666 replies to this topic

[Lights]

Suzuka really brought to light how appalling race direction and stewarding can get. And I felt like this is a recurring topic that is spread out in so many threads, why not bring that together?

 

Let's start of with how the Verstappen/Leclerc clash was managed.

 

Lap 1

Verstappen and Leclerc make contact at the start, causing Verstappen to spin and drop to last. If they use a system where they inform the viewers when they note an incident, this is where I would already expect it within 30 seconds. But no race control information is given. 

 

Before the end of the first lap, a replay is shown from Hamilton's onboard that clearly shows Leclerc understeering into Verstappen. At this point the minimum what I expect from a competent race control team is to get a message within 30 seconds of this footage: "Turn 2 incident involving cars 16 (Leclerc) and 33 (Verstappen) is under investigation". Still crickets.

 

Lap 3

We finally get proof they are awake: "Turn 2 incident involving cars 16 (Leclerc) and 33 (Verstappen) noted - no investigation necessary".

So they only take like 3 minutes to decide that no investigation is necessary, despite relevant footage proving otherwise was in the meantime shown on the live feed.

 

Lap 7

Out of nowhere a new message appears: they are under investigation! And how this happened is later explained by Masi:

 

“Some new evidence became available which they didn’t have available at the time and they chose to effectively reopen the investigation,” said Masi.

“Originally, with what was available to them, they made a determination that there was no investigation necessary. Then they got some other footage which they didn’t have.”

 

Lap 20

Verstappen has retired by this point, Leclerc is running 9th.

 

Race control: "Lap 1, Turn 2 incident involving cars 16 (Leclerc) and 33 (Verstappen) will be investigated after the race".

 

2 hours after the race

Leclerc is given a five-second time penalty for the clash plus two penalty points on his licence.

 

Over to us

There's just so many questions.

• How badly is their working environment set up that they do not have the required footage and data to analyse such an incident from the beginning? It should just be there. End of.
• How can they initially conclude an incident is not even worth investigating that ends up with a 5 second penalty and 2 license penalty points?
• How can 'new evidence' make a difference in the decision of investigating? If you have a crash happening, and you think you might not have all relevant information, you shouldn't conclude within 3 minutes that it's not worth investigating. There's 2 damaged cars that went from the front to the back of the field, by default that should be worth investigating. The whole point should be to investigate all relevant information and footage until you can reach a proper verdict. 
• Why do they need another 20 minutes to reach the conclusion that they'll investigate it after the race? Didn't they have the proper evidence now?
• What are these people paid for?

All these unnecessary delays affect the race. For the to-be-penalized driver it's often an advantage, because in the meantime he can either gap drivers behind, or if he fell back work himself back through the field. Often the later the penalty is given the better his race result. It can also be a disadvantage: it can impacts strategic decisions, for example Ferrari pitting Leclerc again near the end of the race. Had they known they were driving with a 15 seconds time penalty to come, they might handle things differently.

All in all, this is all just infuriating...    I could tell on lap 1 from my couch with the replay of Hamilton's onboard that Leclerc had plenty of space yet understeered into Verstappen destroying his race. Why does a team of race directors and stewards need 4 hours to come to the same conclusion? 

 

We're talking about a multi billion business here, a global sport. It shouldn't have this kind of incompetence. Stop hurting the sport.

 

[NixxxoN]

Lap 52 (last lap)

Not counted, automatic system fails miserably. So Perez didn't crash.

Imagine if that happened in Brazil 2008

Edited by NixxxoN, 14 October 2019 - 11:58.

[goldenboy]

Lap 52 (last lap)
Not counted, automatic system fails miserably. So Perez didn't crash.
Imagine if that happened in Brazil 2008

Court case.

[Fatgadget]

Compared  to the late old Charlie..This new race director is a bit.... meh...                                         

[TomNokoe]

F1 being the "pinnacle of excellence" is a myth. There are a few special people spread across the teams, but I'm pretty sure the rest are just like any other workplace

[robefc]

Juries can 'deliberate' for days - I wonder if some of the delays etc are caused by disagreement amongst the stewards? I mean take 4 forumers, given them all the data the stewards get and when would you expect a unanimous verdict!? 

