453 replies to this topic

[zanquis]

We have had a decent amount of red flags this year and a few last year.
What happens under a red flag can have great influence on the result.

A damaged car can be repaired.
A losing tire strategy can result in a winning gamble.

And this is NOT a question if it is legal now, we know it is. But more what should happen.
To me work under a red car should be seen as work before a start. It shouldn’t be done, and doing so should be penalized by a pitlane start.

I can think a director should be able to issue exceptions IF conditions call for it, like in Baku or sudden extreme weather changes allow all to changes the tores.

[cpbell]

I feel that any repairs for a driver who has been found wholly or mainly at fault for a collision that caused a DNF should result in starting the second part of the race from the pit lane. 

[ANF]

"Should teams be allowed to make changes..." They can't make that many changes at all. However, they can repair "genuine accident damage".

Cars may be worked on once they have stopped in the fast lane but any such work is restricted to that listed in i) to ix) below and must not impede the resumption of the sprint qualifying session or the race.
i) Starting the engine and any directly associated preparation.
ii) The addition of compressed gases (see Article 4.5 of the Technical Regulations).
iii) The fitting or removal of permitted cooling and heating devices.
iv) Changes to the air ducts around the front and rear brakes during the race only.
v) Changes to the radiator ducts during the race only.
vi) Changes made for driver comfort.
vii) Changing wheels and tyres.
viii) Repair of genuine accident damage, including the replacement of assemblies containing such damaged parts.
ix) The aerodynamic set up of the front wing may be adjusted using the existing parts. No parts may be added, removed or replaced.

[noikeee]

I feel that any repairs for a driver who has been found wholly or mainly at fault for a collision that caused a DNF should result in starting the second part of the race from the pit lane.

That does sound a bit more fair to me.

Of course we're talking immediately after the very specific case of someone getting a get out of jail card to go on to win the race, so I'm not sure we should react in a kneejerk fashion, but yeah.

My guess is it doesn't work like this, in case we get a red flag because there's a massive pileup and too many cars would have to be repaired and all start from the pitlane?

[cpbell]

Not allowing repair of genuine damge would be dangerous - imagine a weakened bodywork structure detaching at speed and striking another car, a marshal or getting over the debris fence into the crowd.  Suspension failure or a damaged brake disc exploding wouldn't be good either.

[cpbell]

That does sound a bit more fair to me.

Of course we're talking immediately after the very specific case of someone getting a get out of jail card to go on to win the race, so I'm not sure we should react in a kneejerk fashion, but yeah.

My guess is it doesn't work like this, in case we get a red flag because there's a massive pileup and too many cars would have to be repaired and all start from the pitlane?

Only one or two would have been found responsible, though.

[Marklar]

Great, another thread

Always in favour of just having changes if the conditions have changed (like it sometimes happens pre-start) and then only for necessary things. What you do with people who change more?...I dont know if you should forbid it outright and thus force everyone with a damaged car to retire, or just drop them at the end of the field or something. I dont have a strong opinion about this particular point either way.

[ClubmanGT]

I think the real change we needed from this weekend is that you can get a free pass to repair damage for the accident that caused a red flag.

 

If you're deemed to have caused it, I don't think you should get to benefit from it.

[fed up]

What we really need is a poll that asks whether there should be one rule for LH and another for everyone else. I’m sure the results would be close either way.

[Ivanhoe]

I feel that any repairs for a driver who has been found wholly or mainly at fault for a collision that caused a DNF should result in starting the second part of the race from the pit lane. 

Most of the time it takes the stewards too long to take a decision. Would that also mean they can’t start working on a car from a driver who’s under investigation?

[ANF]

I'm on the fence. Earlier today I thought any repairs during a red flag should lead to a 10-second stop-and-go penalty to be served within three laps. But I think teams would try to avoid such a penalty, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a standing start with damaged cars on the grid...

Edited by ANF, 19 July 2021 - 21:46.

[cpbell]

Most of the time it takes the stewards too long to take a decision. Would that also mean they can’t start working on a car from a driver who’s under investigation?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to work on it.  I'm saying, if they need to do so AND said driver is found to be at fault, they must start from the pitlane.

[ClubmanGT]

Most of the time it takes the stewards too long to take a decision. Would that also mean they can’t start working on a car from a driver who’s under investigation?

 

Is that any more unfair than the idea that you can punt someone into the fence and put them out of the race, and then get your car repaired if you can make it back to the pits?

