58 replies to this topic

[Gravelngrass]

Some seem to think it would have made a difference for his podium: https://twitter.com/...8367327233?s=20. If you make a driver give back a place when passing a car off track, how about 5 or so?

Edited by Gravelngrass, 07 June 2023 - 19:15.

[Rumblestrip]

I was very tempted to select all three... 

[Gravelngrass]

Why do you think he wasn't? Was there even an investigation?

[jcbc3]

There was an investigation and it was deemed he didn't cop a penalty. My best guess is that it was because he rejoined according to the stated instructions. However, we might see a different instruction next year.

[jcbc3]

Some seem to think it would have made a difference for his podium: https://twitter.com/...8367327233?s=20. If you make a driver give back a place when passing a car off track, how about 5 or so?

 

Only looked now. Judging by Hulkenberg he was alongside him going in and behind coming out. Why would you penalize him for that?

[Ivanhoe]

Only looked now. Judging by Hulkenberg he was alongside him going in and behind coming out. Why would you penalize him for that?

Piastri is on the inside of Hulkenberg, Russell comes out ahead of Piastri. Had he stayed on track he would definitely have been behind Piastri.

[Peugeot905evo1bis]

Clearly, he left the track and gained an advantage as he was behind Piastri and rejoined in front of him. Besides, there is no way for him to carry that speed being that large in the first corner and entering the second one completely on the inside line.
Honestly, it's too easy like this : brake very late on the outside, find there is someone on the racing line, don't back off and don't make the corner, just straight cut it and call it a day.
Put gravel there and there's no way Russell would exit the first 2 corners in the position he ended up with.

Edited by Peugeot905evo1bis, 07 June 2023 - 19:29.

[Jellyfishcake]

It looks like the stewards forgot Piastri was there, 

 

Meanwhile, the track design and offtrack layout really encourages this, we saw it in F2 and F3 too 

[TheFish]

Bizarre decision once again from the stewards.

[Ali623]

I would say it was more the re-join area that was the problem, they should have designed it so you lose more momentum when rejoining.

[uzsjgb]

Put gravel there

 

Why would you want to endanger the lives of the drivers just because Russell may have gained a position? Pretty sick line of thought.

[PayasYouRace]

I voted No because he rejoined the track according to the instructions given by race control and it was deemed that he didn't gain any positions.

 

I also voted Yes because I believe going off track should be more of a penalty and I advocate for a system of automatic penalties if a driver does not come to a complete stop in a tarmac runoff.

 

So glad you used tick boxes.

[TomNokoe]

He was also really far forward in his grid slot at Monaco, but got away with this as well.

 

Image link

Image link (Tsunoda POV)

[Jerem]

I called it after watching F2 and F3. Same as Alonso's Sochi trick really. Blame the race direction for allowing easy shortcuts there.
I can only imagine the meltdown if these shenaningans happened for P1 and/or by Lewis and/or Max...

[MikeTekRacing]

He seems to be a darling of the stewards so no surprise there.

They are at least consistent. Alonso pulled a dirtier one in Socchi and “I think” in Singapore.

It seems the stewards are ok if you carry a lot of speed in a place with no space then bail out.

The easy way to do it would be a stop box before rejoining. Stop there for x seconds (tuned to hurt) and go ahead and pull it off freely

[ARTGP]

He would have lost positions if he made plans to stay on the circuit instead of diving into an outside lane that wasn't real....

Edited by ARTGP, 07 June 2023 - 20:30.

[MaxisOne]

I'm just going to straight up vote no for the following up front selfish reasons so there is no question of bias lol

 

1 He followed the set out guidelines of rejoining regardless of whether he benefited or not (not his fault)

2 The ruleset regarding rejoining during the race start phase apparently was agnostic in respect to gaining or losing positions

3  Merc could use a bit of luck this season lol !

 

 

If it happened to a red bull or other driver at the detriment of a merc driver  ,, meh .. rules one and two applied so i would have to suck it up and move on but as luck weould have it.. heh...