[SenorSjon]

Don't forget the mess around meatballs...

 

https://www.racefans...it-damaged-car/

[Beri]

Let's first start off with my opinion that the Verstappen/LeClerc incident is something to judge after the race.

Then let's state the fact that stewards are more lenient nowadays and do tend to let incidents pass by more easily when they are on lap one.

So far nothing shocking indeed. But to fail to take matters in their own hands, the stewards decide to show their incompetence by stating "noted - no investigation necessary", is worrying.
In cases like these, it would be way more transparent to always show "will be investigated after the race". The current penalties should be evaluated and be changed. Since the difference to not finish for the victim and grab points for the perpetrator would effectively call for more severe penalties in my opinion. This would create more openness and would count for more understanding compared to the current load of crap fans are handed.

But hey, I'm no FIA race director.

[Lights]

Juries can 'deliberate' for days - I wonder if some of the delays etc are caused by disagreement amongst the stewards?

 

True, but if you keep it within sports, decisions are usually taken in an instance, or at least within some minutes if you look at VAR in soccer. In that context, the hours it can sometimes take in F1 is still ridiculous.

 

But then again, like you say the disagreement among stewards might be a factor. Other sports are often decided by just 1 person, a referee, even if helped by others it's usually 1 person who makes the final decision.

 

Does F1 need a team of stewards, wouldn't 1 steward be enough? 

 

I mean take 4 forumers, given them all the data the stewards get and when would you expect a unanimous verdict!? 

 

Sounds like an interesting idea!

 

And honestly, I've seen so much steward incompetence over the years that I frankly cannot imagine that 4 forumers would do a worse job. Assuming they're not new fans, and that they get some preparation by understanding the actual current set of rules in detail.

[HP]

Lap 52 (last lap)

Not counted, automatic system fails miserably. So Perez didn't crash.

Imagine if that happened in Brazil 2008

Even better 2003, where Fisichella was declared the winner of the Brazil race at the next race initially won by Kimi. The entire issue came to the stewards attention days after the race, because of a discussion about the in the issue in this very forum.

 

[robefc]

 

And honestly, I've seen so much steward incompetence over the years that I frankly cannot imagine that 4 forumers would do a worse job. Assuming they're not new fans, and that they get some preparation by understanding the actual current set of rules in detail.

 

It's second priority though, my first pitch is for a few Lewis fans (obviously including myself) to take over from Mr Vowles...!

 

I am sure other teams''fans' drivers would be up for their own forum strategy teams too!

[NixxxoN]

Even better 2003, where Fisichella was declared the winner of the Brazil race at the next race initially won by Kimi. The entire issue came to the stewards attention days after the race, because of a discussion about the in the issue in this very forum.

 

Hmmm... Did that really decide the championship in a fair way?

[JeePee]

Juries can 'deliberate' for days - I wonder if some of the delays etc are caused by disagreement amongst the stewards? I mean take 4 forumers, given them all the data the stewards get and when would you expect a unanimous verdict!? 

Then you should have 1 'boss-steward' making the final decisions. Like in soccer where you have multiple referee's, including VARs, but only 1 taking decisions.

 

ps. I fully agree with this topic. I opened this one after Austria. That decision was a bit harder, but still.

Edited by JeePee, 14 October 2019 - 14:22.

[ANF]

So "incident noted – no investigation necessary" on lap 3 was a decision from the stewards' office? I thought it was race control's way of saying, "we've seen the incident, but it's not even worth to let the stewards have a look at it".

[Marklar]

Lap 52 (last lap)

Not counted, automatic system fails miserably. So Perez didn't crash.

