Poll: Official 2024 United States Grand Prix Race Thread - Circuit of the Americas - Race 19/24

[Jono8]

If Norris had immediately relinquished the position, then I think you'd have a good argument that Max then had the lasting advantage by having left the track to enable him to keep his position.

I don't think the argument holds water that subsequently benefitting from another driver's punishment you yourself received a lasting advantage that deserves it's own penalty.

But that is rather perverse reasoning. If the stewards were going to adjudicate that Max was in the wrong and should give the place to Norris, why would they have punished Norris and not Max...?

That makes zero sense.

 

[AlphariusOmegan]

Because Max left the track and gained an advantage too. By the rules he should get a penalty also.

I don't think any one supporting Max and the stewards are thinking about this logically.

Let's for arguments sake, say that instead of running wide, Max simply cut the corner to stay ahead of Norris. This does not force Norris out wide, so Norris doesn't leave the track or get past Max. Surely Max should get a penalty, or hand the place to Norris? Remember, Norris was actually slightly ahead of Max going into the braking zone as well.

If any driver takes a run off or cuts a corner to stay ahead, they'd have to concede the place or take a penalty. It doesn't make sense that you can use the outside of the track to your advantage like that(whilst forcing another driver even further off to take evasive action), but not the inside/shortcuts...

The apex argument is irrelevant. It's still leaving the track to gain an advantage.

thank you personally i think the apex argument is very relevant because it is how the rules provide a guide on who should be given more weight in the arguement of who has right to the corner, however if you penalise both drivers you have effectively negated the penalty and in this case Lando would have gained a lasting advantage over Max.

I don't really think that changing the incident to have Max cut the corner is valid as you are changing the entire encounter, if Max cuts the corner then, depending on how much he cuts it he'll either get a track limit warning or if it's shaving off the entire corner a 10s penalty but this did not happen so do not think it can be used as an argument for Max to get a penalty.

But he did gain a lasting advantage when they gave the penalty to Norris/put him back behind Max.

Thatswhy the FIA should have stayed out of it, or given them both penalties (according to the rules).

By this argument;

Bottas gained a lasting advantage because George got a penalty for forcing him off the track
Albon gained a lasting advantage because Gasly got a penalty for leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage
Albon again gained a lasting advantage because Yuki got a penalty for forcing him off the track

can you see how flawed this argument is?

 

[Kenai]

But that is rather perverse reasoning. If the stewards were going to adjudicate that Max was in the wrong and should give the place to Norris, why would they have punished Norris and not Max...?

That makes zero sense.

If they were to judge that Max was in the wrong and Norris should get the place, then neither driver gets the punishment - Norris is fine because he'd be judged to only be off because of the error of Max and Max doesn't get any lasting advantage if he loses the place, so no punishment either.

If they were to judge that Norris was in the wrong and Max should have kept the place (as they did), then Norris obviously is the only one who can logically get a punishment for gaining a lasting advantage.

They wouldn't punish both for gaining a lasting advantage, that doesn't make any sense, they can't both retain an advantage

Racecraft wise, if Norris had rejoined behind Max, McLaren would have had a very strong case for "Max only retained his position by leaving the track, lasting advantage gained". Because Norris pushed on to complete the pass whilst off track, it completely muddies the water with how the rules are written, because the entire discussion is then about whether he has gained the advantage, rather than Max.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

It’s basically impossible to overtake in a corner the way Max defends - covering the inside, makes the apex ‘ahead’, but only because he’s not making the corner, and goes off outside track limits on the corner exit.

The rule need to be modified : The defending driver must stay within track limits or get a penalty

Agreed.

 

[koolpc]

It's not within the rules. The rules were not correctly applied.

They were. Lando got a penalty!!

 

[t2na]

Norris won't win the title, regardless of that move/penalty etc. yesterday. He's still so inexperienced when it comes to battling at the front of the pack, just routinely makes errors that you can almost see coming a mile off.

Has Norris just forgotten who he's competing against? Max is going to send it up the inside of T1 at the start of the race so cover it off or go into it with a plan for cutting back inside as he lunges. As always, Max is going to defend that inside apex if he's at risk of being overtaken like his life depends on it - so either go off track earlier and get 5s down the road to try and swallow up the penalty or force an overtake somewhere else. Lando was so quick into turns 13/14/15, why not try something?

