F1 doesn't need to change its VSC rules despite Norris' Spain loss

In an ideal world, a race-defining scenario in Formula 1 should be the result of the drivers' and teams' endeavours: a move for the lead, or a race-winning strategy executed to perfection. It shouldn't really be the case that a result is locked in, for example, by the appearance and the timing of a safety car - virtual, real, or otherwise. 

McLaren and Lando Norris, then, have the right to feel a little bit peeved by the timing of the VSC at the Spanish Grand Prix. Lance Stroll made a creditable attempt to minimise disruption to the race when peeling off the road with brake failure, parking up at the marshals' post ensconced within the Turn 20 run-off, but the delay in scooping his Aston Martin off the track eventually prompted a VSC to ensure the marshals could indeed get onto the track safely. 

For Norris, the timing was horrendous; he'd just passed the pit entry when the VSC alert went off around the circuit, while the timing was perfect for his notional pursuers in Kimi Antonelli, Max Verstappen, and George Russell. By the time the McLaren came around again, the VSC was waved away before he entered the pits. Stop now and lose positions. Stop later and lose positions. Hell or high-water? Rock or a hard place? Mrs Brown's Boys or Hollyoaks? You have to pick one. 

In Norris' case, stopping immediately without the VSC was the least painful option - and one that at least presented something of an opportunity to catch up. It took Russell needing another (superfluous?) stop to ditch the medium tyre to bring Norris back into the net top three, but there was no way past Verstappen despite the superior pace of the McLaren. Thus, Norris was forced to pace around like a caged animal, as Verstappen only needed to place his car through the corners to evade any chance of a Norris attack.

Naturally, Norris was hurting a bit. He prefaced his complaints by stating that he'd benefitted from a similar scenario before - indeed, his maiden F1 win in 2024's Miami Grand Prix was helped significantly by the timing of the safety car and the fact that it picked Verstappen up, giving Norris the opportunity to stop for fresh tyres. This didn't dissuade him from suggesting a few ideas to reconsider how the VSCs are deployed. 

"I think there’s always probably some cons to doing it, but it’s tough," Norris began. "I’ve won from it in the past, I’ve lost from it in the past. Over the course of a season, it’s hard to know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. It probably equals out over time. 

Norris wishes he had something stronger to wash away the taste of an unfair defeat

"Of course, it just hurts more, the fact that I lose a win. You know, there’s literally nothing I could do as a driver today to do a better job: pole, led the race, and to lose it for nothing in my control is, I don’t think, how a race should be won. I think people would agree. But it is racing and it’s happened, so I can’t really complain about it.

"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.

"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. This is not something I can just ask for. I think it’s something, as a group of drivers, I think we would all want, but there’s a lot more to it. 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. 

"Of course I’m complaining about it today. I could benefit from it next time out, and I could win because of it. So 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."

By changing the VSC regulations to give opportunities to the leader, then you're then taking away opportunities from other drivers

In this instance, the VSC call was probably a bit too slow; it seemed like there was a lot of indecision when working out what to do with Stroll's car. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of leaving the VSC to linger to give everyone the chance to pit; it should be a quick 'turn it on, move car, remove debris, get marshals off the road, green flag'. 

The luck element can be sympathised with to a degree too, as teams spend considerable finance on 'controlling the controllables' with their car designs, race preparation, simulator tools, and the like - only to lose a race due to force majeure. It must be especially galling that Norris had incredible speed at the Madring, which ultimately proved to be his undoing; had he been a bit slower in the opening 14 laps, he might have been able to stop in time. It's also true that the opportunity to pit under the VSC was available but Norris in that race; others chose not to, given their decision to start on the hard tyre, and it was far too soon to switch to a medium or soft compound. 

So let's humour Norris for a second: what would you do in that situation? Now, rather than close the pitlane or open it up to everyone, we could take a (rare) leaf from the book of Formula 2: pitstops under the VSC don't count as a mandatory stop. Now, F1's rules are shaped differently and the regulations mandate that two compounds must be used during the course of the race, rather than demand that a driver complete a mandatory stop. That's why teams can change their tyres under a red flag, for instance.

