1371 replies to this topic

[MikeTekRacing]

Wasn't. He was penalized for it.

i can't imagine how that would work.

He thought he could do it - and just did it? even if right, I wouldn't think of taking the initiative to pass back someone

[AustinF1]

I thought about this, too, after seeing the lack of any apparent reasonable logic in the application of penalties in China. He's not wrong. Why risk it?

 

'Better not to race' in Sprints – Alonso  https://racer.com/20...sprints-alonso/

 

 

Fernando Alonso says the Sprint format is showing it is “better not to race” on a Saturday due to the impact on tire usage and the penalty points he received at the Chinese Grand Prix.

 

The stewards gave Alonso a retrospective 10-second time penalty and three penalty points for causing a collision with Carlos Sainz when fighting for a top three position in China’s Sprint, leaving him halfway to a race ban. The penalty points appeared particularly harsh despite the pair making contact, and with Alonso then forced into an unusual strategy on Sunday where he made an extra pit stop due to a lack of hard tires, he says sitting out the Sprint would have been a better option.

 

“I think getting more tires will be good because in FP1 it is a game of who can run less and who uses less sets of tires, so it is a shame for the fans,” Alonso said. “And then, the Sprint, if they want it for the show and for overtaking and you don’t let them race, it is better not to race.

 

“We didn’t have any more hard tires (on Sunday). We had one soft and one medium and 35 laps in front of us, which, in our calculations, it was not possible to make it to the end. Obviously, there were a lot of safety car laps to remove the Sauber and once the safety car came in – more safety car laps because they crashed.

 

“The best thing is not to do the Sprint, probably, on Saturday, to keep a set of tires for Sunday. There are few points on the table for us if you are not winning the race and you risk penalty points and things like that, so it is better maybe not to race.”

...

[AustinF1]

i can't imagine how that would work.

He thought he could do it - and just did it? even if right, I wouldn't think of taking the initiative to pass back someone

Only thing I can think of is that he didn't know the other car had been allowed by race control to pass him under the SC. That seems unlikely though. 

[ANF]

I'm really confused. When did this happen?

Lap 26 is when Ricciardo was hit by Stroll at Turn 14. Because of their accident (the cars had basically stopped well off the racing line) Hülkenberg was allowed to overtake Stroll and Ricciardo at T14.

The safety car came out again near the end of lap 27 for Tsunoda's stationary car.

Ricciardo then passed Hülkenberg on the straight before Turn 6 on lap 28.

Ricciardo's radio:

"Yeah, I got hit. Yeah, I got ****ing hit."
...
"The Haas also passed before the safety car line."
"Confirmed."
...
"Safety car. Safety car."
"Should I box? Let me know."
...
"What a ****ing asshole, man! — Yeah, let me pass Hülkenberg, yeah?"
"Stand by, I'll let you... keep you posted. Mode 14, charge off."
*Ricciardo passes Hülkenberg*
"Yeah, I'm passing him anyway. It's my position."
"Copy, Daniel."

Hülkenberg's radio:

"Ricciardo just overtook me."
"OK, understood. We'll report it."
...
"So obviously we reported it, Nico. Not sure what's going on there. In any case, Ricciardo will have to stop again ... because he's only used two mediums."

Edited by ANF, 23 April 2024 - 18:16.

[MikeTekRacing]

Only thing I can think of is that he didn't know the other car had been allowed by race control to pass him under the SC. That seems unlikely though. 

even then...overtaking a car under safety car without checking with RC? 

[MikeTekRacing]

"Yeah, I'm passing him anyway. It's my position."
 

Not very smart of him...

[Deeq]

Not very smart of him...

And extremely reckless!
Worth a mandatory Black Flag.

[southernstars]

even then...overtaking a car under safety car without checking with RC? 

 

But didn't we just get a whole spiel about how RC doesn't get involved anymore, which is why Sargeant got an incredibly harsh penalty for something neither he nor Williams could see?