[cpbell]

I'm on the fence. Earlier today I thought any repairs during a red flag should lead to a 10-second stop-and-go penalty to be served within three laps. But I think teams would try to avoid such a penalty, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a standing start with damaged cars on the grid... (A pit lane start would solve that problem, but a pit lane start isn't much of a penalty for a Mercedes. Maybe a pit lane start followed by a drive-through? There's always the option to retire the car.)

That penalises drivers who had damage through zero fault on their part, though.

Edited by cpbell, 19 July 2021 - 21:45.

[ClubmanGT]

Not allowing repair of genuine damge would be dangerous - imagine a weakened bodywork structure detaching at speed and striking another car, a marshal or getting over the debris fence into the crowd.  Suspension failure or a damaged brake disc exploding wouldn't be good either.

 

This is a dead heron - you can't take a car that isn't fit to race back out, we already have this rule for tyres that don't go on properly at pitstops. 

[Anderis]

Not allowing repair of genuine damge would be dangerous

There's a lot of time during the red flag to examine the cars. The stewards could tell that the car is unsafe to rejoin the race and must be repared and cars in need of repairs could be sent to the back of the grid or whatever.

 

I definetely 100% think tyres should be allowed to change during the red flag. A driver being forced to restart on 30 laps old tyres while other drivers around him all have tyres just few laps old would influence the race results even more than a possibility to have a "free" pit stop like it's now (let alone the safety concern of doing a standing start on such worn tyres).

 

About repairing damage- I don't know. Yesterday we had a driver who caused a collision benefit from that and it felt wrong. On another occasion it might be a driver whose car was damaged through no fault of his own and it will feel wrong that he'll get "penalised" twice. Making a distinction specifically for drivers who were found to be at fault feels like overregulation. And- what if- the stewards won't manage to make a decision in time?
 

[cpbell]

Let me explain my thoughts.

 

1.  Accident happens, race is stopped.

2. Four cars are involved, all are damaged to some extent.

3. One of those four cars is in the wall and is not going to be able to take the restart - call this car 1.

4.  Cars 2, 3 and 4 are all repairable before the restart.

5.  While barrier repairs and recovery are happening, the teams repair cars 2-4.

6.  Stewards determine the driver of car 2 to be mainly at fault for the crash.

7.  At the restart, cars 3 and 4 take up the position on the grid in which they were running at the end of the final completed lap.

8.  Car 2, meanwhile, takes the restart from the pitlane.

Edited by cpbell, 19 July 2021 - 21:55.

[cpbell]

This is a dead heron - you can't take a car that isn't fit to race back out, we already have this rule for tyres that don't go on properly at pitstops. 

Is that in the regulations?

[ExEd]

Most of the time it takes the stewards too long to take a decision. Would that also mean they can’t start working on a car from a driver who’s under investigation?

 

Was thinking the same.

What if a subject of a car at fault found not guilty after 20 mins of the red flag, Should everyone wait another 20 min to make it fair?

[ANF]

That penalises drivers who had damage through zero fault on their part, though.

But damage repairs in the race is probably going to take more than 10 seconds in the pits.
(I deleted the final part of my post that didn't make any sense!)

[cpbell]

There's a lot of time during the red flag to examine the cars. The stewards could tell that the car is unsafe to rejoin the race and must be repared and cars in need of repairs could be sent to the back of the grid or whatever.

 

I definetely 100% think tyres should be allowed to change during the red flag. A driver being forced to restart on 30 laps old tyres while other drivers around him all have tyres just few laps old would influence the race results even more than a possibility to have a "free" pit stop like it's now (let alone the safety concern of doing a standing start on such worn tyres).

 

About repairing damage- I don't know. Yesterday we had a driver who caused a collision benefit from that and it felt wrong. On another occasion it might be a driver whose car was damaged through no fault of his own and it will feel wrong that he'll get "penalised" twice. Making a distinction specifically for drivers who were found to be at fault feels like overregulation. And- what if- the stewards won't manage to make a decision in time?
 

If the officials can't decide quickly enough, the driver they eventually elect to penalise has to take a drive-through penalty.

[cpbell]

Was thinking the same.

What if a subject of a car at fault found not guilty after 20 mins of the red flag, Should everyone wait another 20 min to make it fair?

I'm not with you, sorry.  Could you re-phrase that, please?

[cpbell]

But damage repairs in the race is probably going to take more than 10 seconds in the pits.
(I deleted the final part of my post that didn't make any sense!)

