Francesco Bagnaia’s face in the post-race press conference at Phillip Island on Sunday, after finishing third in MotoGP’s Australian Grand Prix, was the best imaginable projection of the 10 seconds that separated him from the victorious Marc Marquez and runner-up Jorge Martin.

Reigning two-time champion Bagnaia’s gesture was one of concern, a logical reaction considering that Marquez created that gap over him despite losing ground at the start when he ran over the plastic visor that he himself had just thrown to the ground. That mishap cost him 12 positions and put him back in 13th, before he staged one of the best recoveries in recent memory to claim his third grand prix win of the season.

Leaving the Desmosedici’s obvious potential aside, another key factor that led Marquez to forgo the final year of his multi-million dollar Honda contract to sign with a Ducati satellite team for 2024 was the sophistication of the protocols used by the Borgo Panigale brand to increase the overall performance of the eight bikes it currently has.

The computers that receive the information downloaded from the bikes each time they return to the garage send this data to a server, to which the authorised technicians of each team have access. Not only does this operation take place in near real-time, but it is also combined with sophisticated analysis tools, including artificial intelligence, with a very high capacity for interpretation. With this in mind, it is much easier to understand the leaps in quality made by certain riders, both from Friday to Saturday and from Saturday to Sunday, when the sprint race becomes the best generator of all that information.

“We all know that Pecco will be there to win on Sunday. It doesn’t matter if he seems to suffer a little bit on Friday, because on Saturday he takes a step and on Sunday he takes another step,” says any member of the grid whenever he is asked.

However, in the context of a close duel like the current one, there are ways of camouflaging information to try and complicate that improvement a little. The last event in Australia was a case in point.

Bagnaia was a subdued third in the Australian GP, surpassed by Marquez after his sluggish launch

Photo by: Gold and Goose / Motorsport Images

The 10 seconds that split Marquez and Bagnaia’s factory bike on Sunday can be explained by several factors that aligned and worked against Ducati’s leading rider. First of all, the track had been resurfaced, which put the previous years’ record into question. Add to this the weekend’s tricky weather and we get a race with more unknowns than certainties: an ideal Sunday for Marquez’s genius and Martin’s explosiveness, but less conducive to the cerebral Bagnaia.

Friday morning’s storm forced the organisers to cancel the first free practice session, so there was less information to gather. Second practice, already valid to generate the cut between Q1 and Q2, was the first contact with the dry but cold new asphalt.

The rain meant that Saturday’s practice was held on a still-damp track, and so the pack went out for a qualifying session that seemed to bear Marquez’s name as the rider who adapts best and fastest to the changes. Few expected that it would be Pramac rider Martin, with a stratospheric last lap, who would take pole by almost six-tenths over Marquez. The lap gave a preview to Martin’s form ahead of his sprint race victory, while on Sunday he duelled with Marquez until reaching the conclusion that it wasn’t worth risking a crash.

“Jorge was playing with us, because he was much faster” Francesco Bagnaia

“It was an incredible weekend, I scored as many points (32) as I could have hoped for here,” Martin told Motorsport.com after stepping off the podium. “I could have fought for a win or I could have crashed. I don’t focus so much on the wins as on being competitive, and I think we have to continue in this vein.”

Shortly before the race, someone close to him told Motorsport.com that the strategy for the final stretch of the championship had changed. “On the circuits where we know Jorge has some margin, we will not show everything from the first moment, we are not going to give that information away,” said this authoritative voice.

Martin arrived in Australia 10 points ahead of Bagnaia in the standings and will go to Thailand having doubled that advantage, with only 111 points left to play. Considering the distribution of points so far, one can see that the Spaniard has built his chances on Saturdays. In fact, in the pre-sprint era, Bagnaia would lead the standings with a 14-point cushion over the Pramac rider (295 points to Martin’s 281).

On the assumption that in Buriram, where Martin won the sprint and grand prix last year, he will once again look superior to his rival, it is likely that Martin will try to hide his cards until the last moment.

Martin unleashed blistering pace to snare pole, from which he cruised to victory in the sprint

Photo by: Gold and Goose / Motorsport Images

“There are ways to play the game of misdirection in order not to give clues,” the track engineer of one of the world champions on the grid explained to Motorsport.com. “For example, looking for the performance of a particular sector, or plotting a particular corner, on a ‘bad’ lap. You always try to show your weapons as late as possible, to avoid the others, who can see your data, benefit from it.”

