th October 2024, 10:14
@oweng Back then I think stewards were unlikely to get involved in any ‘minor’ incident which didn’t involve a crash, blatant breach of technical rules or cheating etc. Though when someone was investigated, the penalties were likely to be much more severe, notably multiple race bans for Schumacher for example.
In terms of wheel to wheel racing and track limits, I’m pretty sure the philosophy was just ‘let them get on with it’. So much so that there was no action even when Schumacher and Hill collided in the title decider in 94. It was only after Schumacher was involved in a second, more obvious attempt to take out his title rival in a title deciding race that action was taken to disqualify him from the entire championship.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 9:17
@oweng As opposed to this, which at best stifles the racing? The FIA has accidentally said the quiet bit out loud and said that it is deliberately favouring Max Verstappen as well. We can consider ourselves thankful that two drivers don’t get the hint, otherwise there would be no racing at the front at all due to the FIA’s decisions on this matter.
S
26th October 2024, 9:38
I’d really love to see that backed up with some evidence that can’t be explained simply by incompetence.
“Deliberately” is a very heavily loaded descriptor.
oweng (@oweng)
26th October 2024, 13:04
There won’t be any evidence of bias because Verstappen is the only one doing it. There won’t be a case of someone being punished for things he gets let off.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th October 2024, 23:35
Maybe mclaren should look into teaching their drivers to do the same? If they eventually get penalised, then they have to do the same with verstappen too.
S
26th October 2024, 9:35
F1 never used to care much about rules, so not really…
However – names such as Schumacher and Hamilton come to mind for attracting plenty of attention/controversy and starting many discussions about which rules should exist and how they are applied.
oweng (@oweng)
26th October 2024, 13:06
Be interested to hear of instances where Hamilton’s driving has caused questions over whether the rules need changing to stop him bending existing rules unfairly.
AlanD
26th October 2024, 14:19
When I read these comments, the antics of Hamilton and Rosberg immediately sprang to mind, and Hamilton is not the only one who has run other drivers to the edge of the track. I can also think of a case, Baku I think, where LeClerc did that to Hamilton. However, I think in all those cases it wasn’t quite so blatant, and mostly drivers were forced to drop behind the car they were overtaking rather than being run off track. I didn’t like it then either, and I think if you could look back at forums such as these from a few years ago you’d see just as many complaints about drivers crowding others off track, and drivers not respecting track limits. The FIA has consistently failed to address this, and so drivers have just become more and more extreme in doing this, and it feels like Max is more ruthless than most. I don’t enjoy watching that style of racing.
On the other hand, I can also think of instances where very experienced drivers have left each other just enough room, where the sidewalls of the tyres are almost brushing each other, or where it looks like they are going wheel to sidepod, incredibly hard but fair racing, and that is a joy to watch.
SteveP
27th October 2024, 14:07
Name an F1 driver of any real note, and you have named a driver that did it.
However, I struggle to think of one other than MV that regularly* utilised the modified technique of not bothering to attempt to make the corner within track limits.
*Senna/Prost “forgetting” to turn, or conversely forgetting someone was in the way when turning, wasn’t a regular occurrence.
rpla
28th October 2024, 3:06
For those who want high-level single-seaters with fair but hard racing Super Formula is a viable alternative. Stewards there are capable of upholding driving standards, and drivers regularly go through tight corners side-by-side and get through them unscathed. Penalties are imposed by the severity of the incident, as it should be, and consequences of accidents are taken into account for the penalties. Contrary to some racing bodies, drive through penalties are still viable penalties that get issued to drivers as needed, so drivers are more considerate about how they behave. Incidents behind Safety Cars attract harsh penalties. Honest racing, where team manipulation of results (“team orders”) are very rare, and teams are not afraid to lose the Driver’s Championship and won’t impose team orders on drivers as long as the racing is fair. Similarly no outright cheating where a team manipulates results for another team (winking at your RB). No nonsense like DRS (and definitely no MOMs) but instead a P2P system that provides an additional strategic element to the race. The P2P isn’t based on heavy batteries, so the cars remain light, but instead very smartly they increase the fuel-flow available to the engine while driver pushes the button. Circuits are genuine driver’s circuits with challenging layouts and no silly gimmicks like acres of run off. No street circuits, as in Las Vegas or otherwise. Small tires that don’t explode and that drivers can actually push on (and racing is still great). Overall smart regulations that actually make sense.