Imagine if that happened in Brazil 2008

If I was a Brazilian and could time travel I would go back to that moment, steal the flag and call the race off one lap early. Apparently it's this easy to manipulate the result 

[Lights]

So "incident noted – no investigation necessary" on lap 3 was a decision from the stewards' office? I thought it was race control's way of saying, "we've seen the incident, but it's not even worth to let the stewards have a look at it".

 

Indeed, I believe that's from the stewards. In the quote above from Masi he's referring to the stewards with in “Originally, with what was available to them, they made a determination that there was no investigation necessary.". I think, at least. I don't see what else he could mean with that.

 

But I agree, it's not very clear what the different roles are responsible for and what they're allowed to do in regards to judging incidents. From what I've gathered, the race director notes an incident and hands it over to the stewards, yet the stewards are also allowed to investigate things that the director hasn't given to them. If anyone knows more about these roles I'd be happen to understand it better.

Edited by Lights, 14 October 2019 - 14:41.

[Lights]

If I was a Brazilian and could time travel I would go back to that moment, steal the flag and call the race off one lap early. Apparently it's this easy to manipulate the result 

 

Just last year after calling it a lap too early in Canada, ideas started about moving to a digital chequered flag. This was implemented at the start of this season. Of course this has now gone wrong as well, and you get people like Vettel saying "they should use a traditional chequered flag to end the race".

 

Incredible how they just can't get it right. 

[Marklar]

Juries can 'deliberate' for days - I wonder if some of the delays etc are caused by disagreement amongst the stewards? I mean take 4 forumers, given them all the data the stewards get and when would you expect a unanimous verdict!? 

Rule of thumb = If the stewards disagree about whether or not giving a penalty it usually isnt one. So to me there should be a limit of 3-5 laps for them to make a decision. Anything else is honestly race fixing. A 5 seconds penalty during the race is so much different than a 5 seconds penalty after the race. And it really shouldnt be the case that sometimes it does apply and sometimes it doesnt. Not to mention that it sucks to not know the result until hours after the race.

Obviously regardless how much time you take they are bound to sometimes make wrong decisions. Hey, we often cant agree here even after days long discussions. So it's absolutely fine if they do make mistakes here and there. So yes, of course you can argue that taking 3 hours is better because you hear from everyone and see more data and whatever, but how often will that change the decision? Moreover it seems like when you discuss this post-session non-objective arguments can play a role. If a driver says that he felt impeeded by another driver in qualifying the other driver gets a penalty, if he feels that it was okay they dont get one. In that way you can intentionally screw your competitors by lying and that shouldnt be okay.

[Lights]

F1 being the "pinnacle of excellence" is a myth. There are a few special people spread across the teams, but I'm pretty sure the rest are just like any other workplace

 

The real difference being that people at any other workplace can actually get fired or forced to step down after frequently repeating incompetence. 

 

Sure, in every job it's to an extent about goodwill and politics, but at the FIA it really seems like once you get into a certain position you can stay in it until you retire or die, no matter how good or bad you perform.

[TomNokoe]

The real difference being that people at any other workplace can actually get fired or forced to step down after frequently repeating incompetence. 

 

Sure, in every job it's to an extent about goodwill and politics, but at the FIA it really seems like once you get into a certain position you can stay in it until you retire or die, no matter how good or bad you perform.

 

"One big family"

[Myrvold]

I honestly don't understand what's going on with stewarding these days.I see club level events ran by FIA rules being more consistent and by the book than what "the best of the best" are able to do.

Of course, it is a bit harder to actually do it at the races, I know that. I have been a steward, tech.delegate, track observer, race director, safety marshall and of course driver in a whole range of levels, from local club level to international and world championship events (EDIT: To point out and clarify, as a driver, i never participated in a world champ!). And I know, that even though I know the rules, it is a tiny bit harder to take that final stance at the track compared to, well, sitting here and discussing it.

However, how F1 have been handled lately (last few years) have been gradually more and more abysmal, and it is extremely infuriating to see.

