Why Verstappen’s late Austin clash with penalised Norris is a Brazil 2021 repeat

If you want to understand how brilliant – genius, even – a Formula 1 driver Max Verstappen is, watch exactly how he attacked Lando Norris at the start of the 2024 United States Grand Prix. And then ‘defended’ against him at the contest’s controversial conclusion.

This latest saga has frustratingly eclipsed the brilliant victory scored by Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc at Austin on Sunday. And the problem boils down to why both the Turn 1 and Turn 12 Verstappen vs Norris battles were essentially the same cynical tactic from the world champion.

Here rises the spectre of that 2021 campaign of campaigns – when Verstappen and his Red Bull squad fought Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes so bitterly. Given the tit-for-tat squabbling over ‘mini-DRS’ and bib-gate at McLaren and Red Bull respectively in the last two races, plus this being another season with multiple controversial racing clashes with the title protagonists, 2024 is firmly becoming a repeat.

Specifically here, however, it’s the 2021 Brazilian race that really matters. And how heading into Interlagos’ Turn 4 with Hamilton and his fresh engine grunt bearing down in arguably the Briton’s greatest ever F1 win, Verstappen steamed on with the inside line he’d taken in defence. Both flew into the runoff and the Red Bull remained ahead.

As with Interlagos, Verstappen’s onboard video feed at Austin was critically also broadcasting backwards – something to bear in mind when remembering how rapidly the stewards made this call. That’s something FIA sources insisted to Autosport post-race is in line with what the teams have pushed for regarding stewarding decisions that impact podium appearances. Entertainment apparently trumps justice…

There are differences here to Brazil 2021 – but they matter. For Norris at Austin three years later, it’s how he did overtake off-track, but McLaren didn’t order him to give the place back and attack again.

Austin battle with Norris was reminiscent of Verstappen’s defence against Hamilton in the 2021 Brazilian GP that the Mercedes driver went on to win

Photo by: Charles Coates / Motorsport Images

When this writer asked him why not on Sunday night, team principal Andrea Stella explained that “on the pitwall and under my responsibility – but there was complete agreement by all the people involved in this interpretation – this situation did not need to be investigated”.

“If anything, we thought the investigation should be for Max pushing Lando off the track,” he added. “That’s what we thought was going to happen when we saw the case was under investigation. So, for us, there was no need to give back the position.”

For Hamilton in that Interlagos classic, he was able to pass at the same spot a short while later anyway and went on to win. Verstappen wasn’t even investigated in that case and here – in doing what the 2021 Mercedes couldn’t in a different runoff, Norris was penalised five seconds.

Although the speed specifics of Turn 4 Brazil and Turn 12 Austin are different, McLaren insiders are convinced that Verstappen’s manoeuvre here is of the same class as Brazil 2021

I also asked Stella, after he had stated “the defending car goes straight at the apex” for Verstappen at Austin Turn 12, if this was “Brazil 2021 all over again?”

“That was extreme because the speed of which Max missed the apex in Brazil,” he replied. “If you turned in to Max, it was a big crash at the time. This one, it was a much slower speed so it could be a more benign situation. But it is just the fact – that you defend by going off the track? This cannot be permissible.”

But the Brazil point remains pertinent. After a little digging away from the dictaphones, it became clear that although the speed specifics of Turn 4 Brazil and Turn 12 Austin are different (plus the contrasting investigation/penalty outcomes), McLaren insiders are convinced that Verstappen’s manoeuvre here is of the same class as Brazil 2021.

Class is the key word. Because Verstappen is so good, it’s clear that after he raced Leclerc cleanly in the early 2022 contests, that a hiatus then ensued during the time he just had no opposition at the head of the pack for two years. In that time, he’s perfected essentially the same tactic. It now conforms with F1’s current racing rules and that is a huge problem.

Watch: Why Verstappen’s Move on Norris is More Controversial than it Seems – F1 US GP Race Reaction

Verstappen has shown yet again that he is willing to be completely ruthless to win – in this case extending his points lead over his title rival with the race victory already well lost. To a certain extent that is to be respected – applauded by some, no doubt. But it’s the cynicism of what’s happening repeatedly now that sours the taste of what was otherwise another brilliant F1 race this term. One with fantastic performances from multiple drivers.

The main dispute is how F1’s 2024 Driving Standards Guidelines (DSG) – a copy of which Autosport has seen – just doesn’t cover what he’s doing. And that is: turning defence into attack. A la Brazil 2021. The point where cunning eases into crafty in a giant runoff area (and the lack of even a small gravel trap at Turns 1 or 12 at Austin is another, relevant, topic entirely here).