I really just don't like watching the way Max defends corners but the rules have enabled it so he's not doing anything wrong by that nature but I wouldn't be surprised if we see some sort of update to them over the winter break. It feels quite cheap that a defending car can run an overtaking car off track, at the same time as going off track yourself to hold position - knowing that the overtaking car will get a penalty if they do complete the overtake.

Really happy to see Leclerc win, part of me is hoping that Max and Lando squabble/DNF the remaining races and Leclerc wins the title.

 

[cuke2u]

Racecraft wise, if Norris had rejoined behind Max, McLaren would have had a very strong case for "Max only retained his position by leaving the track, lasting advantage gained". Because Norris pushed on to complete the pass whilst off track, it completely muddies the water with how the rules are written, because the entire discussion is then about whether he has gained the advantage, rather than Max.

This, but Mclaren weren't thinking and really should have instead of assuming Max would be penalised not Norris.

 

[Slam62]

Yeah really pleased to see a Ferrari 1,2

The frustration for me was the way the rules were applied at different times.

Russell got a penalty for pushing Botas off track yet if Botas had come out in front would he have got a penalty for gaining an advantage.

So in the Max Norris case both should have had a penalty as one was caused by the other.

I’m beginning to doubt if Norris will ever win a championship without a big car advantage, he seems incapable of hard fighting.

In other news Colapinto seems to be destroying the myth that is Albon being any good and makes you wonder just how bad Sergeant was.

I am skewed by my view that Albon was never much good in f2 and before, but then neither was Colapinto.

It’s very strange and unusual to see a rookie doing as well as he is.

I hope Vowles has a water tight contract with him.

 

[Slam62]

This, but Mclaren weren't thinking and really should have instead of assuming Max would be penalised not Norris.

McLaren seem incredibly naive about everything these days, I do wonder at what point the shareholders will grow a pair. They don’t seem to understand how infrequently these opportunities come along, next year and 2026, another team could be a lot better.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

Lando was so quick into turns 13/14/15, why not try something?

The only explanation was because he got frustrated. He literally chose the worst corner on the entire track to try and overtake. He was doing really well before that, clearly understanding he wasn't in striking range, not peeking just driving behind, figuring out the flow.

Again he's not championship material yet, relying far too much on the cars pace over instincts. He has to hope the car is still good next year and just treat the rest of the season as learning material on fighting for podiums.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

I can definitely see Piastri getting the better of Norris next year.

 

[UTmaniac]

Whatever happened to defending car leaving a car's width between track lines for car alongside in a corner?

Max clearly didn't.

 

[Mr Jack]

I hope Vowles has a water tight contract with him.

Williams have signed Albon and Sainz until at least the end of 2026 so they don't have a seat to give Colapinto. I hope he can land a place elsewhere but it doesn't look terribly likely. Only Audi/Sauber have an open seat left and they don't seem to be overly keen, certainly not keen enough to pay Williams for the privilege. Personally I'm hoping that Bortoleto gets that seat, but we shall see.

Maybe something will open up for 2026.

 

[Mr Jack]

Whatever happened to defending car leaving a car's width between track lines for car alongside in a corner?

The rule is that they have to do that if the overtaking car is alongside at the apex; the stewards say Norris wasn't. I say that's only because Max took the corner in a way that meant that he wasn't able to take the corner inside the lines.

 

[Jono8]

thank you personally i think the apex argument is very relevant because it is how the rules provide a guide on who should be given more weight in the arguement of who has right to the corner, however if you penalise both drivers you have effectively negated the penalty and in this case Lando would have gained a lasting advantage over Max.

I don't really think that changing the incident to have Max cut the corner is valid as you are changing the entire encounter, if Max cuts the corner then, depending on how much he cuts it he'll either get a track limit warning or if it's shaving off the entire corner a 10s penalty but this did not happen so do not think it can be used as an argument for Max to get a penalty.



By this argument;

Bottas gained a lasting advantage because George got a penalty for forcing him off the track
Albon gained a lasting advantage because Gasly got a penalty for leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage
Albon again gained a lasting advantage because Yuki got a penalty for forcing him off the track

can you see how flawed this argument is?