 

There will always be stuff that's controversial, and its impossible to get all to agree on everything. But stick to the darn procedures, and set rules. If that's done, the amount of explanations and controversial episodes will be lower, and they will be somewhat easier to handle when they do happen.

Edited by Myrvold, 14 October 2019 - 17:52.

[Lights]

"One big family"

 

Exactly, a huge red flag.

 

And it's really not just Masi or anyone in particular that I have a problem with. I've had the same with Whiting for years. Perhaps Charlie was the right guy in the 80's or 90's (I didn't watch back then) but I always felt like he was unable to adapt to the sport's many changes over the years. And the thing is, had he not died, he'd still be functioning in that role right now, unable to grasp aspects of racing that weren't a topic whatsoever when he started out.

So I really had high hopes that Michael Masi would be able to do a better job, a fresher younger face. But from several instances this year it's clear to me that he isn't. But I guess we're stuck with him until he decides to call it a day.

[Lights]

Early end to Japanese GP "very unfortunate", Masi admits

 

https://www.motorspo...d-flag/4558306/

 

“From what we have seen it is a system error,” he said. “It is something that we have to investigate. I am not going to pre-empt what it is, was, or wasn’t. It was a system error.”

 

Masi said that there were both automatic and human triggers in the flag system, so it was too early to speculate whether this was a mistake or a computer glitch.

 

Yeah of course it was a system error. If by "system" you mean anything from a human mistake to a computer glitch, that's not hard to call.

 

 

“It is very unfortunate, I will be the first one to say that. We pride ourselves on doing things perfectly but it is one of those that hasn’t happened before with the chequered flag board, and we have just got to investigate why.”

 

Ouch. I can't imagine there being a lot of pride then. 

[goldenboy]

I don't believe for a second that there is any bias to a team in particular, but wouldn't at all be surprised to learn they manipulate penalties (or the lack of) to make races more exciting for a casual viewer that isn't going to follow up hours afterwards.

An exciting race for the casual dummies takes priority.

[Peat]

Compared  to the late old Charlie..This new race director is a bit.... meh...                                         

 

Put your rose-tints back in the drawer. 

Whiting made alot of questionable calls and was widely slated/questioned in these very fora. 

[Marklar]

Masi actually looked quite good for a while. Gave good explanations, stewarding was consistent enough, he managed the German GP quite good for his first rain race.

It feels like after the ridiculous backlash in Montreal and the pretty much directly related decision after Spielberg to be more lenient dugged a hole for him. They've become lenient in pretty much all matters, not only wheel-to-wheel racing. You can see that by Masi's "no contact" explanation in Monza. It's so obviously a stupid argument, and I cant believe that he isnt realizing it, but how else to explain that the *exactly* (and this time really) same incident was a different punishment a year ago? And due to Montreal they seem even more scared of quick decisions than before.

[Eff1]

I don’t think the race direction is that bad.

I like the generally “let them race” philosophy after Canada. It’s more like pre-2000’s era when collisions were predominantly considered racing incidents - not micro analysed to the minute details - and just accepted for what they were. Ultimately - when a collision between 2 cars happen, both drivers tend to lose. That was the case between Leclerc-Verstappen, one guy understeered, hit the other guy, both damages and fall to the back. Neither wanted it to happen, but it did. Next time they give each other more room.

Far as I’m considered as long as a driver doesn’t do something outwardly dangerous then I am fine with it.

I think Masi has done a fine job till now.

Edited by Eff1, 16 October 2019 - 07:39.

[AustinF1]

5 seconds, after the race, was an absolute joke of a penalty. It actually was no penalty at all.

[Lights]

Masi actually looked quite good for a while. Gave good explanations, stewarding was consistent enough, he managed the German GP quite good for his first rain race.

 

I actually disagree there too due to the drag strip issue.

 

29/07: Masi: Hockenheim drag strip run-off area 'looked fine'

"We inspected it the other day and had a look again post-race with the water on it. It is fine."

