Credits: IMAGO / HochZwei
The 2024 Austrian GP saw one of the most exciting race finishes in recent years with Title rivals Lando Norris and Max Verstappen finally having a coming together whilst battling for the lead at the Red Bull Ring. On lap 64 of the 71-lap race, Norris tried a move around the outside of the #1 driver into turn 3. It ended with both of them suffering a puncture and handing the race win to George Russell.
After the incident, Verstappen got a ten-second time penalty for causing a collision. Despite the Stewards ruling against the Dutchman, opinion remains divided about who was actually at fault.
The official verdict from the FIA explained that the Red Bull driver was found in violation of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2 d) of the FIA International Sporting Code. Here’s an in-depth analysis and run-down of the events leading up to the collision and why the FIA’s decision was legally spot on.
Incident 1: Did Max Verstappen gain an advantage on Lando Norris while leaving the track?
Before diving into the contact itself, it is necessary to understand the events leading up to the ill-fated move the #4 driver attempted on Verstappen. Both Norris and Verstappen were on a two-stop strategy. They decided to box on lap 51. Verstappen suffered a slow pit stop (6.5 seconds) allowing Norris to close the gap to just over two seconds as they exited the pit lane.
Red Bull serviced the three-time champion with a set of used medium tires. Norris, on the other hand, used his fresh set of mediums he had saved during the weekend. Naturally, the McLaren driver was catching Verstappen at the rate of naught.
On one occasion, Norris attempted a dive-bomb move down the inside of Verstappen into turn 3. He locked up, exceeding track limits, however, the Briton promptly gave the position back. Norris would later be penalized with a five-second time penalty for a track limits violation but not for that failed overtake on Verstappen.
The entire controversy started on lap 63. Into the approach towards turn 3, Norris once again dove down the inside of Verstappen’s car. This time, however, it was the Red Bull driver who left the track. He rejoined after the yellow sausage kerb but ahead of Norris.
Verstappen did not relinquish the position. But after reviewing the onboard and broadcast footage, an argument can be made that he did not gain “any lasting advantage” to be penalized. However, this move could have been factored into the Stewards’ decision as the collision between the duo occurred on the very next lap and at the very same corner.
Incident 2: What is Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2?
Verstappen was deemed guilty of violating Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2 d) of the Sporting Code. Article 2 d) discusses the offense of causing a collision and such a move being liable to be reported to the Stewards for a possible penalty.
Article 2 b) of the Sporting Code also outlines the code of conduct whilst overtaking. After careful reviewing of the race footage from different angles and an analysis of Article 2 b), the following can be seen:
Moving under braking:
Verstappen’s onboard camera shows that as the Dutchman approached the 100m board, he tilted his steering wheel to the right-hand side, towards the apex of turn 3. He simultaneously applies the brakes on his RB20. At this point, the #1 driver is well into the braking zone and defending his position from Norris behind. He has effectively used his one move under braking to cover the inside.
However, Verstappen quickly takes a look in his right-hand side mirror to find that Norris is in fact attacking his outside, unlike the previous times. As evidenced by the #1 driver’s onboard camera, he then makes a substantial steering adjustment to the left. This was even before the 50m braking marker – suggesting that he was still under braking.
Article 2 b) mandates that “More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted.” During the first phase of the incident, as explained above, Verstappen can be seen moving twice under braking, trying to defend his position. Therefore, the Dutchman was indeed in violation of the Sporting Code.
That being said, it was the second phase of the incident that earned Verstappen the ten-second time penalty.
Racing etiquettes whilst overtaking and defending:
Article 2 b) goes on to further say, “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.” Any other abnormal change of direction resulting in “crowding” the chasing car would result in being reported to the Stewards.
Breaking this down, firstly, was Verstappen off the racing line? To answer this, we must first understand that the racing line is dynamic and generally understood as the fastest way around a particular corner. Turn 3 at the Red Bull Ring is essentially a ninety-degree right-hander.
Therefore, a wider line into this particular corner is often the faster way as a tighter approach would increase the angle of the corner. In this case, as discussed above, Verstappen had moved over to the inside to cover Norris. Technically speaking, the #1 driver was off the racing line.
Even the aerial footage of the incident substantiates this view. The outside line, which was commanded by Norris, has a darker tinge to it owing to the drivers constantly using that strip and laying down the rubber. Verstappen can be seen on the lighter side of the tarmac – the off line, unused part of the circuit.
Moving on, whilst defending his position off line, did Verstappen leave Norris at least a car’s width, at the edge of the track, when he attempted to move back towards the racing line? The aerial footage of the collision also provides clarity with respect to this question.
At the very moment that the duo made contact, Norris’ left front and rear tires were on the red and white kerbs and just beyond the painted white line. According to Article 2 c), “… the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not.”
Viewing the footage while reading Article 2 b) along with Article 2 c), it can be clearly seen that Norris did not have a car’s width between the edge of the track (the white line) and Verstappen’s car when they made contact as he was forced onto the kerbs.
Verdict: Did the FIA correctly penalize Verstappen for his clash with Norris?
The Stewards held that, “…the driver of Car 1 was predominantly at fault and therefore impose the above mentioned penalty [ten seconds] in line with precedents.” But were they correct in deeming Verstappen to be at fault?
Our analysis shows that the Dutchman was in breach of the code of conduct established by the Sporting Code. Firstly, he moved twice under braking. Secondly, his second change of direction, to the left, was abnormal, and pushed Norris beyond the edge of the track – resulting in a collision. He also did not leave Norris at least a car’s width between his own car and the edge of the track.
Hence, the Stewards have rightly interpreted the Sporting Code to penalize the 26-year-old. It is to be appreciated, however, that the Stewards have judged Verstappen to be “predominantly” at fault and not completely.
While Norris must shoulder some degree of blame, the Dutchman’s penalty comes in light of the interpretation of the regulations that govern the code of conduct for drivers on track.
