McLaren’s Stella Urges FIA Action Amid Recent Setbacks

Andrea Stella calls on the FIA to address rule interpretations, citing recent decisions that he believes unfairly disadvantage McLaren.

Andrea Stella has called on the FIA to take action regarding Max Verstappen’s on-track conduct, which recently targeted Lando Norris. Ahead of the Mexican Grand Prix, where the Dutch driver received two heavy penalties, the McLaren F1 team principal urged the regulator to address dangerous behavior.

“We have already pointed out that the guidelines related to these driving maneuvers need to be reviewed,” Stella stated. “This was mainly, I would say, after certain incidents in Austria, and then, I think, in Austin.”

“We suggested, either with the right of review or directly after the race in our comments in Austin, that we believed the interpretation of the race between Lando and Max was really unnecessarily disadvantageous for Lando. For us, as a team, we defer to the FIA’s leadership.”

“We have always been respectful, constructive, and collaborative with the FIA, and we are ready to continue in this manner. I believe the drivers have also had the chance to share their views, and they all agree that there is a lot of work to be done.”

“And I think they have also shared their thoughts on the incident that occurred in Austin. There is a lot of material. There is a lot of information. I think it is now time to process this information and take a step forward in the interest of the sport.”

“The decision contained an error”

Stella explains why McLaren requested a review of the Austin decision, even though it seemed like a lost cause: “Regarding my comments right after the race, about not pursuing a right of review, they were based on what I knew at that time.”

“But after reading the decision, it became very clear that there was an element in the decision, which also related to what is required by the International Sporting Code to be a new, relevant, and significant element for the petition to proceed.”

“Upon reading the decision, it was very clear that it contained an objective, measurable, and provable error, which was the element we wanted to present as the new, relevant, and significant aspect required. We disagreed with the stewards’ interpretation that this element was not significant, relevant, and new.”

“We believed that it was indeed the case. But we are grateful to the stewards for reviewing the matter very quickly, and we maintain our constructive and supportive approach, as usual.”