117 replies to this topic

[rocque]

17 times off the track

At Alpine you could tell during the race that something was wrong with turn 6. An employee followed the race from the perspective of Pierre Gasly's cockpit camera and observed that Sergio Perez, who was driving in front of Gasly, regularly shortened the curve and was clearly visible beyond the white line. 21 times in total.

 

Not just Perez. Other drivers also optimized their ideal line several times because there was never a warning from the race management. So they thought they were on the safe side. Including Albon. Word of the case quickly spread in the paddock. In the following team manager meeting before the Mexican GP, the FIA representatives were asked why the violations went unpunished.

 

They received the answer from race director Niels Wittich that the quality of the track camera in Turn 6 was not sufficient to clearly convict drivers of exceeding the limits. Sports director Steve Nielsen admitted that the inspectors did not have the relevant recordings from all on-board cameras at the time.

 

Right to review based on new evidence

Haas team manager Peter Crolla was not satisfied with the explanation. The US racing team obtained all the videos from the on-board cameras of all drivers and studied those of Albon himself and the respective pilots behind the Thai. A total of 17 violations were counted in Turn 6, which can be clearly proven by the photos of the following cars.

 

Haas is now taking this as an opportunity to reopen the case. The team requested its right to review in a letter on November 3rd. This will only be permitted if there is new evidence. Since the FIA said it did not have access to the on-board cameras during the race, but these are now freely accessible, new evidence has emerged, according to Haas. The FIA lawyers want to examine the case for approval in the next few days. There is no time limit.

https://www.auto-mot...mit-verstoesse/

Edited by rocque, 04 November 2023 - 18:04.

[SophieB]

I wonder what the new evidence will be. The race director’s own admissions, maybe?

[Muppetmad]

The right of review was granted post-Brazil 2021 based on the onboard footage that had not been available at the time the decision was made on the Hamilton/Verstappen incident, so I have to imagine the right of review will be granted here. Whether that review leads to a penalty or not is another matter.

Edited by Muppetmad, 04 November 2023 - 17:46.

[Clatter]

I wonder what the new evidence will be. The race director’s own admissions, maybe?

Surely the evidence from the in-car cameras that the FIA said wasnt available is the new evidence. It's unbelievable that they can claim the corner camera was of insufficient quality.

[jcbc3]

If they couldn't take Vettels lap in Monza they won't be able to here either.

[Myrvold]

Whether that review leads to a penalty or not is another matter.

 

If not, it's OK to cut corners. They have to penalize it.

[Mark521]

I think the result of this action is fairly straightforward, black and orange flags for both Haas car during the Vegas GP. 

[Ali623]

@LukeSmithF1

 

The FIA has confirmed Haas's summons over its right of review for the US GP result. The team wants to protest missed track limits breaches.

 

The hearing will take place virtually on Wednesday at 2pm GMT. [Williams] Aston Martin and Red Bull also summoned.

 

All centres around missed breaches at Turn 6 - something Alex Albon was investigated for, but the stewards took no action as "the evidence at hand is not sufficient to accurately and consistently conclude that any breaches occurred."

 

It's up to Haas to present a "significant and relevant new element" to the stewards that wasn't available at the time for the right of review to be deemed admissible. If it is, the case would be reopened with a second hearing.

[1player]

@LukeSmithF1

The FIA has confirmed Haas's summons over its right of review for the US GP result. The team wants to protest missed track limits breaches.

The hearing will take place virtually on Wednesday at 2pm GMT. [Williams] Aston Martin and Red Bull also summoned.

All centres around missed breaches at Turn 6 - something Alex Albon was investigated for, but the stewards took no action as "the evidence at hand is not sufficient to accurately and consistently conclude that any breaches occurred."

It's up to Haas to present a "significant and relevant new element" to the stewards that wasn't available at the time for the right of review to be deemed admissible. If it is, the case would be reopened with a second hearing.

. So that's Albon, Perez and Stroll?

[search]

. So that's Albon, Perez and Stroll?

and Sargeant. Haas demands the following penalties to be added to the result, according to the AMuS article:

 

- Perez 18x 5s

- Stroll 16x 5s

- Albon 15x 5s

- Sargeant 3x 5s

[mmmcurry]

The problem is  that if they weren't monitoring that corner as they should have been, then no warnings were issued, so no chance to avoid multiple crossings. Still if they were over something needs to be done.