 

Additionally, what was bad in my opinion was that Masi was using this as an opportunity to be cool about drivers' general view that wandering off the track should entail consequences:

"All 20 drivers have been very consistent in their views that if they run off the track there should be consequences for doing it.".

 

Yeah dude, but that's besides the point of the drag strip. And that he doesn't understand this is already a worrying sign for me.

 

10/08: F1 would now reconsider Hockenheim drag strip - Masi

"Having spoken to Nico ".." it is something that we would consider at the time if we were to go back to Hockenheim. We would have a look and see if there are other things we can do."

 

Conclusion: it wasn't fine.

 

This falls into the same category as all these other FIA mishaps that were already happening with Whiting, for example "you can't win time by going off track" and "you can't win time under the VSC by saving distance".

 

How can you be a race director and not properly understand these kind of issues, and then be so stubborn to not take what several experienced drivers say at face value?

It's exactly these kind of statements that infuriate me because as a fan it hurts to see they're making the sport look comical.

[Nemo1965]

I don't think the stewards are incompetent. I think the extensive coverage (onboard, semi-onboard, super-slo mo at every corner) and the constant pressure from professional pundits and armchair enthusiasts on the internet is so massive, the sport has become bloated with rules... every decision by the stewards creates a new 'outrage', every outrage creates a new jurisdiction, which causes confusion and more cries for 'consistency'... which leads to new outrage about another decision by the stewards, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

 

I think that the old fashioned way Norris and Albon handled their clash in Suzuka was exemplary. Albon made a bit of a dive (rather!), Norris did not see him, steered in, boom... Albon admitted it was a mistake/over-eager thing, Norris accepted it, 'Next time better', done, dusted and over. Damn it, it is racing, not chess!

 

And what if Norris had been angry with Albon? Not a problem either. Then they talk to each other, talk to journalists, talk to team-managers, talk to the FIA, trash talk each other... and if these clashes between drivers or one driver and the rest keep coming, THEN the FIA can start warning drivers they should clean up their act. Perhaps after enough incidents the FIA can issue a race-ban...

 

The constant but-hurt of fans that a race does not develop to their perspective of the 'right' result... beeuhhg. So your fav driver's does not get the exact result he could have had if all the holes in the cheese would have aligned? Get over it. It seems a majority of the fans only would be happy if the 'right' results would be calculated by the FIA in an Excel-spreadsheet.

Edited by Nemo1965, 16 October 2019 - 08:33.

[CoolBreeze]

Some of you just have too much time in your hands. It was a racing incident. Move on. I don't see how a superman reaction from the stewards would make any difference to the fans. 

 

There's so much more other bigger things for the FIA to worry about than this. 

[Lights]

I don't think the stewards are incompetent. I think the extensive coverage (onboard, semi-onboard, super-slo mo at every corner) and the constant pressure from professional pundits and armchair enthusiasts on the internet is so massive, the sport has become bloated with rules... every decision by the stewards creates a new 'outrage', every outrage creates a new jurisdiction, which causes confusion and more cries for 'consistency'... which leads to new outrage about another decision by the stewards, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

 

I think that the old fashioned way Norris and Albon handled their clash in Suzuka was exemplary. Albon made a bit of a dive (rather!), Norris did not see him, steered in, boom... Albon admitted it was a mistake/over-eager thing, Norris accepted it, 'Next time better', done, dusted and over. Damn it, it is racing, not chess!

 

And what if Norris had been angry with Albon? Not a problem either. Then they talk to each other, talk to journalists, talk to team-managers, talk to the FIA, trash talk each other... and if these clashes between drivers or one driver and the rest keep coming, THEN the FIA can start warning drivers they should clean up their act. Perhaps after enough incidents the FIA can issue a race-ban...

 

The constant but-hurt of fans that a race does not develop to their perspective of the 'right' result... beeuhhg. So your fav driver's does not get the exact result he could have had if all the holes in the cheese would have aligned? Get over it. It seems a majority of the fans only would be happy if the 'right' results would be calculated by the FIA in an Excel-spreadsheet.

