How Austin exposed the flaws in F1’s driving standards guidelines

F1’s driver guidelines are in the spotlight again after the United States GP

The controversy over the Lando Norris/Max Verstappen overtake in Austin has once again put a spotlight on the way Formula 1 is policed.

Fans are divided about whether it was right that Norris got a penalty for overtaking off track in an incident when his rival had run off the circuit in his efforts to defend against him.

It delivered flashbacks to the battle between Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton at the 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix where defending by running wide became a major bone of contention.

What is different now compared to back then is that F1 is operating under a new system where there are common and agreed Driving Standards Guidelines.

As reported by Autosport, this formal document has been pulled together outlining the basis on which stewards will make their decisions, and this is set to be rolled into the FIA’s 2025 International Sporting Code, so will be applied to all categories in the future.

But while the guidelines were aimed at making things clearer in drivers’ heads about what is and is not allowed, what happened at Turn 12 in Austin has perhaps only served to add some confusion, as well as expose some big flaws with the premise about how things are judged.

The debate over Verstappen running wide

What is mentioned in the guidelines themselves is that no two incidents are the same, and this is in essence one of the key problems when it comes to creating hard and fast rules – because what fits one move may not be right for another.

But one recurring theme from the Norris penalty decision is the fact that Verstappen went off track himself – and that makes the situation less crystal clear than if he had remained within the white line.

While Norris clearly did not fulfil the guideline's criteria to be ALONGSIDE his rival at the apex, equally there is a question over Verstappen’s defence.

As the guidelines clearly state: “If, while defending a position, a car leaves the track (or cuts a chicane) and re-joins in the same position, it will generally be considered by the stewards as having gained a lasting advantage and therefore, generally, the position should be given back, as prescribed in the rules. It will be the sole discretion of the Stewards to determine if the driver of a car is “defending a position.”

So, are we in a world where if Norris had stayed on the track and aborted his move, then Verstappen would have had to give up the place and Norris would have been better off?

That is something only the FIA stewards will know for sure.

As Williams driver Alex Albon said: “I thought normally if they both don't make the track, then that gets a bit grey….That reminds me of Brazil [2021].

“I think if you can stay on the track, fair enough. You've got it.”

This viewpoint is something that Norris himself made reference to.

"For me, whatever I did, I did for me,” he said. “The point that is incorrect is what Max did, which is also defend his position by going off the track, and what effectively would be keeping his position, which is not correct.

"He went off the track by defending, and he's over-defended and made a mistake, and therefore he's gained from that.

“At the same time, because of that, I've had to go off the track. It's impossible for people to know if I could have made it on the track or couldn't.

"Therefore, you cannot steward that kind of thing."

The apex issue

The way that the guidelines are so focused on what is happening at the apex of the corner means there is a clear incentive to make sure that you brake late, so you are there first – as that then gives you far more rights as to how much space needs to be left on the exit.

But even then, drivers are not convinced that everything is being treated equally. For example, Oscar Piastri failed to understand why he got a penalty in the sprint for forcing Pierre Gasly wide at Turn 12 in a near identical moment to what happened between Norris and Verstappen – and especially considering he managed to stay on track.

“I think if you look at my penalty from the sprint, it was basically a carbon copy of Max and Lando, but I stayed on the track and I got the penalty,” said Piastri.

“So no, it's not very clear, it's tough. Yeah, it's just very difficult.

“I feel like as drivers we also all kind of have different interpretations of what we think is fair and what's not, especially when it comes to being on the outside of another driver.

“But the difference of 10 centimetres or 20 centimetres can be the difference of you having the right to space or not having the right to space. And obviously, for the stewards, who generally haven't driven a car very much, it's very tough to judge that in the moment especially.

“I think my incident and Lando and Max's [in the race] looked very similar with the opposite penalties. So, I'm sure we'll have some questions.”

The role of the stewards

The other problem that has been highlighted by the Norris/Verstappen incident is that once again the stewards are open to accusations of a lack of consistency.

Fans question how variable the decisions are, and drivers themselves are unclear about why sometimes calls go different ways for what look like similar incidents.

Norris himself questioned why he had been penalised for overtaking off track in Austin, while in Austria, Verstappen was not investigated despite running off the track to keep hold of the lead after a move from his McLaren rival – who had ticked off getting to the apex first.

“The rules, they seem to change, because I feel like it's quite inconsistent from say, what happened in Austria, where Max didn't get a penalty and went off the track, and gained an advantage,” said the Briton.

"So, I think there's again, inconsistency.”

That inconsistency – and the fact that the basis of the decisions are not explained in full – is further clouded by the fact that the stewards’ panel often rotates.

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff in particular suggests that the lack of consistency across the year is fuelled by the fact that he thinks not all stewards operate to the same level.

“There's always going to be someone that's happy and the other one unhappy, but we need to try to understand whether there are certain patterns in stewarding decisions, and whether that correlates to some of the situations,” said Wolff, who was furious that Russell got a penalty for forcing Valtteri Bottas wide.

“Everybody's racing hard, but for me, the decision against George was inexplicable.”

In the Russell case, he had not fulfilled the criteria of the guideline in getting to the apex ahead – so that meant he had to give Bottas room on the outside.

Had he come off the brakes earlier and focused more on getting to the apex first, then irrespective of how he managed to collect things up after that, he would have escaped a sanction as the track was effectively all his.

Wolff added: “We've seen plenty of these situations in Turn 12? None of them was penalised until George did it.”

Speaking more about the make-up of the stewards, Wolff added: “I think there's great stewards, honestly, great stewards that have either been in the racing car or have a non-biased view on situations, doing the best of their abilities for a job that is truly difficult. And we mustn't put everybody in the same category.

"There's a few inconsistencies, but I'm sure the President is going to look at that."

It will be interesting if Austin proves to be a trigger for Mohammed Ben Sulayem to look once again at the system and the way things are done as F1 is in the headlines once again for all the wrong reasons.