The Official Formula One Thread!

[Andad]

Alonso back up to third place for the last lap soft restart.

Good decision.

[77T]

I tend to agree with the final classification under the extraordinary circumstances.

However, for each beneficiary like ALO, there were others taking a different slant. This has happened before when restart grids must be “divined” vs. determined.

So many factors were at play in the final results that Haas filed a Protest that had a lengthy review taking until 22:50hrs local time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Spectator incursions before the end… https://www.codesports.com.au/sport/...e1744ab70ec262

And it has happened before in 2017…

Now a serious review pending…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SDGT3]

I tuned in to watch F1 live and was surprised it ended up being a NASCAR race. 95% boredom followed by the last few laps dominated by multiple restarts, chaos, collisions, carbon fiber bits, and confusion.

[enjoythemusic]

Well, that happened.

Anyway...

Alonso third

Was great seeing three World Champions on the podium.

[INC]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Was great seeing three World Champions on the podium.

+1 And today all of the winners were happy. It was a good to see!

However in the other hand the race looked like this IMO:



This time the stewards job wasn't easy, but one of the hardest ever. I think, most of their decisions were according to the rules, BUT in my opinion:

Sainz's penalty was not apropriate, even if it was truly applicable by the rule book. In the FIRST corner after the start, and in such circumstances in my opinion it was too strict, because after the restart Sainz's former bad move had no effect on the ranking, because Alonso got his position back.

The other questionable thing was the last red flag, as MAYBE it was not necessary. However as we haven't seen the damages, so maybe it was the only right decision. BUT TO RESTART the race with a standing formation was a bad decision in my opinion. Even if we take in account the Lex Michael Masi precendent, this race should have been restarted with a rolling formation, as should have been known, that to start a race with a standing way will be very dangerous under such circumstances. Accordingly, in my opinion it's a good time to apply a new rule that "in the last 5-10 laps there should be rolling start only" and in under no circumstances can be a standing start ordered.

BUT as I stated, there was no wrong decision in this race, but there could have been better decisions. But even if I take all of this in account, I want to stated that I appreciated the great work of the stewards, as in such circumstances they made a good job.

Let's make more clearer rules "to let them race"

[HMHM]

9FC07C37-88C8-4D43-B232-8CAD0457B0B6.jpeg

The second red flag before the entire chaos unfolded was a clear Netflix moment. It was unnecessary but without it, Max would have been clear ahead and the race would have been boring as hell. The FIA is going to bring out the red flag for every small incident now. Mark my words.

Also, can Sky Sports F1 PLEASE TELL TED EFFING KRAVITZ TO SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT AD 2021?
We get that HE’S SALTY! But he’s a media personality, not an effing Lewis cheerleader. Stop mixing personal feelings with work!

https://youtu.be/MJSXcQFks_8

If Ted’s gonna keep on bringing up AD2021, someone should bring up 2008 every single weekend to let the world know Lewis did not deserve 2008 because of “Is That Glock?”!

Massa World Champion 2008 according to dumb Ted Kravitz logic!

[SDGT3]

That was one of the harshest penalties I've ever seen thrust upon Carlos Sainz! It was a standing stop restart and a very light tap - racing incident and no penalty needed. Stewards put Fernando back into P3 so where is the harm?? Then assess 5 seconds when you know they will finish behind the pace car effectively dropping Sainz from P4 to P12.... what a bad weekend for Ferrari drivers.

[77T]

The SAI 5sec penalty for causing a collision is the 2nd lightest in F1 (lightest: a Reprimand). In a normal context it would be appropriate.

Yet the context in comparison to the 2 other incidents in the restart (GAS/OCO & SAR/DEV) makes it seem worse + the finish behind SC & FCY made it much worse.

I understand his ire sitting on pit lane - but it was avoidable contact…Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2 d) ISC




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

The SAI 5sec penalty for causing a collision is the 2nd lightest in F1 (lightest: a Reprimand). In a normal context it would be appropriate.

