Category: Formula 1

The German manufacturer has had a challenging start to the 2024 season, with last weekend’s Saudi Arabian Grand Prix exposing a particular weakness that its new W15 has in high-speed corners.

While the squad does not have answers right now as to what is causing the unexplained problem, Wolff has declared that he has total faith in the team getting on top of matters.

And, although there is potential for 2024 to mark a third consecutive year of Mercedes trying to get on top of issues, Wolff has said he is so serene about the situation because he thinks the team is in a different place this time around.

“I’ve changed my mindset,” he said. “I don’t think that additional pressure on all of us makes it better.

“I think we have a problem with the physics. It is not by lack of trying or by the mindset or the motivation or energies. All of that is there, and I can see the buzz in the organisation.

“As racers, when we have such [disappointing] results, you’re feeling down, but we’re trying to change that with the right motivation for the week that comes. That’s why we are believing that we can turn this around. We believe that our organisation can dig ourselves out. I’m 100% sure we can.”

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes F1 W15 battles with Oscar Piastri, McLaren MCL38

Photo by: Steve Etherington / Motorsport Images

Wolff says that while on-track performance seems similar to previous seasons, the situation with its car is very different because its understanding of the concept has moved on so much.

“We had so many unknowns in the last year,” he said. “Where we started, we said, ‘okay this could be a reason’ and ‘this could be a reason’ and ‘this could be a reason.’ And we fixed that.

“I can see from the sensors that we have what we needed. But there is still this behaviour of the car in a certain speed range, where our sensors and simulation say this is where we should have the downforce, and we are not having it.

“This team has not been overconfident. We are probably the other way around. We see that glass half empty always. And that attitude stays, but this is also the attitude to fix it.”

Wolff believes that all the lessons that were applied in curing the issues the team faced with its first two cars of the new ground effect era will help it plot a path out of the problems.

“It is a different confidence that I have in the group this time around,” he said. “At a certain stage, you’re basically ticking all the boxes of the unknown, and where we are today, it’s pretty clear where it points to. It’s just my feeling that that we will come on top.

“Is this good enough to beat a Max [Verstappen] in a Red Bull? No, it’s not. But at least bringing ourselves into a position of fighting for podiums and being right there, I’m 100% sure we are going to get there.”

Norris was one of only four drivers who opted to gain track position by not stopping when Lance Stroll’s crash triggered a safety car period early in the Jeddah race and having started sixth he was left in the lead at the restart, until Max Verstappen got by two laps later.

As with fellow non-stoppers Lewis Hamilton, Nico Hulkenberg and Zhou Guanyu, the hope was that a later safety car or virtual safety car period would allow him to make a cheap pitstop.

However, the race ran interrupted to the chequered flag, and in fact Norris was obliged to make an earlier stop than the team had planned in order to cover Hamilton, who switched to softs in the closing laps. He eventually finished eighth, two places down on his grid position.

“You never know at the time, and we wanted to try something different, and not just stay behind,” said Norris when asked by Autosport about the call to remain on track and not pit.

“We could have gained a lot of points, or we could have lost a few. And in the end, we lost a few. But that’s just the way it is sometimes. So it was a good try, I think it was the correct call to make.

“Sometimes I feel like we’re a little bit safe. It’s nice to be a little bit more aggressive, and try something different. So I’m happy with our decision. It wasn’t the best one, or let’s say the correct one. But that’s in hindsight. I’m still happy with how we tried to execute it all.”

Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

Norris confirmed he was obliged to follow Hamilton’s strategy by switching to soft tyres a lap after the Mercedes driver stopped.

“I had to, if I went on the hards, he would have got me,” he said. “The hards just take a couple more laps to come in. He was very close to getting me anyway. I would have chosen to go onto the softs.

“I could have gone to the chequered flag on the medium, I was very happy with that. Obviously, the pace was not great compared to the guys around.