This paddock voice has no doubt that Martin made his rivals dizzy on Saturday and that feeling was also felt by Bagnaia after the sprint: “Jorge was playing with us, because he was much faster.”

All things considered, Martin will land in Thailand as the favourite to take the crown, which could be sealed in Malaysia in less than 10 days. On the other side of the scale is Bagnaia. He is not only a ‘victim’ of Ducati’s promise not to intervene in the duel, but seems increasingly aware of the strength with which new team-mate Marquez will arrive and how the multi-champion could become the judge of this world championship.

Could misdirection be a key to Martin’s first MotoGP world title?

Photo by: Gold and Goose / Motorsport Images

Since ground-effect cars returned from the start of 2022, Formula 1 engineers have faced big headaches in working out ways to get the most performance from them.

In particular, the difficulty has been in managing the compromise between the aero and mechanical platforms, with the cars liking to run super close to the ground because that is where they produce the most downforce.

The challenge is made even harder because of the phenomenon of porpoising, where the car bounces up and down as it gains and loses downforce.

At the start of this year, Mercedes technical director James Allison believed that F1 had suffered because of the nature of this generation of cars.

“I’m sure I bang on about this because it’s been a bugbear of mine, but I personally don’t think it’s a great thing,” he said.

“I don’t think it’s good having the cars operating, when they leave the garage, with that much space [signalling a few millimetres with his fingers] to the ground.”

But as work has advanced on new regulations for 2026, with their latest version signed off at the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council last week, one characteristic change that has emerged is that the cars should not have to run so close to the ground.

F1 2026 FIA car renders

Photo by: FIA

The FIA’s head of single-seater matters Nikolas Tombazis said: “It is much less of a Venturi effect than the current generation.

“The main driving force for that is we wanted to have cars that are not quite running as close to the ground as current cars, so maybe we try to relax a bit that aerodynamic mechanism.”

Allison had suggested that places like Austin, where the demands of the car stretch across a wide spectrum of the speed range, were especially difficult when the cars needed to be so low all the time.

“[Under the old rule set] you could have a car that was a little bit more one-dimensional at tracks that are a bit more one-dimensional,” he said.

“So if there isn’t a big speed range, then you could maybe set your car up such that the corners coincide with where your good bit is, and you don’t suffer horribly for it dropping away either side.  

“But when you go to a place that’s a bit more of a broad test of a car, like Austin for example, where you’ve got real fast stuff, some slow stuff, and some in-between stuff, and some decent straights, and some bumps, then that’s going to test the bit where it’s falling off the back end of the performance.

“It’s going to test the end-of-straight [downforce] failure, it’s going to need to stay strong in the fast [corners]. And it’s hard to persuade the car to do all of those things with a set of rules that basically don’t want to do anything except be near the ground.” 

Red Bull reckons an FIA clarification over slot-gap tricks has had an impact on the fight at the front of Formula 1.

Ahead of the United States Grand Prix, the FIA issued a note to all teams saying that it was not comfortable with some of the flexing of rear wings that was helping open up slot gaps for a straightline speed boost.

This had reached a peak at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, when McLaren’s ‘mini-DRS’ came under scrutiny from rival teams and the FIA.

While that rear wing passed the static load test, it subsequently emerged that the FIA expressed its belief it was pushing the boundaries of flexibility too much, and McLaren subsequently agreed to change it.

McLaren was one of several teams that had to make further minor changes to their rear wings to reduce flexing from last weekend’s United States Grand Prix, and it coincided with the team having a harder fight on its hands than it has had in previous races.

And that left Red Bull, which denied that it had to modify the wing specification it used in Austin, convinced that it will have had an impact on the fight at the front when things are as close as they are right now in F1.

Asked if he felt the FIA move on rear wings was something that could have influenced the competitive picture, team principal Christian Horner said: “Small details do make a difference, and particularly when the cars have converged as they have.

Christian Horner, Team Principal, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Andreas Beil

“It’s all about marginal gains. That’s what Formula 1 is all about. So yes, inevitably, there will be a difference from it [the FIA clarification]. How material it is will vary from circuit to circuit.”

But McLaren team boss Andrea Stella, whose squad still leads the constructors’ championship, is sceptical that the level of impact prompted by the changes will make a noticeable difference – especially because he thinks quite a few outfits had to make modifications.

“I would be surprised that there’s only a couple of teams that had to make adaptations to the rear wing,” he said.

“Our rear wing was adjusted after Baku, following some of the conversations we have had, and with the FIA providing some references as to what they would like to see.