Well, yes, but, without a stoppage, that's unavoidable.  Adding it to the rules if there is a red flag for the sake of it makes no sense to me.

[ClubmanGT]

Is that in the regulations?

 

It's considered an 'unsafe release'. 

[cpbell]

It's considered an 'unsafe release'. 

At the red flag restart?

[Anderis]

If the officials can't decide quickly enough, the driver they eventually elect to penalise has to take a drive-through penalty.

Well, I think giving a drive-through penalty straight away instead of +10 secs penalty would've solved the problem anyway.

 

Hamilton would need to serve the penalty within 3 laps of the restart, meaning he would've ended up in a similar position a few laps after the restart as he would've been if he was sent to the back of the grid.

 

These time penalties instead of drive-trhough and stop&go really cause a lot of issues that could otherwise be avoided. I think it was a big mistake by F1 to go in that direction.

[cpbell]

Well, I think giving a drive-through penalty straight away instead of +10 secs penalty would've solved the problem anyway.

 

Hamilton would need to serve the penalty within 3 laps of the restart, meaning he would've ended up in a similar position a few laps after the restart as he would've been if he was sent to the back of the grid.

 

These time penalties instead of drive-trhough and stop&go really cause a lot of issues that could otherwise be avoided. I think it was a big mistake by F1 to go in that direction.

I agree, but there were arguments made that Hamilton's penalty should be designed to prevent him scoring points.  That's asking the team to use up engine life for zero return, which is wasteful. 

Edited by cpbell, 19 July 2021 - 22:06.

[pdac]

I feel that any repairs for a driver who has been found wholly or mainly at fault for a collision that caused a DNF should result in starting the second part of the race from the pit lane. 

 

I can see where you're coming from here. But I would make it much simpler and say that anyone who makes any repairs on their car must start from the pit lane. It's the simplest way to minimise the effects of having to red-flag the race. If an incident can be handled under yellows, then cars that have damage will have to visit the pits, whilst cars that do not have damage can continue racing under caution. So, innocent or guilty, those who have damage would be disadvantaged if there is no red flag.

[Erik89]

Everyone who does repairs or changes tyres should start from pitlane in the order they entered pitlane under red. Lets not go full NASCAR, cars on track is better than cars retired or 5 laps down because they need to do repairs under green only.

[P123]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to work on it.  I'm saying, if they need to do so AND said driver is found to be at fault, they must start from the pitlane.

 

Fault is not always glaringly obvious.  And somebody ending up out of the race through a collision does not always result in a red flag.  For those situations you then have an imbalance in penalties and a lack of consistency. 

 

I don't think it is a huge issue.  They are only allowed to repair genuine damage, which is a safety thing.

 

It's also a bit like the qualifying question of when a drivers holds another up who then fails to progress, should the guilty party also be prevented from competing in the next session.

[ARTGP]

 

It's also a bit like the qualifying question of when a drivers holds another up who then fails to progress, should the guilty party also be prevented from competing in the next session.

 

That would get the point across....Qualifying blocking is so easily preventable. They aren't trying because the punishment isn't big enough.  Hit them where it hurts and the drivers will be seeing ghost in the mirrors....

Edited by ARTGP, 19 July 2021 - 22:51.

[zanquis]

Great, another thread

Always in favour of just having changes if the conditions have changed (like it sometimes happens pre-start) and then only for necessary things. What you do with people who change more?...I dont know if you should forbid it outright and thus force everyone with a damaged car to retire, or just drop them at the end of the field or something. I dont have a strong opinion about this particular point either way.

For a driver with damage, an option to have it repaired but with a pitlane start penalty would be a great option. Any driver that otherwise would retire would prefer the pitlane start. At the same time it would serve as much stronger penalty than a 10s penalty … after you have made a huge gap to most other cars so that it barely hinders you. It certainly would have made this race more enjoyable as Lewis would actually have to work for a podium and it would maybe incentive Bottas to push vs Leclerc.

Also I think it shouldn’t matter if the driver was at fault or not. As even any repair under red and starting from the back is still an upgrade to a retirement. If it isn’t critical you can make a choice not to repair it (as long as it is safe).

But this wasn’t even about just Lewis here for me. I just triggered me because of the red flags we have had that had some people benefit a lot. Like Monza last year where a certain driver hadn’t even pitted yet and just gained massively.

Edited by zanquis, 19 July 2021 - 23:24.

[noikeee]

You can't have different rules for allowing to repair cars, depending on whether the driver was "at fault" or not.. I see several people suggesting this, come on, it's just silly...

