Up Next
McLaren’s petition for a review of Lando Norris’s five-second penalty in Formula 1’s United States Grand Prix has been rejected by the stewards.
Norris lost third place in the Austin race, and dropped behind title rival Max Verstappen as a result, after getting the penalty for “leaving the track and gaining an advantage” with his pass on Verstappen during their controversial battle.
The stewards’ verdict during the race was that Norris was not entitled to be given space at the exit of the corner because he was attempting to overtake on the outside and didn’t have his front axle alongside Verstappen’s at the apex.
This is a requirement in the racing guidelines for overtaking on the outside of a corner.
There is also no reference in this situation to the defending car having to remain on the track. So, Verstappen, who had got ahead at the apex by braking later than Norris, was not deemed to be in the wrong – at least not compared to Norris who completed an overtake by going off-track.
McLaren attempted to argue that the stewards should have viewed the incident from the perspective that Norris had already passed Verstappen on the straight, and therefore it was Verstappen who was trying to overtake on the inside. They claimed to have evidence of this although it has not been specified what that was.
McLaren’s argument is if the stewards had viewed it from this perspective they would have reached a different decision. It would change the requirements of both cars in battle. Specifically, Verstappen would need to be able to make the corner within track limits – which he did not do.
But the way McLaren pursued this was unusual as they claimed the supposed new significant and relevant “element” unavailable to McLaren at the time of the original decision was, effectively, the decision itself.
They attempted to get a review by arguing the document detailing what McLaren believes was an erroneous stewards’ decision, and that the statement being in error was itself new evidence.
However, the stewards felt it was unsustainable for an asserted error in the stewards’ judgement to be considered a new element.
“A petition for review is made in order to correct an error in a decision,” the stewards said.
“Any new element must demonstrate that error. The error must be shown to exist, it cannot itself be the element referred to.”
McLaren said it "acknowledged" the decision, thanked the stewards for considering its point "in a timely manner" but also argued its case had raised wider points about stewards' decisions that needed to resolved.
"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," read a team statement.
"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."