“But this is a really minor element in terms of car performance. It does not have to do with any performance switch from event to event.

“None of the performance that we see, being better, being worse, should be associated with this. And I think this is not only for McLaren, it’s for any team, with the fact that some teams might have been asked to adjust the behaviour of the rear wing.”

Andrea Stella, Team Principal, McLaren F1 Team

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images

Advertisement

When McLaren was originally advised to change its ‘mini-DRS’ wing, it urged the FIA to expand its probing to other competitors, as it felt there was exploitation of slot gap openings happening elsewhere.

Stella believes that the FIA’s most recent note will have prompted others to revise their designs, but he does not think that will have an impact in slowing them down.

“Certainly, there were some other teams that were opening the slot gap,” he said. “My expectation is that these teams would have been subject to the same requests as we have been.

“From an engineering point of view, even when I see that they were opening the slot gap a little bit, and I think they might have been asked to reduce it, I’m expecting pretty much zero effect in terms of ‘these things will change their performance’.

“This is not what makes the performance of an F1 car, at least not to a level that is noticeable, measurable or quantifiable from one event to the other.”

Lando Norris’s penalty for overtaking Max Verstappen off track in the United States Grand Prix has triggered another controversy about Formula 1’s policing of driving standards.

Amid an intense fight between the McLaren driver and his Red Bull rival for third place, the incident between the pair at Turn 12 on lap 52 has divided opinions and once again left fans confused about what is and is not allowed.

Looking at the reasons behind the decision, Norris’ punishment was for overtaking Verstappen for third while he was off the track. In official terms, this falls under the remit of leaving the track and gaining an advantage.

This is because, in the judgement of the stewards, Norris had not earned the right to the corner – so going off track was entirely of his own making.

In the official stewards’ statement outlining the reasons for the decision, they say that Norris had not fulfilled certain requirements in the guidelines that stewards use.

The stewards said: “Car 4 [Norris] was overtaking Car 1 [Verstappen] on the outside, but was not level with Car 1 at the apex.

“Therefore, under the Driving Standards Guidelines, Car 4 had lost the “right” to the corner.  Accordingly, as Car 4 left the track and returned in front of Car 1, it is deemed to be a case of leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage.”

And while Verstappen left the track himself in his defensive actions against Norris, the stewards did not think that made what Norris did acceptable.

However, they did conclude that Norris had a justifiable reason to be off circuit, because Verstappen had run wide himself, so that is why he was handed a lesser penalty than normal and was not given a strike for breaching track limits, which would have been his fourth offence and earned him a sanction.

The stewards added: “A five-second penalty is imposed instead of the 10-second penalty recommended in the guidelines because having committed to the overtaking move on the outside the driver of Car 4 had little alternative other than to leave the track because of the proximity of Car 1 which had also left the track.  In view of the above, we determine that this will not count as a track limit “strike” for Car 4.”

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

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

What the Driving Standards Guidelines say

The explanation of the stewards makes reference to the Driving Standards Guidelines, which is a document that, while not publicly available, has been sent to all competitors.

The guidelines have been pulled together by the FIA, and were created in conjunction with the drivers, to try to create a framework to ensure more consistent stewards’ decisions.

They are specifically aimed at offering a clearer set of rules for drivers, especially when it comes to working out when drivers do and do not have the right to a corner.

The document, a copy of which has been seen by Motorsport.com, outlines the rights that a driver has when it comes to overtaking either inside or outside of a rival.

In the Norris/Verstappen incident, this is classified as an overtake on the outside, which the guidelines state is “a more difficult manoeuvre to accomplish.”

However, it lays out three criteria for the drivers on the outside to earn the right to be given room “including at the exit.”

It states that they must:

1. Have the front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE WITH the front axle of the other car at the apex of the corner and to the exit.
2. Be driven in a safe and controlled manner throughout the manoeuvre (entry, apex and exit).
3. Be able to make the corner within the track limits

In the stewards’ verdict, it states that Norris had not fulfilled the very first criteria.

Overhead footage indeed suggests that while Norris had got alongside Verstappen on the run down to Turn 12, by the time they hit the apex – as the Red Bull braked later – he was no longer as far forward as the rules required.

Therefore, there was no requirement for Verstappen to give him room on the exit.

However, what the rules do not take into account is the fact that Verstappen brakes later than Norris to ensure that he was at the apex first, even though that extra speed carried him wide and ultimately off the track.

And it is also not clear whether, if Norris had got ahead on the straight, the situation would better be judged based on Verstappen actually being the car that is overtaking.

