Verstappen vs. Norris in the F1 Miami GP: Why a Penalty Was Needed
Abstract
The 2025 Miami Grand Prix provided racing as well as
controversy, particularly in the battle between Max Verstappen and Lando
Norris. While Norris emerged victorious, several incidents throughout the race
raised questions about Verstappen's adherence to the rules. In particular to
Article 2(b), Chapter IV of Appendix L of the 2025 International Sporting Code,
regarding drivers behaviour. This article breaks down key moments from the race
using official frames and rules - from the start of Turn 2 on Lap 1, through
the clash with Oscar Piastri on Lap 13, to the final battle between Verstappen
and Norris on Laps 15 and 17 - and explains why the Race direction should have
intervened with a penalty.
Turn
2, Lap 1 Clash
The most important
episode of this article, and the one that triggered all the others in a domino
effect, happened at the beginning of the race, when car no. 1 forced the
breaking point in turn 1 to maintain the position on car no. 4. This manoeuvre
caused car no.1 to lock up and go wide of the normal racing line, as can be
seen in frame one.
For this reason, car no. 1 was forced to make an
aggressive move in turn two to maintain its position, aggressively closing in
on car no. 4, as shown in frame two.
At this point we can begin to see the manoeuvre conducted
by car no. 1, but to better understand what we will see in the next frame, we
must first recall Article 2 (b), Chapter IV, Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code 2025. This article describes the fair conduct of racing
drivers and states:
“Any driver moving back towards the racing line,
having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car
width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the
corner.
However, manoeuvres liable to
hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge
of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly
prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be
reported to the Stewards.”[1]
This article is linked to all the rulings related to
the infringements called "forcing another driver off the track" and
other violations of the driver conduct.
It is clear from frame two that car no. 1's manoeuvre
could be risky, but the focus for understanding why a penalty was necessary is
clearly shown in frame no. 3 hereunder.
From this picture we can clearly see that car no. 1 drove
car no. 4 to the outside of the track, probably due also to some kind of
"snap oversteer", that forced car no. 4 to turn the wheel in the
opposite direction of the turn, a completely unnatural behaviour that was
necessary to avoid a collision.
Even if there is a guideline about the car in front at
the apex of the turn, we must remember that the ISC is the fundamental code of
the sport and overrides any specific rules about overtaking behaviour in
corners. A car cannot gain an advantage at the apex by braking late or entering
the corner faster just to be first at the apex and then behaving as if there is
no other car on its side, thus creating “manoeuvres liable to hinder other
drivers”[2].
All things considered, a 10-second penalty would have
been the right decision[2],
also considering that the lack of action in this case caused what we will see
in the next few frames.
Lap 13: Piastri vs. Verstappen: The Precedent
Ignored
On lap 13, Oscar Piastri found himself in a situation
that we have seen many times before, always involving car no. 1. In an attempt
to overtake in turn one, car no. 1 forced the entry to defend car no. 81, as
shown in frame four.
This manoeuvre is something we have seen not only in
the first episode described in this article, but also throughout Max
Verstappen's career. In this case, Piastri wisely opted for a switch back move
and left the ideal racing line.
There were other instances where the driver in
contention with car no. 1 decided to not give off the line. The best example of
this is what happened in the 2024 Hungarian Grand Prix with Lewis Hamilton
which is accurately described in another article[4],
but we will return on this point in the conclusion of this analysis.
Lap 15: Norris vs. Verstappen, Again
By lap 15, Norris had regrouped and made a determined
effort to regain his position. As he prepared to overtake into turn one,
Verstappen made a late move that was a “perfect” combination of what happened
in the first and second episode described before. He went late in turn one and
forced Norris off the track again, as shown in frame no. 6. Also in this
occurrence, car no. 4 was hinder by this manoeuvre.
This episode can be
easily compared to what happened between the same two drivers in Austin, during
the 2024 Texas Grand Prix[5].
This case should have been penalised for the same
reasons as the aforementioned offence in the first lap.
Lap 17: The Final clash
The last episode that needs to be mentioned happened
in lap 17, when car no. 4 forced car no. 1 off the track, in an act of revenge,
or simply to “return the favour” to car no. 1. Once again, the offence is as
easy to see by looking at frame no. 7, as it is easy to explain for the reasons
given above.
The difference between this episode and the first one
stands in the fact that after this manoeuvre, car no. 4 gave back the position,
eliminating the gained advantage. For this reason, there was no purpose to
impose a penalty on car no. 4.
Conclusion
Taking all these infringements together and adding the
ones from the previous seasons, it is easy to see a pattern in Verstappen
behaviour, the same pattern that forced the FIA, in the past, to change the
rules on “moving under braking” due to the Dutch driver.
The “let them race” philosophy cannot excuse clear
breaches of the ISC or manoeuvres that may endanger other drivers. The purpose
of Article 2(b) is to ensure safe and fair racing. Ignoring it sends the wrong
message: that certain drivers can operate with impunity, and this can create
what happened in Miami: a series of infringements caused by a single avoided
decision.
Fortunately, there were no consequences in this case
(if we don't take into account that Norris could have been in contention for
the win had it not been for the episode on lap 1) and that Piastri, unlike Hamilton
in Hungary, decided to abandon the ideal racing line. On the other hand, this
kind of behaviour can lead to serious accidents if not prevented, while
undermining the authority of the FIA, which is a core value of the sport, along
with the safety of the drivers.
[1] Art. 2 (b), Chapter IV, Appendix L, International Sporting Code, FIA, 2025.
[2] See footnote no. 1.
[3] As a reference look at Doc. no. 53 of the 2025 Bahrain Grand Prix, FIA 2025.
[4] D. Beatrice, The truth behind the Verstappen - Hamilton crash at the F1 Hungarian Grand Prix 2024: An in-depth analysis.2024. Available here: https://dbmotorsportf1.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-truth-behind-verstappen-hamilton.html
Commenti
Posta un commento