22 replies to this topic

[SophieB]

Alfa Romeo’s have been granted a review of Kimi’s penalty from Imola:

 

While the FIA rejected documents relating to F1 Sporting Working Group, F1 Commission and Race Director notes, and a suggestion that when there is ambiguity that the competitor should be given the benefit of the doubt, it did accept documents demonstrating that there had been no previous example of such a penalty in F1.

Alfa Romeo felt this was relevant because the stewards’ decision had suggested the regulations had been ‘consistently applied’.

In its explanation for going ahead with the review, the FIA said that its interpretation was based on previous examples of offences from F3 and F2, but it conceded there had not been on occasion when such a rules breach had happened after a red flag.

The FIA said: “Subsequent to the decision and as part of this present hearing, the Stewards have discovered that the specific cases that they referred to were not following a Red Flag.

“While this was only one element among many considered by the Stewards, this information was unavailable to the Competitor at the time of the original decision and was a part of the discussion by the Stewards and is therefore deemed significant and relevant.”

 

It will be heard this morning.

https://www.autospor...enalty/6500872/

[Augurk]

Hopefully common sense prevails.

[SophieB]

I hope so.

[Jovanotti]

Well I guess Alpine would promptly appeal themselves if Alfa get their points back.

[Vesuvius]

Hopefully they will get the points back.

[Vesuvius]

Well I guess Alpine would promptly appeal themselves if Alfa get their points back.

Yes more then likely.

[johnnyw]

I hope alfa wont need to pay anything to make that appeal. End result will be same no matter what, even if they first remove the penalty, then alpine eill ptotest and penalty will be back.

[Vesuvius]

I hope alfa wont need to pay anything to make that appeal. End result will be same no matter what, even if they first remove the penalty, then alpine eill ptotest and penalty will be back.

We will see

[Marklar]

what's the point of rules if you dont want to enforce them as soon as pressure arises? To me the points should remain lost (even if they had deserved to keep them), but the rules should be changed for the future.

Edited by Marklar, 02 May 2021 - 11:39.

[SophieB]

what's the point of rules if you dont want to enforce them as soon as pressure arises? To me the points should remain lost (even if they had deserved to keep them), but the rules should be changed for the future.

The argument would be that in this instance those rules weren’t clear because the circumstances that they were enforced in to had not been considered and didn’t quite make sense and that therefore enforcement was unreasonable in this ambiguous example.

[PayasYouRace]

This does seem like a case where the rules weren't written to take into account of the particular situation Kimi and Alfa ended up in. Hopefully something good comes of this.

[MattK9]

If you can't keep control of your car during a safety car period you probably should just be black flagged. There are potentially marshals walking around on the circuit and the drivers need to be in control of their car at all times.

[johnnyw]

If you can't keep control of your car during a safety car period you probably should just be black flagged. There are potentially marshals walking around on the circuit and the drivers need to be in control of their car at all times.

You are kidding right?

 

 

 

[pdac]

The argument would be that in this instance those rules weren’t clear because the circumstances that they were enforced in to had not been considered and didn’t quite make sense and that therefore enforcement was unreasonable in this ambiguous example.

 

That's an argument to review and change the wording of the rule for the future, but it's not an argument for the rule, as it was written, not to be enforceable or offences to be waived.

[sportyskells]

A reminder this issue happened after the red flag at imola

[SophieB]

They lost their appeal.

 

https://www.racefans...t-imola-points/

the stewards accept the competitor’s position that the rules probably do not match the original intent. But they have been in the regulations since 2018. Where there is ambiguity, the benefit of the doubt should accrue to the competitor. But while the stewards have pointed out in the original decision that there is a conflict of intent between the Safety Car re-start regulation, and the Resumption of a Race Rolling Start regulation, the stewards believe that each is clear enough as written in its own right.

So, while the stewards understand why the competitor acted as they did – first to tell the driver to re-take his position, then later to tell him not to re-take the position — the stewards stand by their original decision that the competitor committed a breach of Art. 42.6 by failing to re-establish his starting position during the lap behind the safety car.

As a final matter the competitor pointed out that Art. 42.12 states “If, after several laps behind the safety car, track conditions are considered unsuitable to start the race from a standing start, the message “ROLLING START” will be sent to all Competitors…”

[Gareth]

what's the point of rules if you dont want to enforce them as soon as pressure arises? To me the points should remain lost (even if they had deserved to keep them), but the rules should be changed for the future.

Combine this (which, whilst feeling sympathy for Alfa and Kimi, I agree with) with the fact that time penalties that take the place of stop/goes are supposed to be unappealable, and overall this smacks to me of the FIA actually making the original error (of poor regulations) even worse, not better.

[MattK9]

You are kidding right?

 

No, Im not kidding. What is the point of safety car if it is acceptable that driver can spin off the track under safety car conditions and not have a penalty? 

[IrvTheSwerve]

You are kidding right?

 

It does seem like it is getting alarmingly regular that we see cars losing control under SC...whether it is a full spin or an out-of-control slide. The drivers are being so aggressive with their tyre warm-ups and the cars are so torquey that it's so easy to spin. 

 

It's only a matter of time until a car slides into a team of marshals. Look at the Bianchi incident...that could have been very tragic if there were 4 or 5 marshals standing around that tractor. The aggression and pace behind the SC has been too high for years now...drivers such as Hamilton constantly complaining about the SC pace (as if Maylander is just pootling around)...

 

I honestly wouldn't be against some kind of drive-through penalty for losing control under SC conditions. Black flag if it's a serious incident.

[Risil]

No, Im not kidding. What is the point of safety car if it is acceptable that driver can spin off the track under safety car conditions and not have a penalty? 

 

What were the circumstances around Raikkonen's spin behind the safety car? I'm not sure I caught it on TV.

[MattK9]

What were the circumstances around Raikkonen's spin behind the safety car? I'm not sure I caught it on TV.

 

No particular reason

 

https://youtu.be/35dgL7gKNL4

Edited by MattK9, 04 May 2021 - 12:20.

[BuckMagee]

It does seem like it is getting alarmingly regular that we see cars losing control under SC...whether it is a full spin or an out-of-control slide. The drivers are being so aggressive with their tyre warm-ups and the cars are so torquey that it's so easy to spin. 

 

It's only a matter of time until a car slides into a team of marshals. Look at the Bianchi incident...that could have been very tragic if there were 4 or 5 marshals standing around that tractor. The aggression and pace behind the SC has been too high for years now...drivers such as Hamilton constantly complaining about the SC pace (as if Maylander is just pootling around)...

 

I honestly wouldn't be against some kind of drive-through penalty for losing control under SC conditions. Black flag if it's a serious incident.

 

I'd argue that it could be either Pirelli's or the FIA's fault. Pirelli for not making tires suitable for the conditions, (too sensitive to tire temp), or the FIA for not making a safety car that goes fast enough to help keep temperature in the tires.  I don't know why a purpose built safety car with more downforce hasn't been built. Maybe add some suction fans to it or something...

[Myrvold]

I'd argue that it could be either Pirelli's or the FIA's fault. Pirelli for not making tires suitable for the conditions, (too sensitive to tire temp), or the FIA for not making a safety car that goes fast enough to help keep temperature in the tires.  I don't know why a purpose built safety car with more downforce hasn't been built. Maybe add some suction fans to it or something...

 

If a safety car goes to fast, the whole point with it is gone, as there won't be much time to clean stuff.

Anyway, they don't seem to lose control during VSC.