Over the past decade or so for various reasons the FIA has lost the capacity to regulate high-level single seater championship and what we have now is a very contrived version that has lost authenticity. And it’s not just F1: look at F2 and F3 where DRS trains are now the norm – which should anathema to junior championships designed to foster talent. For those seeking more authentic racing, Super Formula could certainly be an alternative.
S
27th October 2024, 6:44
As AlanD notes, Hamilton’s signature move for a long time was crowding competitors off the track at corner exists.
This was absolutely a contributor to track limits and leaving space being the points of contention that they currently are.
And just for fun, let’s talk about Bahrain 2021 and the 29 track limits breaches, which stopped immediately after Red Bull instructed their driver to do the same and attracted the attention of the Race Director.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
27th October 2024, 18:48
To be clear, Hamilton wasn’t committing a breach of the rules by running wide at turn four on those occasions, as drivers were told before the race they could do so:
Different track limits rules for qualifying and race in Bahrain
In this case, race direction imposed different track limits rules for qualifying and the race, which struck me at the time as a very poor piece of regulation, and so did a lot of commenters at the time from looking back on that article.
As to whether the rule was changed mid-race:
Track limits policy did not change during race despite Hamilton’s warning, says Masi
AlanD
26th October 2024, 13:56
Owen: “The problem with more rules is that it could stifle the racing.”
Personally, I think it is the current rules and guidelines which stifle racing. At its heart, I think the top priority rule should be that you cannot force another driver off track, rather than the current unwritten rule which seems to be that the driver who is ahead can take his “racing line”, but with a huge amount of subjective judgement by the stewards as to who was ahead and what the racing line is. Overtaking is hard enough anyway, and the current approach means the lead car can make overtaking just about impossible.
I would also be in favour of automated track limits. The edges of the circuit are cleaned up for driver safety, not to provide a larger racing area, so I think it is fair to say that in return for safety and to avoid race-ending car-destroying collisions, electronic sensors get embedded in the track edges, and if a car goes over that sensor, it automatically loses, say, 10% of engine power for a full lap. That idea gets rejected because of the argument that sensors are not accurate enough to be able to define the track edge precisely, but as long as it is consistent for all cars, I don’t see the problem. Drivers used to use FP1 to learn track limits. With an electronic detection system, they could use FP1 to learn sensor limits. I’d also add though that driving way off track to avoid the sensor should also be a no-no, and having a faulty sensor on the car should be a scrutineering disqualification.
Gerrit
26th October 2024, 9:15
Worth a revisit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LSAaVq4Dsw
Verstappen not allowing room for a car outside of him. Ocon was legally entitled to try and unlap himself. That is racing. If you watch from the Verstappen onboard Ocon was alongside when Verstappen crowded him out.
Maybe we need a wide angle camera on the Halo instead of pokey little mirrors to increase driver spacial awareness?
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
26th October 2024, 9:17
That’s not the issue. The issue is that Verstappen knows the FIA will openly encourage his behaviour, while penalising other drivers who conduct themselves like this (when the stewards feel like it).
Grapmg
26th October 2024, 9:20
If you are a lap behind you can’t claim your alongside. Simple as that.
S
26th October 2024, 9:41
Not true at all.
If you are alongside, you are alongside and racing legally – everyone is allowed to get their lap back by racing for it, which is exactly what was happening then.
