Guenther Steiner Slams McLaren because it did not stand by Oscar Piastri when the Australian driver was given an unpopular facing 10 second penalty at the Brazilian Grand Prix-a move that has generated a lot of heated discussion throughout the entire Formula 1 circuit. The ex-Haas team principal, who always has no problem with unpolite remarks asked why McLaren was silent when their young racer was subjected to criticism and 2 penalty points after bumping into Andrea Kimi Antonelli that eventually led to the retirement of Charles Leclerc. This position of Steiner predetermines the general discussion regarding how teams ought to take care of their drivers, particularly in those occasions, when the decision by itself is open to interpretation.
It happened on the lap six restart under safety cars when Piastri made an inside overtake on Antonelli at Turn 1. The stewards said that the McLaren driver had not created the necessary overlap, that his front axle was not visible in the mirror of Antonelli according to the FIA rules of overtaking. On locking the wheels trying to avoid contact, Piastri instead hit Antonelli placing the Mercedes rookie into the Ferrari belonging to Leclerc. The race of Leclerc was terminated there and stewards had to impose the blame on Piastri. To begin with, the decision itself received instant criticism by fans, pundits and even other drivers. The popular opinion was that such a 10 second penalty was unreasonable in the context of the situation, particularly on a three-wide battle into a decidedly narrow corner. Leclerc, who was most undue, later on, vindicated Piastri, strange to relate, by stating that Antonelli also had a part to play by submitting as none existed Piastri. His evaluation gave the picture of a racing incident nearer to the act of recklessness than a racing incident.
But the frustration of Steiner was placed specifically on failure to act by McLaren and not on the decision of the stewards. According to The Red Flags Podcast, the former team boss implied that McLaren ought at least to have appealed the decision though the appeal might have eventually been dismissed. To Steiner, the principle was significant as compared to the result. He claimed that teams should demonstrate to their drivers that they are supporting them even in cases where the evidence is not so obvious. He pointed out that even the most impacted driver Leclerc released a statement that was balanced in view which further to support the notion that Piastri was not the biggest cause of the crash.
Steiner did not stop there, being worried with the course F1 is taking in raising race rules to stringent levels. He wondered to what extent the freedom of drivers exists to race wheel-to-wheel with a threat of penalty every aggressive action. The sport in his view, in case it is over-tamed, will be deprived of the rough unpredictability that makes Formula 1 fascinating. His remarks point out even a wider feeling of many of his long time supporters who feel that modern stewarding puts too much emphasis on regulation rather than on racing instinct.
Lastly, Steiner put a strong focus on the psychological side of the defense of a driver. A failed attempt in his view would have portrayed a sense of togetherness and certainty in McLaren. The effect of this is that drivers particularly young drivers such as Piastri know that they have the support of their team whenever there is controversy. Although Steiner acknowledged that he has overreacted himself at moments, he asserted that speaking up plays a role towards leadership in F1. What he meant by that he told Piastri, is that it would be the wrong message to the whole garage including McLaren.
Ultimately, it is not necessarily whether the punishment was warranted or not. It involves the question of whether teams should go out of their way to defend their drivers and whether the level of freedom in racing and regulatory regulation is swinging too heavily. With questions still floating around the issue of stewarding consistency and team dynamics the critique by Steiner will see McLaren being part of the bigger Brazil Grand Prix discourse.
Follow us on Zeroto30s social channels:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zeroto30s/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/zeroto30s
Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeroto30s
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Zeroto30s
The root of your writing whilst appearing agreeable at first, did not really work well with me personally after some time. Somewhere throughout the paragraphs you were able to make me a believer but just for a while. I however have a problem with your leaps in logic and one would do well to fill in all those breaks. When you actually can accomplish that, I could certainly be fascinated.