Edited by MaxisOne, 07 June 2023 - 20:39.

[PlatenGlass]

It's definitely something that should be penalisable. However, if the rules specifically say you can do it then they can't really penalise him, but why wasn't everyone taking that line every lap? It worked for Russelll so it might just be the quicker line.

[NewMrMe]

He complied fully with the rules, so therefore it is the rules that are at fault. To me it is analogous to when Schumacher took his stop go penalty on the last lap and won a GP in the pit lane.

[MikeTekRacing]

He complied fully with the rules, so therefore it is the rules that are at fault. To me it is analogous to when Schumacher took his stop go penalty on the last lap and won a GP in the pit lane.

That’s a good analogy. Michael had Damon as a steward. No conflict of interest there

[Ivanhoe]

He complied fully with the rules, so therefore it is the rules that are at fault. To me it is analogous to when Schumacher took his stop go penalty on the last lap and won a GP in the pit lane.

I’m pretty sure the rules say that you can only rejoin the track if you don’t gain a lasting advantage. You have to take the escape route as per the event notes and do it safely and not gain a lasting advantage as per the rules.

[Primo]

I wrote after the F3 and F2 races that I thought half the F1 field would take the escape route since it was obvuiois you could gain positions by doing that, especially if you really committ to it. I was very surprised that it was only Russel who did it. It cannot be a penalty since he followed the rules and when it comes to T1/T2 after the start, there's no way you can hold a driver responsible for knowing exacly what positions he gain or lose. Russel did nothing wrong, FIA did when they provided a faster route  marked "safe rejoin". You cannot rejoin unsafely after using it. 

[TheFish]

Perez got a penalty in France in maybe 2018 for doing the same thing as Russell. Brundle called it harsh iirc, but it wasn’t.

[NewMrMe]

Actually this has been done before.

 

Alonso at the start of Russia 2021.

[Primo]

Perez got a penalty in France in maybe 2018 for doing the same thing as Russell. Brundle called it harsh iirc, but it wasn’t.

Cannot be compared - there was no designated rejoin area/procedure there. Just a big parking space.

[Myrvold]

That’s a good analogy. Michael had Damon as a steward. No conflict of interest there

That was a different situation though...

[Dutchrudder]

I think they will redesign that turn 1 runoff zone for next year, it’s a great idea for safety so I don’t want to slate it, but at this track that curve up the hill is really on the limit for grip, so running wide in the previous turn gave cars a slingshot to attack from a wider angle and carry more speed up the hill.

I can understand why he wasn’t penalised if he rejoined in exactly the manner asked, the problem was even more obvious in the F2 race.

[Clatter]

That’s a good analogy. Michael had Damon as a steward. No conflict of interest there

 

In the example given Damon was driving for Jordan, not acting as a steward.

[lewislorenzo]

Actually this has been done before.

Alonso at the start of Russia 2021.

Did Alonso get a penalty?

[TheFish]

Cannot be compared - there was no designated rejoin area/procedure there. Just a big parking space.

 

I've just checked and you're wrong. It was 2019 and he had to drive the long way off circuit to follow the rejoin procedure.

 

'On lap 10, Sergio Pérez was handed a 5-second time penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage on lap 1. The decision was controversial, since Pérez had correctly passed around the penalty bollard after cutting turn 4 as specified by the race director, but had still overtaken Alexander Albon and Kevin Magnussen to claim 13th place as a result.'

[Peugeot905evo1bis]

Why would you want to endanger the lives of the drivers just because Russell may have gained a position? Pretty sick line of thought.

It's a syntaxic form to express an hypothesis. I'm not asking for gravel there, I was more saying "if there had been gravel there, Russell couldn't have ended in the same place..."

 

PS : by the way, you are a bit overdramatic with this gravel thing. I don't think we ever had problem in this area of the circuit when there was gravel. 

[southernstars]

It's quite obvious that he gains an advantage over Piastri by shortcutting T1. So either the stewards forgot about Piastri's existence, or they decided "well he'd have overtaken Piastri anyway". Neither option is a good one for the stewards to be taking.

