Mercedes boss Toto Wolff has slammed Red Bull Racing‘s front bib adjustment device as “outrageous”, as he suggested the FIA may yet look further into the matter.

Red Bull was at the centre of technical intrigue over the United States Grand Prix weekend after it emerged the FIA was ramping up monitoring of a system the Milton Keynes-based squad has to raise and lower its front bib height.

While the presence of the device, which has to be adjusted by a tool, is allowed, what would be against the regulations would be for it to be changed under parc ferme conditions.

That is why the FIA fitted a seal to it over the Austin weekend to ensure it was not altered between qualifying and the race. Furthermore, the team has promised to make more permanent changes to its car for later this season.

The FIA’s head of single-seater matters Nikolas Tombazis says there is no indication that Red Bull used the device in the past, and so considers the matter closed. However, that may not necessarily be the end of the matter.

Wolff, whose team has battled Red Bull hard in the past, thinks that the situation is far from acceptable as he hinted that senior figures at the FIA – including its president Mohammed Ben Sulayem – may yet be pressured to take things further.

Speaking about the Red Bull system, Wolff said: “My view is, from the distance of what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard, it’s outrageous.”

Explaining more about why he felt that way, Wolff said that it was highly suspicious for Red Bull to have fitted such a complicated device to its car, simply to help change ride heights in practice sessions.

“I think we’re all designing parts that are F1 standard, and that are to the highest specifications that are within the regulations.

“Sometimes on things like aero elasticity, you would probably try to go as far as you can — but there’s other things overall and certain parts where you would question why they exist.”

He added: “Why would you design such a thing and put two marks on it for two positions, like you want to (change things)? Is that the precise decision-making [we have] in F1?”

Red Bull Racing RB20 front bib detail

Photo by: Andreas Beil

Advertisement

A ‘Bugs Bunny’ tool

Wolff also suggested that Red Bull pulled off a charade in showing to the FIA a tool that it said was used to alter the device. He reckons that the settings could easily be altered in a much simpler way.

“I really like that when they put this real broom [device] in the car to demonstrate that that is the only way of that getting changed! I wonder how long it took them to make this up, and to stick it in there.”

One rival team has nicknamed the two-foot long socket that Red Bull showed the FIA a ‘Bugs Bunny’ device – because it seemed such a cartoon-type tool considering the sophistication levels normally expected in F1.

Wolff backed this idea. “I didn’t know that in F1, we were using such Bugs Bunny devices. It’s not good enough to say that this is it, and we promise that we are not going to do it again.”

And while Tombazis said over the United States Grand Prix weekend that he believed the matter was closed, Wolff does not think this will be the end of things.

“I cannot speak for the FIA at all. I cannot speak for Nikolas,” he said. “Obviously, that’s something that’s been not spotted for a long time.

“But I think the leadership of the FIA is going to look at that, and say, ‘What are we doing with this?’”

Ott Tanak says if team-mate Thierry Neuville is “smart” at the Rally Japan there will be no chance for him to claim a second WRC title despite Hyundai allowing its drivers to fight.

Both the drivers’ and manufacturers’ titles will go down to the wire in Japan next month after last weekend’s dramatic Central European Rally. 

Neuville could have sealed a maiden world title if he had outscored Tanak by two points at the three-nation rally, but instead left with his 29-point lead cut to 25 after Tanak claimed a 21st career win.

It means the title fight will be decided on Japan’s asphalt roads with the advantage firmly in Neuville’s hands, while Hyundai leads Toyota by 15 points in the manufacturers’ race.

Hyundai team principal Cyril Abiteboul has confirmed that his drivers are able to do battle unabated in Japan, but is also eager to secure a first manufacturers’ crown for the Korean brand since 2020.

While Neuville has a significant advantage with 30 points remaining on the table, securing the title is not an absolute certainty.      

“I don’t know what difference we can make but we will try our best, but with this scoring system it doesn’t make much difference,” Tanak told Motorsport.com.

“It is true [a retirement can change things] for sure, I guess it depends how much Thierry wants it. 

“If he is smart in Japan and does a good job then nobody has a chance, but we also have a responsibility for the manufacturers championship. It is still a big job ahead of us so we can’t really focus only on drivers title. We are responsible for the team too.”

Ott Tänak, Martin Järveoja, Hyundai World Rally Team Hyundai i20 N Rally1

Photo by: Fabien Dufour / Hyundai Motorsport

Neuville was on course to beat Tanak last weekend to potentially clinch the world title before two errors in stage 12 dropped him from the lead to fourth.

Reflecting on a weekend where his lead over Tanak decreased, the Belgian believes he fulfilled his main objective of maintaining a comfortable championship lead. 

