FIA rejects McLaren’s right to review the request for Lando Norris’ penalty at the 2024 F1 US GP. 

The five-second penalty and the overall decision still stand.

At the start of the race in Austin, Max Verstappen and Lando Norris instantly locked horns for the lead. In turn 1, they both went side-by-side and lost the lead in the race due to their tussle. Despite that, they continued to fight each other for positions. In the latter stages of the Grand Prix on Lap 52, Lando Norris was chasing Verstappen and attempted an overtake round the outside of the Red Bull driver at Turn 12.

Verstappen tried to defend his position from the inside and braked late for the apex, hoping to make the corner. They remained side-by-side even after exiting the corner which resulted in both going off the track. During this chaos, the McLaren driver overtook the Dutchman off the track and refused to give the place back to him. Since the pass was made off the track, Norris was given a five-second time penalty.

The FIA released a statement for the penalty and explained the incident in detail. They mentioned that Norris was not given a customary 10-second penalty since both he and the driver he overtook were off the track.

Before the 2024 F1 Mexican GP, McLarenraised a “right to review” request towards Lando Norris’ penalty. Team representatives explained that a statement in the penalty statement had an error and that was their significant new element based on which they have raised the concern once again.

The sentence was that Norris (Car 4) who was overtaking Verstappen (Car 1) from the outside, was not level with Car 1 at the apex. McLaren was positive that their driver was already ahead of Red Bull’s at the braking zone itself.

Since the FIA did not deem a sentence error as a significant new element, they decided to reject the right to review request from the British team. FIA’s final statement read:

“This is unsustainable. A petition for review is made in order to correct an error (of fact or law) in a decision. Any new element must demonstrate that error. The error that must be shown to exist, cannot itself be the element referred to in Article 14.”

“In this case, the concept that the written Decision was the significant and relevant new element, or that an error in the decision was a new element, is not sustainable and is, therefore rejected.