[Brian60]

I’m pretty sure the rules say that you can only rejoin the track if you don’t gain a lasting advantage. You have to take the escape route as per the event notes and do it safely and not gain a lasting advantage as per the rules.

 

And this is where the problem lies............. The stewards deemed he gained no lasting advantage as per the rule set - he came out behind Hulk and they decided from telemetry and video that he was marginally ahead of Piastri (don't ask me how they reached this conclusion! but Ant Davidson did explain it with video evidence afterwards) therefore his cutting the corner and being ahead of Piastri when he rejoined meant he gained no lasting advantage.

 

I'm sure if he had been behind Piastri he would either have given the place back or been penalised.

 

The fact he could be ahead of Piastri after the corner and short cut is outside the ruleset and because it is not written in black and white, has to be ignored. Otherwise you open up a floodgate of, he did, I did scenarios. At the end of the day, it was within the written rules end of..

Edited by Brian60, 08 June 2023 - 09:10.

[Ivanhoe]

And this is where the problem lies............. The stewards deemed he gained no lasting advantage as per the rule set - he came out behind Hulk and they decided from telemetry and video that he was marginally ahead of Piastri (don't ask me how they reached this conclusion! but Ant Davidson did explain it with video evidence afterwards) therefore his cutting the corner and being ahead of Piastri when he rejoined meant he gained no lasting advantage.

 

I'm sure if he had been behind Piastri he would either have given the place back or been penalised.

 

The fact he could be ahead of Piastri after the corner and short cut is outside the ruleset and because it is not written in black and white, has to be ignored. Otherwise you open up a floodgate of, he did, I did scenarios. At the end of the day, it was within the written rules end of..

Yeah well, even if he was slightly ahead of Piastri, you can hardly say he had already overtaken him. Given that George had a much tighter line going into T2 he would never have been ahead of Piastri had he stayed on track. So he got a lasting advantage by taking the escape route in my book.

[Brian60]

Yeah well, even if he was slightly ahead of Piastri, you can hardly say he had already overtaken him. Given that George had a much tighter line going into T2 he would never have been ahead of Piastri had he stayed on track. So he got a lasting advantage by taking the escape route in my book.

 

Oh I do agree with you, unfortunately neither you or I were stewards at this event, therefore we have to leave it to the 'professionals' to make those decisions and get them right. But the past decades have shown us they don't always reach the correct conclusion.

[AlcidioG]

He should have been penalized twice. For the collision with Lewis and for this. Somehow he seems to get lucky with the stewards quite often

[lewislorenzo]

He should have been penalized twice. For the collision with Lewis and for this. Somehow he seems to get lucky with the stewards quite often

Perks of being head of the GDPA😂

He did get a pen in Monaco actually

[Burtros]

George’s biggest crime is being fast and not being a Bottas or a Kovalinen.

It’s really that simple.

Voted yes and no. Wasn’t a penalty according to the rules as I see it but it sure as hell should have been one. Yet again the FIA rule book is a shambles.

Edited by Burtros, 08 June 2023 - 12:38.

[Primo]

I've just checked and you're wrong. It was 2019 and he had to drive the long way off circuit to follow the rejoin procedure.

 

'On lap 10, Sergio Pérez was handed a 5-second time penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage on lap 1. The decision was controversial, since Pérez had correctly passed around the penalty bollard after cutting turn 4 as specified by the race director, but had still overtaken Alexander Albon and Kevin Magnussen to claim 13th place as a result.'

Well, you said 2018. Anyways - I'm not wrong, that decision was wrong and therefore controversial. They obviously learned from it. Not enough to make sure that the rejoin path must ensure no advantage is gained, but enough to not penalize the driver for their own failure. 

Edited by Primo, 08 June 2023 - 13:19.

