Why F1 should avoid knee-jerk rule changes after Lando Norris’ Madrid heartbreak
Lando Norris lost a Formula 1 race win through no fault of his own – or his team’s – but simply because of the unfortunate timing of a virtual safety car, triggered on lap 14 of the Spanish Grand Prix after Lance Stroll’s retirement. The McLaren driver missed the pitlane entry by mere seconds before the VSC was activated – and was probably the only man to really lose out because of it. His main rivals, who weren’t actually even close to matching Norris’ pace this weekend, got a cheap stop – and the fastest man had to settle for P3.
That doesn’t sound quite right. So it was inevitable that the topic of potential rule changes came up again in the aftermath of a grand prix in which the VSC largely became the only real talking point.
“There’s literally nothing I could do as a driver today to do a better job,” said Norris a few minutes after the finish in the press conference. “Pole, led the race, and to lose it for nothing in my control is, I don’t think, how a race should be won.
“But I think people… I hope people agree, I think people would agree. But it is racing and it’s happened, so I can’t really complain about it. I can be upset about it, but I can’t really complain about it.”
It’s rather tempting now to declare that the rules need changing – and, as often in these sorts of cases, you’ll hear a lot of “easy solutions”, which somehow seem too obvious after a clear example of how unfair the outcome of the race was.
And there are at least two of that nature, which Norris himself mentioned during the same press conference.
“We have spoken about it in the past several times, about how it can be at least covered for one lap or everyone has the opportunity to do the pit stops, or you just block the pit entry and no one can box apart from if you have a puncture or something, you know.
Lando Norris, McLaren
Photo by: Andy Hone/ LAT Images via Getty Images
“So, I think there’s a few things you could do to make it more simple and more fair for everyone, but that’s a bigger discussion.”
Both seem like good options. In reality, though, both are equally useless.
Why closing the pitlane won’t work
Closing the pitlane under VSC or allowing everyone to stop would have worked perfectly in Madrid, there’s no doubt about that.
With no refuelling, there’s less need to actually allow pitstops during the VSC. Cars won’t suddenly run out of fuel in the event of unfortunate timing of a virtual or real safety car, so simply closing the pitlane entry would eliminate some of the “unfair” elements of the rules.
Had the pitlane stayed closed, Norris wouldn’t have lost out – as no one would have been able to get a cheap stop.
Sorted, then? Not quite. Simply because of the reason why there is a need for a safety car – or its virtual analogue – in the first place: more often than not, it happens because of accidents on track. Closing the pitlane while there might be a car – or a few of them – crawling down the track on three wheels or with front wing damage is simply illogical and unsafe.
The Spanish GP wasn’t the first race in which a VSC affected the result
Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images
Allowing only cars with damage to pit would also be problematic – as you’d need to somehow define damage within the sporting regulations. Would damage like that to Oscar Piastri‘s front wing in Madrid qualify as “enough” for a pitstop under VSC? If you exaggerate it even further, wouldn’t drivers then seek to get a puncture, too – to earn the right to pit?
That would simply create too many grey areas – with the most obvious one mentioned by Norris himself, too.
“I think it’s something, as a group of drivers, I think we would all want,” he said, but also admitted that “there’s a lot more to it”.
“You know, depending on if it’s raining and there’s a VSC and you’re on slicks, does it mean you can box or not? It’s a complicated subject.”
Certainly, to deploy a VSC for the sake of safety and then disallow drivers on slicks from changing tyres to wets would simply contradict the purpose of the action. And if that was a suitable solution, it would’ve been implemented a long time ago. The issue is, it’s just not as straightforward as it seems after Madrid.
A full-lap VSC isn’t the solution either
Then, the other option is to make sure all drivers have a chance to pit – and that is indeed an easy fix. Because what really played against Norris was not the fact that the VSC was activated when he had already driven past the pitlane entry – but that by the time he made his way around the lap, it was already green again.
The FIA Safety Car
Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images via Getty Images
Why not make sure a VSC lasts for at least one lap, so everyone gets a chance for a cheap stop?
That’s a debate FIA race directors and drivers can certainly have during the next meeting in Baku – but even if they do, they’d probably quickly come to the conclusion that it’s not a solution either. While it would, again, guarantee a “fair” outcome of the Spanish Grand Prix, it’s important to remember it covers only this particular scenario – and potentially makes things even worse in others.
Just because different strategies in F1 still exist, there are almost always going to be those benefiting from the lucky timing of a safety car – and those hard done by it.
There’s one clear scenario which would have played against Norris had the rules – and the race itself – been slightly different. Say the McLaren driver had pitted on lap 12 of the race to, for example, prevent an undercut attempt from Kimi Antonelli and Mercedes. That would be something perfectly normal to do – and the possible strategy for the Italian would then be delaying his stop to create a bigger tyre delta.
Any VSC after Norris’ stop would put him in danger of losing the position to Antonelli. And in this case, making sure the VSC lasts at least one lap would actually guarantee and secure the “unfair” outcome – simply because Mercedes would get a cheap pitstop by default, irrespective of how quickly the marshals cleared the incident. And in that case, those seeking easy solutions would probably be vocal about race control needing to act as quickly as possible.
The reality is that the sporting outcome – or the question of when and for how long to deploy a safety car – simply isn’t taken into account by race control. And rightly so. Motor racing is still a dangerous sport, and safety is the only priority there should be when making these calls.
“But I think as a collection of drivers, if we all talk about it, I think everyone wants the same thing, and that’s just fairness for everyone,” said Norris. “So yeah, of course I’m complaining about it today. I could benefit from it next week, next time out, and I could win because of it.
“So yeah, I have to take it on the chin, but I just hope it doesn’t happen to anyone again because it’s just not how you should lose a race.”
Kimi Antonelli, Mercedes, Lando Norris, McLaren
But while drivers are surely free to speak their minds and raise concerns, it doesn’t mean headlines in the media about “Norris calls for rule changes” should necessarily require immediate action.
Perhaps there is just one really simple solution to this problem – to accept that sport isn’t always “fair”.
It doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a discussion, as Madrid highlighted a long-known issue. But it’s also long-known precisely because there’s no simple way to fix it.
Those offering simple solutions are usually one of two types: people who don’t really understand the problem, or politicians.
We want your opinion!
What would you like to see on Motorsport.com?
– The Motorsport.com Team
