This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
I also think that strategically you have to give Red Bull a break. They could have told Max to give the place back (like other teams do, who know their car is faster (Ham/Norris Bahrain), but they were very worried about their race pace and from that perspective you would advise him to stay in front to keep the buffer to Russell. Knowing what we know now, he could have won the race if he immediately gave the place back, but that is hindsight. No one foresaw Red Bull's race pace today and that's still the most positive thing. A car doesn't get that quick out of nowhere. Red Bull have to understand this and see where the development goes.
I think this is 100% spot on.
What I don't agree with though is the wording in the stewards document. They said that Piastri was alongside and he needed to be left room, but if that was the case didn't Max also deserve to be left room?
This is what I understand the rules to be;
Alongside = 50/50 - racing incident - no penalty
Ahead = win the corner - no penalty
Behind = lose the corner - penalty given
On their wording alone, it should have been a racing incident and no penalty given, no?
If Max kept it on track and then Piastri crashed into him (because he was not giving space to Max) then Piastri would get a penalty.
But Max didn't want a crash so he went off, then you can't stay ahead.
In my opinion they should always leave space for other car, this apex gaming is silly.
That's not how it works. Stewards need to decide who was ahead and who was entitled to space. If Max was ahead when he went off (he was, marginally), and he was entitled to space (they say he wasn't), he keeps the position even if he cuts the track. The question here is what standard they are applying for when the outside car is entitled to space. Going by the standard we've had in the past (outside car being ahead from the apex gets space) Max has a solid case for keeping the position. Maybe those guidelines have changed but nothing new has been published. As others have pointed out Verstappen was penalised for doing what Piastri did in Mexico 2024.
Verstappen did nothing wrong imo. He had the right to the corner, as Piastri wasn't clearly ahead at the apex. Piastri didn't leave enough space, and forced him off the track. This is pretty common, and rarely results penalty for the driver leaving the track. For example 2021 Abu Dhabi third corner. Hamilton did the same, and no penalty.
He was ahead of the apex. Telemetry showed divebombing as welk btw.
I had some doubts before, but now I'm sure that if Max, instead of the RB, had to run with a case of Heinekens... he almost certainly wouldn't finish last. This man is a phenomenon.
Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.
What I don't agree with though is the wording in the stewards document. They said that Piastri was alongside and he needed to be left room, but if that was the case didn't Max also deserve to be left room?
This is what I understand the rules to be;
Alongside = 50/50 - racing incident - no penalty
Ahead = win the corner - no penalty
Behind = lose the corner - penalty given
On their wording alone, it should have been a racing incident and no penalty given, no?
If Max kept it on track and then Piastri crashed into him (because he was not giving space to Max) then Piastri would get a penalty.
But Max didn't want a crash so he went off, then you can't stay ahead.
In my opinion they should always leave space for other car, this apex gaming is silly.
That's not how it works. Stewards need to decide who was ahead and who was entitled to space. If Max was ahead when he went off (he was, marginally), and he was entitled to space (they say he wasn't), he keeps the position even if he cuts the track. The question here is what standard they are applying for when the outside car is entitled to space. Going by the standard we've had in the past (outside car being ahead from the apex gets space) Max has a solid case for keeping the position. Maybe those guidelines have changed but nothing new has been published. As others have pointed out Verstappen was penalised for doing what Piastri did in Mexico 2024.
It would work that way if Max kept it on track and Piastri crashed into him. This would be a clear situation where Piastri did not leave him space and the decision would be simple (causing a collision).
But if a driver on the outside drives off track then the stewards are forced into deciding could he make the corner, was he ahead, who was defending, etc. Many factors and problems.
I bet you can go back through countless races and pick up exactly the same scenario's where no penalty was handed out. Not surprised Max was clearly having a 'heated' conversation with MBS when the race had finished.
There was probably more issues with the SC restart with cars not staying behind rather than Lap 1 Turn 1.
Piastri vs Sainz in Miami is one such occasion however the drivers lobbied for tougher rules towards the end of last season didn’t they so the FIA are enforcing the agreed punishments, for wanting a better word there are no free passes anymore- first lap or not.
A 5 second penalty out of the blue?? Was he not watching the end of last season?
What do you guys make of his opinion?
First lap incidents used to not be judged to the letter. It all come back to when british pundits last year started a cry campaign against Verstappen in order to boost Norris's chance in the championship.
The stewards statement confirms my thoughts from last night.
Sorry if this has already been posted but I’m not reading through pages and pages of debate when the correct decision and subsequent penalty was applied.
It can’t get any clearer than this:
Piastri attempts an overtake on the inside, is far enough alongside Max, and entitled to space, which Max allows him. However, Max is slightly ahead at corner entry, has positioned his car at a better angle to make corner, but has to take avoiding action or crash. How is this a penalty?
I assume FIA determined that Max would not make the corner. I strongly disagree.
They were couple of cm away from a big crash and most probably DNF. We have to take what it is now, P2 was good. Bring on Miami. The most important thing is can we keep up with the Mclaren in the next races.
We had a similar battle with Oscar in Saudi Arabia (Game-f12023), I tried the around the outside maneuver. Could rotate the car to make the corner and was just ahead.
Last edited by Vettel165 on 21 Apr 2025, 12:18, edited 4 times in total.