“If we look at our targets ahead of the event we completely fulfilled all of the targets by leaving here with a big lead in the championship for the last round, but also having finished the rally and taken some good Sunday points,” Neuville told Motorsport.com.

“So in that perspective we have achieved but nevertheless we can be disappointed because we were not able to keep the lead. 

“If I look at the conditions we faced on Saturday and even on Sunday…I’m not sure on the last day, when the points are validated, I would have been able to go with the same risks as the others. 

“It is a comfortable lead. The worst-case scenario we need to take six points. In any other scenario, we are pretty fine.

“We need to find the right balance [in Japan] because there is still manufacturers’ championship to fight for and nevertheless we have that third car with Andreas [Mikkelsen] who will go for a push. We need to find a good balance between a safe but good drive.”

Regardless of the outcome of the drivers’ championship, Hyundai boss Abiteboul is relieved to have secured one of his two main objectives.

“What we can say is we are halfway on our objective we have secured a driver title we don’t know which one yet which is why we don’t want to celebrate,” he added.

“We have accomplished our mission so that is a relief and for the rest let’s see what we can do in Japan.” 

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 Motorsport.com 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 Motorsport.com 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

Motorsport.com 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 into 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.

All evidence points to Verstappen returning to tactics employed against Hamilton now he faces greater opposition

Photo by: Glenn Dunbar

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 Motorsport.com 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

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

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.

Verstappen’s start aggression ultimately cost track position to Leclerc, but cost Norris far more

Photo by: Andreas Beil

Continue reading with advertising …

… or with a subscription

Visit motorsport.com as usual with advertising and tracking. You can revoke your consent at any time via the data protection page.¹

Use motorsport.com without any advertising banners, personalized tracking and commercials for a small fee.

Accept and continue

More information about advertising and tracking in our Data protection notice, the List of our partners and in Data protection information center.

Already a subscriber?

Log in here

Marco Bezzecchi says he was unimpressed by Maverick Vinales showing him the middle finger as he lay motionless on the ground after the pair collided at high speed in Saturday’s sprint race at the Australian Grand Prix.

After being taken for additional medical checks in Melbourne on Saturday evening, during which time Vinales made his frustration towards the VR46 Ducati rider clear in the media, Bezzecchi only made his first comments following Sunday’s grand prix.

“I didn’t like his behaviour immediately after the crash,” said the three-time grand prix winner.

“If it was the other way around, I would go to check how the other rider is instead of showing the middle finger and saying f*** to me many times after we crash at 300km/h.”

The stewards took Vinales’s side regarding the incident itself, issuing Bezzecchi a long lap penalty for the grand prix on Sunday.

Subsequent to taking the punishment, Bezzecchi fell off and dropped out of contention, reporting that he was riding in pain following the crash.

Bezzecchi disagreed with Vinales’s version of the collision on the high-speed entry to the Doohan corner.

“Yesterday was a strange situation. Maverick passed me on the straight with the slipstream….then my bike was moving to the left so to get back I had to lean the bike whilst still on the straight. The wind was pushing me to the outside kerb.

“The problem was that as I did this Maverick put himself exactly in front of me under braking.

Marco Bezzecchi, VR46 Racing Team

Photo by: Gold and Goose / Motorsport Images

“He braked early. You can see from the video that he braked, then released, then braked again. When you brake at the right point, you don’t release the brake.

“I was already moving to the right to avoid going on the outside kerb. When I saw him I tried to continue to go to the right but I got sucked by the slipstream. I couldn’t do anything to avoid the contact.

“I understand that it was a difficult decision. Normally the guy behind is the one who [gets the blame]. But for example last year in Qatar with Pecco [Bagnaia] and Fabio di Giannantonio and in Valencia with [Jorge] Martin and Pecco it was completely the same.

“[Those situations were] just another type of corner, a little bit slower, a little bit less windy, a little bit less Phillip Island style.

“It’s a situation that could have happened often, but fortunately for the others, they were able to avoid disaster.

“Anyway, what I didn’t really like was Maverick’s behaviour but as far as the penalty is concerned, I don’t care. I don’t complain. I did my long lap.”

Aprilia rider Vinales did not want to comment further on the issue on Sunday, but was satisfied with the penalty given to Bezzecchi.

“The stewards needed to set down a mark. They set down a mark so that’s fine.”

Vinales finished the grand prix in eighth place after once again dropping back from the front row of the grid.

Ferrari completely took over the podium at the 2024 US Grand Prix, with Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz snatching up a 1-2 finish. But the real show-stealer was the incident between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris, which lead to Norris gaining a +5s penalty, meaning Verstappen took 3rd place. Coupled with a Hamilton DNF, there’s certainly a lot to get through, so Alex Kalinauckas and Mark Mann-Bryans caught up in the paddock after the race to go over the most important points from this year’s US GP.