Thank you for summoning the decision. I believe that I don't have to withdraw my previous opinion, since the decision was in accordance with the rule book, and therefore it was legal.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, it was still not proportionate, because I think that in this case the reprimand should have been applied. I believe that their reasoning was right, but that should have been taken into account exactly the opposite way.

In my opinion, this situation was much more stressful than the start of a normal race. I think, that the expectation that in such a situation the pilots should try to move forward calmly and with maximum concentration is based a complete misinterpretation of the whole situation and a total disregard of the circumstances.

I think if they decide to force the fully armed gladiators back into the circus after the show, than they shouldn't be surprised if a fight breaks out. Therefore I think, they should have not make a decision, in which they blame some pilots as "they were not acted as peaceful monks".

From that point of view, I think Sainz's penalty was humiliating as he was forced to cross the finish line helplessly knowing he was "going to die" because he wouldn't score a single point. In addition, his race accident could have been investigated after the end of the race, since it did not affect the podium at all after the red flag was shown again. And that's why I think that this decision was not proportional even though it was legal.

In my opinion, the pilots cannot be held responsible for such cases. Let's let them race, but don't force them to do this in such ways. It was not a race then but a crash test with dummies.

[tifosi]

1. That was the most ridiculous use of a red flag I've ever seen in F1.

2. They need to change the rule where you are allowed to change tires under the red flag. You are just fixing the results at that point. It's no longer a race.

[SDGT3]

Thanks for the FIA memo Paul. I'm in agreement with INC insofar as the stewards had the opportunity to levy a reprimand to Sainz and still be in compliance with imposing a penalty. If the race was in progress, I would have understood an error in judgment, but the field was stopped in the pits for the red flag and there was time to address the situation under calm conditions with retrospect on consequences.

Further, they could have addressed the incident after the race to look at all the data as the field was frozen and the top 3 were not going to change.

I'll add another little detail that perhaps the stewards didn't take into consideration. The warm up lap was behind the safety car instead of on their own as they do during a standing start at the beginning of the race. This did not allow the cars to warm up their tires for the restart as they normally would.
In the post race room with the podium finishers, Verstappen was overheard saying to Lewis and Fernando that the safety car was going so slow that he could not warm up the tires. When you take into consideration the late afternoon time of the race and the falling temps, these are all variables that should have been taken into consideration. Again, the stewards made the wrong decision IMO given that Alonso and the rest of the field went back to their original spots before the prior restart.

In the end, does it really matter that Sainz fell from 4th to 12th? It doesn't to anyone else but Ferrari's constructors points, but they're hardly in either championship. More windtunnel time for Ferrari after finishing 4th in the constructors title.

[Speedbird-1]

There were a couple of hairy moments during the restart formation lap after the Albon incident, when Sainz, decided to almost stop, forcing Magnussen and others to take evasive action.
Very dangerous.

[77T]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

I'll add another little detail that perhaps the stewards didn't take into consideration. The warm up lap was behind the safety car instead of on their own as they do during a standing start at the beginning of the race. This did not allow the cars to warm up their tires for the restart as they normally would.

Actually, the Race Director handles resumption of racing rather than the Stewards. The Stewards do confirm the restart grid.

But the RD did it correctly - the SC always leads the field to their restart whether it’ll be Standing or Rolling. I think you’re remembering the initial parade lap the cars take to the grid before the race begins.

Resuming a Sprint or Race is governed by F1 Regs. Sec. 58 - here’s a link: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...2023-02-22.pdf

It’s too long to dive into here, but…
You might recall the Sky Sports discussion after the first red flag:
“At this point the first car in line behind the safety car may dictate the pace and, if necessary, fall more than ten (10) car lengths behind it.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HMHM]

https://wtf1.com/post/felipe-massa-i...-championship/

Time to apply salty + dumb Ted Kravitz logic here!

MASSA IS DESERVING 2008 WORLD CHAMPION!
Hamilton doesn’t deserve it!
Championship was rigged!

