The Mexico City Grand Prix didn’t end the way legendary driver Lewis Hamilton had hoped. Amid a podium-hunt with Max Verstappen and others at the high-altitude Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Hamilton was handed a 10-second time penalty for cutting the exit of Turn 4 and gaining a “lasting advantage”. That infraction dropped him from a strong on-track finish to 8th place, triggering an immediate backlash from the seven-time world champion.
What Hamilton had to say
“It’s pretty nuts.”
In his post-race comments, Hamilton said he felt singled out:
“I had a great start… others cut it, got the position and didn’t get penalties. It’s pretty nuts.”
So what exactly happened, why is Hamilton so angry, and was he right to be?
What Happened & Why the Penalty Was Given
Hamilton began the race strongly, executing a sharp start and gaining positions. During his battle with Verstappen, Hamilton locked up at Turn 4, ran wide across the grass, and re-joined ahead of the Red Bull driver. The stewards’ official reasoning was:
“By leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage… the driver gained a lasting advantage, overtaking Car 1 (VER) and failing to give back the position thereafter.”
In other words: The stewards judged Hamilton was off-track, then re-entered the race ahead of his rival without explicitly giving the place back or losing time — thereby triggering the penalty. The regulated sanction for “leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage” is commonly a 5- or 10-second time penalty depending on severity.
Why Hamilton’s Anger?
Hamilton’s frustration stems from three main points:
1. Perceived inconsistency:
Hamilton believes other drivers executed similar corner cuts but weren’t penalised. He referenced that several drivers “cut it, held position and didn’t get penalties.”
2. Timing & impact:
The penalty came at a crucial moment — instead of finishing on the podium, Hamilton ended up 8th, losing both a chance at a win (or at least a top result) and valuable championship points.
3. The formality of the infraction:
Hamilton commented on the literal exit road he used being extremely dusty, saying:
“I pinched the front, I went to go down the exit road, but it’s like the dustiest place on earth… I ended up back in the grass, but it was the exit road.”
He felt that because the escape route was so marginal and affected by dust, the severity of a 10-second penalty seemed excessive.
Was He Right to Be Angry?
There’s a solid case that Hamilton’s frustration is understandable. On the one hand:
-
The consistency argument holds some weight. If other drivers made similar excursions and weren’t penalised, then perceptions of fairness and consistency do suffer.
-
The impact of the penalty was disproportionately large given his on-track performance up to that point.
-
The corner in question and the escape route conditions (dust, grass, etc.) arguably made it a borderline incident.
On the other hand:
-
The stewards applied the rules as written: leaving the track + gaining a lasting advantage = penalty. Their decision is within regulation.
-
Hamilton re-entered the track ahead of a rival (Verstappen) and apparently kept the advantage — the rule’s clause is clear in such cases.
-
Consistency in stewarding is difficult across races and tracks; precedent shows that similar incidents have received penalties.
The Bigger Picture for Ferrari & Hamilton
For Ferrari, the penalty was a major blow. Team principal Frédéric Vasseur commented:
“This cost us P4… if you consider the global picture … I don’t recall when someone took 10 seconds for similar incidents.”
The result means Hamilton’s podium drought with Ferrari continues, and the team missed an opportunity to claw back ground in the constructors’ championship.
For Hamilton himself, the incident highlights how marginal gains — and marginal errors — continue to define his seasons. At age 40, every point matters, and moments like this amplify frustrations.
Final Thoughts
Lewis Hamilton’s labeling of the penalty as “pretty nuts” resonates with many fans and commentators who feel the decision was harsh and possibly inconsistent with past stewarding decisions. While the rules appear to have been applied technically correctly, the context and impact have left Ferrari and Hamilton feeling aggrieved.
In a sport of fine margins, these decisions carry outsized weight. Whether the stewards will reflect and adjust in the future is uncertain — but for Hamilton and Ferrari, the Mexico GP penalty will sting for some time.
That said, the integrity of the sport depends on consistency and transparent application of rules. For now, Hamilton’s anger may be justified — but the debate on fairness in stewarding is far from over.
