The question marks lingering after Verstappen vs Norris in Austin

Rather than celebrating two elite drivers racing on the edge or applauding Ferrari’s impressive one-two victory, talk after the US Grand Prix once again shifted to regulations, stewarding consistency, and track limits.

Verstappen followed F1’s racing guidelines, but are they fit for purpose?

The incident unleashed differing comments from both sides, with Red Bull pointing out Norris made an illegal overtake off the track – an argument which the race stewards followed – while McLaren argued that drivers shouldn’t be allowed to just crowd a competitor off the road.

As Verstappen has apparently understood better than anyone else, the current driving standards guidelines encourage the defending car on the inside to just release the brakes and ensure it is ahead at the apex without having to give the car on the outside any room at the exit, a line of thinking which makes overtaking around the outside even more difficult that it already was.

Mercedes was apoplectic that Verstappen didn’t get punished while George Russell did for a similar-looking offence driving Valtteri Bottas off, but because the Mercedes driver was the attacker and overtook on the inside, the guidelines say Russell did have the responsibility to leave a car’s width for the Sauber at the exit.

Interestingly, the guidelines are just written from the attacking car’s point of view, including the requirement to drive in a safe and controlled manner and be able to make the corner within the track limits. That Verstappen did not do so was a mitigating factor in Norris only getting a five-second penalty as opposed to 10, and also explains why Norris wasn’t penalised for his fourth track-limits offence.

Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38, battles with Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB20

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

Then there is another interpretation for the first lap of a race, where stewards take a much more relaxed “let them race” approach. That means drivers are less afraid of having a go at each other at Turn 1 for fear of being penalised, but at the same time it doesn’t help fans understand where the consistency is.

It is clear that the guidelines are just that, and only indicative of how the stewards might judge a particular incident. They offer room for interpretation, which in this case Red Bull and McLaren did differently. Those guidelines are supposed to see widespread adoption across all levels of FIA sanctioned racing in 2025, down to grassroots racing, but are now likely to return to the agenda as a point of discussion, as Jonathan Noble explains in detail.

But what if in future cases the guidelines allowed the attacking car to stay ahead when being forced off? Would we end up seeing more wheel-to-wheel racing within the white lines rather than outside? That is a question for F1 and the FIA to answer over the coming months before the guidelines become a part of the wider FIA playbook. But many feel the current system is too confusing and open to interpretation, and doesn’t necessarily promote fair racing.

How much time should stewards take to make decisions?

McLaren also lamented that the FIA stewards made a call to penalise Norris within several minutes and before the end of the race. Team principal Andrea Stella felt that meant the stewards couldn’t take into account what both drivers and teams had to say about the matter. “When the case is so difficult, like Lando and Max, just take the time, review it after the race and hear from the drivers, try to understand the subtleties,” he said.

The quick decision making particularly affects cars finishing at the front, as it stems from a desire from the FIA and F1 to ensure the right driver is on the podium. Having a driver take to the rostrum only to be penalised and demoted hours after the race is an outcome nobody wants, so stewards are entitled to make a swift decision if they feel the case is clear enough.

Is this actually a track problem, and is gravel the solution?

Oscar Piastri, McLaren MCL38, runs through the gravel

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

After numerous track-limits offences made a complete mockery of the 2023 Austrian Grand Prix, the FIA made well considered changes for this year, adding narrow gravel strips at several corners. The solution wasn’t perfect, as McLaren’s Oscar Piastri still managed to fall victim of a contested track-limits call in qualifying.

But the general idea was sound. Installing strips of gravel within a car’s width of the white line ensures corners naturally punish drivers for going wide before they actually cross the track limits. If there had been a gravel strip on the outside of Turn 12, would Norris still have persisted with his around-the-outside move? And would Verstappen have been as cavalier with the way he released the brakes to make sure he would be ahead at the apex and earn the right to the corner, less interested in whether he would actually make the corner or not?

On street circuits the walls will take care of that, while on natural road courses the fact that certain circuits – like COTA – also host bike racing can be an issue. But the Red Bull Ring, which too welcomes MotoGP, shows temporary or modular solutions can be implemented at relatively limited cost.

So, while questions will be raised over rules and officiating consistency, taking the decision out of stewards’ hands to begin with by letting the track set natural boundaries is the solution that has been right under our noses all along.