All I can assume is that the tactic of coming off the breaks to claim to be ahead/ alongside at the apex is being quashed out by the stewards. I hope within now and Miami a driver or someone from the FIA clears up where we stand on this tactic.
It’s a tactic that I personally don’t agree with but that’s my opinion.
One thing for sure, Max will respond at his next earliest opportunity. Either by comfortably winning in Miami or by making sure he’s ahead on the inside going into the apex and will run the driver on the outside off the track and guess what… which side do you think second place on the grid is in Miami…
There are updated driving standards guidelines for this year, which were agreed upon by drivers after the antics of last year. Those documents though, are usually private and available internally for references, however some medias have managed to get some info out of them. Regardless, bringing up past events as counter-arguments is pointless because we are not subject to the same rules anymore. I am glad they're starting to clamp down a bit more on these things.
I always hated the fact that you can just divebomb / ignore the next corner and be fine with it as long as you're ahead at the apex. No, that's not real racing. If you can't keep it on the track at the exit, then being ahead at the apex shouldn't mean anything. Oscar was considered as the "overtaker" in that scenario and that's why Max got the penalty, because Oscar actually kept it on the track at the exit, while being alongside enough at the apex as the "overtaker" to be entitled to the corner. If Oscar had ran wide, there would be no penalty for Max.
Also, if it was the other way around (Max starting P2 and Oscar P1), and we somehow ended up in a situation where Max would attempt to overtake around the outside of Oscar, then, according to the driving standard guidelines, Max would be entitled to racing room on the outside and Oscar would have gotten a penalty for pushing a driver off the track.
Apparently it all boils down to who is the "overtaker" and who is the "defender". The whole point in refactoring the rules was to prevent the car defending from abusing the "ahead at the apex" rule and give priority to the car "overtaking".
If you want to make Max's point, then RedBull should argue that he was the overtaking car and not the defending car. Perhaps in normal racing conditions, that would have been true. However considering this was lap 1 after the race start, Max was the car who was ahead before T1 and Oscar was P2, therefore the justification for considering Oscar as the overtaking car.
Max didn't gain advantage by leaving the track at the corner, because he was already already ahead at the apex, and was forced off the track. Case closed, no penalty is justified.
Max didn't gain advantage by leaving the track at the corner, because he was already already ahead at the apex, and was forced off the track. Case closed, no penalty is justified.
Okay then, by that logic, next time someone tries to overtake Max, they should just divebomb him and completely ignore the track limits at the exit. As long as they're ahead at the apex, they wouldn't need to give back the position.
Max didn't gain advantage by leaving the track at the corner, because he was already already ahead at the apex, and was forced off the track. Case closed, no penalty is justified.
Okay then, by that logic, next time someone tries to overtake Max, they should just divebomb him and completely ignore the track limits at the exit. As long as they're ahead at the apex, they wouldn't need to give back the position.
This is what you're saying right?
Nope, because Max probably would have made the corner, looking at his angle of entry. He had to cut the corner because of Piastri forcing him.
Max didn't gain advantage by leaving the track at the corner, because he was already already ahead at the apex, and was forced off the track. Case closed, no penalty is justified.
Okay then, by that logic, next time someone tries to overtake Max, they should just divebomb him and completely ignore the track limits at the exit. As long as they're ahead at the apex, they wouldn't need to give back the position.
This is what you're saying right?
Nope, because Max probably would have made the corner, looking at his angle of entry. He had to cut the corner because of Piastri forcing him.
He was full lock and the car was gliding off track before he just opened up the steering and cut the corner completely.
How was he going to make the corner?
I am tired of people defending this type of "racing". I am sorry, but you can't just abuse the "ahead at the apex" rule like this and get away with it. Everyone can just let go off the brakes to be ahead at the apex. If you can't keep it inside the track at the exit, then it's just unfair advantage.
Penalty was fair from my point of view. End of the story.
1. If Max lifts, would probably lost the position also to Russel.
2. If he lets Piastri pass he would destroy his tyres behind him, probably the position at the end would be the same.
3. They both keep the same line when turning, and crash into each other.
4. Max stays first like he did, and try to build a gap to the cars behind (Russel, Charles). Red Bull didnt know their pace was good enough, if we look at Bahrain we were nowhere . But the main factor there were the tyres. In this situation they let Max be the leading car, and trying to slow down Oscar. Also its better then I expected after 5 races. After very bad testing I expected Mclaren at least 30 points ahead in the standings. Lets try to improve the car more, and just wait for TD until Spain. Its a very long season.
Max didn't gain advantage by leaving the track at the corner, because he was already already ahead at the apex, and was forced off the track. Case closed, no penalty is justified.
Okay then, by that logic, next time someone tries to overtake Max, they should just divebomb him and completely ignore the track limits at the exit. As long as they're ahead at the apex, they wouldn't need to give back the position.
This is what you're saying right?
There was no divebomb. Piastri had a better launch, but not enough to be ahead at the apex. Verstappen was clearly alongside, yet Piastri didn’t leave sufficient space through the corner. As a result, Max was forced off track and had to cut the corner to avoid a collision. While he did benefit by staying ahead, it was a consequence of avoiding contact, not of gaining an advantage through intentional off-track driving. This was a standard racing incident, and if anything, it should have resulted only in a warning for exceeding track limits—no penalty necessary.