SteveP
26th October 2024, 9:31
I was in a taxi the other day, the rearview mirror was actually a small video screen showing a rear facing camera view.
Cheap enough for taxis, but F1 prefer dinky side mirrors that give almost no useful view?
Honda Civic has a rear facing camera for reversing, a Honda Civic! and they can’t feed the existing video to the driver?
Three panels on the dashboard would do it – left view centre view, right view.
For Verstappen, they could add targeting markers to the video :)
S
26th October 2024, 9:46
They could also put fully automatic gearboxes in the cars and use traction control and ABS, but that’s not what F1 is about at the moment.
Using the limited equipment available is a huge part of the challenge and skill required.
Also worth noting that for practical reasons it’s much more acceptable putting a functioning camera/screen system in an enclosed vehicle than in one with an open cockpit. The human eye has limited capabilities too.
SteveP
26th October 2024, 13:04
Everything is there already, with the exception of a display for the driver. It strikes me that alignment in the grid box would be far easier too.
You’re actually arguing that the human eye has less difficulty seeing via a mirror that’s vibrating on the side of the car, sufficiently far out of natural visual field that the driver has to make a movement to see the shaky “image” than they do on a dash mounted flat screen centred in their visual field?
Possibly true if the driver has macular degeneration.
S
27th October 2024, 6:24
Seeing a mirror and seeing a screen are indeed comparable – however;
A) the mirrors are currently placed at a reasonable distance, meaning less time is required for the eye to adjust to that placement (focal length/focus), and;
B) the amount of visible light reflected on a mirror is approximately the same as that in their forward vision, meaning the iris does not need to adjust either.
And even if we compare with the current in-car screens on the steering wheels – they are presenting vastly different information to the drivers, using as much contrast and colour saturation as possible to make that information clear. Not at all like a rear-facing camera.
Daylight is the enemy of a screen showing images of daylight – real daylight wins every time. Try it with your mobile phone sometime.
With the exception of night races, the screens most definitely would be a step backward from the current mirrors – even taking the vibrations into account (which can easily be minimised by technical regulation, anyway).
SteveP
27th October 2024, 17:02
A – the driver is already looking at the dashboard area, not only do they not have to refocus, they don’t have to turn their head or move their eyes significantly left/right either
B – even my cheapo bedside DAB radio alarm has a dim function. The screens I have around my workspace have ambient light sensors and even change the colour temperature to match day/night style use.
However, since you mention the information passing aspect, my quip about putting “targeting information” in for MV is a pointer to the additional functionality that can be put in.
AlanD
26th October 2024, 14:01
S: “They could also put fully automatic gearboxes in the cars and use traction control and ABS, but that’s not what F1 is about at the moment.”
That is a flawed argument. Automatic gearboxes, traction control, etc, are aids to improve the speed of the driver around the lap. Helmets, Hans devices, halos, wheel retainers, and mirrors or cameras are about increasing the safety of cars and the cars around them, and there is never an argument that safety should be discarded because it is not in the spirit of F1.
S
27th October 2024, 6:36
There’s a safety element (if it actually worked sufficiently well) – but there would almost certainly be other performance related factors too, given that comparable systems used in other series use various methods of motion tracking and AR to enhance the information they can present. It would be foolish to think that F1 would limit itself to untouched video only, and when used in this manner it is, without question, a driver aid in exactly the same way the systems mentioned above are.
The bottom line is that for it to be introduced purely for safety reasons, then it has to be proven to work better than the mirrors that it replaces in all environments and use-cases. And right now, it simply can’t in this type of car.
AlanD
26th October 2024, 14:09
Steve, I too had noticed that our local buses are now using cameras instead of mirrors, and the visibility improvements are excellent. It is hard to understand why F1 isn’t pushing for those sorts of improvements. With our improvements in short range wireless technology etc in recent years, (think bluetooth, Infra-red sensors etc), it also seems to me that F1 cars could carry an IR transmitter in the nose, and a receiver in each side pod at a mandated fixed position, which could easily detect when a driver has another car substantially alongside them on one side or the other to warn them that they need to leave space on track in that side for that driver. With that sort of electronics system, we’d cut out a lot of the subjective stewards decisions, and complaints from drivers that “I just didn’t see him”.