[KWSN - DSM]

Even if found to be right, I have a hard time thinking the results will be adjusted accordingly.

[Mark521]

While the stewards have accepted in-car camera evidence (yellow flags visible) in the past, the chances of the FIA admitting this "fault" and changing the outcomes is less likely than Haas getting their car to work this season. They will toss this as a "no new evidence, thus no new review".

[pdac]

Even if found to be right, I have a hard time thinking the results will be adjusted accordingly.

 

It would provide grounds for more serious action against the FIA, though (although I doubt any such thing would happen). As there is money involved, in theory the FIA could be tide up in court cases for years.

[KWSN - DSM]

We have the Massa mess, which would have a somewhat useable argument in their Quixotic quest.

[AustinF1]

So re: the track camera, that's a camera provided by the track, not the FIA, correct? If so, a COTA track camera not being up to snuff is utterly typical of the way COTA is run. 

[Primo]

I don't think a penalty can come without a prior warning. It is common knowledge that it is very hard to see exactly where your front tires are nowadays and therefore the drivers in question can claim they did not know but since they got no warnings, their lines were good.

[MissingApex]

The problem is that if they weren't monitoring that corner as they should have been, then no warnings were issued, so no chance to avoid multiple crossings. Still if they were over something needs to be done.

Same case as Bahrain 2021, where the rules were changed mid race. They won’t hand out any penalties for this race either.

[Clatter]

I don't think a penalty can come without a prior warning. It is common knowledge that it is very hard to see exactly where your front tires are nowadays and therefore the drivers in question can claim they did not know but since they got no warnings, their lines were good.

Rules also say they have to drive unaided. Think the FIA could nix that argument if they wanted.

[Primo]

Rules also say they have to drive unaided. Think the FIA could nix that argument if they wanted.

Nah, a warning is not an aid and while the absence of a warning does not mean that everything is okay, it is also not a reminder to check the oil.

[milestone 11]

Even if found to be right, I have a hard time thinking the results will be adjusted accordingly.

Exactly, and rightly so. The teams involved will just argue that had they received a warning, then the driver would have taken heed. No contest.

[Sash1]

I don't think a penalty can come without a prior warning. It is common knowledge that it is very hard to see exactly where your front tires are nowadays and therefore the drivers in question can claim they did not know but since they got no warnings, their lines were good.

 

They usually know exactly where their front tires are when they are in Monaco.
 

[Primo]

They usually know exactly where their front tires are when they are in Monaco.
 

In relation to the wall, yes

[MikeTekRacing]

They usually know exactly where their front tires are when they are in Monaco.
 

a wall is a lot easier to spot. You've probably parked near a wall and near a ground white line, you tell me which is easier to properly guess

 

I think rules should be followed, my point is that the comparison with the wall is a flawed. White lines are hard to spot, especially in some corners where you commit to the throttle before you properly see the exit (turn 4-5 in Qatar and last turn in Austria are such corners. There are others)

[pdac]

a wall is a lot easier to spot. You've probably parked near a wall and near a ground white line, you tell me which is easier to properly guess

 

I think rules should be followed, my point is that the comparison with the wall is a flawed. White lines are hard to spot, especially in some corners where you commit to the throttle before you properly see the exit (turn 4-5 in Qatar and last turn in Austria are such corners. There are others)

 

Harder to spot, maybe. But I doubt any of them don't know where the white line is after they've done a few laps of testing. They go over the line because they choose to err beyond the side of caution (knowing that going over won't do as much damage as a wall)

Edited by pdac, 06 November 2023 - 18:05.

[pjv1990]

I can't see anything coming from this personally. To me it wreaks of desperation. They are trying to demote rivals, get more points and artificially alter the constructers standings to have a chance of getting prize money. Surely the FIA had enough visual documentation to investigate this issue at the time? No penalties were issued despite the issue being investigated. No warnings were issued at the time so the offending teams could just say "if we had a warning from the stewards then we would've told our drivers to adjust their line through the corner".

 

I think altering the results now would leave a sour taste in the mouth of many. Haas have produced a terrible car that is rightfully last in the constructers standings and they are throwing toys out of their pram in a desperate attempt to have a chance of collecting prize money. 

Edited by pjv1990, 06 November 2023 - 20:16.

[Carsey]

Problem is...how far do you go with these??

How long is it going to be before someone says they missed out on a Q2 or Q3 appearance because of a missed track limits?

Im sure page 63/86 of the international sporting code says its only after 30mins of the classification. https://www.fia.com/...on/category/123   How are they to accept a possible change to the result 2 weeks down the line when the code and right of review is limited to 30mins after the initial classification?

[Ali623]

Exactly, and rightly so. The teams involved will just argue that had they received a warning, then the driver would have taken heed. No contest.

Ocon/Alpine received no warnings in Austria and still got penalties after the race.

[KWSN - DSM]

I think Haas are fully aware they will lose this one, I think they have decided to expose the inept race control management, stewarding which we here all (or at least vast majority) agree are severely lagging. Eventually one would hope the reek of favoritism will become less, albeit we should not think it will ever disappear.

[MaxScelerate]

Were the penalties in Austria only based on the onboards from protesting team(s) or they were all "verified" with official FIA or Circuit footage?

 

I mean, Haas always being at the back, they're in no great danger of getting outed if they go wide...    

Edited by MaxScelerate, 06 November 2023 - 23:34.

[southernstars]

and Sargeant. Haas demands the following penalties to be added to the result, according to the AMuS article:

 

- Perez 18x 5s

- Stroll 16x 5s

- Albon 15x 5s

- Sargeant 3x 5s

 

Haas are absolutely walking in delulu land if they think the FIA will retrospectively apply eighteen 5sec penalties.

 

And do they realise how much they will look like ridiculous douchecanoes if they try to take away Sargeant's point? Like geez, Steiner, we know you don't like young drivers, wasn't bullying the one you had in your own team enough?

 

I would be fasacinated to see Hulkenberg's onboards and see how many times he cut T6.

[JvsKVB77]

The problem is  that if they weren't monitoring that corner as they should have been, then no warnings were issued, so no chance to avoid multiple crossings. Still if they were over something needs to be done.

I don't see in rules that if you don't have a warning - you can cut corners. That is not an excusion. 

[Broekschaap]

Problem is...how far do you go with these??

How long is it going to be before someone says they missed out on a Q2 or Q3 appearance because of a missed track limits?

Im sure page 63/86 of the international sporting code says its only after 30mins of the classification. https://www.fia.com/...on/category/123   How are they to accept a possible change to the result 2 weeks down the line when the code and right of review is limited to 30mins after the initial classification?

You are pointing to the wrong page and wrong procedure (it is not a protest). You need to look at page 68 (14.4.1) for the right of review. That gives you the 14 calendar days.

[search]

Haas are absolutely walking in delulu land if they think the FIA will retrospectively apply eighteen 5sec penalties.

 

And do they realise how much they will look like ridiculous douchecanoes if they try to take away Sargeant's point? Like geez, Steiner, we know you don't like young drivers, wasn't bullying the one you had in your own team enough?

Sargeant would actually move up to 9th due to all those penalties for Albon and Perez, but yeah, I guess this all looks very unlikely to happen.

[Sash1]

a wall is a lot easier to spot. You've probably parked near a wall and near a ground white line, you tell me which is easier to properly guess

 

I think rules should be followed, my point is that the comparison with the wall is a flawed. White lines are hard to spot, especially in some corners where you commit to the throttle before you properly see the exit (turn 4-5 in Qatar and last turn in Austria are such corners. There are others)

 

I can park my car perfectly where I need to.
The fire engine with crane which I also ocassionaly drive, can't see the wheels either, but driving it fast for emergencies on small roads and parking it precisely in tight positions for the crane operation is no problem. If I get that wrong we tip over. On track with motorcyles, karts and cars (jncl GT spec) I had no problems keeping it clean. Cutting corners repeatedly is something you do because it is faster. My position in all of this is that the edge of the track is the end, when you get over the edge/line/whatever, it should be slower or result in damage. Not a line which is video controlled. 

[milestone 11]

Ocon/Alpine received no warnings in Austria and still got penalties after the race.

Very different circumstances though. It was made clear in race that approx 1200 violations would be examined post race. Ocon was one of five.

[mmmcurry]

I don't see in rules that if you don't have a warning - you can cut corners. That is not an excusion. 

 

I thought they had something like 2 warnings about track limits, then on the third they got the extra time.

