After the Finish Line: COTA 2024
The excitement and the controversies.
Formula 1 returned after a month. And delivered.
The biggest winner of the race were, of course, Ferrari. They had no equals on Sunday and scored their second 1-2 finish of the season. Now, they are only 8 points behind second-place Red Bull in the Constructors' Championship standings.
Other important things include: Franco Colapinto presenting a compelling case for his inclusion on the grid next season, Liam Lawson performing like a seasoned veteran upon his return, and George Russell achieving an impressive P6 after starting from the pit lane.
A lot happened, but I will focus on the Red Bull-McLaren battle off and on the track. A controversy arose surrounding Red Bull, McLaren modified their rear wings. Max Verstappen extended his championship lead over Lando Norris to 57 points after the two were involved in an incident.
Let’s begin with another episode of F1’s favorite soap opera of 2024.
McKaren vs. Red Bully
Before Verstappen and Norris had everyone on the edge of their seats, even before the Grand Prix weekend began, the higher-ups of their teams had already exchanged blows in the media.
The Red Bull features a device that enables mechanics to adjust the front floor height from the cockpit, although it’s impossible to access it when the car is fully assembled.
The team hasn’t been hiding it. It actually made it public, as the regulations require certain elements to be open source: meaning the teams are obligated to submit their drawings to the FIA. The device in question is one such component. Hence the governing body and the other teams have known about it.
McLaren raised suspicions that the device could’ve allowed Red Bull to adjust the front floor height while working on the car in parc ferme, under the surveillance of FIA personnel. That, of course, would’ve been “highly illegal” as Zak Brown put it.
Well, that’s akin to saying a woman is highly pregnant. She can either be pregnant or not. She can’t be more pregnant than pregnant.
Brown clearly exaggerated to emphasize the significance of a potential breach. And it’s his job to it. The teams compete on the track, before the governing body, and in the media.
“Non-story”
Nikolas Tombazis, the FIA Single Seater Director, fully understands the games the teams play. He knows this firsthand, having been an important part of the Ferrari team during its heyday in the early 2000s. Here is how he summarized the controversy:
Of course, it is a tight championship and people get rather excited about each other’s cars and so we can’t definitively close the previous races or any insinuations there may be between teams in a very competitive environment. But in the present situation, we believe it’s a non-story.
According to Tombazis, there is no evidence that Red Bull has violated the rules. However, there is no definitive method to verify this, as the footage from the cameras monitoring the cars in parc ferme is insufficient, especially considering that we are discussing differences of just a few millimeters.
What About the Wings?
Helmut Marko and Christian Horner both suggested, somewhat cynically, that McLaren might have attempted to divert media attention from other issues. They were alluding, of course, to the “mini-DRS” rear wings, which had sparked a social media uproar following the race in Azerbaijan.
McLaren admitted they made changes to the aforementioned components prior to the United States Grand Prix following discussions with the FIA.
The team didn’t break any rules, their wings passed all required tests. However, the governing body recommended that they be modified; otherwise, the team could be reported for breach of regulations.
We said, “Look, we consider that as something you need to change.” If they had ignored us, and they generally don't, then we would have reported them.
Apex Predators
The number one talking point of the race has been the incident between Verstappen and Norris a few laps before the finish. On the back straight, the Dutchman covered the inside, the Brit went outside and was ahead in the braking zone for Turn 12. However, Verstappen got his car in front at the apex. Both drivers ended up off track, where Norris completed his maneuver, resulting in a 5-second penalty for him, for gaining the position outside of track limits.
The stewards gave the following explanation of their decision:
Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the outside, but was not level with Car 1 at the apex. Therefore under the Driving Standards Guidelines, Car 4 had lost the “right” to the corner. Accordingly as Car 4 left the track and returned in front of Car 1, it is deemed to be a case of leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage.
The “who is ahead at the apex has the right to the corner” principle has been in force since I can remember. If you are ahead, you are entitled to take the racing line. If the driver on the outside wants to stick to his maneuver, it’s his problem if he ends up exploring the runoff area. Hamilton vs. Maldonado in Valencia in 2012 is a good example.
If Norris had been ahead or level at the apex, it would’ve been a penalty for Verstappen. That’s why the Dutchman’s maneuver at the start was “okay.”
And that’s why Russell got a penalty for shoving Valtteri Bottas off the track: they were more or less even at the critical point of Turn 12.
Outside of White Lines
The only problem with the Verstappen-Norris incident is that the Red Bull driver went off the track, a fact acknowledged by the stewards.
A 5 second penalty is imposed instead of the 10 second penalty recommended in the guidelines because having committed to the overtaking move on the outside the driver of Car 4 had little alternative other than to leave the track because of the proximity of Car 1 which had also left the track.
According to the guidelines referred to by the stewards, a car overtaking on the inside must be under control and must complete the maneuver within the track limits.
That may explain why there was no investigation into the skirmish between Carlos Sainz and Verstappen on the first lap at the same corner. The Spaniard was ahead at the apex but wen off track.
So did the Dutchman while battling Norris. This appears to present a contradiction.
Well, technically Vertappen wasn’t overtaking; he was defending, and the guidelines specifically address overtaking. At least that’s the justification I would use if I were the spokesperson for the stewards.
Besides not every incident is looked upon the same way.
Elbow Room
Apexes, white lines, and being under control are not the only aspects considered when evaluating a given incident. Other factors that are taken into account include:
1. How did the cars get to the incident? (E.g. late braking, diving in, moving under braking.)
2. Was the maneuver late or “optimistic”?
3. What could the drivers reasonably see, know, or anticipate?
4. Do we believe the maneuver could be completed on the track?
5. Was there understeer / oversteer / locking?
6. Did someone position / handle their car in a way that contributed to the incident?
7. Did the type of corner contribute to the incident? (e.g. camber, kerbs, curve, apexes)
8. What were the relative tyres / tyre age / grip?
The list above, as you can probably see, leaves much to interpretation. This is why there will never be one hundred percent consistency in stewardship; the gray area is, frankly, quite significant.
Circuit of the Awesomeness
Murray Walker is famous for many quotes. My favorite one is: “Jean Alesi is a Frenchman and he follows the Maginot Line policy: They shall not pass!”
Verstappen has a similarly unyielding mindset. On older tires, while defending against Norris, who had been catching him at nearly half a second per lap, he placed his car in right places with great precision, leaving no openings for his rival.
The incident aside, both drivers provided fans with an abundance of excitement, and their battle will likely be discussed in the future in a manner similar to the famous Arnoux-Villeneuve wheel-to-wheel combat at Dijon. They deserve their flowers, but so does the circuit.
COTA has established a reputation as a modern classic, because it’s suited for close racing, particularly under the current ground effect regulations.
Perhaps we need more similar tracks instead of more street circuits, Signor Domenicalli?