[INC]

Originally Posted by HMHM

MASSA IS DESERVING 2008 WORLD CHAMPION!
Hamilton doesn’t deserve it!
Championship was rigged!

To be honest, I'm absolutely agree with you in this: Massa would have been deserved that title. It was robbed from him. But on the other hand, even if I'm not a fan of HAM, I should state that first, HAM had absolutely nothing to do with that disgusting cheating. So to penelise him could lead to such injustice that it would beat what happened to Massa! And to be honest, what HAM did on the last race, well, it was amazing, it was just like Hunt's impossible race in Tokio. Only the best pilots are capable for this.

So in my opinion, they should treat this in a different way. I think, a fair decision would be TO NOT to change the champion of that year (HAM), BUT give this title to Massa too as a "tie". After so many years it would change nothing except it could give the well deserved gratification to Felipe.

Probably it could be a great show, fe. let him step up to the top of the podium WITH HAM, and let them raise their trophies at the same time with the huge yieling of the crowd.

I think Liberty would like this idea, as this could be an absolute showtime!

[HMHM]

Originally Posted by INC

To be honest, I'm absolutely agree with you in this: Massa would have been deserved that title. It was robbed from him. But on the other hand, even if I'm not a fan of HAM, I should state that first, HAM had absolutely nothing to do with that disgusting cheating. So to penelise him could lead to such injustice that it would beat what happened to Massa! And to be honest, what HAM did on the last race, well, it was amazing, it was just like Hunt's impossible race in Tokio. Only the best pilots are capable for this.

So in my opinion, they should treat this in a different way. I think, a fair decision would be TO NOT to change the champion of that year (HAM), BUT give this title to Massa too as a "tie". After so many years it would change nothing except it could give the well deserved gratification to Felipe.

Probably it could be a great show, fe. let him step up to the top of the podium WITH HAM, and let them raise their trophies at the same time with the huge yieling of the crowd.

I think Liberty would like this idea, as this could be an absolute showtime!

Actually, I am fine with both outcomes. Hamilton did win on points, while SG 2008 if nullified will give Massa the title. I just wanted to highlight the disgusting attitude of Ted Kravitz who can't seem to get over AD 2021 and the way he treated Michael Masi in AUS 2023 was just awful. If Ted is so unhappy with the way Ham lost 2021, Ted should show the same displeasure to Ham winning WDC in 2008 because A) SG 2008, B) Glock in Interlagos 2008.

Ted should stop being a baby on TV and start being an objective presenter. Present the facts. Let the drivers be the main character. We want to see racing, not a fat bloke crying out loud because his countryman didn't get his 8th title.

[SDGT3]

In Ted's defense, he does wear loose fitting shirts and is always around uber fit drivers.

[lucanus]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

In Ted's defense, he does wear loose fitting shirts and is always around uber fit drivers.

So true!

[77T]

Ferrari is pursuing a second bite of the apple - filed a right of review with FIA.
Wants to reverse SAI’s 5-sec penalty for punting ALO.

Under the FIA's International Sporting Code, they had up to 14 days to file and are well within that deadline.

To gain a hearing they must present new evidence that is significant and relevant - but was unavailable to Ferrari at the time SAI was penalized.

The stewards didn’t investigate SAR’s crash with DEV - and then GAS crash with OCO was NFI.

But that won’t be enough methinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

I think the basis of the objection may be that there was no justification for conducting this investigation under the red flag. This means that in my opinion the objection should not be based on the penalty, but the way it was given to Sainz.

Therefore in my view an applicable objection could be, that as because the decisison makers knew that the decision will not change anything till the "race end", so they had no obligation to "start&stop" a "sprint investigation". So I think, a hearing would have been a more proportional even that investigation could led to the same penalty.

So even if we think, that it was necessary to investigate this accident, we have to think about that it was not proportional to take away the chance from Sainz and Ferrari to let them defend themself. And from this point of view we also must also take into account that Alonso and AM have not objected, as they lost nothing due to the next red flag.

So as a sum, as there were no damages and no injures, not a single change in the positions and no objections were made, SO it can be also questionable that was this investigation really necessary at all?

