113 replies to this topic

[smitten]

"may" is ambiguous yes, and I see no other reason for using it at that position other than intentionally giving the stewards to option to do whatever they please. I very much doubt it is a driver briefing thing since it is very unlikely that it would be a premeditated decision the stewards make before each event. 

Correct - may is not ambiguous, it conveys a choice available to them which they can exercise at their whim.

[New Britain]

"may" is ambiguous yes, and I see no other reason for using it at that position other than intentionally giving the stewards to option to do whatever they please. I very much doubt it is a driver briefing thing since it is very unlikely that it would be a premeditated decision the stewards make before each event. 

I was not suggesting that it would be mentioned at every driver briefing, but it could have been established as a policy years ago and followed ever since. As noted above, the 'no assistance' policy was clarified/established/reinforced in reaction to Nürburgring in '07 when Hamilton was craned out of the gravel.

 

The initial 2007 Sporting Regs did not have the 'outside assistance' clause, which was added to the 2008 regs. The wording of the 2008 clause has not been changed since then.

This is a pretty good article from 2007 by Keith Collantine about the debate at the time over Hamilton's rescue from the gravel trap: https://www.racefans...-restart-legal/

 

As also noted above, in his interview after the race Wolff was firm: Russell got assistance, therefore he had to retire from the race - end of. Normally the teams know the rule book back-to-front and whenever there is the tiniest room for an alternative interpretation in their favour they will argue it. During Sunday's red flag, the Merc team had plenty of time in which to figure out whether they should back Russell's objection to having been retired from the race. It is possible that Wolff and the other Merc management were unaware that the regs say 'may', implying discretion, but it seems more likely that they had a reason to be certain that there was no case for the stewards to answer, although that reason does not appear to exist in a literal reading of the Sporting Regs.

[Sam1]

With the current PU rules the spare would have to be set up for one particular driver with a PU and gearbox from his pool, or ready to be used by either drive with a PU and gearbox not in either drivers' pool, or be set up without PU and gearbox so that it can be built up with the correct PU for the driver, which would require a lengthy red flag period.

If the PU is a new unit, and 3 have been used in season already, what grid penalties are to be applied?

After race 2 or 3 this is not s issue they then have the spare capacity thevonly issue would be that it would need to be rotation every gp so that each driver has there engine in it at some point then we just need to see what the penalties would be for using a engine not in your pool

[george1981]

 

From your link:

 

26.4

If a car stops on the track, it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other Competitors. Under no circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

 

If any mechanical assistance received during a sprint session or the race results in the car re-joining the stewards may disqualify him from that sprint session or the race (other than under Article 26.7d)).

 

 

 

This is a rule the where the FIA need to change the wording. The use of the "may" means that the stewards can disqualify him but don't have to, so they have some discretion. If "may" was changed to "shall" it would be very clear. 

 

Personally I'd change the rules, if the race is red flagged, any cars that can't make it back under their own power would be allowed to start if the teams could repair them in time. 

 

There was a race at Monaco probably 20 years ago or so. There was an incident on the first lap which blocked the track and led to the race being red flagged, it blocked the hairpin at Loews/Fairmont. 4-5 cars were stuck behind the blockage, they had to turn their engines off to avoid overheating but were then out of the race, this was so long ago some of the drivers might have been able to use the spare car for the restart. Ever since then I've always wanted cars to be recovered to the pits and take part in the restart if they can. 

[New Britain]

This is a rule the where the FIA need to change the wording. The use of the "may" means that the stewards can disqualify him but don't have to, so they have some discretion. If "may" was changed to "shall" it would be very clear. 

 

Personally I'd change the rules, if the race is red flagged, any cars that can't make it back under their own power would be allowed to start if the teams could repair them in time. 

 

There was a race at Monaco probably 20 years ago or so. There was an incident on the first lap which blocked the track and led to the race being red flagged, it blocked the hairpin at Loews/Fairmont. 4-5 cars were stuck behind the blockage, they had to turn their engines off to avoid overheating but were then out of the race, this was so long ago some of the drivers might have been able to use the spare car for the restart. Ever since then I've always wanted cars to be recovered to the pits and take part in the restart if they can. 

 

Your example may be why the regs use 'may' rather than 'shall'.

You give a good example of a situation when drivers were forced to shut off their engines through no fault of their own (leaving aside that, under the current regs, if they had been able to restart their cars themselves they could have continued in the race). In your example, the drivers had had nothing to do with the blockage and their cars were in perfect running condition.

Russell's situation was different. He had been a party to the crash; if he had chosen to do things differently (not to bring his car to the left), there would have been no crash. His car was a mess, and the only reason that the Merc crew might have been able to get his car operable by the restart was that Zhou was trapped inside his own car, which was wedged behind the barrier and could not be extricated before Zhou himself was safely extricated. Those circumstances offered an exceptional long time in which to repair a car.

I am not saying that it wasn't a racing incident, but I think one can understand why the stewards might have used their discretion (if indeed they had any) to opine, 'George, a lot has happened here. We think it fair that you sit this one out'.

[RA2]

The title of the thread should be changed to, should George get a 10 place penalty for Austria.

[Spillage]

I thought it was amusing that he told the marshals to leave the car while he spoke to the team and was the surprised to find it back on a low loader when he returned to turn 1.

Like, they're not just going to hang around all day waiting, they've got work to do.

[Clatter]

Hamilton was craned out of a gravel trap Nurburgring 2007 iirc.

That one isn't allowed any more, and I was shocked they even did it then.

[monolulu]

That one isn't allowed any more, and I was shocked they even did it then.

Don’t think it ever occurred to them that someone would try it!  Must admit I thought it was ingenious at the time. Soon changed the rules afterwards. 

[redreni]

Big no. It's the same if they just bring back the T car. 

 

It should not be encouraged that cars involved in crashes to be repaired and returned to the grid during a red flag. 

Why not?

 

With that attitude we wouldn't have had a race at Spa in 1998.

[Primo]

Don’t think it ever occurred to them that someone would try it!  Must admit I thought it was ingenious at the time. Soon changed the rules afterwards. 

As far as I can see, nobody has found evidence of those rules' existence.

[Clatter]

Why not?

 

With that attitude we wouldn't have had a race at Spa in 1998.

 

They had spare cars back then.

[New Britain]

As far as I can see, nobody has found evidence of those rules' existence.

Come on! In direct answer to you I explained that the regulation about 'mechanical assistance' was added to the 2008 F1 Sporting Regs, and that the language added then is exactly the same language present in the current Sporting Regs. As monolulu wrote, that rule was introduced in response to the 2007 Nürburgring goings-on. There is a rule!

People including you have correctly pointed out that the rule states that the stewards 'may' disqualify the car requiring mechanical assistance, but it does not oblige the stewards to disqualify that car. That is a fair point, begging for clarification (which, for all we know, the FIA has at some point given to the teams or drivers).

Nonetheless, there is a rule. Like so many of the FIA's regulations, however, it has been written poorly.

[Primo]

 

Nonetheless, there is a rule. Like so many of the FIA's regulations, however, it has been written poorly.

It may not be written poorly, it may be so that they specifically wanted circumstances to be considered. Then they ran out of paper.
As it is written, I think Russel was right to argue his case.