Up Next
Max Verstappen was unquestionably in the wrong in the Japanese Grand Prix qualifying incident involving Lando Norris on the outlaps of their first runs in Q3, but the FIA stewards’ decision not to deny him pole position was the correct one.
There are those who will argue that it’s incorrect Verstappen escaped without punishment, but that is not the case. A formal reprimand is a punishment, it’s simply not one with an immediate impact as that’s dependent on accumulating a set of five to trigger a grid penalty – as Yuki Tsunoda did at Monza earlier this season.
But while the decision was the right one, it’s an interesting case that does point to the problems inherent in the way F1 qualifying works given the defence that Verstappen, in public at least, mounted that blamed Norris for being disrespectful.
Verstappen was found guilty of infringing Article 33.4 of F1’s sporting regulations. This states that “at no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person”.
It’s impossible to build a compelling argument that Verstappen did not break this regulation given the facts of the case. By definition, he made a sudden change of line while travelling at a speed well below what is normal for that part of the track. That it was down to an honest mistake when he picked up the throttle, spinning the wheels and kicking the car left, is by the by.
Intent plays a part in the penalties selected, but even if inadvertent it still had the effect of meaning the car was being driven erratically. It then becomes a matter of judgement whether you believe Verstappen was overly-aggressive on the throttle partly because he was trying to block Norris, and it seems likely a driver of his quality and awareness was keen to stay ahead. The onboard footage would certainly suggest that he was eager to pick up the pace and cover off the McLaren. But even so, there was no intent to force Norris off the track as the move was exaggerated through the accidental wheelspin. That impacted both the speed and trajectory of Verstappen’s Red Bull.
Something inadvertent doesn’t mean there can be no penalty, as Nicholas Latifi discovered when he was given a grid drop for hitting Zhou Guanyu early in last weekend’s Singapore Grand Prix, but it can influence the action taken – especially in a non-racing situation.
Was it potentially dangerous? Again, the answer to this can only be yes. Norris had to take evasive action and drive onto the grass to avoid an accident, ipso facto it was dangerous.
These are all of the facts that really matter, and those do mean that it was right to find Verstappen guilty of breaching Article 33.4 of the sporting regulations.
Once that is established, it becomes a question of what the appropriate punishment is. As it’s effectively impeding, there’s no lack of precedents for a three- or five-place grid penalty, so denying Verstappen pole position was an option. But as the stewards’ verdict mentioned, there are also precedents for a reprimand given neither driver was on a flying lap.
This brings us to Verstappen’s comments in the press conference. He blamed Norris on the basis of impatience, saying the McLaren driver broke the oft-cited, never-written-down and regularly-ignored ‘gentleman’s agreement’ not to pass at the end of a prep lap while about to launch a qualifying attempt.
“We were all lining up to try and create a gap to everyone, and somehow he still wanted to get me into the chicane, but I was at the point of accelerating [for the flying lap],” said Verstappen. “But I was on very cold tyres, so I had a little moment and that’s why he had to drive around me. But, if you’re just a bit more respectful then everyone is anyway already lining up, I don’t think anyone is trying to pass into that last chicane. So basically by trying to pass me you create that kind of problem.”
It would be a surprise if Red Bull attempted to wield this argument as such a blunt instrument in the stewards’ meeting, partly because it’s only tangentially relevant. It cannot be used to blame Norris in any way because such an agreement is not regulatory and therefore can be disregarded by the stewards when it comes to evaluating whether Article 33.4 was breached. Norris was using the track normally and Verstappen was the one being erratic, so the only infringement there can be in this situation is Verstappen’s.
Red Bull is more likely to have offered this in mitigation. The gentleman’s agreement may be elusive, but it’s not fictional, so Verstappen can legitimately argue that he wouldn’t have expected Norris to be closing at that speed when both were in a queue of cars about to launch into a flying lap. Doubly so given it was the first Q3 run, so there was little clock pressure.
Such mitigations would have carried less weight in other circumstances. Were Norris on a push lap then a grid penalty would have been appropriate. That’s not an inconsistency, but recognition that different circumstances can mean different punishments. Had things aligned a little differently and Norris had collected Verstappen, that too would likely have triggered a grid penalty. To that you can argue that outcome should not influence the punishment, but that’s not as effective a rule of thumb as it sounds – there is, after all, a difference in a criminal court between murder and attempted murder when it comes to punishment. Demands for absolute consistency in a complex world create more problems than they solve because it is impossible – all incidents are a little different.
The incident has also led to suggestions that there should be greater regulation of prep laps. Other than the ability to regulate outlap pace and the broader rules covering on-track behaviour, the FIA has rightly been cautious of doing this. For example, the gentleman’s agreement could be made formal and prevent drivers from overtaking in the final sector. However, this would be open to abuse as it could allow teams to create what are effectively rolling roadblocks to create time pressure and compromise tyre warm-up.
The fact is that the need to ensure a good space to the car in front to minimise the aerodynamic turbulence and the need to get the tyres in the right window will always make prep laps troublesome. It’s incumbent on the drivers to be aware of the challenges of such situations and drive accordingly. That’s something both Verstappen and Norris needed to be aware of.
Norris’s view – in hindsight
On reviewing the incident: Obviously when I’m in the car at the time, it looked like probably what most people thought – which was he tried to defend position, not allow me past. It’s scary to be in the situation at the time because if I stayed on track and he lost more control of the car it could have been a pretty big crash.
From his point he says he’s reacted to the car ahead, he’s tried to boot it to get going, so it’s tough – because maybe you don’t always wheelspin to get going on a qualifying lap but I don’t know…from my car it looks like he’s reacted to me. That’s my point of view at the time. That’s why I’ve said the things I said.
But when he explains it you can also see his explanation at the same time. The stewards have made it clear, they’ve steered a certain amount of blame for him. He knew I was behind him, he probably could have tried to not boot it so much and wheelspin as much as he did at the time.
On his initial call for a penalty: I’ve said that because of what I thought happened at the time. It’s just a big coincidence he’s lost the car reacting to get going at the same time that I’ve just gone past him – and I’ve had to react to his sudden movement. If it was intentional then whoever did it intentionally should at least get a penalty. They’re obviously claiming it wasn’t intentional, so… yeah, no penalty!
On speaking to Verstappen: I did a little bit…of course he says he didn’t mean to do anything wrong and when you look at the onboard it’s not clear exactly what he tries to do, so I don’t know really what comments to have for it. Of course I’ve said initially what I thought happened, but after discussing it maybe it’s not so much the case. Max apologised to me for doing what happened, kind of ruining my Q3, so we spoke but not too much.
Verstappen made an honest mistake, but one that was specific to the set of circumstances and so was rightly given a punishment that did not deny him pole position. And if he were to repeat such errors and accumulate reprimands, then there would be a grid penalty down the line. That’s the whole point of the system.
Given the way Verstappen looked like he was deliberately slewing left when seen from the McLaren’s onboard camera, you can understand Norris’s anger at Verstappen. Given the prevailing but unofficial ‘gentleman’s agreement’, you can understand Verstappen’s irritation with Norris. But the decision the stewards made was a sound one in proportion to the offence.
No action would have exonerated Verstappen and effectively ruled that he was not driving erratically – a precedent that would have redefined how Article 33.4 is interpreted. To deny him pole position with a grid penalty would have been disproportionate given the circumstances.
