hollus wrote: ↑26 Oct 2024, 18:07
If you think of it, the FIA saying that there is nothing new in that appeal means that the stewards either
a) Thought that Lando was ahead at some point in the straight
or
b) Considered the possibility and thought that he was not ahead in a meaningful way.
Both (a) and (b) have really interesting implications.
They have the right to reject the appeal, but it puts them in error in one way or another (that is "a", "b" or "nothing new").
The answer here is B.
The thing about an appeal, viewed as a general concept (outside of motor racing as well), is what you can challenge two things:
- The way the rules/laws were interpreted.
- The evidence available.
The thing about how F1 rules work though, is that you are not, on appeal (at least not for appeals filed outside the normal time window that is right after a race, before the final race classification is published), allowed to challenge how the stewards
interpreted the rules. If the stewards interpreted that Max is the defending driver, then you have to accept that interpretation, even if you think it was wrong (i disagree with the stewards personally).
You're only allowed to challenge the ruling based on evidence - that is, you believe that evidence was missing that wasn't available at the time, which shows the situation in a different light.
In regards to the on-track incident, while Verstappens front-facing camera wasn't available at the time of the race, since it wasn't streamed, and had to be downloaded later, there was a perfectly good
helicopter view available, which the stewards have surely seen. I've used this picture myself to argue what McLaren was arguing (that Lando had completed the overtake), but the stewards disagree, and interpret the rules different - and Max front-facing camera isn't really that interesting for that determination, when a perfectly good helicopter shot shows it as well - arguably better than the driver camera does (my screenshot isn't the best, but pausing on the right frame was annoying).
So the stewards must surely, if not definitely, gone with option B - they've seen it, but decided that the overtake wasn't complete.
Also, how you think that puts them in error is a little bit mysterious to me. Unless the FIA says otherwise later (they rarely do), the stewards are essentially the gods of how the rules are interpreted. If they don't think that Norris was ahead enough to have completed an overtake, then the overtake wasn't completed, and we have to accept that interpretation of what constitutes an overtake - even if we don't like it.