[MikeTekRacing]

You can't have different rules for allowing to repair cars, depending on whether the driver was "at fault" or not.. I see several people suggesting this, come on, it's just silly...

sure you can. Why not? 

[zanquis]

Let me explain my thoughts.

1. Accident happens, race is stopped.
2. Four cars are involved, all are damaged to some extent.
3. One of those four cars is in the wall and is not going to be able to take the restart - call this car 1.
4. Cars 2, 3 and 4 are all repairable before the restart.
5. While barrier repairs and recovery are happening, the teams repair cars 2-4.
6. Stewards determine the driver of car 2 to be mainly at fault for the crash.
7. At the restart, cars 3 and 4 take up the position on the grid in which they were running at the end of the final completed lap.
8. Car 2, meanwhile, takes the restart from the pitlane.

7. Cars 2,3,4 start from the pitlane it kinda sucks but the alternative was a retirement they should feel lucky.
8. Car 2 gets a penalty regardless if he repaired or not. Maybe if he repaired he car take his penalty in the pitlane after the start.

[JimmyClark]

Personally, I believe drivers should not be able to change things on their cars under a red flag that they cannot in a race without losing significant time.

Thus tyres are fine, especially with the standing starts these days, and you'd assume most cars would put under a safety car for new rubber anyway. Obviously this isn't a perfect rule, but it's sensible.

But any significant setup changes or repairs should mean some form of penalty, as they would have done if done under a safety car. So a front wing would be +5 places on the new starting grid, and anything more significant from the pit lane.

[noikeee]

sure you can. Why not?

Because it's silly.

First, almost no incident is ever 100% someone's fault, takes two drivers. Sunday was like 60/40 Lewis or 70/30 Lewis, what if Max had gone out of it with a similar level of damage (or no damage), he'd go on to race whilst the FIA forces Lewis to park it? This is equivalent to DQing a driver, why are we DQing a driver if the stewards have decided the incident is only worth a 10s penalty, not even a drive through, nevermind a whole DQ? Why should the FIA interfere on what state the cars are, midway through a race? Forget red flags, if there's a crash and the "wrong guy" at fault gets away without damage, we should stop the race to give him the same damage of the car he crashed with?

If someone's at fault for an incident he's already given a penalty for it. Want to add a mandatory DNF on top of the penalty?

Also, I thought we strived to keep cars in the race as much as possible? To add to the show and give spectators something to watch? Want to punish people with DNFs when there's no need now?

You guys are just pissed off at Lewis at a very specific occasion, super particular set of circumstances. And now want to tear the rule book apart to retrospectively punish him, without thinking of anything else, all the other billion possibilities of things that can happen in a race. Definition of kneejerk changes.

Edited by noikeee, 20 July 2021 - 00:05.

[MikeTekRacing]

Because it's silly.

First, almost no incident is ever 100% someone's fault, takes two drivers. Sunday was like 60/40 Lewis or 70/30 Lewis, what if Max had gone out of it with a similar level of damage (or no damage), he'd go on to race whilst the FIA forces Lewis to park it? This is equivalent to DQing a driver, why are we DQing a driver if the stewards have decided the incident is only worth a 10s penalty, not even a drive through, nevermind a whole DQ? Why should the FIA interfere on what state the cars are, midway through a race? Forget red flags, if there's a crash and the "wrong guy" at fault gets away without damage, we should stop the race to give him the same damage of the car he crashed with?

If someone's at fault for an incident he's already given a penalty for it. Want to add a mandatory DNF on top of the penalty?

Also, I thought we strived to keep cars in the race as much as possible? To add to the show and give spectators something to watch? Want to punish people with DNFs when there's no need now?

You guys are just pissed off at Lewis at a very specific occasion, super particular set of circumstances. And now want to tear the rule book apart to retrospectively punish him, without thinking of anything else, all the other billion possibilities of things that can happen in a race. Definition of kneejerk changes.

the last part of you post is just your assumption. Please don't state certainties about what you THINK I say and why I say it. That's just science fiction and your imagination, not a fact.

I am not asking for a DNF - but for a way to keep things fair. Causing a red flag that gives you the chance to fix the car should not be penalty free. Starting at the back of the grid looks like a good option. If you get a puncture, wing or whatever on lap 1 - basically you're last. That can be implemented

[noikeee]

I just disagree that we should introduce fault into it, and really disagree with forbidding people from not fixing their cars. I'm not against making people start from the pit lane if you switched parts in your car.