The DSG only cover – in 266 words and three quick sections – “Overtaking on the INSIDE of a corner” and “Overtaking on the OUTSIDE of a corner” (the capitals are the FIA’s). There’s an additional explanation for ‘chicanes and S-bends’, which doesn’t apply here.

When it comes to Norris’s penalty, the latter states that “to be entitled to be given room, including at the exit” the outside attacking car must have its front axle at least alongside at the apex and to the exit. Norris complies in this case, albeit from quite wide until he runs off track.

An outside attacking car must also be driven safely and controlled throughout such a move. No problem there for Norris. And it must be able to make the corner within track limits in these cases.

Here, GPS trace data becomes critical. Looking at the lap in question and the tour before, Norris brakes at the same point each time and made the corner, obviously, the first time – where Verstappen had jinked slightly less left that he soon would. The only car that braked later in all four points was Verstappen’s in the clash that had them both off the road.

Norris was penalised because he did overtake off the track. That it was “deemed to be a case of leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage” in the relevant FIA bulletin. The stewards noted that he was also “not level with Car 1 at the apex”.

But in adding “Car 4 had little alternative other than to leave the track because of the proximity of Car 1, which had also left the track” to explain why Norris was only given a five-second penalty and not 10, the argument for applying a sanction is totally undermined.

Norris did get ahead of Verstappen outside the track limits and could not pull away to negate his five-second penalty

Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images

What happened was either the fair outcome or Verstappen should’ve been penalised. But Verstappen wasn’t – despite Stella saying McLaren was so convinced he would be it “told Oscar [Piastri, behind in fifth] immediately to make sure he closed within five seconds of Max because there could be a position at stake”. And that trace data suggests why.

In his defence, echoed by team boss Christian Horner, Verstappen only deflected in the post-race press conference, saying “it’s very clear in the rules: outside the white line, you cannot pass”. “I’ve been done for it as well in the past,” he added, referring to the 2017 US GP here.

There are sub-issues at play. When assessing every investigated clash, the stewards have the power to be discretionary and the guidelines are exactly that. They even say, “not binding”, just before the nebulous “racing is a dynamic process”.

That’s the genius of Verstappen’s moves. He’s forcing the issue by racing to the apex – so the original attacker either choses to crash or will lose out under the rules

Post-race at Austin, Mercedes’ George Russell also called for “the same stewards all year long” – another long-standing problem with F1’s rules. And Russell matters here because he was penalised for a very similar incident with Sauber’s Valtteri Bottas at the same spot 39 laps earlier. The key difference: Russell was clearly attacking.

“By the letter of the law my penalty was correct,” the Briton explained.

The guidelines for overtaking on the inside, which is what Verstappen effectively ends up doing by braking later at Turn 12, contain three key requirements. The attacker must “have its front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE of the mirror of the other car no later than the apex of the corner”. Verstappen achieves this by braking later.

The attacker must also not force the other car off on exit in such a move and leave a “a fair and acceptable width” throughout. The attacker must stay also within track limits. Verstappen doesn’t comply with the last two points. But because the rules don’t cover attacking as a form of defence, all the responsibility still lies with Norris.

Race to the apex with Norris allowed Verstappen to exploit grey areas in racing rule guidelines

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

That’s the genius of Verstappen’s moves. He’s forcing the issue by racing to the apex – so the original attacker either choses to crash or will lose out under the rules.

Crashing might even have been a better option for Norris last Sunday – and at Turn 1 for that matter – given it could’ve triggered a discretionary stewards call in the subsequent investigation, which surely would’ve heard from both drivers. McLaren is also incensed this didn’t happen in reality at Austin.

Overall, that’s appalling – not to mention how a DNF would impact Norris far more in the title standings as the chaser.

The FIA can help solve this problem. First, by publishing the guidelines. Why not make a show of it, as football does with VAR?

Second, it now needs to enforce another ‘Max Verstappen rule’. While the short-lived 2016 edition dealt with dubious moving under braking, the governing body must codify how turning defending into attacking is specifically legal and outlaws the race-to-the-apex dive art Verstappen has perfected. It should do this before the next race in Mexico.

Or, really, just scrap the guidelines entirely. Either way – they are being stunningly, cynically exploited currently. And that isn’t right.

Doing this would ease the cynicism fatigue plenty of F1 fans are feeling right now. That’s been turbocharged by 2024’s Horner behaviour scandal and all the squabbling over flexi-wings and other design ploys.

Ultimately, the list of these ‘Verstappen defence’ moves now reads: Brazil 2021, Jeddah 2021, Las Vegas 2023, Budapest 2024 (when Verstappen was actually the attacker at Turn 1 and runs into the ‘let them race’ lap one approach that came into effect at the Austin start too) and now this year’s US GP. Enough.