 

The incompetence doesn't only result in the 'wrong' result at times, it can also be dangerous. If you look at how they handled Leclerc's front wing damage in Suzuka for example, that doesn't at all add up with their statements about safety. If these things keep happening and a driver gets hurt while they could've done something about it by acting more decisively, they can of course bring out a statement saying "It was a system error, we'll look into it", but the conclusion is still that a driver got hurt through their incompetence.

 

Additionally, a lapcount error like in Suzuka this year happening at Brazil '08 and we'd have a different world champion. But I guess had that happened your response would be "beeuhhg but-hurt fans, get over it" ??

[Sterzo]

The incompetence doesn't only result in the 'wrong' result at times, it can also be dangerous. If you look at how they handled Leclerc's front wing damage in Suzuka for example, that doesn't at all add up with their statements about safety. If these things keep happening and a driver gets hurt while they could've done something about it by acting more decisively...

 

That assumes no responsibility on the part of the team. The safest way cannot be for the team to wait for the race director to intervene. They should have radioed the driver to proceed at reduced speed to the pits. Sitting at home, dribbling coffee and covered in biscuit crumbs, even I was surprised they didn't do this.

[Requiem84]

Does anyone know what kind of support they have?

 

Are they really looking up all the footage themselves etc, or is there are team of like 5-8 people making a small report and then letting the actual Stewards come to a decision? 

 

I really hope it is the latter, because if they have to do all the admin work, it would be very unprofessional.

[Lights]

Does anyone know what kind of support they have?

 

Are they really looking up all the footage themselves etc, or is there are team of like 5-8 people making a small report and then letting the actual Stewards come to a decision? 

 

I really hope it is the latter, because if they have to do all the admin work, it would be very unprofessional.

 

From what I've read so far, it's the former. I haven't heard about additional people in an advisory role looking at footage.

[Nemo1965]

The incompetence doesn't only result in the 'wrong' result at times, it can also be dangerous. If you look at how they handled Leclerc's front wing damage in Suzuka for example, that doesn't at all add up with their statements about safety. If these things keep happening and a driver gets hurt while they could've done something about it by acting more decisively, they can of course bring out a statement saying "It was a system error, we'll look into it", but the conclusion is still that a driver got hurt through their incompetence.

 

Additionally, a lapcount error like in Suzuka this year happening at Brazil '08 and we'd have a different world champion. But I guess had that happened your response would be "beeuhhg but-hurt fans, get over it" ??

 

I don't disagree that LeClerc should have gotten a direct warning with flags to come in - I don't think anyone disagrees it was a dangerous situation. I was talking about the constant moaning about drivers hitting each other (or not) or impeding each other (or not), a driver making a mistake (or not) or doing a squeeze on purpose (or not).

 

In the past, there was just much more peer-group pressure about fair racing... and I think that was the right way to go... now drivers can hide behind 'But driver X did that do that to Y in race A... and he did not get a penalty.' It is like the proverbial 'asking for a yellow card for an opponent' has infected racing... 

[Lights]

That assumes no responsibility on the part of the team. The safest way cannot be for the team to wait for the race director to intervene. They should have radioed the driver to proceed at reduced speed to the pits. Sitting at home, dribbling coffee and covered in biscuit crumbs, even I was surprised they didn't do this.

 

It doesn't assume no responsibility of the team, but you can't count on them because they'll always have clouded judgement due to their nature of being a racing teams that want to win. And btw, the team did also tell Leclerc to pit, but quite late, and not decisive enough either, leading to a radio discussion. I agree this isn't good, but that shows exactly why the FIA should always be decisive in when a driver needs to come in or not. It's part of race control. They should've shown a meatball flag on lap 1, that's clear, and they didn't. 

[Requiem84]

From what I've read so far, it's the former. I haven't heard about additional people in an advisory role looking at footage.

 

Then I can't really blame them for many of the mistakes mentioned by you. 

