Lando Norris lost the Spanish Grand Prix through no fault of his own or his team’s, but simply because of the unfortunate timing of a virtual safety car (VSC). Triggered on lap 14 after Lance Stroll’s retirement, the VSC caught the McLaren driver just moments after he missed the pitlane entry. While his main rivals—who weren’t even matching Norris’ pace that weekend—got a cheap stop, the fastest man had to settle for P3.
This outcome felt fundamentally wrong, making it inevitable that calls for potential rule changes resurfaced in the aftermath of a grand prix where the VSC was the primary talking point.
“There’s literally nothing I could do as a driver today to do a better job,” Norris stated 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 is tempting to declare that the rules need changing. As often happens in such scenarios, a host of “easy solutions” emerge, appearing obvious only after a clear example of how unfair the outcome was.
Norris himself suggested at least two such options 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.”
While both suggestions seem viable on the surface, they are equally impractical.
Why closing the pitlane won’t work
Closing the pitlane under a VSC, or allowing everyone to stop simultaneously, would have worked perfectly in Madrid—there is no doubt about that. With no refueling, cars are less likely to run out of fuel during a safety car period, so simply blocking the pitlane entry would eliminate some of the unfair elements. Had the pitlane stayed closed, Norris would not have lost out, as no one could have executed a cheap stop.
Sorted, then? Not quite. The reason for deploying a safety car, or its virtual analogue, is usually because of accidents on track. Closing the pitlane while cars are crawling down the circuit on three wheels or with damaged front wings 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 damaged cars to pit would also be problematic, as you would need to define “damage” within the sporting regulations. Would the damage to Oscar Piastri’s front wing in Madrid qualify as “enough” for a pitstop under a VSC? If you exaggerate the criteria, wouldn’t drivers then seek to get a puncture just to earn the right to pit?
That would simply create too many grey areas—with the most obvious one mentioned by Norris himself.
“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, deploying a VSC for the sake of safety and then disallowing drivers on slicks from changing tyres to wets would contradict the purpose of the action. If that were a suitable solution, it would have been implemented long ago. The issue is simply not as straightforward as it seems after Madrid.
A full-lap VSC isn’t the solution either
The other option is to ensure all drivers have a chance to pit, which is indeed an easy fix on paper. What really played against Norris was not the fact that the VSC was activated after he drove past the pitlane entry, but that by the time he completed the lap, the timing had already turned green again.
Why not make sure a VSC lasts for at least one lap, guaranteeing everyone a chance for a cheap stop?
This is a debate FIA race directors and drivers can certainly have during the next meeting in Baku—but even if they do, they’d likely quickly conclude it is not a solution. While it would guarantee a “fair” outcome for the Spanish Grand Prix, it only covers this particular scenario and could potentially make things worse in others.
Just because different strategies in F1 still exist, there will almost always be those benefiting from the lucky timing of a safety car and those hard done by it.
There is one clear scenario that would have played against Norris had the rules been slightly different. If Norris had pitted on lap 12 to, for example, prevent an undercut attempt from Kimi Antonelli and Mercedes, that would be a perfectly normal move. The 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. 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 scenario, those seeking easy solutions would 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—is not taken into account by race control. And rightly so. Motor racing is still a dangerous sport, and safety is the only priority when making those 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
While drivers are free to speak their minds and raise concerns, it does not mean media headlines 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”.
This does not mean a discussion shouldn’t happen, as Madrid highlighted a long-known issue. But it is also long-known precisely because there is 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.