F1 Driver Guidelines Review: Reasons for the Extended Timeline

Following the exciting Mexico City Grand Prix, won by Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz, the points difference between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris now stands at 47. Verstappen incurred two 10-second penalties due to incidents with Norris, yet he still secured a sixth-place finish. Norris, who spent most of the race in third, advanced to second position by overtaking Charles Leclerc. BBC F1 correspondent Andrew Benson addresses inquiries in the aftermath of the eventful grand prix. Regarding the ongoing revision of driver guidelines, a question from Olly asks why the review has been protracted, especially considering Max Verstappen’s actions during the 2021 season. The existing guidelines were established at the drivers’ request to enhance the regulation of racing incidents and to foster more uniform application. These guidelines were not specifically formulated in response to Max Verstappen’s driving style. The approval process for such regulations is extensive, involving numerous stages within the FIA and necessitating ultimate endorsement from the world motorsport council. For instance, although discussions between drivers and the FIA regarding guideline amendments occurred in Mexico City on Friday, the revised draft will only be presented to drivers for their review at the Qatar Grand Prix, scheduled for a month from now. It should also be noted that the current guidelines have not received formal technical approval from the drivers. Indeed, when the rules were initially presented to the drivers, their preference was to concentrate on the officials implementing the regulations rather than the specific phrasing. This stance stemmed from their belief that the preceding rules were adequate but were being inconsistently enforced. Presently, the circumstances have shifted; drivers now express concerns with both the guidelines themselves and their practical implementation. They perceive that the current regulations contain a “grey area” which facilitated the defensive maneuvers Max Verstappen used against Lando Norris in Austin, thereby prompting the meeting in Mexico where a request for guideline amendments was made. In response to Paul’s query about whether F1 driving standards are currently at their lowest point, the assessment suggests that, overall, driving standards in Formula 1 are likely as elevated as they have ever been. The sport features numerous world-class drivers who generally compete fairly within the regulatory boundaries. However, certain drivers consistently explore the limits of the rules and acceptable conduct, a trait observed in Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher, and presently, Max Verstappen. Verstappen’s defensive tactics were evident against Norris in Austin, involving late braking on the inside to secure the lead at the apex, resulting in no penalty for forcing both cars off track because, technically, no rule was violated. Nevertheless, the Austin incident has emerged as a pivotal moment, prompting drivers to call for corresponding changes to the guidelines. However, it remains ambiguous whether the stewards, still adhering to the existing guidelines, adopted a stricter approach towards Verstappen in Mexico following the Austin incident. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff expressed his belief that this was indeed the situation, yet the stewards’ rulings in Mexico presented a different rationale compared to those in Austin. This distinction arises because the incidents in Mexico possessed a slightly different nature; specifically, Verstappen was positioned ahead at the apex in Austin, whereas Norris held that advantage in Mexico. K Raj inquires whether Russell will receive an updated car for Interlagos or if Mercedes will continue to face a shortage of replacement components. Mercedes is currently encountering difficulties stemming from two factors: the frequency of significant accidents involving their drivers, and their uncertainty regarding whether their most recent upgrade package has introduced instability into the vehicle. These two concerns may, in fact, be interconnected; it appears plausible that George Russell’s crash in Austin, along with Lewis Hamilton’s excursions off track during practice and the race there, could have been a consequence of this instability. Russell also experienced a crash during practice in Mexico. However, despite the car bouncing after striking a kerb—similar to Hamilton’s incident after hitting a bump at Turn Three during Austin Friday practice—Russell was operating an older-specification car in Mexico, having sustained damage to his new floor in Texas. The cumulative damage, which also encompasses Andrea Kimi Antonelli’s substantial crash during practice in Italy, presents Mercedes with a dual challenge: a scarcity of spare parts and considerable expenditure. The team is now approaching its cost-cap threshold. Team principal Toto Wolff commented that the necessity of supplying Russell with a completely new chassis following his Mexico crash represented “a tremendous hit under the cost cap and we probably have to dial down on what we put on the car”. Following the Mexico race on Sunday, Wolff indicated that for the upcoming Brazil weekend, Mercedes would possess two iterations of the new floor, which was initially introduced in Austin, adding “but that’s basically it”. Pertaining to the car specification for Brazil and whether recent problems might prompt them to discard the new floor in favor of an earlier version, Wolff remarked: “I am open-minded about what the drivers think.” He further elaborated, “I am certain George will go for the new and Lewis may want to back-to-back the old floor now in Brazil, and we will certainly talk with him about what his preference is.” John poses the question of why the pole position driver at the start is situated on the left side of the track in Mexico City, even when the initial turn is to the right. The placement of pole on the left in Mexico City is due to it being the racing line, which is frequently regarded as a beneficial position, notwithstanding its location on the outside as the cars approach the first corner. This advantage stems from the racing line typically offering superior grip compared to the inside line, as it is utilized throughout the weekend, resulting in a cleaner surface with more deposited rubber. Theoretically, the driver starting from pole should achieve a more effective start than the second-place qualifier, assuming all other conditions are comparable. This particular approach finds its origins in the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix and the contentious collision between Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost at the inaugural corner. Senna and Prost were contending for the championship title during that race. Senna secured pole position in his McLaren, while Prost’s Ferrari started second. The FISA, then recognized as the sporting division of the FIA, had designated pole position on the right, which was the inside line. Senna requested its relocation to the outside line, which offered more grip, but Jean-Marie Balestre, the then-FIA president, declined. This decision incensed Senna, who already harbored suspicions that Balestre had intervened to ensure Prost’s victory in the 1989 title, following their collision at the chicane in Japan the preceding year when they were McLaren team-mates. Senna resolved that if Prost managed to reach the first corner ahead of him, the Frenchman would not proceed further. Prost indeed achieved a superior start, and Senna intentionally collided with him, resulting in the retirement of both drivers. Returning to contemporary Formula 1, although pole position is more frequently located on the outside line, this is not universally true. For instance, in Belgium and Canada, pole is situated on the inside. Fundamentally, pole position is assigned to the side of the track that is perceived to offer the greatest advantage to the driver who has achieved that qualifying spot. Kev’s question addresses whether Franco Colapinto’s sustained performance throughout the remainder of the season will guarantee him a