For a car overtaking on the inside there are similar requirements. It must:

1. Have its front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE of the mirror of the other car no later than the apex of the corner.
2. Be driven in a safe and controlled manner throughout the manoeuvre (entry, apex and exit).
3. Without (deliberately) forcing the other car off the track at the exit. This includes leaving a fair and acceptable width for the car being overtaken from the apex to the exit of the corner.
4. Be able to make the corner within the track limits.

Based on what happened at Turn 12, Verstappen fulfilled the first point, the second point is subject to debate and he did not fulfil the third or fourth elements.

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

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

Advertisement

The room for interpretation

There is one interesting element of the guidelines that it emphasised early on, and that is that there is no way to create a set of rules that are a perfect fit for every incident.

It makes clear that “racing is a dynamic process” and that there are multiple elements that the stewards will take into account when it comes to delivering a final verdict.

It says these include

1. How did the cars get to the incident? (E.g. late braking, diving in, moving under braking.)
2. Was the manoeuvre late or “optimistic”?
3. What could the drivers reasonably see, know, or anticipate?
4. Do we believe the manoeuvre could be completed on the track?
5. Was there understeer / oversteer / locking?
6. Did someone position / handle their car in a way that contributed to the incident?
7. Did the type of corner contribute to the incident? (e.g. camber, kerbs, curve, apexes)
8. What were the relative tyres / tyre age / grip?

So, in the end, the final decision of the stewards remains a matter predominantly down to their opinion and their interpretation of what has unfolded on track.

As the Guidelines state quite clearly: “The stewards will consider each incident, with expert advice from our driver steward, and make our best, but final, decision at the time.”

Lando Norris will start the race from pole position after beating championship leader Max Verstappen in a qualifying session that was curtailed by a crash for George Russell.

Norris and Verstappen are locked in a battle for the 2024 drivers’ title, with the Red Bull driver sitting 54 points clear.

Event	Date
	12:30
United States GP FP1
United States GP SPRINT QU Advertisement
United States GP SPRINT
United States GP QU
United States GP Race

What time does the US Grand Prix start?

The US GP will begin at 2pm local time (-5 GMT) at the Circuit of the Americas in Austin, Texas.

• Date: Sunday, 20 October, 2024
• Start time: 19:00 GMT  / 20:00 BST / 21:00 CEST  / 21:00 SAT / 22:00 EAT  / 15:00 ET / 12:00 PT / 06:00 AEDT (Monday) / 04:00 JST (Monday) / 00:30 IST (Monday)

2024 Formula 1 United States Grand Prix session timings in different timezones

How can I watch the US Grand Prix?

Formula 1 is broadcast live in nearly every country around the world. 

Europe: 

• Austria – Servus TV / ORF
• Belgium – RTBF / Telenet / Play Sports
• Croatia – Sport Klub
• Czech Republic – AMC
• Denmark – TV3+ / TV3 Sport / Viaplay
• Estonia: Viaplay
• Finland – Viaplay 
• France – Canal+
• Germany – Sky 
• Greece – ANT1 / ANT1+
• Hungary – M4
• Italy – Sky
• Netherlands – Viaplay / Viaplay Xtra
• Norway – V sport 1 / V sport + / Viaplay
• Poland – Viaplay
• Portugal – Sport TV
• Spain – F1 DAZN
• Sweden – Viaplay / V sport motor / TV 10
• Switzerland – SRF / RSI / RTS
• UK – Sky Sports F1

Americas: 

• USA – ABC
• Canada – RDS / RDS2 / TSN / Noovo
• Latin America – ESPN

Asia: 

• China – CCTV / Shanghai TV / Guangdong Television Channel / Tencent
• India – FanCode
• Japan – Fuji TV / DAZN
• Malaysia – beIN SPORTS
• Indonesia- beIN SPORTS
• Singapore – beIN SPORTS
• Thailand – beIN SPORTS
• Vietnam – K+

Oceania: 

• Australia – Fox Sports / Foxtel / Kayo / Network Ten
• New Zealand – Sky

Africa: 

Can I stream the F1 US Grand Prix?

Viewers can subscribe to F1 TV in selected countries to stream the race on a device of their choice.

Sky Sports and Movistar also offer their own live streaming service in the UK and Spain respectively.

F1 US Grand Prix – Starting grid:

World Rally Championship title favourite Thierry Neuville went off the road in stage 11 twice to hand Toyota’s Sebastien Ogier the lead at the Central European Rally.