SteveP
26th October 2024, 15:04
It’s a long term puzzle for me why they chase the shiny, shiny (AI) for jobs that simple tech can do (pressure sensors in the track limits) while shunning the new tech like in cockpit displays.
The techie in me says “select the right tool for the job” – e.g. in IT both CLI and GUI have their strong points, but adherents of one will persist in struggling with the wrong tool.
AlanD
26th October 2024, 15:39
SteveP: “The techie in me says “select the right tool for the job” – e.g. in IT both CLI and GUI have their strong points, but adherents of one will persist in struggling with the wrong tool.”
So right! I know far too many people in both camps. I do worry that sooner or later forums like this will have GUI interfaces where you click a button and GPT writes what it thinks you ought to be saying.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 14:52
That’s a clear race ban for Max there. I have no idea how the stewards did not give him one. Watch it again and look at the 3 transgressions:
Lando is ahead – that’s obvious:
1. Max divebombs
2. Pushes Lando completely off track
3. Slows down to the point that Lando can cover more ground and come way ahead of Max endangering the driver.
Clear as day race ban. Max should not be at Mexico this weekend and the FIA should step in and remove him from the car, even if Ben Suleyman needs to cuff him up and take him away. Guilty as charged!
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th October 2024, 16:03
Seems exaggerated, but I’d at least like to see something in the middle, such as if you force a driver off track and lose the position that way, the driver you forced off is entitled to the position.
If you think about it, verstappen did something similar with hamilton early on in abu dhabi 2021, hamilton cut the track, ended up way ahead, slowed down a bit but kept good margin, no penalty, instead here norris got one.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 17:15
@esploratore1 and yet Max did do all those things to try and take out the WDC challenger. He would never have done it with another driver.
How is this different than what Schumacher and Senna did? It’s a clear race ban.
The driver is intentionally endangering the other driver and trying to have a collision. It’s actually more than just a race ban when intent comes into play.
The fact that Norris managed to overtake, not by taking the shorter route but the longer and slower route, is a clear indication that Verstappen used his car as a weapon to defend his championship illegally so.
He didn’t have the corner, he didn’t leave space, and he slowed down.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
26th October 2024, 17:17
And I’m entirely sure that any other stewards from MotoGP or another series would have given Max a race ban there.
David BR (@david-br)
26th October 2024, 17:38
Sigh. Rinse and repeat.
I think the issue (for other drivers and teams who aren’t Verstappen-Red Bull) is clear: you shouldn’t be able to defend a corner by outbraking your opponent to the apex and then being ‘unable’ to stay within track limits. No divebombing. Enforcing such a rule is obviously not so simple. And I put ‘unable’ in question marks because it’s a question whether, say, at COTA Verstappen was unable to take the corner without going off or whether he was deliberately forcing Norris as wide as he thought necessary to defend and went off track to do so (as her did versus Hamilton at Interlagos 2021, where he did indeed fail to make the corner without going off, but also exaggerated how far wide he went as a blocking maneouuvre).
But it shouldn’t matter in terms of any new and clear ruling. Just make it an infringement to force another driver off track and fail to stay within track limits yourself.
Margus P
26th October 2024, 17:53
The visual was obvious. One driver dive-bombed and forced other out. Penalty is expected or at least some consequences.
But appears that rule that and that, with subsection that and with reference to rule that and that, which one was amended with circular that and that says that i am wrong.
Do i really must be a lawyer to understand racing.
No. Because this is not racing. This is circus orchestrated by FIA.
I’m shame i still wasting time watching all this, hoping it will better… god, give me just more patience.