SPIELBERG (Austria) -- Max Verstappen won the Austrian Grand Prix for the second consecutive weekend at Red Bull's home race. However, the main points of discussion in the paddock were all about incidents that happened after Verstappen.We spoke to team members and officials to get the details on the Red Bull Ring's three most talked about topics.Is Norris deserved to be punished?The Austrian Grand Prix had almost as many penalties as the quarter final stages at Euro 2020. If you're reading this, you probably already know the controversial penalty. Following a Safety Car period on lap four, Lando Norris pushed Sergio Perez’s Red Bull into gravel at Turn 4. He was assessed a five second penalty.The stewards explained that Norris entered Turn 4 with Perez, but didn't leave enough space at the corner to make it a full car. The incident inevitably sparked a new debate about what should and shouldn't be allowed under the FIA directive of "let them run".Sergio Perez ran across gravel during an early battle against Lando Norris. ANDREJ ISAKOVIC/AFP via Getty ImagesRed Bull boss Christian Horner felt Norris didn't deserve a penalty, even though he was trying to get Perez to forgive him for an earlier incident with Charles Leclerc. This resulted in a five-second penalty.He said, "With the incident between Checo and Lando it's racing." "If you turn the outside, you run the risk of being caught in the corner."But the FIA could not have refused to issue a penalty for Charles's move with Perez [later in the race]," said Perez. These guys have been racing karting since they were children and it's a sport that has been enjoyed by many."So, I believe the penalties were a bit harsh. They go against the "let's them race" mantra that we have been championing over the past years.Andreas Seidl at McLaren was Horner's opponent and he felt it cost Norris second place.He said, "Every go-kart driver understands that if you turn to the outside of the track on your first lap, you'll end up in gravel. But you can't complain because the guy who was racing on the line.""I see this penalty and think it's wrong. That's normal racing for me, and that's what I want to see. It is disappointing to interfere in the race results like that."These incidents are often compared with other penalties. This is because it is how the stewards decide what punishment to give out.When Michael Masi, FIA race director, was asked about the Norris/Perez incident and the first lap incident at Imola between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen, he replied the following: Masi stated that he thinks the first corner is lap one. This has been true for many years, as per the "let them run" principles."But each one... obviously it is very difficult to comparison, and I know everybody likes to group everything but it's very hard to compare two corners a La Imola and Turns 4, or Turns 6, here."A second comparison was made between Sunday’s penalty and an incident in France between Pierre Gasly and Norris. Gasly drove both cars off of the road, but was not penalised. The difference between France and Austria was that Perez ran wide into gravel traps, while there was plenty of runoff for them to use. Masi stated this was an important factor in deciding who should be penalised.Masi stated that "Obviously, the gravel has an impact on those places." "Absolutely. You have to evaluate each one based on its merits, the characteristics of the circuit, etc."Seidl disagrees and believes that more consistency between races is necessary if decisions such as Sunday's will be made.He said that he struggled to see the consistency because of the France incident, when Pierre came from behind and pushed Lando off. "That for me was a clear racing accident." "But you have to look at what happened today. Lando was either parallel to Perez or slightly ahead. He kept to his racing lines and did not do anything unusual with his car. Plus, it is very early in the race, when there is a lot going on. I don't see how you can justifiably penalize Lando."McLaren won't challenge the penalty but the question of when the Silverstone stewards should intervene is likely to be a hot topic before the next race.Hamilton's car was in terrible condition.Lewis Hamilton's race ended slightly in the second stint. Mark Thompson/Getty ImagesThe race of Lewis Hamilton was already looking like one about damage mitigation -- he finished second to Verstappen in the championship -- but it ended shortly after lap 30 when Mercedes believed he had hit some kerbs at Turn 10 and that he lost control. Although it was a minor incident, the team recognized that the damage was significant in relation to the overall race.Toto Wolff, Mercedes boss, estimated Hamilton's car lost "around 30%" of its downforce. This amount is difficult to quantify, considering all the variables at play. Mercedes estimates it was around 0.5 seconds per lap.Wolff explained the reasons why the damage, regardless of the lap time, led to a downward spiral in the career of the seven-times world champion.It's difficult to predict, as it's a first guess based on what the sensors see. You can't convert that into lap time. The new tyre was able to mask some performance loss and give the car a relative advantage over the older tyres."[30 points downforce] is an untested number, but there was a significant loss in performance. That meant that he was pushing the tires in a way that probably wouldn't have reached the end.Mercedes - Team OrdersLewis Hamilton was driving Valtteri Bottas when he encountered a car problem. Clive Mason – Formula 1 via Getty ImagesMercedes realized that Hamilton was losing performance and would have difficulty maintaining second place. The pit wall briefly considered telling Hamilton's teammate Valtteri bottas to not attack Hamilton, but it was ultimately rejected by the team.It would seem like Hamilton was being favoured, but a quick glance at the drivers' standings could have shown that Bottas finished third and Hamilton second, respectively, which would have been better than fourth and fifth.Bottas was ordered by the pit wall to stay behind Hamilton on lap 48 to allow it time to crunch the numbers. There were some key numbers in play.To be able to overtake, a driver must have a 0.9s advantage on the car in front. Hamilton had shown that a smaller margin can be enough to make a move stick earlier in the race when he passed Norris. This demonstrated that a talented racer can make a pass with less that 0.9s and Norris certainly is talented.The team assessed the cost of Hamilton's damage in laps, which was more than 0.5 seconds but less than one second, as well as the impact on tyre degrading. The damage was not helping but it quickly became apparent that the main factor would be the impact on tyre degrading. Even if Bottas could protect Hamilton in the first lap, the loss of tyre performance would have the potential to cause Norris to pass both Mercedes."We wanted to assess the damage and see if Valtteri could have provided protection against Lando. But that was impossible. Valtteri was entitled to race his own race. We decided to switch to McLaren, knowing we would lose the P3 prize money. Hamilton was initially asked by the team to allow Bottas to pass at Turn 1. He accepted, but it was decided that Turn 3 would result with less lap time loss. However, this message did not make it to the TV transmission.The decision was ultimately right as Norris passed Hamilton on lap 54, but Bottas finished second. Hamilton pitted for new tires a few laps later to secure fourth place, and to make adjustments to his front wing to compensate for the loss in rear downforce.