Note: I still think the decision was right by the rulebook. However, in view of the fact that it would have been possible to conduct a different type of investigation, it could be a correct thing to investigate whether it was a right idea to conduct the investigation during the competition and not just after it?

[77T]

The process for this upcoming review is a little different than a protest like the on Haas brought at the event.

In order to get a new hearing regarding the penalty itself, the Stewards will first rule on the “right of review” filing.

The thing is this: a right of review is designed to show the Stewards that their decision needs to be reconsidered. To succeed in that effort the competitor must present:
1. A new element,
2. That is significant,
3. That is relevant, and
4. Was unavailable to the parties before the decision was made.

I think that will be hard to prove since the video speaks for itself, everybody has the data showing what the drivers were doing, the rule book is clear, and the penalty is a standard one. Parties can agree that the consequences were worse since the race was restarted with neutralization and SAI had no opportunity to mitigate the penalty under racing conditions. But none of that is new, nor was it unavailable.

Just sayin’…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

I'm not the legal advisor of Ferrari I simply thinked about their effort to defend their pilot. Accordingly:

1. A new element > The decision makers should have take into account the "cold" tires problem, which was a NEW ELEMENT this year.
2. That is significant, > There was no obligation in the rule book to restart the race in the last laps. The race could have been ended with full points and without the restarts. If the deceision to restart the race is questionable, then the accident directly connected to this decision could be also re-investigated.
3. That is relevant, and > if the race was stopped, there would not have been such expensive accidents. Looking at what happened in this way, the ALO-SAI accident caused the least problems, despite this, the other cases were not investigated. All must be investigated or none. Obviously, this could only be revealed after the competition.
4. Was unavailable to the parties before the decision was made. > no one could have knew that the cold tires could make such problems, and no one knew when the investigation started that accident would have be absolutely no effect on the race results.

But this is just a simple opinion, and nothing more: Not the penalty itself can be questioned in my opinion too, but I think, that facts can be investigated which led to the accident.

[enjoythemusic]

Paul is right by the rules, tho in this case the rules are a very harsh outcome due to the way the race ended.

(Feeble attempt to add humor) How about we just give all the points to ALO and call it a day. :)

[77T]

I know the penalty is the major talking point because the race finished under the Safety Car. A five-second penalty normally has a minor impact on final results. But this one took him out of the points.

That the last lap was neutralized behind the SC made for a harsh penalty - but those are the consequences of other matters beyond the officials’ control.

That the tires were cold is nothing new - all the cars had cold tires - all the parties knew they were on cold tires. It was the choices some drivers made to over-brake or late-brake on the final standing start (and then the resulting contact) that either drew a penalty or not. Otherwise, if cold tires alone was predominantly responsible for the incidents, then wouldn’t more cars have collided with each other?

Even if we accept it was cold tires (making it a new element) then was it actually unknown to the stewards who made the decision?

Methinks not. The right of review is designed to give a competitor a hearing with the new evidence included.

The fan in me would say “Let ALO decide”. Now that would be a hearing which I would pay to watch at home.

If SAI apologized, would ALO forgive him and remove the penalty? Maybe Liberty Media would do PPV?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

Please don't try to convince me, because I'm not arguing with you

I already wrote that the penalty was in accordance with the rules, it's a different matter that I think that "no further investigation" or "reprimand" would have been a better choice. So I was simply wondering on what legal basis could Ferrari make an appeal after the race?

That is why I thought that the much colder tires compared to last year, the necessity of red flags and the decisions to restart the races may be the basis for legitimate interests. And if we taking these cases into account than there is a chance for a new investigation. But I won't decide that :)

[77T]

No worries - was just sharing input on the scenarios posited.

I don’t have a favorite in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

I don’t have a favorite in this case.

Neither for me, because this case does not affect Alonso's podium at all

[77T]

Ferrari’s right of review is scheduled for Tuesday at 08:00 CET; the team rep & SAI will attend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro