58 replies to this topic

[ThrottleBlib]

Palmer in his Spain recap was surprised Russell wasn't penalized, but it's not clear cut (pun) for sure..

[Ivanhoe]

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".

So why was it even noted and looked at by the stewards? 

[Primo]

So why was it even noted and looked at by the stewards? 

Someone asked them to. Did you see the F3 and F2 races?

I assume it was discussed during the drivers meeting though. Anyways - let's imagine there was no designated rejoin path - what would be the difference?  

[Clatter]

Someone asked them to. Did you see the F3 and F2 races?

I assume it was discussed during the drivers meeting though. Anyways - let's imagine there was no designated rejoin path - what would be the difference?

Let's imagine there is a gravel trap between the circuit and the lane. He wouldn't have been able to keep his foot planted then.

[Primo]

Let's imagine there is a gravel trap between the circuit and the lane. He wouldn't have been able to keep his foot planted then.

But it wasn't. To answer my own question - the difference would've been that without that designated path the drivers would have to rejoin at their own responsibility. As it was, FIA had shown them the way "to do it right".

[PlatenGlass]

Different rules for Mercedes, I guess?

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

That Mexico cut was ridiculous. Abu Dhabi was more controversial though because of the Verstappen element and one's opinion on what happened.

[Ivanhoe]

Anyways - let's imagine there was no designated rejoin path - what would be the difference?  

Nothing, you’d still have to rejoin in a safely manner and without gaining a lasting advantage. Don’t know what’s so difficult here.

[Primo]

Don’t know what’s so difficult here.

I explained that earlier - at T1/T2 in the start "lasting" advantage is usually difficult and sometimes impossible to quantify since what would/could have happened in the alternative scnario did not. In any case - the solution FIA put in place was there to ensure A) Safe rejoin and B) not gaining an advantage. They cannot penalize a driver because they themselves failed with B. I don't know what's so difficult here.

[AncientLurker]

I voted no, but think what he did should have been a penalty. Hear me out.

 

I think what he did was very calculated and similar to Alonso in Sochi, but maybe not as obvious. Imo, he went in hot on the outside, planning to take the escape road at speed if anything looked even remotely close to him or he was getting blocked out. And because of the way the escape route was set, it was definitely beneficial at the start. The FIA either needed to slow the cars more through that lane or predetermine a penalty time for using it, which they did not.

 

This is the second time in two races I think Russel got off light, but got exactly what the penalty (or non penalty in this case) was by the rules. I didn't like this move or the Monaco move, and think they deserved worse, but they were both to the letter of the rules. The FIA needs to fix this in their rules and enforcement, the drivers are going to push the limits where they can, even if it is unsavoury.

Edited by AncientLurker, 09 June 2023 - 16:11.