 

If you have to do

 

a) data gathering

b) communication with teams

c) data analysis

d) footage analysis

e) writing the official reports

f) communicating during the GP

h) decision making regarding penalties

 

all at the same time, mistakes are bound to happen. The stewards should focus on the H - decision making. All other elements should be delegated to a group of people who can focus on specific tasks. 

[Lights]

Then I can't really blame them for many of the mistakes mentioned by you. 

 

If you have to do

 

a) data gathering

b) communication with teams

c) data analysis

d) footage analysis

e) writing the official reports

f) communicating during the GP

h) decision making regarding penalties

 

all at the same time, mistakes are bound to happen. The stewards should focus on the H - decision making. All other elements should be delegated to a group of people who can focus on specific tasks. 

 

From your list, I don't think they have to do data gathering or communicate with the teams during the race, so I think your list is a bit too extensive. All I said was that I don't think they have additional people to do the data/footage analysis for them.

 

And in my original post, I did also wonder: 

 

• How badly is their working environment set up that they do not have the required footage and data to analyse such an incident from the beginning? It should just be there. End of.

 

So it's not like I blame just the stewards, but also how it's all set up. Because apparently they are getting data/footage fed to them, and in Suzuka that didn't happen properly.

Edited by Lights, 16 October 2019 - 09:37.

[Marklar]

Omg I just saw this gem

And what would have happened had the digital chequered flag been shown first to the 2nd place driver instead of the 1st place driver? Race control had no answer for this question.

https://www.auto-mot...-gp-japan-2018/

[JeePee]

And what would happen if a bug had the digital chequered flag shown on lap 2? 

[Myrvold]

That assumes no responsibility on the part of the team. The safest way cannot be for the team to wait for the race director to intervene. They should have radioed the driver to proceed at reduced speed to the pits. Sitting at home, dribbling coffee and covered in biscuit crumbs, even I was surprised they didn't do this.

 

At the same time, you can't leave that up to the teams. How much damage do you have to have to go slow? How big part must be flapping around? Because this is far from the first time a driver has been driving around with parts flapping or with major parts damaged. You don't have to go further back than to Spa and Verstappen to see another example.
 

It can't be changed until 2020, but there shouldn't be much problems adding another light on the steering wheel that is activated by the tech.delegate when the meatball is shown. That way a driver can get the flag all around the track, not only the s/f line.

[Myrvold]

Then I can't really blame them for many of the mistakes mentioned by you. 

 

If you have to do

 

a) data gathering

b) communication with teams

c) data analysis

d) footage analysis

e) writing the official reports

f) communicating during the GP

h) decision making regarding penalties

 

all at the same time, mistakes are bound to happen. The stewards should focus on the H - decision making. All other elements should be delegated to a group of people who can focus on specific tasks. 

A) and C) I'm not sure if applies. Not sure if the stewards gets full data from the cars during the race (if any).
B) not needed until a possible penalty.
D) E) and H) applies.

Not quite sure what you think about with G)

 

They are also 4 people, and it's not that much happening at a normal GP.

 

And what would happen if a bug had the digital chequered flag shown on lap 2? 

Red flag and restart.

[Requiem84]

A) and C) I'm not sure if applies. Not sure if the stewards gets full data from the cars during the race (if any). - Data gathering is also gathering the footage from all angles etc. 
B) not needed until a possible penalty. - Not true: teams can lodge protests during the race. The Stewards need to respond, process etc.
D) E) and H) applies.

Not quite sure what you think about with G) - G: checking the database for similar incidents to ensure consistency. 

 

They are also 4 people, and it's not that much happening at a normal GP. - It depends per GP. Last race they had to deal with Vettel's start, Verstappen/Leclerc, Albon/Norris in a few laps time. Lack of resources might be why it took them so long. 

 

Red flag and restart.

 

See my responses in bold. Business course number one: not to many tasks at once in order to focus on the most important task. 

