The ‘new evidence’ was the stewards’ decision itself, saying that it incorrectly stated that Max was the defending driver. They wanted argue that Lando was ahead at the breaking zone, so technically he became the one defending into the corner and by Max running wide he was at fault.
I think the main purpose of this was to highlight how silly the first to the apex rule is, since it essentially allows you miss the corner without consequence.
Still no mention of what McLaren thought was new evidence even though it was rejected. What the hell.
The ‘new evidence’ was the stewards’ decision itself, saying that it incorrectly stated that Max was the defending driver. They wanted argue that Lando was ahead at the breaking zone, so technically he became the one defending into the corner and by Max running wide he was at fault.
I think the main purpose of this was to highlight how silly the first to the apex rule is, since it essentially allows you miss the corner without consequence.