Two 10-second penalties were given to Max after the two incidents in T4 and T8 of the 10th lap of the Mexico GP last Sunday. Additionally, 2 penalty points are added to Max' license which brings the total to 6 during 12 months. If I were to ask you, which of the two incidents would merit the 2 penalty points more, would you have guessed, it's the T4 incident?
In their official document of the T4 incident, the stewards are of the impression, that Lando was in front of Max 'at the entry, apex and towards the exit of the turn when he started being forced off the track' and that Lando would have been able to stay on track to finish the maneuver. (Sidenote: Horner's argument, that one would take the same lines and braking points during a fastest lap and when going wheel to wheel is laughable on its face.) The standard penalty for forcing another driver of the track has been applied. I can't see any problems with the reasoning in this case.
Now for the T8 incident:
'Following the incident in Turn 4, Verstappen attempted to pass Norris on the inside at Turn 8. Verstappen was ahead at the apex of Turn 8 and would have been entitled to racing room.' It is only because he didn't stay on track while doing all this shenanigans and then stayed in front, that he got a 10 second penalty without penalty points, which is the standard penalty for 'Leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage'. It is not for forcing off another driver, or for provoking a crash (which Lando barely avoided).
And there lies the problem with the current driving standards guidelines. The only one available somewhere is a version from the Imola GP of 2022 (so they might be slightly out-of-date). On the second point of overtaking on the outside, they read:
'In order for a car being overtaken to be required to give sufficient room to an overtaking car, the overtaking car needs to have a significant portion of the car alongside the car being overtaken and the overtaking manoeuvre must be done in a safe and controlled manner, while enabling the car to clearly remain within the limits of the track.
When considering what is a ‘significant portion’, for an overtaking on the outside of a corner, among the various factors that will be looked at by the stewards when exercising their discretion, the stewards will consider if the overtaking car is ahead of the other car from the apex of the corner.
The car being overtaken must be capable of making the corner while remaining within the limits of the track.'
There's 3 problems with this.
-
It just makes it a race to the apex, which is in itself ill-defined. A quick part-fix: They could clarify it ahead of each weekend, e.g. given the ideal line for a quali lap. If you overtake on the outside, you'll have to get ahead by that apex and still remain on the track. If overtaking on the inside, make sure the 'front tires are alongside the other car by no later than the apex' and you are entitled to 'sufficient room'. If not, you can be forced off track, or the door closed on you respectively. Doesn't read too bad if not for the imprecise definition, the bias towards the inside car (front tires alongside the other car vs. ahead of the other car) and that it only works in one direction (if I overtake someone on the inside and got my tires alongside the sidepod of the one overtaken, I have to do it in a safe manner, but can crowd them off the track depending on the interpretation).
-
the last part of the overtaken car having to be capable of making the corner has just been ignored until that T4 incident. For a recent example: The US GP. The 'gaining an advantage' is not well defined at all ('This may include giving back the timing advantage up to drop back a position behind the relevant driver') and should imho be explicitely extended by being able to hold a position by going off-track.
-
Causing a collision is regulated in the International Sporting Code, App. L, Article 2.d). There is nothing about a provocation of a collision which was only avoided by the actions of another driver. So there is a way too large grey area which incentivizes the wronged party to actually make small contact in order for the other driver to get a penalty. And since we aren't playing bumper cars, this should be more clearly regulated, especially since the not leaving 'sufficient room' part has also been criminally negleted over the years.
Now add to all of this the inconsistencies between different stewards, or of the same stewards during the same GP (e.g. TSU penalty vs. VER non-penalty during the US GP a week ago) and we have a completely chaotic situation, where actual racing comes short.
I would love to do an actual deep dive and clip out all relevant incidents back to 2020/21 when Lewis and Fernando brought fourth the same arguments, that seem to have become more clear for a broader audience now that Max is arguably more brazen with his interpretation of the rules and guidelines and others are starting to imitate it. Alas I lack the time. The Mexico and US GPs in 2024 should be more than enough to make the points clear. And it is a positive sign, that the driving standard guidelines will be changed come 2025 and that the drivers had a productive meeting last Friday in Mexico.
What we have here are voters who thought Trump would be better than Harris, not the same. I can understand, even if it's technically wrong, when people feel that genocide is genocide. And they see what is happening there as an extension to them (which any psychotherapist who's dealt with someone of an ethnic group which is in war can attest to).
Although this is most probably a factor, I believe this to be too simple an explanation. So about the media landscape: Yes. Especially the so-called 'new media' is seldomly truly independent but often biased in that they peddle this false narrative that Trump is a peace candidate. Also notable is that 'alternative media' is largely seen as independent from billionaires and power, while legacy media is an arm of the establishment. So the narrative of 'us vs. them' works even better and since the biggest names lean more right or are outright Republican propaganda channels, this could translate into more people who already resent the status quo falling for them. And thanks to the engagement-optimizing algorithms they fall into these echo-chambers. Sidenote: I'm not de-legitimizing alternative outlets, but want to stress the importance of scrutinizing how they finance themselves. We just had a case of one right-wing propaganda channel being exposed as being financed by a Russian oligarch for years. (I forgot the name)
One could also point to the rhetoric and behavior of the two candidates towards the pro-Palestinian population in the last few weeks and months before the election. One side didn't let Palestinian voices be heard and even actively and preemptively removed an elected Democrat from one of their own events, because he happened to be Palestinian American. Outside the DNC the protestors were met with disdain and ridicule by DNC delegates. And the other side came to ~~speak~~ lie to them about what he's gonna do and that he takes them seriously. People are gonna see this.
Or generally when Harris said that she wanted the 'most lethal military in the world', while the other side talked about ending wars 'within the first 24 hours'. Outrageous but a stark contrast.
Or the simple sentiment that with the Dems in power genocide is happening, so I'll roll the dice. The same anti-establishment sentiment that led to Trump in 2016 in the first place (economic in nature in 2016).
Talking about anti-establishment sentiment: I know of only one exception to this. But after COVID, there's only one incumbent party in the democratic world, that came out of elections still in power. And that's Mexico. If you know any others, please feel free to enlighten me.
The list is not extensive by any means and is just me spit-balling. If we want to understand what happened the answers are going to be much more complex.