Max Verstappen hinted that the `full truth` is too sensitive for public consumption when explaining his reluctance to detail his anger over a penalty during the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix.
The reigning world champion, who began the race in Jeddah from pole position, was penalized for gaining an advantage by leaving the track during a first-corner incident with Oscar Piastri, who ultimately won the race.
Piastri, starting from second on the grid, had a stronger start and moved alongside Verstappen on the inside. The Dutch driver chose not to yield and instead used the run-off area to maintain his lead.
Red Bull and Verstappen initially opted not to give the position back to Piastri. Subsequently, the stewards imposed a five-second penalty, which allowed the Australian driver to take the lead after Verstappen served it during his pit stop.
Verstappen made it clear he disagreed with the penalty but stated he couldn`t elaborate further due to fear of repercussions from the FIA, the sport`s governing body.
`The issue is, I can`t express my real opinion on it because it could lead to penalties,` Verstappen commented. `So, it`s probably best not to talk about it.`
`I believe it`s wiser to remain silent. Anything I might say or attempt to articulate about it could land me in trouble.`
Differing Rules This Season?
In a post-race interview, Verstappen was questioned about the difference between this incident and a similar one involving Lando Norris at the previous year`s United States Grand Prix, where Norris received a penalty for a comparable offense.
Verstappen seemed to suggest that changes to the Drivers` Standards Guidelines for the current season meant the two incidents were not comparable.
He stated, `We`ve discussed it extensively, and the rules seem to be different this year compared to last, so that`s not really the problem.`
`But honestly, it`s not my concern either.`
When asked to clarify, he added, `Let`s just refer to the rulebook. It`s all documented.`
In their official decision, the stewards explained that because Piastri, as the overtaking driver, had moved ahead of Verstappen, the guidelines dictated that Piastri was entitled to the corner.
The ruling stated: `The stewards examined data from positioning/marshalling systems, video footage, timing, telemetry, and in-car video evidence and concluded that car 81`s front axle was at least parallel with the mirror of Car 1 before and at the apex of turn 1 during the attempted overtake by Car 81 on the inside. In fact, Car 81 was alongside Car 1 at the apex.`
`According to the Driver`s Standards Guidelines, the corner belonged to Car 81, and he was entitled to racing room.`
`Car 1 then left the track and gained a lasting advantage which was not relinquished. He remained ahead of Car 81 and tried to extend this advantage.`
Horner Suggests Rule Re-evaluation
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner expressed more detailed disagreement with the decision, arriving at his post-race briefing with telemetry data that he claimed supported his viewpoint.
He commented: `I felt it was very severe. We didn`t cede the position because we didn`t believe we had acted incorrectly. It`s quite evident at the corner`s apex that Max is clearly in front.`
`I struggle to understand how the stewards reached their conclusion. Both drivers entered the corner at the same speed. Oscar braked late into the corner, and Max couldn`t simply vanish at that moment.`
`Perhaps these regulations need another look. I`m unsure what happened to the `let them race` philosophy on the first lap. It seems to have been abandoned.`
Horner added that the stewards` strong conviction in their decision made it `highly improbable` that Red Bull would appeal.
He also mentioned that the decision to risk a penalty rather than concede the position was influenced by the perceived threat from Mercedes` George Russell, who was in third place.
`If we had given up the position, we would have been in turbulent air and at risk from George,` Horner explained. `So, the best course of action at that point was to accept the penalty, focus, and keep pushing.`
Piastri Confirms Correct Decision
Piastri, who became the championship leader for the first time in his career after securing his victory, was equally confident that the ruling was correctly made in his favor.
`I had a fantastic start and positioned myself alongside,` Piastri said. `From there, I had to brake quite late, but I knew I had enough of my car alongside to take the corner.`
`We both braked very late, but I believe, for my part, I braked as late as possible while still staying on the track. I think the outcome was handled as it should have been.`
McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown stated that Verstappen `definitely` deserved a penalty for choosing not to concede the corner and position.
Brown commented, `I definitely thought a penalty was warranted. Oscar was clearly on the inside, had a better start, and you have to utilize the track.`
`Whether it`s a five-second penalty or requiring him to give the position back, either would have been appropriate. I felt it was definitely justified. It was Oscar`s corner, and eventually, you have to concede.`
Brundle: Corner Belonged to Piastri
During live commentary of the incident, Martin Brundle was firm in his opinion that Verstappen deserved a penalty and maintained this view post-race.
Brundle said, `Oscar got to the first corner, reached the first apex – and having read the rules for 2025 – he was entitled to that corner.`
`However, if your competitor is willing to release the brakes – and if you observe, there isn`t much steering input – Max didn`t really attempt to go around the outside.`
`He had lost the corner and should have tucked back in.`
`I believe the team should have immediately surrendered the position. It was evident he was going to receive a penalty for that, and by conceding, they might have had a chance to win the race.`
Marcus Prine