“The softs were the correct thing, but five laps later. I don’t think we did the best strategy. But I had to cover Lewis, so that had us over a little bit. We gave it the best effort we could.”

The switch to softs gave Norris a chance to catch Ferrari rookie Oliver Bearman ahead, but he just came up short, while successfully staying ahead of Hamilton.

“I think he drove a good race,” Norris said of the teenager. “The softs were good for two laps, and then they peaked, and they went off. So maybe a hard would have been good in hindsight again. But like I said, I couldn’t do that because of Lewis.

“Clearly the Ferrari is a very strong car. For [Bearman] to jump in and to get so much out of the car on his first weekend is pretty impressive. fair play to him.”

Norris was fortunate to escape a penalty for moving and then stopping before the start lights went out. The incident was not caught by the transponder system on which the FIA stewards rely for such calls.

Valtteri Bottas lost almost 50 seconds at his second stop in the Bahrain GP with a cross-threading issue at the front axle. 

In last weekend’s Saudi Arabian race, Zhou Guanyu was delayed by a similar problem for around 25 seconds when he pitted.

The Chinese driver was one of only four drivers not to have stopped when the safety car came out, and despite having to deal with some cooling issues he was on course to finish 11th.

Team representative Alessandro Alunni Bravi confirmed that the team is working on addressing the problem.

“First of all, for me, it’s very important to say that was not the mistake of our mechanics or crew, they are doing a really good job,” the Italian told Autosport.

“We know that we have a problem, we have an issue that has been the same in Bahrain on Valtteri’s car, and this time on Zhou’s car.

“So we have investigated, and we are working to fix this problem as soon as possible. And we are revising the parts in order to not have this problem again in the next races.”

Zhou Guanyu, Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber C44 in the pit lane

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

In an attempt to produce quicker stops this year, the team made changes which will now be reviewed.

“We have new equipment, we have a new design of all the parts,” said Alunni Bravi. “Of course, there is something that needs to be improved.

“And we are working in all the areas with a 360-degree approach in order to have a consistent pit stop, a quick pit stop, but also to not have any kind of problem.

“For us, it’s crucial now because we have had this problem in the last two races. So we cannot afford to have an issue during the races, because the potential of the car is there to fight for the points.

“And we have of course jeopardised this opportunity both in Bahrain and in Jeddah because of an issue. It’s something on our side that we have investigated, and we are working to fix.”

Racing director Xevi Pujolar agreed that the pit stop issue is an essential task for the team before the next race in Australia.

“I think it’s clear that still we’re not where we want to be,” he said. “And we need to do some further changes for Melbourne. Because we are too fragile, I would say.

Valtteri Bottas, Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber C44

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

“It’s nothing wrong with the crew, with mechanics, they are doing I would say a reasonable job. But we had a problem again. So we just need to now investigate and try to come up with some containment for the next race, just to be more robust.

“We are causing a cross thread. And it takes time because we have to change the wheel nut.”

Almost one year on from revealing that he was considering legal action over F1 and the FIA’s handling of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix ‘crashgate’ controversy, Massa has put his money where his mouth is in seeking redress.

The Brazilian has sprung into action after revelations last year from then F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone that grand prix racing’s chiefs were aware early on of Nelson Piquet Jr having crashed deliberately in Singapore to help Renault team-mate Fernando Alonso win.

Knowing that something was amiss prior to that year’s F1 season finale, and especially the end of season FIA prize gala where championships are officially awarded, means there was plenty of time for a proper investigation to be conducted and appropriate action taken.

Massa believes that if the FIA had acted in the way he thinks they should have done, the result of the Singapore GP would have been changed – and he, not Lewis Hamilton, would have ended the year as champion.

The arguments surrounding the controversy have long been discussed, but the process of going legal means that more specific details of the case have been revealed.

Autosport has seen the British High Court documents lodged by Massa’s legal representatives and they offer a fascinating insight into the legal arguments at play – and what outcome is being sought.

Nelson Piquet Jr., Renault R28 crashes into the wall

Photo by: Sutton Images

The £64 million question

When the story first broke last year that Massa was considering legal action over what happened in 2008, it was very much focused on trying to get the title outcome overturned.

As Bernardo Viana, from the Sao Paulo Vieira Rezende Advogados law firm that represents Massa in Brazil, told Autosport last September: “The objective is to bring the trophy home. It’s not financial.”

It was unclear at the time, however, as to how the world championship outcome could be overturned because the FIA statutes are pretty definitive in laying down that once the official trophies have been handed out at the end of season gala, then there are no grounds for overturning.

And that indeed appears to have been the conclusion, because the court papers make no reference to seeking removal of Hamilton’s maiden F1 title and awarding it to Massa. Instead, the court action is all about the damages that Massa suffered as a result of what he says was the wrong actions of the FIA and F1.

It outlines that Massa not only lost a €2 million (£1.7 million) bonus for not winning the championship, but it cost him in terms of the salary he could command in subsequent years – both in terms of as a driver and in other roles relating to F1 and motorsport – as well as sponsorship and commercial opportunities.

While the court documents say that the exact final sum will be determined by “expert evidence”, it states that its best estimate of pre-interest losses is £64 million.

Beyond seeking financial compensation, Massa wants a declaration from the FIA that it acted in breach of its own regulations in failing to investigate the circumstances of the Singapore crash.

Furthermore, he wants a declaration that if the FIA had not acted in breach of its own rules, then it would have cancelled or adjusted the results of the Singapore race – which would have meant Massa would be champion.

Bernie Ecclestone visits the paddock

Photo by: Simon Galloway / Motorsport Images

Following the rule book

Massa’s action is fuelled by his and his lawyers’ belief that the FIA and F1 chiefs did not act correctly in investigating and dealing with Renault’s conspiracy after the 2008 Singapore GP.

With it having emerged that then F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone and FIA president Max Mosley knew about Nelson Piquet Jr’s actions before that year’s season finale in Brazil, the argument is that they should have responded immediately.

The court documents allege that the FIA had a contractual obligation to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing – based on the FIA Statutes that demand it upholds the “the interests of its membership in all international matters concerning automobile mobility and tourism and motor sport.”

The Statutes furthermore say one of the FIA’s objectives is in: “Promoting the development of motor sport, enacting, interpreting and enforcing common rules applicable to the organization and running of motor sport events.”

Massa also cites the FIA’s International Sporting Code which says the Code was created so that the governing body would exercise its power “in a fair and equitable manner” and that it will “never be enforced so as to prevent or impede a competition or the participation of a competitor.”

Then there is the famous 151c disrepute clause that demanded sanction for “any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally”.

Plus, there is 179(b), which says that if a ‘new element’ is discovered relating to an event, then the stewards must convene to investigate it.

On all these counts, Massa says that if the FIA had followed what the rule books says, then, once it was aware that Piquet Jr had crashed deliberately, it was beholden on it to convene the stewards to investigate it.

Felipe Massa, Ferrari F2008

Photo by: Andrew Ferraro / Motorsport Images

Massa also argues that Ecclestone must have been aware of the provisions laid down in the regulations, so it was wrong of him to allegedly decide not to take action.

Furthermore, Massa goes on to suggest that he was the victim of a conspiracy by FOM and the FIA to prevent the Singapore crash becoming a scandal that damaged F1.

He argues that the FIA should have investigated the crash properly at the time, and even delayed the end of season FIA Gala if that was felt necessary.

The right thing to do

The matter will now be one for a judge to decide, and even Ecclestone himself has backed Massa’s move in going legal.

Speaking to the Press Association, Ecclestone said: “If he had asked me, I would have said it was the complete right thing to do, to sue, and to let an English judge decide what is right and wrong. I cannot say anything about the outcome and what will happen. From his point of view, it is better that an English judge comes up with a verdict. It will be of more help for him.”

While it lagged behind the super slippery Haas that topped the official speed trap in qualifying, the RB20 was best able to balance its straightline potential with brilliant downforce for cornering too.

While wing levels are often a key factor in determining a team’s downforce/drag levels, what was especially interesting in Saudi Arabia was how Red Bull managed to help its cause through bodywork changes it can make to the RB20.

This was done by trialling parts to reduce the car’s cooling output, because tightening and/or closing bodywork means less drag and higher top speed.

With the way Red Bull has cleverly designed its RB20, the changes can come in many forms, as the car features a relatively conventional airbox arrangement, as well as both slender vertical and horizontal sidepod inlets and snorkel-like intakes beside the rear legs of the halo.

Red Bull RB20 cooling comparison

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

But it doesn’t stop there, though, because it also has more diverse heat rejection options alongside the regular rear engine cover outlets.

This includes a pair of louvred panels on each side of the engine cover, both of which we found out this weekend can be closed (white arrow).

There are also numerous options available on top of the cover, with both louvres and a larger rearward outlet also able to be opened up in that top panel.

Red Bull RB20 rear wing comparison

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

In terms of the lower-downforce rear wing that Red Bull employed, it shared all the same features as the higher-downforce model seen in Bahrain, albeit with everything de-powered to reduce downforce and drag.

The spoon-shaped mainplane’s central section has been raised, reducing the space taken up within the allowable box region, which consequently results in a less severe taper towards the endplate and a more loosely wound corner section.

The upper flap and tip sections have been trimmed on the trailing edge, as evidenced by the closer position of the teardrop-shaped flap pivot.

This helps to manage the ratio to the mainplane and maintain a sufficient boost in top speed when DRS is employed. The V-shaped notch has also been shrunk as a consequence, while the Gurney flap has been refitted to help improve the car’s balance.

Red Bull RB20 beam wing comparison

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

Tied into the alterations made to its rear wing, Red Bull also had a new beam wing configuration, which once again targeted reducing the load being generated.

Both elements had a reduction in chord across their span, but more so for the upper element. This is more offloaded at the tip and clearly shorter than the specification ran in Bahrain (top), with the elements connected to the crash structure rather than running between it and the exhaust’s tailpipe.

Scrutineering plays a crucial role for any F1 grand prix, as it’s the technical checking of cars to ensure all entrants are legal throughout a race weekend.

It is something all cars and drivers must go through where one failed test could result in disqualification. So, the FIA – who carry out the checks – uses a rigorous process to ensure everything is as precise as possible.

But, how does the process work and what are race officials looking for when determining if an entrant is complying to the regulations or not? 

How does scrutineering work in F1?

There are three different steps to scrutineering at an F1 weekend: pre-event, in-race and post-race.  

For pre-event scrutineering, a team must submit a declaration form – provided by the FIA – no later than two hours before first practice and stewards will summon any constructor that has failed to meet the deadline.  

On the declaration form, teams must confirm each of its cars complies with the regulations before further checks are made at random by the FIA to ensure what gets submitted matches the actual thing. This system has been in place since 2019 for practicality reasons as beforehand, cars queued in the pitlane on Thursdays to get scrutineered by race officials which was a longer process. 

Mistakes have still happened under the new system though. Mercedes once received a €25,000 fine at the 2022 Singapore Grand Prix for submitting an inaccurate pre-event scrutineering form regarding Lewis Hamilton.

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes W13

Photo by: Steve Etherington / Motorsport Images

Its form declared that Hamilton was not going to wear jewellery during the weekend, but he had a nose stud attached which Mercedes was unaware of. Despite it being an accident, the declaration form was still deemed inaccurate, so Mercedes was fined post-qualifying. 

As pre-event scrutineering is now done by teams, it makes in-race scrutineering even more important as it’s the first proper chance the FIA gets to check cars are legal. A way in which this is done is by having race officials inside each garage during track time where they will observe the car, monitor the work that gets done around it and check tyres for conformity.  

Once in 2015, a team was reprimanded by scrutineer Kartik Chaturvedi for filling fuel too quickly so it is always a very serious and thorough process. 

In-race scrutineering was then helped by the introduction of laser scans in 2022, which complete additional random checks to ensure as much as possible that each car is legal. This was introduced to accommodate the vast regulation changes as the previous metal cut-outs used to check parts were not suitable for the new ground-effect machines. 

Under the new system, teams share CAD data with the FIA where the scans then check if what gets presented matches the actual car. Not all checks are done electronically though because physical tests to ensure wing and floor flexing on cars are legal is still done on the rigs in the FIA garage, as well as ones which observe the DRS-opening space measurement.  

Alongside this, cars can also be randomly stopped by the FIA and called to the weighbridge during practice or qualifying, with some tests including measuring weight, front and rear wing deflection, car floor deflection, size conformity and torque input on the paddle shift.  

However, it is not uncommon for a driver to accidentally miss the weighbridge and the penalty for this can be quite severe. 

Carlos Sainz, Ferrari SF-23, at the weigh bridge

Photo by: Jake Grant / Motorsport Images

Article 35.1 b) of the sporting regulations states: “Any driver who fails to stop when asked to do so, and then fails to bring the car back to the FIA garage, or if work is carried out on the car before it is returned to the FIA garage, will be referred to the stewards.”  

This rule was enforced for the 2020 season after Pierre Gasly was controversially forced into a pitlane start at the 2019 Azerbaijan GP for accidentally missing the weighbridge checks during Friday practice, while Sergio Perez was given the same sanction for an identical reason in Austin.  

It prompted complaints from teams, so the rule tweak now means the punishment will be decided once it has been discussed with the stewards.  

There is also post-race scrutineering which many fans will see on their screens before the podium ceremony. In this, both the driver and car are weighed in parc ferme to ensure they meet the minimum requirement. Drivers aren’t allowed to drink any water until this is completed, as it could offset a driver’s weight before the measurement. 

Unlike the pre-event and in-race scrutineering, the method used for post-race scrutineering has remained largely the same across several years. But it is one which causes controversy, as approximately one-fifth of cars get checked due to the limited time available. For example, only Carlos Sainz, Gasly, Valtteri Bottas and Alex Albon were scrutinised after the 2024 Bahrain GP. 

Not every inch of the car is tested either, as race officials randomly select different parts to be observed post-session so a plank, for example, could go five grands prix without being checked. However, it arguably makes sense because the FIA state by using this method teams never know what components are being looked at each race – so they can’t risk trying to get around the rules.  

Has an F1 car ever failed scrutineering? 

Not every car in the history of F1 has passed a scrutineering check as some drivers have been disqualified from a grand prix for not complying to the regulations. 

Daniel Ricciardo, Renault F1 Team R.S.19

Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images

Renault had both cars disqualified from the 2019 Japanese Grand Prix for using illegal driver aids, while Sebastian Vettel lost his podium finish at the 2021 Hungarian GP after officials could not take the required fuel sample from his Aston Martin post-race. 

The most notable disqualification of recent years though came at the 2023 United States GP when Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton both failed post-race scrutineering due to excessive wear on their rear skid blocks.  

It was something that caused a lot of controversy because Hamilton and Leclerc were two of just four cars to be checked alongside Max Verstappen and Lando Norris. 

Given only 50% of those checked were deemed legal, questions were raised about the rest of the grid particularly the other Mercedes and Ferrari entrants because the technical delegate may have checked George Russell and Carlos Sainz’s car if he believed they could have been running too low as well.  

Hamilton was not happy because he said he’d “heard from several different sources that there were a lot of other cars that were also illegal, but they weren’t tested so they got away with it”. It prompted members of the F1 paddock to question the method the FIA use for post-race scrutineering because, as Martin Brundle said, “if 50 per cent of the tested cars failed, then shouldn’t all the finishers have been checked? The answer must surely be yes”. 

But the FIA was quick to defend its method stating “a huge amount of work goes on in the limited time available after a grand prix finishes and before the cars need to be returned to their teams for disassembly and transportation to the next race. 

“However, even though a wide array of checks are made, it is impossible to cover every parameter of every car in the short time available.”

Why do F1 drivers get weighed after a session? 

Race officials do not just scrutinise an F1 car during a grand prix weekend, as drivers are also part of the process. After each official session drivers will visit parc ferme where they are required to stand on a set of scales for two reasons: to ensure they meet the minimum weight requirement and to measure how much weight a driver has lost during track time.

Nico Hulkenberg, Haas F1 Team, Alex Albon, Williams Racing, George Russell, Mercedes-AMG, weigh in after the Sprint race

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

Since 2019 a driver has needed to weigh at least 80 kilograms when wearing all the safety equipment such as the helmet, race suit, gloves, shoes and HANS device – but if they still can’t reach that figure, ballast must be added to the cockpit to make up the difference.  

The mass of an F1 car also includes the driver, so their weight must be known because two weights can then be added up to ensure teams have reached the minimum requirement for both. It also helps with feedback to the team because knowing the exact weight of the car will help them to decide if to increase or decrease its mass.  

F1 drivers are also weighed after each session to measure weight loss. Drivers can lose at least 2-3kg during a race, so weighing them helps inform teams and physiotherapists how much fluid has been lost and what the best recovery methods are.  

How does F1 scrutineering compare to other racing championships?  

Scrutineering is common across all racing championships yet not each method is the same. NASCAR holds open scrutineering which means fans, plus other teams, are able to see the machines up close which helps to level the playing field as it can lead to car designs converging while many of the single-seater championships use a method similar to F1. 

The World Endurance Championship is probably the series which makes the biggest deal of pre-race scrutineering. It also uses an open method, while what happens before the world-famous Le Mans 24 Hours is unlike anything else. 

The whole paddock is transferred to the city centre where thousands of fans are in attendance for an inspection process that is traditionally held on the Sunday and Monday before lights out. Inspection for each car usually lasts around one hour as they go through a series of checkpoints with fans just inches away. 

A car is presented for inspection every 15 minutes beginning with a weight measurement. Next, officials check the underside of the car where the diffusers and floorboards are all examined before it gets partially dismantled at the final checkpoint so various safety equipment can be examined.  

During all of this, different scrutineering checks are carried out on the driver before an official team photo. Fans are then treated once more when a parade is carried out through the city centre to end the scrutineering process.

The Italian outfit has emerged as Red Bull’s main challenger so far this season, but it has found itself unable to stop Max Verstappen grabbing pole position and race wins at the first two races.

While it is clear that it needs to unlock a chunk of performance before it can think about racing wheel-to-wheel with the world champion squad, Ferrari reckons that delivering on that target is not impossible.

In fact, team principal Fred Vasseur reckons the squad is facing a completely different scenario to last year where the gap it had to the top team meant that any upgrades it delivered would have been “useless” in changing its plight.

Reflecting on the state of play between Ferrari and Red Bull after the first two races, Vasseur said: “I don’t want to be pessimistic, because it was a good weekend and we have to be optimistic and we need to enjoy these moments, but it’s clear Red Bull is still ahead.

“In quali they have perhaps two, three tenths on us, and in the race a bit more. But it’s difficult to estimate because we don’t know if they were pushing at the max.

“But the feeling is more positive that, if you come back in this region, you know if you do a step, you can put some pressure on them.

“When we were at one second [behind] it was useless, but now with a good start we can be there, we can fight. I think in Jeddah it was quite easy [for them] to overtake because they had a better top speed – it was a choice – but on some occasions we will have other opportunities.”

Frederic Vasseur, Team Principal and General Manager, Scuderia Ferrari

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images

Ferrari has an upgrade plan in place to lift the performance of its SF-24, and Vasseur is hugely encouraged by the fact the team has a solid baseline on which to build – rather than needing to address problems with the car.

“I am not focused at all on the championship, but I think we scored something like 45 points [actually 49] overall, and last year after three races we had 25 [actually 26]. It’s important to have a good start.

“Also, I think the fact that the car is – I don’t want to say easy to drive and in any case it doesn’t have anything to do with the performance – but I think the car today is easier to drive than one year ago.

“This is a good base for the development, because the car is much easier to read for the drivers, so it is much easier to understand where we have to improve, and in this situation it’s a step forward for us for the overall picture.”

Ferrari appears to have addressed the tyre degradation issues that held it back 12 months ago, and thinks that now it is in a more straightforward push to bring more performance to the car.

“The performance is coming from everywhere, and it’s never that you have one bullet of five tenths on the car,” he said.

“If we want to catch up, we have to improve in every single area. It was our approach last year and at the end it paid well. We did a decent step but in every single area we have to continue to push.

“For sure the aero is key. We have upgrades in the pipeline but I’m sure that everybody does. The most important thing is to bring upgrades that you can operate on the car, and I think it’s where last year we did a good job.”

Magnussen received a first 10-second penalty after contact with Albon following the safety car resumptions.

With the Dane’s own race effectively ruined, he then passed Yuki Tsunoda by going off track.

He subsequently slowed down the following group – including Albon – in order to create a pitstop window for Haas team-mate Nico Hulkenberg up ahead. The strategy worked, as Hulkenberg was eventually able to stop without losing positions, and the German ultimately earned a point for 10th.

Albon had no issue with the earlier contact from Magnussen but he was frustrated by what he viewed as a soft penalty for the off-track pass on Tsunoda.

“I think that was fair,” he said, when asked by Autosport about the initial penalty awarded to Magnussen. “It happens, a bit of a squeeze. I don’t like how that corner is shaped. It sticks out to you. I think it’s very misleading.

“You’ve got to leave more space than you realise, because of how it sticks out at the end there. They could just shave it flat, I think that would be easier. No hard feelings.

Alex Albon, Williams FW46

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images

“The other one was a bit cheeky, the other 10-second one with Yuki. I mean, you basically guarantee your team-mate points for a 10-second penalty.

“Why wouldn’t you do that everywhere? I don’t think five to 10 seconds is correct. I think it needs to be you must return the position back, and just leave it like that.”

Albon has complained in the past that drivers have gained an advantage by going off track to pass him and then open enough of a gap to negate the penalty.

The Magnussen tactic – getting in front and then slowing down the group – is a different take on the theme.

“You saw it this weekend,” he said. “I think any team would do the same thing, if you sacrifice one driver for guaranteed points.

“Maybe the top teams won’t do it. But the midfield teams who need to take points at any opportunity, you would do it every single time.

“I think you might see more drivers doing it just to guarantee a team-mate to have points.”

The South African driver won 10 world championship races from 111 starts during a topflight career that spanned from 1972 to 1980.

Scheckter, 74, has entered 12 cars from his personal collection into RM Sotheby’s Monaco sale on 11 May.

The headline lot is his ground-effect 1979 Ferrari 312 T4 – the final car to help claim a drivers’ title during Enzo Ferrari’s lifetime.

This particular example, chassis #040, was the fourth of five 312 T4s built; it was campaigned exclusively by Scheckter and took back-to-back victories in the Belgian and Monaco GPs.

Scheckter also led a Ferrari 1-2, ahead of team-mate Gilles Villeneuve, at the team’s home race in Monza to seal a drivers’ and constructors’ championship double.

He purchased the three-lite flat-12-engined car from the team in 1982 and it now carries a pre-sale estimate of £4.45 to 5 million.

Also heading to auction is the 1971 McLaren M19A aboard which Scheckter made his F1 debut in the following’s year United States GP, where he recorded a ninth-place finish.

Jody Scheckter, Tyrrell 007

Photo by: David Phipps

It was also notably raced by Denny Hulme, Jackie Oliver, Mark Donohue, Peter Revson and Brian Redman.

Scheckter is also selling a 2008 recreation of the famous six-wheeled Tyrrell P34, a car that, in period, he used to win the 1976 Swedish GP – the car’s sole triumph – in addition to scoring four podiums.

The Harvey Postlethwaite-penned 1977 Wolf WR1 that Scheckter drove to second in the F1 drivers’ standings also features in the auction alongside a 1973 McLaren M23 and 1975 Tyrrell 007.

Away from F1, he is selling two Formula 2 cars (1972 McLaren M21; 1973 Rondel M1) and a 1971 Merlyn Mk21 Formula 3 racer.

In addition, there is his 1970 British Formula Ford championship-winning 1969 Merlyn Mk11a, 1974 Trojan T101 Formula 5000 title-winner plus 1960 Alfa Romeo Giulietta SZ sportscar that contested the 1961 and 1963 editions of the revered Targa Florio road race.

Combined, the 12 lots carry an upper estimate of £10.9m.

Magnussen’s own Saudi Arabian Grand Prix was ruined by incurring an initial 10-second penalty for contact with Alex Albon in the Williams.

His focus then shifted to holding up others so team-mate Nico Hulkenberg, who hadn’t stopped under an early safety car, could pull out a gap and claim 10th. Crucial to that strategy was overtaking the RB of Yuki Tsunoda on lap 17, which Magnussen did by leaving the track.

Instead of giving the position back to Tsunoda, Magnussen opted to cop an additional, largely irrelevant 10-second penalty, which allowed him to keep blocking his rivals so Hulkenberg could pit and come out ahead of him and secure a valuable point.

RB slammed the move as “unsportsmanlike” and said it would raise the issue with the FIA.

For this season the FIA had already increased the penalty for this gaining an advantage while leaving the track from five to 10 seconds to deter drivers from choosing to get penalised in a bid to gain track position.

And while it technically worked for Magnussen, whose own race was wrecked, that didn’t stop him from aiding his team-mate.

Haas chief Komatsu accepted that Magnussen “should have just given the place back” and tried to get past the Japanese driver again, which he believes the Dane had the pace for.

“I believe at that point in the race, if I remember the projection very well, we are fighting with Tsunoda for P10,” Komatsu said.

Ayao Komatsu, Team Principal, Haas F1 Team, Nico Hulkenberg, Haas F1 Team

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

“Of course, we should have given the place back, we should have tried to overtake him. I believe with our pace we could have done that.

“So, I think the end result we are still looking for P10. Whether we could have achieved it is another story.”

Commenting on the incident, Magnussen said: “I overtook Tsunoda and went outside to track, so rules are rules.

“I’m not happy with myself to get those two penalties, but at least I was able to help the team to create a gap for Nico to pit and get a point.

“It’s a tight battle between the five teams at the back. From P6 down to 10th it’s a real championship, so every point matters.”

Komatsu praised Magnussen for making his car “the widest Haas F1 car you’ve seen for a long time” as he battled to keep Tsunoda, Esteban Ocon’s Alpine and Albon behind, while being asked to drive much slower laptimes than Hulkenberg was doing to give the German a pit window.

Once Tsunoda did appear to get past at the start of Lap 29, Magnussen re-passed him with an audacious move around the outside of Turn 1.

“I thought: ‘Okay, that’s gone…’ And then Kevin just sent it on the outside in Turn 1. Amazing, amazing job,” Komatsu commented.

“We told him [to do laps] around 1m36 and he was doing 36.2, 36.2, 36.2… That’s the widest Haas F1 car you’ve seen for a long time.”