In the middle of the arguments as to whether Max Verstappen or not deserved the penalty that ruined his chances of victory in the Saudi Grand Prix of Formula 1, there is a neglected key element of the controversy.
These are F1 commissioners imposing a five -second penalty, when there could be a solution that creates a better race and solves some of the long -standing problems that time penalties can bring.
“The penalty was right – 10 seconds would have been hard – but I also feel a little uncomfortable with this transition that they had to advise people to restore positions,” said Jon Noble during the last episode of the Podcast Race F1.
“Personally, I don’t like that, I prefer a situation where the control of the breed says that you can restore the position -” We think you should do it ” – and give them this option, rather than leaving it (the drivers) and suddenly, it goes to the commissioners and it is a penalty.
“We are trapped in this world too often.”
This could be at the discretion of the director of the F1 Rui Marques race – the late director of the race, Charlie Whiting, used to advise the teams on the question of whether their drivers should give a place to avoid a penalty from the commissioners.
It was not a perfect system; The teams actually pushed to clearer penalties. But that avoided situations such as the penalty that stole a head fight in Djeddah.
Such instructions for exchanging positions could also be part of the steward procedure.
“A verdict of the delegates (could) be to exchange the positions, and if you later won another advantage by exceeding other cars, although it is,” said Scott Mitchell-Malm.
“This was not applied in this case, but it could be elsewhere on the ground. If you went from the seventh to the fourth or other, for example. Why is it not an option for the delegates?
“I actually think that it would be one thing enough for them to have in their arsenal, with temporal penalties, that we are constantly discussing are meaningless or too hard, or if you get one and there is a security finish and something like that, as in Melbourne (2023, where a five -second penalty deposited all this?
“You would just be late on the car (which did it). It would not be perfect, but you could apply it in certain situations.
“Everything happens at the discretion of the stewards anyway, so I think it would be an interesting way to do it.
“He would have reset the board of directors very well. You would then have Verstappen directly on Piastri’s tale when the Grand Prix is resumed or just after.”
This could prevent drivers from playing the system. Although Verstappen did not have the rhythm of moving away from Piastri, if his Red Bull had an advantage of rhythm, it would have been advantageous to make his way in front of Piastri, to take the penalty of five seconds and to use the pure air to deny it.
“If Max had said to restore the position -” you must be second ” – I think that the arguments would not be as emotional now because everything would have reset,” added noble.
“Max would have been second, could have tried the counterfeit in the race if the pace was there, and could have been released and win the race. This is not an impossible scenario based on the rhythm of these cars.
“I think that as a sports show, it may be something that should be examined – in terms of things if it goes to the stewards and you may have the opportunity to return the place, or if you have not done it in three laps, you get your penalty.”
This is partly a consequence of the F1 pivot to more closely defined regulations, but, as always with something as fluid and dynamic as race, a flexible approach can sometimes be more effective.
This is where the merlan was so effective. He helped find a balance in the race rules with which F1 always seems to be too touched.
