2024 United States Grand Prix - COTA, Oct 18-20

[TFSA]

The whole penalty was worded as overtaking outside, and certainly it looks questionable who was overtaking.
This weekend, FIA did not say "we checked and we think Lando was never fully ahead". What FIA said is "nothing new". But McLarens appeal is not on a rule being applied wrongly, but on the wrong rule being applied. And thre is no question on what rule was applied.

I am not surprised that FIA covered their derrieres on the nothing new techincality, but I still think that they are holding two things as true that cannot be true simultaneously.

I think we are talking past each other.

I think Lando had completed the overtake. It seems to me that the two of us are in agreement on that, at least by the definitions i had - until this race - personally used to determine who is the attacking/defending driver. However, the original document for Landos penalty states "Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the outside". This, to me, leaves absolutely no doubt, that the stewards disagree with our interpretation of what constitutes a succesfull overtake, and they still consider Max the defending driver.

We may disagree with that, but we have to accept that interpretation. The stewards are empowered to interpret the rules - we aren't. So we have to run with their interpretation.

From there, moving on to the appeal, i don't see the stewards doing anything wrong. If what they saw on the helicopter shot didn't convince them that it was a completed overtake, then i don't see anything new in the video from Max car that should do that either. So i don't see why they should change their mind after seeing the video from Max car. The two videos show the same thing from different perspectives - that Lando definitely had his rear axles ahead of Max front axles, but there was still some overlap of the cars in terms of what lies outside the axles (wings etc.). So the new video didn't show us anything new.

So i don't see how you think they've contradicted themselves. To me, the videos show the same thing. I only disagree with their interpretation of what constitutes an overtake. But as already established in my earlier post, you cannot challenge interpretation - you can only challenge based upon new and relevant evidence.

[hollus]

We are kind of talking past each other. And I got this notion of a completed overtake from you, awesome, thanks.
Not trying to fight you, just taking the argument to its limit.

While I agree that the stewards are welcome to consider their interpretation as equally infallible as the pope (figure of speech), I have a philosophical problem with "you cannot challenge interpretation".
At some point, evidence overcomes the interpretation. Of course, it is gray zones all the way down, but at some point...?

Case a) What happened last weekend, Lando gets maybe just 1 cm ahead (thinking full car here, and of course he might well have been 20 cm short of that, but let's say he gets 1 cm ahead and stays there for a good amount of time). The cars stay each in its lane.
Stewards: No overtake.

Case b) Lange gets 1 cm ahead and holds that for a while, but during that while, Max instead fo keeping parallel, tucks behind Lando, then comes out again, then gets ahead at the apex.
Still no overtake?

It is litelally a question of whether you can see it, or prove it, or have the correct geometrical projection.

Legally, the Steward's decision is untouchable... until they decide otherwise. But they can decide otherwise if they decide that they looked at the wrong rule. What thoy should not do is reinterpret the same rule differently based on the same evidence. But anotehr rule, as overseen at the time? I think they could.

"The stewards are empowered to interpret the rules". Yes, but it looks like they never interpreted the "Lando was being overtaken" rule,because if they did they could have said so.


Anyways... "When" do the rules say that an overtake is completed? Or is perhaps the definition of overtake not in the rules?

[TFSA]

While I agree that the stewards are welcome to consider their interpretation as equally infallible as the pope (figure of speech), I have a philosophical problem with "you cannot challenge interpretation".
At some point, evidence overcomes the interpretation. Of course, it is gray zones all the way down, but at some point...?

It doesn't, and even if it does, when that evidence is "enough" to challenge the interpretation is... Well a new interpretation in itself.

The way you challenge interpretation is with rules. If the rules leave everything or anything open to interpretation, then you have to expect people to interpret it - and while interpretations may vary, some people are in a position of power (the stewards) and some are not (the rest of us).

Before McLaren even launched their protest, i argued that the problem with the rules isn't so much the apex part (people seem to think that this is what's causing all the issues, but we've seen cars penalized despite reaching the apex first plenty of times), but rather that overtaking isn't defined, and the rules are a bit vague on exactly what is expected of the attacking and defending driver.

Put another way: I don't think the rules particularly bad - but I do think they're badly written. Consistency will always be an issue when you don't define these things. They need to be specified in the rules.

I do think the rules are on track of becoming better. To give an example: the new 2024 overtaking rules, which for some reason aren't public (which is stupid - we only know of them because they've been viewed by some media publications), specified what happens if drivers are battling in a series of corners, with the new rules stating that while incidents will be mostly judged on a corner by corner basis, extra attention will be given to the position of the cars when entering the first corner. This was the basis for the penalty given to Kevin Magnussen vs. Logan Sargeant at the Miami GP.

Initially I didn't understand that penalty, and thought Sargeant was at fault for that crash, because Magnussen was half a car alongside on the inside of the corner - but that was because I was reviewing it by the 2022 guidelines. By the 2024 rules, Magnussen getting the penalty made more sense, because it was the 2nd corner in a left-right configuration, and his position in the first corner (where he was on the outside, and not far enough along) gave Sargeant the defenders advantage. So it suddenly made sense. This is the kind of rule improvements we need. The 2022 rules certainly weren't up to standard.

