Lando Norris has received a reprimand and a €5,000 fine for his involvement in the chaotic aborted start at the F1 Sao Paulo Grand Prix.
Importantly, Norris has avoided a sporting penalty, which would have dealt a further blow to his dwindling title aspirations after finishing sixth in Sunday’s tumultuous race at Interlagos, where rival Max Verstappen impressively clinched victory after starting from 17th on the grid.
The initial start in Brazil had to be canceled after Lance Stroll crashed and stranded his Aston Martin in the gravel at Turn 4. With Stroll unable to continue, the FIA decided to abort the start as the rest of the field was preparing on the starting grid.
Despite the aborted start signal being displayed and orange lights flashing, Norris pulled away again to begin a second formation lap. Mercedes driver George Russell, who was alongside Norris on the front row, received the same penalty for violating Article 47.1 of F1’s sporting regulations.
“The FIA Formula One Race Director initiated the Aborted Start procedure indicating that the drivers should not leave the grid. This message was necessary as there was a car off track in Turn 4 (STR) that needed to be recovered. Although the signal was appropriately given, the light panel illuminated as prescribed, and the teams notified by the messaging system, the driver left the grid and proceeded on a lap that he assumed to be an extra formation lap,” the stewards explained.
“As the driver was on the front row of the grid, this triggered following drivers to take similar action. At some point, the Race Director realized that for practical reasons all cars would now need to do an extra formation lap and instructed the teams for all cars to proceed and return to the grid to follow the correct aborted start procedure. In the opinion of the stewards, the driver NOR precipitated the action of the drivers on the grid directly behind him.”
Yuki Tsunoda and Liam Lawson were also reviewed, but the stewards decided against taking further action against the Red Bull duo, citing that they were “influenced by the driver ahead” and therefore not “predominately responsible” for the breach.