Markelov's Monaco GP2 win in 2016 prompted a change to its VSC rules

Photo by: GP2 Series Media Service

If the wording was changed to, say, any switch in tyre compounds after entering the pits under a virtual safety car period would not count, it might solve that particular problem; drivers can still switch tyres under the VSC, but it simply won't fulfil the mandatory two-compound rule. This rule had its legacy in the 2016 GP2 (F2's former name) race at Monaco, in which Artem Markelov used a VSC to beat Norman Nato to a victory in the feature race around the Principality.

The GP2 cars used a limiter for VSC periods, rather than a lap delta time, and Markelov got the VSC calls during slow corners - while Nato had to slow down significantly in the acceleration zones. Markelov was losing barely any time as a result; Nato was haemorrhaging enough to bulk out a once-15-second gap under green-flag conditions. After the two late-race VSCs, the Russian had the chance to pit late and bag victory.

Although this was incredibly opportunistic on Markelov's part, the provision to use the VSC stop as the mandatory stop was closed in the regulations, and remains such to this day. But F2 is not F1, and this isn't such a problem with a delta-based VSC system. It has other rules about when to take mandatory stops, largely under the auspices of entertainment, and to stop drivers switching tyres on the first lap. 

The flipside to all this is that, by changing the VSC regulations to give opportunities to the leader, then you're then taking away opportunities from other drivers. A full-lap VSC, save for any complications produced by double-stacking or through slow stops, removes a tactical element that those lower down the order can employ to give themselves a leg-up.

Let's say you've started on the soft tyre on with the express intent of using an early pit call to switch to the hards, do a long stint, and undercut those ahead, then the VSC comes out right in your pit window: either the pitlane is shut and you have to extend by at least lap, or everyone else pits onto the same strategy as you, or you pit - but need to come in again. That's arguably not fair on you, the short-stopper. 

Whatever is done to rework the VSC regulations will ultimately prove unfair to someone. If there was to be any immediate reaction given the Madring situation, it would be another example of over-legislation; an overreaction to a situation simply on the back of one freak moment (to this writer's mind, this is only acceptable if there's a scenario that could yield injury). 

Norris got stuck behind Antonelli and Verstappen after stopping under green flag conditions

Photo by: Federico Basile

Even to the competitors most affected by a VSC call, in this case McLaren, it's not entirely clear what the best course of action would be. 

"I'm puzzled myself as to what's right," Andrea Stella mused in the aftermath. "Is it correct to give enough duration such that everyone will be subject to the same track conditions, for instance, the virtual safety car lasts at least one full lap? Or you just keep it in the hands of the gods, and sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not?

"I'm not sure myself. But in general, there's the right place to have this sort of conversation which is the Strategy Advisory Committee, the SAC. And this is a topic that may be added to the agenda and discussed over there. But if it's a change, it will have to be a change that goes through the SAC, then the F1 Commission, and then we have to go at some stage to the Sporting Regulations. But I would envisage that this is a relatively lengthy process, unless there's a big push from F1, from the institutions, FIA, or F1, to say, like, we need to make this different. 

"But as a competitor at the moment, I wouldn't have a clear idea."

It's a nuanced argument, all told. If it was abundantly clear that Stroll's car couldn't be moved without getting a marshal on the track, press the VSC button sooner, and those responsible for race control and marshalling need to be a bit more on the ball. But I'm not of the opinion that we need to drastically tweak the VSC regulations at all, especially under the guise of simplification - adding criteria-based gates to a VSC pitstop doesn't simply things at all.

You win some, you lose some, and folk in F1 need to get comfortable with the idea that you can't control every single variable. The Spanish Grand Prix was incredibly unfair on Norris, and the VSC cost him a win - but if the track could produce anything other than a 57-lap procession, then you'd argue it wouldn't have cost him at all.

It's a circuit problem, not a VSC problem.

Norris' loss wasn't down to the VSC, but rather the Madring layout

Photo by: Clive Rose / Formula 1 via Getty Images