 

The logic makes sense from Daniel's POV. He's just been rammed, but Hulkenberg has overtaken him under the safety car, so he had the right - in his view - to take the position back, particularly given the position was lost through no fault of Daniel's. And considering the stewards had literally just swung the hammer at Sargeant presumably under a rules-are-rules-no-exceptions thing, it would be reasonable to expect that Hulkenberg's pass was not permitted, particularly given both Stroll and Daniel were still moving.

 

Should he have checked with RC first? Or stayed put and waited for Hulkenberg to get a penalty? Yes, he should have. There's no doubt in that.

 

Should he really have got a worse penalty than Stroll got for causing the entire mess to begin with? Absolutely not.

[pdac]

Teams read the tech regs with a fine tooth comb to identify exactly what they need to do and what they can get away with. Maybe they should do that with the sporting regs too.

[MikeTekRacing]

But didn't we just get a whole spiel about how RC doesn't get involved anymore, which is why Sargeant got an incredibly harsh penalty for something neither he nor Williams could see?

 

The logic makes sense from Daniel's POV. He's just been rammed, but Hulkenberg has overtaken him under the safety car, so he had the right - in his view - to take the position back, particularly given the position was lost through no fault of Daniel's. And considering the stewards had literally just swung the hammer at Sargeant presumably under a rules-are-rules-no-exceptions thing, it would be reasonable to expect that Hulkenberg's pass was not permitted, particularly given both Stroll and Daniel were still moving.

 

Should he have checked with RC first? Or stayed put and waited for Hulkenberg to get a penalty? Yes, he should have. There's no doubt in that.

 

Should he really have got a worse penalty than Stroll got for causing the entire mess to begin with? Absolutely not.

I do not think overtaking WITHOUT instructions from RC has ever been good.

Daniel's logic is not bad. 
Neither was Schumacher's logic overtaking Alonso before the SC car line (and he was actually right there, but Damon was the one deciding that weekend). he did that with full green flags displayed on the side

 

Logic and laws are very different things. SC car order should never be altered without clear instructions from RC. If you do, you're on your own.

Edited by MikeTekRacing, Yesterday, 17:31.

[Clatter]

I do not think overtaking WITHOUT instructions from RC has ever been good.
Daniel's logic is not bad.
Neither was Schumacher's logic overtaking Alonso before the SC car line (and he was actually right there, but Damon was the one deciding that weekend). he did that with full green flags displayed on the side

Logic and laws are very different things. SC car order should never be altered without clear instructions from RC. If you do, you're on your own.

Damon was not the one deciding.

[AustinF1]

Good video. Along with some other great points he makes here, Scott Mitchell wonders, like I did, why there was no explanation of Alonso's China Sprint penalty beyond 'he caused a collision' and points out the problems that arise from not going into detail. He also notes that it looked like Alonso ticked all the boxes and seems to have been penalized overly harshly. 

 

[pdac]

...

Logic and laws are very different things. SC car order should never be altered without clear instructions from RC. If you do, you're on your own.

 

Indeed. But it's not the SC - it's the Safety Car (and the clues are all in the name)

[southernstars]

James Vowles confirmed in the Vowles Verdict that:

 

a) Logan couldn't see that he was behind.

 

b) Williams could not see he was behind because their main view is his onboard.

 

c) It took multiple slo-mo replays for Williams to realise what had happened, by which time it was too late.

 

And for that, he got the same penalty as Stroll and Magnussen.

 

Apparently Williams cannot appeal, but surely there is some way they could get the dispensation to remove the points from Logan's superlicence. The fact that he got the same points is a joke.

[Bleu]

Damon was not the one deciding.

 

Especially when driver stewards were introduced I felt for many all the decisions were that driver stewart is a dictator making the calls.

 

To be honest in that Schumacher/Alonso case by the rulebook it was illegal. But in my opinion the fact that green lights and flags were shown I think the decision should have been just reversing their positions back.

