In the US Grand Prix incident between Oliver Bearman (Haas) and Yuki Tsunoda (Red Bull), F1 analyst Jolyon Palmer has issued a detailed defense of Tsunoda—contrasting sharply with former champion Jenson Button’s view that Tsunoda was at fault for “reacting in the braking zone.”
Table of Contents
Summary of the expert views:
- Jenson Button: Immediately after the race, Button argued that Tsunoda’s movement under braking was not allowed and declared Tsunoda to blame for Bearman’s spin.
- Jolyon Palmer: Palmer reviewed video and focused on the build-up, noting Tsunoda had already closed his line from Turn 14 (the setup for Turn 15). Palmer argued Bearman had little room for a legitimate overtake at Turn 15. He said,
“Yuki handled it well and Ollie made things difficult for himself and spun out… Bearman was a little too greedy.”
- Palmer concluded: Tsunoda’s movement wasn’t excessive, and this incident was simply a racing incident—not the fault of reactive defending.
Key analysis:
- Palmer believes the mistake was Bearman’s judgment—making a late attack in a spot where the space was already gone—contrasting with Button’s emphasis on the principle of “no movement under braking.”
- The FIA did not investigate the matter, officially ruling there were no problems.
Why are experts divided?
- Button focused on the rule, suggesting defending drivers must never move in the braking zone.
- Palmer prioritized the actual situation on track and the sequence of corners, finding Tsunoda’s defense reasonable and Bearman’s attack too opportunistic.
Palmer’s stance highlights the importance of anticipating track position and not forcing unfounded overtakes, especially for rookies like Bearman. Both analysis styles—rule-based and situational—can lead to differing race incident verdicts.
