Is Turn 1 at the Mexico GP a Recipe for Chaos? Inside the Controversy
The Mexico Grand Prix has stirred up a storm of debate, and for good reason. George Russell’s recent jibe about the driving standards of his Formula 1 rivals being “lawnmower-worthy” has ignited discussions around the notorious Turn 1. Was this a mere slip of the tongue, or does it reflect the reality of racing at Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez?
Picture this: Lando Norris, Lewis Hamilton, Charles Leclerc, and Max Verstappen all charging into Turn 1, jockeying for position—four wide! It sounds exhilarating, but here’s where it gets messy. Verstappen, caught off guard, locked up on the dusty outer curb and cut across the apex, leaving chaos in his wake. Hamilton, in a rare show of sportsmanship, provided Leclerc ample room, but the Monegasque made a bold move, skipping Turn 2 entirely and emerging in the lead. This was not just a tactical maneuver; it was a blatant disregard for track limits that raised eyebrows.
The design of the track certainly doesn’t help. The narrow corridor between Turns 1, 2, and 3 creates a pressure cooker environment where going four-wide is not just unorthodox; it’s downright reckless. Yet, this isn’t a new phenomenon. Since its return to the F1 calendar in 2015, the Mexico GP has seen its fair share of orderly starts, but the incidents of drivers cutting corners and manipulating the rules have become increasingly frequent—skewing race outcomes in the process.
Let’s rewind to 2016: Hamilton himself locked up and sped through Turn 2, a move eerily reminiscent of Verstappen’s recent escapade. Back then, Nico Rosberg was pushed wide by Verstappen, cutting the corner and rejoining ahead—no penalties were issued. The situation raises critical questions: How are we to measure entitlement on the track? Is a driver who locks up still deserving of their position?
This year’s race was no different. Carlos Sainz attempted a daring outside line only to find Verstappen occupying the apex. In such scenarios, drivers are faced with a dilemma: back off and risk losing ground or cut the corner and plead self-defense. While Sainz returned the position, Rosberg didn’t, and Leclerc managed to retain his lead over Hamilton. It’s a tangled web of racing ethics that seems to have no clear resolution.
Historically, F1 has seen champions fight tooth and nail without resorting to corner-cutting. Sebastian Vettel’s refusal to yield to Verstappen in 2017 is a prime example of hard but fair racing. The same dynamic unfolded between Verstappen and Hamilton in 2019, showcasing a commitment to racing standards that Leclerc could have adopted this past Sunday.
So, what’s the solution to this Turn 1 debacle? The options are limited and fraught with complications. The grass doesn’t slow cars down sufficiently, while gravel traps could lead to stones littering the track, inviting virtual safety cars that disrupt racing flow. A wall, while a strong deterrent, raises safety concerns at speeds nearing 370 km/h in that section.
Ultimately, it boils down to the stewards’ interpretation. If they choose to turn a blind eye to corner-cutting, drivers like Fernando Alonso are likely to take that as a green light to do the same. To instill fairness, stewards must adopt a stringent policy: either a driver is unlawfully pushed off, warranting a penalty for the aggressor, or they unlawfully cut the corner, deserving of a penalty themselves.
The stakes are high, and the need for a clear, binary approach has never been more critical. The culture of “I can get away with it” must end. The integrity of the sport depends on it, and as the Mexico GP continues to capture the world’s attention, the pressure mounts for a resolution to the Turn 1 conundrum. The question remains: will F1 rise to the occasion?