If the rules would just be more specific about stuff like overtakes, and what is expected of the attacking and defending drivers, then situations like Norris/Verstappen would be at least a little more clear cut. I don't expect perfection, but we can get there.

[hollus]

"incidents will be mostly judged on a corner by corner basis, extra attention will be given to the position of the cars when entering the first corner"

Now, interpret that is this single corner incident.

Another beyond gray point: "the apex". In this case, it is clear where it is, but where is it in spoon or in turn 1 in Shanghai. In turn 8 in Turkey?

Perhaps one cannot challenge the referee´s interpretation of the penalty kick in soccer, but one should be able to argue (clearly, one is not) that there was an offside just before the relevant play.

I don't what to drag this any more, because the "clearly one is not" wins the legal day. But damn!

[jknights]

Once again FIA taking the attitude of adult 'I am always right' rather than being someone who applies the rules that are clear and unambiguous. Similar to the Masi attitude in 2021 where he applied the rules incorrectly.
Personally I think that Norris needs to toughen up and just drive into Verstappen a few times to establish respect.
Reality says Norris wont win WDC so he has nothing to lose. Verstappen needs another couple of shunts where he hits the wall at high speed to establish that he needs to drive less aggressively.

[rbirules]

Once again FIA taking the attitude of adult 'I am always right' rather than being someone who applies the rules that are clear and unambiguous. Similar to the Masi attitude in 2021 where he applied the rules incorrectly.
Personally I think that Norris needs to toughen up and just drive into Verstappen a few times to establish respect.
Reality says Norris wont win WDC so he has nothing to lose. Verstappen needs another couple of shunts where he hits the wall at high speed to establish that he needs to drive less aggressively.

Except that McLaren are leading the WCC (and seem to care about very much) which they could lose if Lando has a DNF or two.

[Luscion]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... geln-2025/

The duel between Lando Norris and Max Verstappen has made big waves in the paddock. Some team bosses came under fire from the stewards. Among the drivers, the pros and cons were balanced. But almost everyone suddenly had a suggestion as to how the situation could be improved.

One sports director scoffed: “The overtaking guidelines are reviewed before each season. The drivers are asked to make suggestions for changes. But there was nothing at all at the beginning of the year.”

The drivers' briefing in Mexico gave the drivers another opportunity to suggest improvements based on the controversial decisions made in Austin. The consensus was that there are so many different scenarios that they cannot all be lumped together. That's why a little more freedom in the regulations is desirable.

The drivers' meeting with FIA race director Niels Wittich and the stewards lasted an hour. Most of the presentations culminated in the fact that they were almost identical to the existing guidelines. But there were also constructive ideas. The biggest asset was Charles Leclerc, who had a pretty clear opinion on the incidents and penalties in Austin.

In future, decisions should no longer be based strictly on who was ahead at the apex. There should also be more freedom for the stewards, even if this leads to more arguments afterwards. Nico Hülkenberg found it pointless to discuss who was ahead at the apex in Austin or not. In his opinion, this varies from corner to corner and is sometimes not at all clear. In the end, most drivers thought that Norris was right to get his penalty. Overtaking on the outside of the track simply doesn't work. However, the prevailing opinion among the drivers was that Max Verstappen also deserved a penalty because he pushed Norris off the track and drove off the track himself during the decisive overtaking maneuver.

“Actually, they both deserved a five-second penalty because they gained an advantage off the track. Norris should have been given another five seconds for overtaking. The stewards turned a blind eye for leaving the track and actually did Lando a favor. With a ten-second penalty, he would have ended up even further back,” explains Aston Martin Sports Director Andy Stevenson.

The drivers also suggested that the roles of defender and attacker should be better defined, as they play an important role in the assessment of a duel. In addition, the example of the Red Bull Ring should be followed in critical corners and a gravel strip should be created on the outside wherever possible. These speed traps have so far been repeatedly rejected for cost reasons.

“You can't actually overtake around the outside of turn 12 in Austin,” analyzed the Rhinelander. “You only have a chance if you're the first to turn in. But then you run the risk of your opponent putting the wheel in and you end up with a hole in the underbody.”
The FIA and the stewards want to take the feedback to heart and adapt the guidelines accordingly. The result will be presented to the drivers at the Qatar GP. However, changes will not come into force until 2025. It would be unfair in an ongoing championship if different rules were to apply in the last two races than in the previous 22.

Modifications to the race track are the simplest solution, but this is also a question of money. You can't just throw a two million dollar investment at the tracks concerned. Austin would be affected twice with turns 1 and 12. Gravel is not only poison for motorcyclists, asphalt run-off areas are also useful for track days for private drivers. That way, a tow truck doesn't have to be called out every time the car slips.

Andy Stevenson defends the stewards and finds the criticism of them unfair. “We went through all the controversial overtaking maneuvers in recent years and came to the conclusion that the stewards were almost 100 percent right.”

[CjC]

Andy Stevenson didnt read the stewards document regarding the penalty before he shared his opinion