[Lights]

Leclerc was not given more lenient penalty by mistake, FIA confirms

 

However the official FIA document describing the decision said the penalty had been issued “in accordance with Article 38.3 (d) of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.” This article stipulates a more severe penalty.

Article 38.3 (d) describes a “10 second stop‐and‐go time penalty”. If a driver is given this penalty after the race, as Leclerc was, they must have 30 seconds added to their race time instead of 10.

This prompted some reports to suggest Leclerc had been given the wrong penalty. However an FIA spokesperson confirmed to RaceFans the reference to “Article 38.3 (d)” in the stewards’ document is incorrect, and should have read “Article 38.3”.

 

 

 

Well I guess it's a small error. I like the headline though, could've also been: "FIA confirms they made another mistake through confirming they didn't give the wrong penalty by mistake".

Edited by Lights, 17 October 2019 - 09:50.

[Sterzo]

At the same time, you can't leave that up to the teams. How much damage do you have to have to go slow? How big part must be flapping around? Because this is far from the first time a driver has been driving around with parts flapping or with major parts damaged. You don't have to go further back than to Spa and Verstappen to see another example.
 

It can't be changed until 2020, but there shouldn't be much problems adding another light on the steering wheel that is activated by the tech.delegate when the meatball is shown. That way a driver can get the flag all around the track, not only the s/f line.

Fair questions, but the Race Director is no better equipped to make an instant decision than the team, which has only two cars to watch. The team also has telemetry which may indicate other damage (not that there was in this particular case). It's analagous to an unsafe release. The team is responsible at the moment, and the officials penalise if there's a transgression. Significant damage to a front wing? Slow down, pit immediately.

[KevR]

Thanks a lot for creating this topic. The stewarding in F1 has been appalling beyond belief for a few years now. They wouldn't be able to pick a pair of socks in the morning let alone investigate a race incident or give a penalty. Useless. And since Canada they seem to be very biased towards Ferrari which makes it even worse. In Japan it seemed like they were doing everything not to punish Ferrari.

[pdac]

We all say that the stewarding is appalling, but it would not surprise me to find out that they are being put under enormous pressure from FOM, the FIA, the teams and almost everyone else not to issue penalties that might change the race too much and, in particular, not to the lead teams or the top drivers. I suspect it's a total conspiracy.

[Kalmake]

Omg I just saw this gem

https://www.auto-mot...-gp-japan-2018/

According to this the signal panel should be shown only once the leader completes the last lap (not before he crosses the Line). Otherwise result is taken from previous lap. First place driver can't even see it, except maybe on the mirrors.

 

43.1 A chequered light panel will be the end-of-race signal and will be shown at the Line as soon as the leading car has covered the full race distance in accordance with Article 5.3.

 

43.2 Should for any reason the end-of-race signal be given before the leading car completes the scheduled number of laps, or the prescribed time has been completed, the race will be deemed to have finished when the leading car last crossed the Line before the signal was given.

 

Answer to the reporters question is: 2nd placed driver should be the one to see the signal first (or a lapped car). 

[Clatter]

According to this the signal panel should be shown only once the leader completes the last lap (not before he crosses the Line). Otherwise result is taken from previous lap. First place driver can't even see it, except maybe on the mirrors.

43.1 A chequered light panel will be the end-of-race signal and will be shown at the Line as soon as the leading car has covered the full race distance in accordance with Article 5.3.

43.2 Should for any reason the end-of-race signal be given before the leading car completes the scheduled number of laps, or the prescribed time has been completed, the race will be deemed to have finished when the leading car last crossed the Line before the signal was given.

Answer to the reporters question is: 2nd placed driver should be the one to see the signal first (or a lapped car).

I can see why they have done that, as its easier than trying to track where the lead car is around the lap, but begs the question as to why the chequered flag being shown before the leader crossed the line didn't also result in the race being declared a lap earlier.

It's amazing how they can make such a simple process so bloody complicated.

Edited by Clatter, 17 October 2019 - 22:51.