McLaren Formula 1 team have been handed a further setback at the hands of the FIA, after a controversial penalty was handed to driver Lando Norris in the closing stages of the United States Grand Prix.
The British star started the race at COTA from pole position, but lost his lead once again on the first lap to the Red Bull of Max Verstappen and both Ferraris.
The 19th round of the 2024 season was littered with debate over the many decisions made by the FIA throughout the weekend, with track limits and the legality of certain machinery in the paddock fresh on everyone's mind.
Last month, the MCL38 came under the scrutiny of the FIA, with the papaya front wing declared legal ahead of the Singapore Grand Prix, but the now infamous design of their rear wing struck a chord with rivals Red Bull after footage appeared online of the part flexing during the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.
Whilst McLaren were not instructed to change the wing explicitly by the FIA, they did confirm it would not be used again.
Now however, it has been revealed that the leading constructors are facing further changes after the sport's governing body took action to determine to all teams what they consider to be legal at the US GP.
The FIA's single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis revealed that as a result of new guidelines that were sent to teams, several were required to make tweaks for Austin.
"We issued after Singapore some communication about rear wings, saying what we would consider acceptable or not acceptable," Tombazis revealed to Motorsport.com.
"Two or three teams had to make some small tweaks to adjust to that.
"We don't want the amount of opening there to exceed 2mm," he said.
"There's some natural opening, because of the way the wings are mounted and deform and so on, but some teams were deforming more."
Tombazis also admitted that despite the papaya rear wing being deemed as legal, the FIA would have taken action if McLaren hadn't enacted the change, with the papaya outfit being forced to make tweaks before the Austin weekend.
"We specifically gave a warning to them.
"We said, 'Look, we consider that as something you need to change.' If they had ignored us, and they generally don't, then we would have reported them."