What if there's multiple red flags in a race. You cause the first one -> you're at fault -> sent to the back of the grid. Okay fine. But then there's another red flag and you've gained a few places since. Should you be sent to the back again? But if you don't maybe you still have a chance to win the race.

Introducing different rules depending on fault, beyond the penalty for your incident, is just going down a dangerous rabbit hole of interfering with the result, and "eye for an eye" kind of justice, to try to even out all fairness in the universe or something, to engineer the "right" result in a race. I really dislike it.

Edited by noikeee, 20 July 2021 - 00:25.

[Marklar]

let the fans vote what the most just grid order is, problem solved

[MasterOfCoin]

I missed having the spare cars we had back in the day........

[ClubmanGT]

At the red flag restart?

 

No, I meant a car being released from the pits with a wheel not attached is considered an unsafe release. 

 

It's not hard to see how that could apply with knowingly sending a car out that has bits flapping that could fall off or wheels point in the wrong direction etc.

 

I just disagree that we should introduce fault into it, and really disagree with forbidding people from not fixing their cars. I'm not against making people start from the pit lane if you switched parts in your car.

What if there's multiple red flags in a race. You cause the first one -> you're at fault -> sent to the back of the grid. Okay fine. But then there's another red flag and you've gained a few places since. Should you be sent to the back again? But if you don't maybe you still have a chance to win the race.

Introducing different rules depending on fault, beyond the penalty for your incident, is just going down a dangerous rabbit hole of interfering with the result, and "eye for an eye" kind of justice, to try to even out all fairness in the universe or something, to engineer the "right" result in a race. I really dislike it.

 

Because when you have two cars that are half a second faster a lap faster than anyone else, and one of them takes the other one out of the race, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is likely to come out ahead at the end of the entire race distance that follows. 

 

While it might be a decent penalty for someone in an Alpine or even a McLaren, it's not much of a penalty for the driver that has a crushing pace advantage over everyone else except the bloke he just wiped out on lap one.

[HeadFirst]

I feel that any repairs for a driver who has been found wholly or mainly at fault for a collision that caused a DNF should result in starting the second part of the race from the pit lane. 

 

Determining fault in any accident is often a judgement call. This idea gives the stews more weight for their questionable decisions. Let's get the decision making process sorted out first, with proper definitions of terms like "alongside" and "leaving enough room", and then add a team of properly trained stewards.  

[HeadFirst]

No, I meant a car being released from the pits with a wheel not attached is considered an unsafe release. 

 

It's not hard to see how that could apply with knowingly sending a car out that has bits flapping that could fall off or wheels point in the wrong direction etc.

 

 

Because when you have two cars that are half a second faster a lap faster than anyone else, and one of them takes the other one out of the race, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is likely to come out ahead at the end of the entire race distance that follows. 

 

While it might be a decent penalty for someone in an Alpine or even a McLaren, it's not much of a penalty for the driver that has a crushing pace advantage over everyone else except the bloke he just wiped out on lap one.

 

Isn't that the same as having different rules for different teams?

[ClubmanGT]

Isn't that the same as having different rules for different teams?

 

We basically have that now, though. It's not much of a punishment if Lewis does it, but it's devastating for most other teams. 

 

Frankly i'm still struggling to see why Kimi's shunt with Seb got literally 2x the penalty that Hamilton got. 

[Muppetmad]

Be careful what you wish for: the "fault" suggestion made here would give significant power to stewards who are renowned for making bizarre decisions.

[Pimpwerx]

I'll say this every time this ridiculous topic comes up, this is just poorly-conceived, wrongheaded knee-jerkism at its worst.

 

Red flags are for dangerous situations, where you need to remove the cars from the track to recover another vehicle, or get the track back into a condition where it is suitable for driving. Given the scope and scale of such a hazard, you have a high chance other cars have been affected by an incident not of their own doing.

 

Exhibit A:

 

13 out of 22 cars were involved in this incident. Are you going to be happy with a race of 9 cars, with the rest either carrying hazardous damage, or limping around to collect the last point available? If so, you might like this "race".

 

Exhibit B:

 

This was a real barn-burner, let me tell you. The on-track action was amazing. This happened only once, but Spa 1998 also only happened once. We never want to see another USGP 2005, but with the potential for a repeat of Spa 1998 lying at every T1, you're just begging for fate to deliver you another turd like this.