It's not flawed. There is no difference between cutting a corner or over shooting a corner if it means you stay ahead because of it.

The stewards clearly thought only Norris had done something wrong. If they thought that Max would have gained an advantage if Norris didn't go past, they would have put it down to a racing incident and not taken it further.

They penalised Norris, and Norris only, even though they both went off the track.

 

[Jono8]

If they were to judge that Max was in the wrong and Norris should get the place, then neither driver gets the punishment - Norris is fine because he'd be judged to only be off because of the error of Max and Max doesn't get any lasting advantage if he loses the place, so no punishment either.

If they were to judge that Norris was in the wrong and Max should have kept the place (as they did), then Norris obviously is the only one who can logically get a punishment for gaining a lasting advantage.

They wouldn't punish both for gaining a lasting advantage, that doesn't make any sense, they can't both retain an advantage

Racecraft wise, if Norris had rejoined behind Max, McLaren would have had a very strong case for "Max only retained his position by leaving the track, lasting advantage gained". Because Norris pushed on to complete the pass whilst off track, it completely muddies the water with how the rules are written, because the entire discussion is then about whether he has gained the advantage, rather than Max.

I think you've misunderstood. I'm not saying they both should have got a penalty in reality as that would be odd.

I'm saying that logically, Max left the track and gained an advantage just as much as anyone could claim Norris did.

In actual fact, I'm not totally convinced that it can be argued that Norris was the one doing the overtaking into the corner. Norris had pretty much (if not completely) cleared Max before braking.

I can't find a better overhead but this shows Norris pretty much entirely ahead at the braking point.

This was nothing more than a racing incident, whereby Norris actually just retained the place, even after being forced off the track by Max due to Max braking late and not making the corner (the Max special).

 

[UTmaniac]

The rule is that they have to do that if the overtaking car is alongside at the apex; the stewards say Norris wasn't. I say that's only because Max took the corner in a way that meant that he wasn't able to take the corner inside the lines.

Rules need tweaking to say if car on inside line of corner goes off track, most/all other overtaking rules for car on outside are ignored.

Also if car on inside breaks considerably later than on other laps on a given corner to block outside car, penalty.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

I can't find a better overhead but this shows Norris pretty much entirely ahead at the braking point.

This was nothing more than a racing incident, whereby Norris actually just retained the place, even after being forced off the track by Max due to Max braking late and not making the corner (the Max special).

At this point, it's no different to the Russell Bottas incident. Russell even managed to keep within the track limits, but he was the one that got the penalty.

 

[Kenai]

I think you've misunderstood. I'm not saying they both should have got a penalty in reality as that would be odd.

I'm saying that logically, Max left the track and gained an advantage just as much as anyone could claim Norris did.

In actual fact, I'm not totally convinced that it can be argued that Norris was the one doing the overtaking into the corner. Norris had pretty much (if not completely) cleared Max before braking.

I can't find a better overhead but this shows Norris pretty much entirely ahead at the braking point.

<image>

This was nothing more than a racing incident, whereby Norris actually just retained the place, even after being forced off the track by Max due to Max braking late and not making the corner (the Max special).

Max can't logically have gained a lasting advantage because he came out behind Norris and stayed behind, there is no advantage gained at all for Max, never mind a lasting one.

I don't agree you can then claim Max did have a lasting advantage because Norris got a punishment for completing his overtake off the track, because you end up a in nonsensical loop of logic about who actually got an advantage.

And Norris was definitely the one overtaking into the corner, trying to argue he was actually just retaining a place he'd won clearly before the corner is a massive reach.

 

[imtoooldforthis]

I think the fact Lando and Zak both accepted the decision shows they know that so long as the overtake occurred off track that it wasn't going to be allowed regardless of whose fault it was that they ended up off track. At the end of the race you didn't hear Lando on the radio complaining about the penalty, instead he focussed on how he should have just tucked in behind (presumably to either have another go at Max or hope Max gets penalised for doing what Russell did).

As soon as the overtake was completed the more obvious and easier to judge penalty (rightly or wrongly) was always going to be the off-track overtake.