[MikeTekRacing]

Especially when driver stewards were introduced I felt for many all the decisions were that driver stewart is a dictator making the calls.

To be honest in that Schumacher/Alonso case by the rulebook it was illegal. But in my opinion the fact that green lights and flags were shown I think the decision should have been just reversing their positions back.

I think they changed the rules at that time. It was not clearly illegal, but the new wording made it clearly illegal

[PayasYouRace]

Especially when driver stewards were introduced I felt for many all the decisions were that driver stewart is a dictator making the calls.

 

To be honest in that Schumacher/Alonso case by the rulebook it was illegal. But in my opinion the fact that green lights and flags were shown I think the decision should have been just reversing their positions back.

So no actual evidence for this.

[Clatter]

Especially when driver stewards were introduced I felt for many all the decisions were that driver stewart is a dictator making the calls.

To be honest in that Schumacher/Alonso case by the rulebook it was illegal. But in my opinion the fact that green lights and flags were shown I think the decision should have been just reversing their positions back.

There are many who still blame the driver steward for all decisions they don't like. As to the schumacher incident, I don't believe he did anything wrong as per the written rules, only by the ones they made up after the event.

Edited by Clatter, Today, 06:27.

[ensign14]

Apparently Williams cannot appeal, but surely there is some way they could get the dispensation to remove the points from Logan's superlicence. The fact that he got the same points is a joke.

It goes back to what I have said before.  Stewards come down hard on stuff like clipping the pitlane exit blend line because it takes no intelligence at all to detect an infringement.  They are purely objective.  Did you go 1mph over the speed limit in the pit?  Yes.  Therefore penalty. 

 

When it comes to driving standards, stewards are too chickenshit to apply a modicum of intelligence to a subjective question.  Which is insane as it happens literally thousands of times every day in probably every half-decent country in the world.  Either in criminal courts for dangerous/reckless driving or civil for insurance claims.  We absolutely know that if they applied a proper penalty to Stroll for driving into the back of Ricciardo - like a race ban - that Stroll would take legal action because Daddy will pay.  And Daddy has more money than the FIA.

[southernstars]

 

To be honest in that Schumacher/Alonso case by the rulebook it was illegal. But in my opinion the fact that green lights and flags were shown I think the decision should have been just reversing their positions back.

I think they changed the rules at that time. It was not clearly illegal, but the new wording made it clearly illegal

There are many who still blame the driver steward for all decisions they don't like. As to the schumacher incident, I don't believe he did anything wrong as per the written rules, only by the ones they made up after the event.

 

Michael had recognised a loophole in the rules and exploited it. He didn't actually break any rules. Yet he still got a 20 second penalty (for...embarrassing the FIA I guess?) and Damon Hill was in the room.

 

Even if Hill wasn't officially involved, I don't buy that he just sat there silent while it was discussed. At the very least it was an awful look for the FIA to have such a flagrant conflict of interest in the stewards' room.

[Clatter]

Michael had recognised a loophole in the rules and exploited it. He didn't actually break any rules. Yet he still got a 20 second penalty (for...embarrassing the FIA I guess?) and Damon Hill was in the room.

Even if Hill wasn't officially involved, I don't buy that he just sat there silent while it was discussed. At the very least it was an awful look for the FIA to have such a flagrant conflict of interest in the stewards' room.

He was one of 4 stewards, and yes would have been involved in the conversation, but he, nor any other driver steward, makes the overall decision.

[Sterzo]

Especially when driver stewards were introduced I felt for many all the decisions were that driver stewart is a dictator making the calls.

 

That seems utterly implausible. Driver stewards were a late addition when it was realised there were cases where the stewards sometimes lacked insight into the practicalities. They were an add-on, in effect the junior steward. They are outnumbered by the "professional" stewards and certainly couldn't override the chairman.