Steiner defends Tsunoda's Abu Dhabi defense: 'This is racing'

Former Haas team principal Guenther Steiner has publicly argued that Yuki Tsunoda should not have received a penalty for his defensive moves against Lando Norris in the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, calling the incident a fair example of hard racing that fans want to see.

Tsunoda was handed a five-second time penalty and a penalty point for forcing Norris off the track during their battle. The stewards ruled the Red Bull driver made more than one change of direction while defending, ultimately forcing the McLaren off the circuit as Norris attempted an overtake. Steiner, however, believes the officials overstepped by penalizing what he views as standard racing conduct.

Why it matters:

Steiner's comments tap into a recurring debate in Formula 1 about the line between aggressive racing and illegal defending. His perspective represents a segment of the paddock and fanbase that believes stewards are sometimes too quick to intervene in wheel-to-wheel battles, potentially sanitizing the sport. The incident also highlights the inconsistent application of rules regarding moving under braking and forcing drivers off track, which can affect championship outcomes and team strategies.

The details:

• The penalty was issued after Norris, fighting back through the field after a pit stop, attempted to pass Tsunoda on the approach to a corner.
• Stewards found Tsunoda guilty of making "a number of changes of direction," which forced Norris to leave the track to avoid a collision.
• Steiner sarcastically referenced the trend of "moving under braking" in Abu Dhabi, implying the penalty was unwarranted and part of a pattern of over-officiating.
• The former Haas boss emphasized that such hard battles are precisely what spectators pay to watch, arguing that excessive penalties detract from the show.
• He concluded that both drivers were "on the edge" but that the situation "worked out well" and provided a good racing moment.

Between the lines:

Steiner's blunt critique, including his colorful language about viewership, underscores a frustration some veteran F1 figures feel towards the current regulatory climate. His argument suggests a belief that the sport's governing bodies are more concerned with rigid rule enforcement than preserving the essence of competition. This incident serves as another data point in the ongoing tension between ensuring safety and fairness and allowing drivers to race freely without fear of punishment for marginal maneuvers.

What's next:

While this specific penalty is settled, the broader conversation about racing standards will continue. Incidents like these often lead to discussions between teams, the FIA, and the drivers about clarifying the rules of engagement. As the 2024 season approaches, drivers will be keenly aware of where the stewards' limits are, but veterans like Steiner will likely continue advocating for a more lenient interpretation of hard racing.