Did Charles Leclerc deserve a penalty for cutting Turn 1? Case for argued

Sky Sports F1 pundit and three-time W Series champion Jamie Chadwick believes Charles Leclerc was lucky to escape a penalty at the Mexico City Grand Prix.

Leclerc took to the grass at Turn 1 after going three-wide with Ferrari teammate Lewis Hamilton and Red Bull’s Max Verstappen at the start of Sunday’s race at the Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez.

Both Leclerc and Verstappen cut the first sequence of corners before rejoining at Turn 3, with Leclerc slowing to allow McLaren’s pole sitter Lando Norris back into the lead. Verstappen also conceded a position to Hamilton.

Hamilton was hit with a 10-second time penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage at Turn 4 in a later battle with Verstappen, but Chadwick reckons Leclerc should have also been penalised for the Turn 1 incident, pointing to the fact seven-time world champion Hamilton was ahead of his teammate at the apex.

The stewards ultimately decided to take no further action on the start.

“I think Charles also deserved five seconds,” Chadwick said during Sky Sports F1’s post-race coverage.

Reviewing the start on the SkyPad, ex-F1 driver Karun Chandhok explained: “Charles came across the left-hand side, Lewis tucked in, he’s moving over, can see Lewis is coming, gives him just about enough width.

“Lewis has made a big effort to give Charles space. He’s given Charles all of that space to make the corner, there’s no doubt about it.

“Leclerc gets a snap of oversteer because he’s on the dusty, dirty part of the track, and that’s actually why he’s ended up off the track. I don’t think he intended to go there, I don’t think it was a premeditated move to cut the corner, I think he got caught out on the dust.”

Should Leclerc have given the place back? 

Chadwick interjected to ask Chandhok if he thought Leclerc “should have given the position back to Lewis as well”.

Chandhok replied: “I think there’s a good argument to say he should have given a place back, but Ferrari were never going to argue that point.

“I think if it was two different teams, absolutely! If Lewis was still at Mercedes, Ferrari would have been absolutely in an argument with the officials and Mercedes would have been shooting about giving the place up.”

Sky Sports F1 presenter Simon Lazenby then pointed out: “It does come down to control of car as well, when you are looking at driving standard guidelines, and actually Lewis is in control and Charles is not.”

Reviewing the incident again, Chandhok added: “Having seen that, I think Jamie might have a point. Crofty [David Croft] up in commentary as well was pretty adamant that Charles should have been penalised.

“It’s the first timer we’ve had a chance to see these angles and really understand it. The stewards would have had this during the race and decided not to look at it. Obviously Ferrari wouldn’t have complained. But having seen that, I do see that point.”

1997 world champion Jacques Villeneuve also felt Leclerc should have faced punishment.

“Definitely, because when he decided to floor it, he was behind Lewis. He made the decision to floor it. He could have made the effort to stay on the track,” he argued.

Leclerc went on to claim his seventh podium of the season and his second in as many weekends as he held onto P2 ahead of Verstappen.

“I hated every metre of that first corner! There was the start, which wasn’t a great one – strangely that kind of helped me because I don’t think Lando would have come back to the right if I had a good start, so luckily I could have a slipstream,” the Monegasque said of the start.

“But then after that I was just a passenger trying to defend my place. I think Lewis [Hamilton] didn’t especially know that there was Max on the outside of me and that created… everything was super, super tight. But luckily my race or Lewis’ race didn’t end up here because I really thought it would.”