F1 2024 Qatar GP: When Race Direction Decisions Miss the Mark

 Abstract

The FIA recently appointed Rui Marques as its new Race Director, replacing Niels Wittich following months of criticism regarding inconsistent decision-making under Wittich’s direction. Marques performed relatively well at the Las Vegas Grand Prix, where his clear and balanced decisions helped to ensure a smooth and fair race (apart from one mistake). However, the Qatar Grand Prix exposed cracks in his approach, as moments of solid management were overshadowed by critical missteps that reignited the usual debates about FIA’s governance. This article provides a detailed analysis of the mistakes made and what needs to be done.

A Promising Start at the Qatar GP

In the initial stages of the Qatar GP, the race control showed a meticulous handling of critical moments. The opening laps were full of close racing, including a collision between Hülkenberg, Ocon and Colapinto in Turn 1. While the decision to penalise Hülkenberg for the incident was perhaps a little over the top, given that he lost control of his car due to cold tyres and sand on the track, the rest of the first part of the race was managed almost flawlessly. From ensuring the smooth resolution of minor infractions to overseeing a race free of unnecessary interruptions, the director showed his mastery of the FIA Sporting Regulations.

In particular, article 15.3 of the regulations[1], which gives the race director the power to intervene in safety matters, was used effectively for most of the race, maintaining a fluid competition. However, in the second part of the race, not all the decisions were of a consistent and high standard, particularly when dealing with situations involving potential risks.

The Mirror Incident and Its Consequences

Midway through the race, on the 30th lap, the loss of Alex Albon's side mirror provided a critical moment when the race director's judgement was called into question. According to article 55.3 of the FIA Sporting Regulations, the use of a Virtual Safety Car (VSC) or a full Safety Car is recommended in situations where debris poses a danger to the drivers, or as the article itself states: It will be used only if Competitors or officials are in immediate physical danger on or near the track but the circumstances are not such as to necessitate suspending the sprint session or the race”[2].

In this case, the mirror was on the main straight, but not on the racing line. On the other hand, it was on the "overtaking line" on the only straight where overtaking took place. Therefore, in accordance with the regulations, the use of the Safety Car together with the pitlane passage was the only way to avoid a potential risk that was easily foreseeable. However, the decision not to neutralise the race led to a cascade of events that upset the competitive balance and raised safety concerns.

Just a few laps later, Valtteri Bottas, while giving Charles Leclerc space to lap him, ran over the mirror, destroying it and creating a huge amount of debris made up of sharp glass and carbon fibre, fortunately without causing any damage to his car. It was a different story for Carlos Sainz and Lewis Hamilton, who both suffered punctures because of the small pieces of debris that littered the main straight. The ensuing chaos forced several drivers into the pits unexpectedly, reshuffling the order. In addition, Lando Norris received a controversial ten-second stop-and-go penalty for allegedly failing to slow under yellow flags. This decision highlighted the inconsistency in the enforcement of safety protocols and underlined the consequences of the stewards' decision not to intervene earlier.

A Questionable Judgment on Norris and Safety Protocols

The penalty imposed on Norris caused considerable debate, as it was felt to be disproportionate to the offence and inconsistent with previous decisions. The FIA's justification for penalising Norris was based on his failure to properly observe yellow flags in a sector affected by Albon's debris, as stated in Document 64. However, the confusion surrounding the flag signals and the circumstances of the incident complicate the story. As the footage shows, Norris was responsible for breaching Appendix H, Article 2.5.5 b) of the International Sporting Code and the Race Director's Event Notes.

Despite the infringement, Document 64 states that Norris was able to see clearly: “the double waved yellow flags”[3] and this true, but several contrasting signs were also present. Starting from the panel that was clearly visible, but it was signalling a yellow flag and not a double yellow flag as shown in the following frames.

In addition to this, there was no signal displayed on Norris's steering wheel.

For these reasons, even if Norris deserves a penalty for not lifting under yellow, at the same time, as shown by the circumstances, the right penalty to impose was a 5-second penalty, given the chaos caused by the race direction(yellow panel and double yellow flags)[4] and the fact that Norris had no signals on his steering wheel, there are a number of mitigating factors in his favour which make the penalty imposed on him grossly disproportionate. For the aforementioned reasons McLaren could Appeal the decision as granted by Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules.

Returning to the “mirror incident”, the FIA has historically prioritised driver safety and the integrity of the competition in the presence of debris. By failing to call for a Safety Car or VSC in such circumstances, the Race Director went against the spirit of Article 55.3. Furthermore, the decision to penalise Norris with 10 seconds stop and go penalty, while failing to address the unclear signalling of the yellow flags, shows a lack of consistency in judgement.

Lessons from the Qatar GP: The Need for Consistency

The events of the Qatar GP highlight the challenges of a late season transition to a new race director. While the director's debut in Las Vegas demonstrated his potential to oversee fair and well-run races, his performance in Qatar revealed lapses in decision-making and consistency. His harsh punishment of Norris and laissez-faire approach to Albon's debris incident undermine his consistency.

Ultimately, the role of a race director is to maintain a fair and safe environment for all competitors. This requires consistency in the application of the rules. Whether it is penalising drivers for minor infractions or deciding when to apply safety measures, clear and predictable decisions are essential to maintaining the integrity of the sport. As the 2024 season draws to a close, the FIA must ensure that its new race director refines his approach and avoids repeating the missteps of the Qatar GP.

In conclusion, while the FIA's new Race Director has shown a good approach for his first race in Las Vegas, the Qatar GP serves as a reminder of the high stakes and scrutiny inherent in the role. As Formula One continues to evolve, the need for fair, transparent and consistent decision-making is more important than ever, as this blog has stated many times in the past.

---

[1] Art.15.3, F1 Sporting Regulations, FIA, 2024.

[2] Art.55.3, F1 Sporting Regulations, FIA, 2024.

[3] Official Document no.64 of F1 Qatar Grand Prix, FIA, 2024.

[4] As stated in article 26.1 of the F1 Sporting Regulations: “In accordance with Appendix H of the Code, the light signals displayed on the trackside light panels have the same meaning as flag signals.”