Mercedes’ request to review the incident between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton in Brazil does not have to be successful to provide some much-needed clarity on the situation.
Hamilton tried to pass Verstappen on the outside of Turn 4 at Interlagos but Verstappen braked later, ran wide and both cars had to take to the run-off area.
The incident was noted by the stewards but not investigated and a few laps later Hamilton successfully passed Verstappen anyway to win the race.
On Tuesday Mercedes announced it had submitted a right of review as permitted under the International Sporting Code on the basis of new evidence – almost certainly the release of Verstappen’s forward-facing onboard since Sunday’s grand prix.
Verstappen leads Hamilton by 14 points in the drivers’ championship while Mercedes has an 11-point lead in the constructors’.
If the review is granted and the stewards subsequently decide to give Verstappen a five-second penalty, it would cut his lead to 11 points and extend Mercedes’ advantage to 17.
To succeed in getting the matter reviewed Mercedes must show that a significant and relevant new element is discovered “which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned”.
The FIA already confirmed that the decision was made while Verstappen’s forward-facing onboard was unavailable.
That meant the stewards only had footage that was being broadcast live at the time, which included a helicopter shot and Hamilton’s forward-facing onboard as the onboard camera being broadcast from Verstappen’s car at the time was the rearward-facing one.
Plus, as the incident did not lead to a full investigation, FIA race director Michael Masi said the stewards also would not have reviewed the telemetry from Verstappen’s car showing his entry speed, braking point and steering inputs.
The stewards will need to determine whether any of this is significant, new and relevant.
As Masi admitted the forward-facing camera was “potentially” a piece of defining evidence “but we didn’t have access to it”, the Verstappen onboard released publicly on Tuesday would seem to immediately satisfy the requirement for it to be “new and relevant”.
But the stewards could theoretically object that it is not “significant” if they feel the images they were able to use were sufficient to reach a decision.
Either way, the stewards will need to explain at least a portion of their logic, which is important because this was not clearly communicated on Sunday in Brazil.
As the incident was never formally investigated there was no stewards’ report that would have explained the key details.
Masi only said the ‘let them race’ policy, which effectively takes a more lenient stance to encourage harder racing, was applied and that as they were “give or take side by side” it was “for the benefit of everyone to let them race”.
“If you look at the proximity of the cars heading into the apex, where it is, the nature of the corner, the fact both cars went off, neither car lost position or anything like that – that was probably the general view,” Masi said when asked by The Race what specifically from this meant the ‘let them race’ principle should be applied.
That did not explain why there was no investigation at all despite Verstappen not being in control and running off-track, when incidents involving Sergio Perez and Lando Norris in Austria and Pierre Gasly in Turkey led to offences even though they kept their cars on-track.
There was also no indication whether the stewards felt Hamilton’s own entry speed into the corner meant he was unlikely to stay on-track himself, and whether that was a defining factor.
In handling Mercedes’ petition to review the incident the stewards will either need to accept it and therefore investigate what happened in detail, with a clear ruling communicated – or they will need to reject it with a detailed response to the arguments Mercedes makes.
Either way, this process should trigger some answers.
We should learn emphatically why Verstappen’s actions did not deserve an investigation, let alone a penalty, or why the stewards have reconsidered.
And we might even get a direct comparison to the previous incidents that have been widely cited as setting a precedent that was not followed on Sunday.
That should bring an end to most, if not all, of the uncertainty around the latest high-profile incident between these two title rivals as the 2021 championship battle reaches its climax.
