The 2024 Brazilian GP Start: Chaos, Controversy, and Lessons for F1

 Abstract

The 2024 Brazilian Grand Prix at Interlagos is already famous for its chaotic start, probably one of the most chaotic ever, triggered by rainy weather and an aborted start after Lance Stroll’s spin on the formation lap. This confusion led to unexpected decisions, including a controversial penalty for Lando Norris and George Russell over alleged start procedure’s violations. This episode has ignited debate on the FIA’s handling of start regulations, the consistency of penalties, and the challenges of managing fair play amid high-stakes moments. This article explores these issues, shedding light on the calls for clearer and more consistent FIA decisions.

A Start Plagued by Confusion

The 2024 Brazilian Grand Prix at Interlagos will be remembered for many reasons, from Verstappen's amazing drive to the rainy conditions, but the leitmotif of the weekend was chaos. The relevant episode for this article is the start, where a series of events led to one of the most chaotic starts ever. On the formation lap, Lance Stroll spun off the track and then beached his car in a gravel trap, leading to an aborted start that caused widespread uncertainty on the grid.

According to the FIA regulations and in particular to art. 47.1 of the FIA Sporting Regulations, if a start is abandoned due to track conditions or unforeseen events, all cars must remain on the grid and await further instructions. At such moments, the FIA normally signals to the teams whether any adjustments to the car are permitted and the restart procedure, which normally begins after ten minutes; however, during the Brazilian GP, the unusual conditions created an unclear situation where instructions came too late for drivers waiting in ambiguous conditions. Drivers stayed on the grid for a long time, while others left the grid thinking that an extra formation lap was necessary.

Several drivers, including Norris, George Russell, and Yuki Tsunoda, who were in the first positions, were alleged to have left the grid after the "abandoned start" sign. Fortunately, only two drivers were fined a small 5,000 euros and given a reprimand. On the other hand, this decision cannot be considered correct for several reasons.

 

The FIA’s Start Procedure Regulations and mistakes

As mentioned above, art. 47.1 is the rule that defines this particular situation and is also the infringement that is alleged to have been committed by the driver. As stated: “If the formation lap has started, and the Race Director decides the start should be aborted, the abort lights will be switched on, a board saying “ABORTED START” will be displayed, all cars should return to the grid and all Competitors will be informed of the likely delay using the official messaging system. The starting procedure will begin again at the ten (10) minute signal. Every time this happens the sprint session or the race will be shortened by one (1) lap”[1].

In this case, the real problem is not the offence committed by the aforementioned drivers (which clearly occurred), but the lack of communication and the delay between the Race Direction and the teams, which left the drivers in an uncertain position, and the unjustified selectivity of the riders to be investigated.

In fact, the official and definitive FIA documents on these cases are no. 84 to 88, but only George Russell and Lando Norris were penalised, but if we look at the facts, it is easy to see that every driver on the grid followed Norris, Russell, etc., even if the last cars on the grid were also told to stand still, as a very confused Max Verstappen told his race engineer on the team radio. The only car that deserved not to be penalised for this infringement was car no. 55 of Carlos Sainz, who was in the pit lane and did not leave it.

The justification for this difference in treatment is given in the official documents, which state for Norris and Russell that: “As the driver was on the front row of the grid this triggered following drivers to take similar action”, and for only two other drivers (who were not penalised) that: “In the opinion of the Stewards although the driver breached the regulation this was influenced by the driver ahead of him and as such he was not predominately responsible for the breach.”[2]

This kind of reasoning is clearly neither reasonable nor right; to understand this point better, we need to look at Art. 48 of the FIA Sporting Regulations on false starts. In this case, every driver is responsible for himself, and this is something that must be expected from elite drivers.

For example, if driver "X" makes a jump start because driver "Y", who was in front of him, made the same mistake first, both will be penalised and no one will try to use this kind of justification to avoid a penalty, because at the start the only references are the starting lights and the panels, not the other drivers.

 

How should this decision be made?

Looking at the situation from a broader perspective, it is important to highlight a positive aspect that could emerge from this episode: the application of a minor penalty can be seen as a way for the FIA to acknowledge the mistake made in this chaotic situation, where elasticity and speed of reaction are the most valuable assets to have. But what should have been the decision?

Taking into account the FIA Sporting Regulations, other episodes, the rule of the conduit of the drivers and the contingency of a moment as unpredictable as it was chaotic, two outcomes were reasonable:

1- Considering the chaotic situation, the delay in communication from the race director and the fact that every driver on the grid had committed the offence sooner or later, neither driver should have been penalised, the race director should have just shown the "extra formation lap" message and immediately after the “aborted start” message again, to indicate that the drivers had to stop on the grid to start the new starting procedure.

2- On the other hand, considering a stricter application of the rules, every driver on the track (except Carlos Sainz for the reason mentioned above) should have been penalised for the infringement of art. 47.1 of the F1 sporting regulations.

Furthermore, if the FIA regulations and their enforcement remain inconsistent, drivers may hesitate in future situations because they are unsure whether certain actions may result in unexpected penalties. There is a risk that drivers may be placed in inconvenient situations without clear guidance, particularly in wet or changing track conditions. In such cases, teams may feel pressured to take decision which, in retrospect, may be in breach of FIA regulations.

 

A controversial penalty and FIA's weakness

Beyond the specifics of the Norris situation, the controversy highlights wider issues within the governance of F1. Fans, teams, and even former drivers have pointed to a lack of clarity in FIA decision-making. Moments like the Brazilian GP expose weaknesses in the FIA's ability to manage and communicate in moments of chaos. Furthermore, the lack of uniformity in the enforcement of penalties leads to unpredictability, as drivers can receive vastly different penalties for similar infractions, depending on the race conditions, the stewards, and the pressures of the moment.

As has been suggested several times, clearer and more consistent guidelines and decisions are needed. It is unacceptable to read in an official document of a sport based on fractions of a second that: “At some point the Race Director realizing that for practical reasons all cars would now need to do an extra formation lap” because that “some point” can mean the difference between a clear penalty and no further action, which can affect not only a race but sometimes entire championships.

 

Conclusion: The Need for Consistent and Transparent Rules

In Formula One, the rules are as important as the racing itself. The FIA's penalty against Lando Norris and George Russell has highlighted the need for greater consistency, clarity, fairness, and communication in the enforcement of F1 rules. In a sport where minor infractions can affect championship standings and race results, transparent and uniformly applied rules are essential to maintain fairness. As F1 continues to evolve, it is vital that race control provides accurate and timely information to maintain the integrity of the championship. Norris' penalty is a reminder that clear, fair, and consistent rules should guide the sport and allow drivers to compete on an equal and fair footing.

---

[1] Art. 47.1, F1 Sporting Regulations, 2024.

[2] FIA Sao Paolo Grand Prix - official documents no. 84, 87.