 

I get it, Lewis bad...grrrr. You work yourself into a frenzy, and start lashing out at the universe. This isn't fair. That needs changing. And on and on. But you should stop to first calm your tits, and then ask yourself why such rules and provisions exist in the first place. Should you not allow repairs, some teams will most-certainly risk running the remainder of a race with a part that has marginal integrity, if it means not having to sacrifice track position. Is that what you really want?

 

Do you really want the potential for a massively-culled grid, because a Grosjean went crazy at the start, or DC failed to notice that it was raining?

 

If we go with the equally ridiculous idea that the driver at fault should not be allowed to repair damage, have you stopped to consider how that workflow goes? Who decides the driver at fault, RC or the stewards? More importantly, how long does that decision take to be made? If it's 60/40, 55/45, or even 50/50, how does that ruling work? What do the other innocent bystanders do while this critical decision is being made? Do they sit on their hands instead of fixing their cars? Is the red flag period extended to allow repairs post-decision, thus eating into the 4hr window? How much time is added? Is it a set amount, or do you let Masi cowboy that decision given that different cars will have accrued different amounts of damage? How do you feel if Max gets caught up in someone else's deal, in the final championship races, while Lewis got no damage? RB then has less time than the current rule affords, to get his car patched up so that he can continue the fight. Is that the awesome rule change then, or do you find yet another reason to get angry and make a post suggesting another inane rule change?

 

We don't need to change the bleeping red flag rules. You know what prevents the driver who is at fault from benefiting? The penalty system. *gasp* I know right? There's a system in place that already penalizes and punished on-track infractions. Building penalties into a system that exists to salvage a race is S-T-U-P-I-D. Sorry, not sorry. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. This is just plain wrong. Leave penalties for penalties, and leave these other rules alone. 

 

Sunday was an outlier. You know why? It's because the Merc and RB are outliers. Switch positions, and Max could've done the exact same thing. The gap from those 2 cars to the rest of the field is massive. Trying to change regulations to impede pace differentials that change year-to-year is just wrongheaded. You'll be constantly chasing a balance in the penalty system that satisfies the shouting minority of people who for better or worse, can't get over one driver having a massive run of success. That's all this is. Don't try to dress it up in some sportsman clothing and pretend that this same kind of attitude didn't exist when Vettel was dominating, or when Schuey was dominating. It's bitterness that leads to these blind decisions that make little to no sense once you even scratch the surface.

 

Changing the rules to hurt Lewis means you massively impact all the other cars in the midfield and lower. There, the margins are very thin, and having harsher penalties, or changing the red flag rules, can drastically impact a midfield batter. Meanwhile, all you do is cause the top cars a stubbed toe, which they will get over, because so great is their pace advantage. Essentially growing the gap between the haves and have nots by making life unreasonably more difficult for the teams with smaller budgets, slower cars, and slower drivers. Yeah...that's just ****ing brilliant. 

[Huffer]

If someone's at fault for an incident he's already given a penalty for it. Want to add a mandatory DNF on top of the penalty?

 

That's precisely what the people who are supporting the idea want. They're not interested in any sort of fairness, they want retribution for some perceived purposeful wrong doing. 

 

After all the restarts we've had from the last season, it's only now that repairing a car under red flag conditions has become an issue. This was never an issue before. And why is that? Because for them, it's the driver in question that's the problem. People are wanting to a specific driver to suffer, and what's more, they wanted that to happen at Silverstone. 

 

All I can say is that they can throw all the temper tantrums that they want. Metaphorically laying on the ground, thrashing their arms and legs like a three year old who's been told not to eat the sand on the beach; it won't change the past and I doubt the FIA are going to change the rules in the future just to suit their biases.

Edited by Huffer, 20 July 2021 - 05:23.

[ARTGP]

 

13 out of 22 cars were involved in this incident. Are you going to be happy with a race of 9 cars, with the rest either carrying hazardous damage, or limping around to collect the last point available? If so, you might like this "race".

 

All that's really been suggested is something like a pitlane start or start from the back of the grid if teams repair or significantly altering the car or tires during a red flag. That doesn't force teams to limp around with damage, or force cars to withdraw. In fact, if it's a leading car, then the race is even more exciting if they have to come from behind.

[ARTGP]

To me work under a red car should be seen as work before a start. It shouldn’t be done, and doing so should be penalized by a pitlane start.
 

 

 

This was the premise of the OP, not DSQs or forbidding the work.  They still have an opportunity to rejoin the race with a repaired car.

Edited by ARTGP, 20 July 2021 - 05:26.