The Hyundai driver’s lead came under pressure on Saturday morning from team-mate Ott Tanak before Neuville relieved the pressure.

However, two mistakes in the final stage of the loop dropped the championship leader to fourth, 33.6s behind new rally leader Ogier. 

Tanak, whom Neuville needs to outscore by two points to seal the world title this weekend, moved to second, 4.6s adrift, with Toyota’s Elfyn Evans fourth [+8.3s]. Takamoto Katsuta [+1m02.4s], Sami Pahari [+1m49.9s] and Gregoire Munster [+2m51.0s] rounded out the top seven.    

M-Sport’s Adrien Fourmaux retired from the day’s action after stage 10.

Challenging wet and foggy conditions welcomed the crews for Saturday’s first stage in Germany (Grant und Wald, 20.0km), which triggered plenty of drama.

Andreas Mikkelsen was the first to tackle the conditions after rejoining the rally having crashed out on stage five yesterday. The Hyundai driver suffered a slow speed spin on his way through the test he described as “very tricky”. 

Andreas Mikkelsen, Torstein Eriksen, Hyundai World Rally Team Hyundai i20 N Rally1

Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool

Advertisement

M-Sport’s Fourmaux, who felt there was something wrong with his car on Friday, was fortunate to continue after a wild moment when he ran wide onto a large grass run-off that resulted in his Puma sliding into trees. 

Luckily, he was able to continue, reporting that an intermittent front differential issue was to blame for the off.

“We have a huge issue on the front differential that we realised on the road section, I have no drive on the front, it is like driving a rear wheel drive all the time. As soon as there is dirt [on the road] it is hard to get it to go straight. It is undrivable,” said Fourmaux, who now had the use of his hybrid unit following yesterday’s failure. 

WRC2 driver Oliver Solberg suffered a similar moment at the same corner moments later but was able to avoid running into the trees. 

The tricky conditions were however tamed by Tanak, who produced a blistering effort to win the stage by 3.9s from Ogier to move ahead of the Toyota driver into second overall. 

“The car feels better today than yesterday but it is extremely demanding conditions out there,” said Tanak.

Rally leader Neuville opted for a steady approach in the slippery conditions that resulted in a time seven seconds slower than team-mate Tanak. Neuville’s rally lead had been cut to 0.8s over Tanak. 

The pressure on Neuville’s was slightly relieved in stage 10 (Beyond Borders 24.33km) as Tanak surprisingly dropped time through the test that straddled the Austrian and German border.

Tanak was 7.2s slower than the pace set by Elfyn Evans, who hauled himself back into the victory fight thanks to an impressive drive in difficult-to-judge damp conditions. Evans’ effort left the Toyota driver 10.1s behind rally leader Neuville. 

Neuville continued to stick to his plan in the challenging conditions, completing the stage without issue, 2.3s slower than Evans. Neuville was 1.1s slower than Ogier, who jumped ahead of Tanak back into second overall. At the end of the stage, Neuville actually increased his rally lead to 2.2s over Ogier.

There was further drama for Fourmaux who endured two off-road excursions. The Ford driver survived a first run onto grass but the second resulted in an impact to the rear of his Puma that necessitated a wheel change.

Fourmaux was able to reach the stage end but the damage to the rear of the car was too severe to continue. 

Team-mate Munster was also fortunate to continue without a stoppage after clipping a kerb with his left rear wheel. On the next test, he endured a brief run into a field that cost him valuable seconds. 

Munster wasn’t the only driver to find the grass in stage 11 (Schardinger Innviertel, 17.35 km) as Katsuta ran wide at right hander that left his Toyota sliding onto the run-off, before returning to the asphalt.

Grégoire Munster, Louis Louka, M-Sport Ford World Rally Team Ford Puma Rally1

Photo by: McKlein / Motorsport Images

Rally leader Neuville was the next to find the grass as the drama ramped up another level. The Hyundai driver ran wide at a left-hander and ran onto the grass and into a 360 spin. 

After recovering from the mistake an optimistic pacenote led to another off that cost the championship leader even more time. Neuville was able to spin the car on the grass but became briefly stuck in a ditch while trying to get back onto the road.

Ogier inherited the rally lead while winning the stage in the process by 0.1s from Evans.

In WRC2, Yohan Rossel’s title hopes evaporated after a mistake on stage nine cost him more than 14 minutes. Rossel’s team-mate Nikolay Gryazin maintained his rally lead of the class ahead of the afternoon’s stages.