[TomNokoe]

He should have been penalized twice. For the collision with Lewis and for this. Somehow he seems to get lucky with the stewards quite often

Always the same with drivers who are characterised as "intelligent". They are given the benefit of the doubt that their actions aren't malicious. Rosberg and Alonso fall into this category.

Drivers who aren't characterised like this are treated in the opposite way, they are seen as aggressive, inattentive, dangerous. Tsunoda is a good example currently, and I've always felt like Lewis was never been given the benefit of the doubt with the stewards either.

"Rules are rules" until suddenly they aren't.

[JeePee]

Perks of being head of the GDPA😂

He did get a pen in Monaco actually

Only for the rejoin.

 

Not for the speeding under yellow.

[IrvTheSwerve]

Why would you want to endanger the lives of the drivers just because Russell may have gained a position? Pretty sick line of thought.

There’s absolutely no reason to not have gravel at that part of the circuit. Speed has been scrubbed off well before they turn into that apex.

 

I voted ‘no’ as Russell followed the instructions, but also because of the daft layout that encourages this kind of thing. In a way I’m glad that some drivers are taking advantage of it.

[ClubmanGT]

"Should" he have been given a penalty? Well yes, but if the rules are daft enough to allow you to be faster off-track by design, he won't get one. 

[AlcidioG]

Only for the rejoin.

 

Not for the speeding under yellow.

 

And not for the starting grid infringement which normally is a slam dunk when you're under investigation for that

[tyker]

I think that Russell not only passed Piastri illegally but also passed the Hulk illegally, Piastri was a fair way in front of Russell as he entered the corner, he was also in front of the Hulk, however he needed to slow because of cars in front of him while Russell didn't need to slow anywhere near as much because he had empty road in front of him which included the escape road.

 

When Russell re-joined the track he slowed to allow the Hulk to go past but then passed him in the next corner, I thought that was illegal.

[P123]

It's just a bad design.  Russell followed the rules as written.  Sky showed he was marginally ahead of Piastri by mere centimetres before going of, which seemed to be enough for the stewards to decide no penalty.  There is of course the potential that had he tried to stay on track, he'd have had to check up, much like Hamilton and Norris, and perhaps would then not have passed Piastri and not been in a position to attack Hulkenberg.  But it doesn't appear that the stewards considered that- too many ifs and buts.

[Ivanhoe]

It's just a bad design.  Russell followed the rules as written.  Sky showed he was marginally ahead of Piastri by mere centimetres before going of, which seemed to be enough for the stewards to decide no penalty.  There is of course the potential that had he tried to stay on track, he'd have had to check up, much like Hamilton and Norris, and perhaps would then not have passed Piastri and not been in a position to attack Hulkenberg.  But it doesn't appear that the stewards considered that- too many ifs and buts.

Why give the benefit of the doubt to guy who couldn’t keep his car on track though. He was maybe a couple of inches ahead before he went off track and a full car length ahead when he rejoined. How is that not a lasting advantage?

[P123]

Why give the benefit of the doubt to guy who couldn’t keep his car on track though. He was maybe a couple of inches ahead before he went off track and a full car length ahead when he rejoined. How is that not a lasting advantage?

 

Perhaps the stewards didn't want to highlight that their run off lane was a piss take. 

[GentlemanDriver091]

Why give the benefit of the doubt to guy who couldn’t keep his car on track though. He was maybe a couple of inches ahead before he went off track and a full car length ahead when he rejoined. How is that not a lasting advantage?

Different rules for Mercedes, I guess?

Lewis did the same in AD 2021 and Mexico some years ago and never received a penalty.

[Primo]

Perhaps the stewards didn't want to highlight that their run off lane was a piss take. 

 

I'd say that a designated rejoin path+area is the punishment. They cannot punish someone for serving a penalty. 
I really think they should equip the tracks with "long lap" area (as in MotoGP) that they can use for both the 5 seconds penalties and situations like this, when the track does not allow for a proper penalty when using the rejoin. They could say "we could not put a proper, penalizing, rejoin path on this track so if you use it, you must also do the long lap".