[ANF]

I thought they had something like 2 warnings about track limits, then on the third they got the extra time.

The third offence leads to a black-and-white flag. Every offence after that leads to a 5-second penalty.
Under normal circumstances.

Edited by ANF, 07 November 2023 - 16:51.

[ANF]

and Sargeant. Haas demands the following penalties to be added to the result, according to the AMuS article:
 
- Perez 18x 5s
- Stroll 16x 5s
- Albon 15x 5s
- Sargeant 3x 5s

[pdac]

and Sargeant. Haas demands the following penalties to be added to the result, according to the AMuS article:

 

- Perez 18x 5s

- Stroll 16x 5s

- Albon 15x 5s

- Sargeant 3x 5s

 

 

Oh, I'd just love it if they were to win and those penalties were applied. Can you imagine what all the drivers would be thinking ahead of the next race.

[JvsKVB77]

I thought they had something like 2 warnings about track limits, then on the third they got the extra time.

The third offence leads to a black-and-white flag. Every offence after that leads to a 5-second penalty.Under normal circumstances.

I don't see any rules, that stewards must give all this warnings before proper penalty. In theory you can have 4 track limit breaks at one lap. It is full responsibility of driver, not going off track no matter have he warnings or not.

[BleuMurmure]

I don't see any rules, that stewards must give all this warnings before proper penalty. In theory you can have 4 track limit breaks at one lap. It is full responsibility of driver, not going off track no matter have he warnings or not.

Exactly.

At best these drivers lack the necessary driving skills. At worst they are corrupt and unsporting by gaining an illegal advantage.

Their own teams should be the ones warning them to keep it on track.

[search]

At best these drivers lack the necessary driving skills. At worst they are corrupt and unsporting by gaining an illegal advantage.

no idea if I'd really consider it "unsporting", but I would guess it's fairly obvious that at least those 15+ violation guys at some point figured out that there aren't any penalties in that corner, and then just went for it every lap, isn't it?!

 

But yeah, the pre-event notes regarding track limits clearly said "the white lines define the track edges", not limiting it to any corners. So I can't see why it would have needed any more warnings.

[pdac]

Exactly.

At best these drivers lack the necessary driving skills. At worst they are corrupt and unsporting by gaining an illegal advantage.

Their own teams should be the ones warning them to keep it on track.

 

I think it's just like so many things. All of the drivers are fully capable of avoiding exceeding the limits, it's just that each one of them thinks that if they adhere to them, they will be the one missing out, because all of the others will not be. The FIA think there needs to be some measurable advantage for it to be worthy of penalising. But the pure fact that all of the drivers do it shows that it's not accidental and, therefore, there must be an advantage for them.

Edited by pdac, 08 November 2023 - 17:23.

[ARTGP]

What's taking so long? 

[milestone 11]

What's taking so long?

Adjourned until tomorrow at 15:00 to allow Stewards time to study evidence.

[Mark521]

What's taking so long? 

This is the "careful consideration" period, even though the rejection was written yesterday .

[milestone 11]

This is a copy and paste of the text. I can't post pictures, i.e. PDF on this machine

 

The Hearing addressing the petition for review submitted by MoneyGram Haas F1 Team concerning
documents 59 and 66 issued during the United States Grand Prix has been adjourned in order for
the Stewards to independently consider the submissions made. It will be reconvened on Thursday
November 9, 2023 at 15:00 hrs CET involving all parties that attended the first part of the hearing.
Once the hearing has been reconvened, the Decision on whether a significant and relevant new
element was discovered that was unavailable to the party seeking the review at the time of the
decision(s) petitioned to be reviewed will be announced. The continuation of the Hearing concerning
the merits of the case is dependent on the outcome of this deliberation.

 

[New Britain]

I think it's just like so many things. All of the drivers are fully capable of avoiding exceeding the limits, it's just that each one of them thinks that if they adhere to them, they will be the one missing out, because all of the others will not be. The FIA think there needs to be some measurable advantage for it to be worthy of penalising. But the pure fact that all of the drivers do it shows that it's not accidental and, therefore, there must be an advantage for them.

How do you come up with that? Except in the case of a severe breach, the driver simply cannot see whether his car has fully crossed the white line. The teams can see what is on the public feed, but they have no special access to the full-course video that even the FIA admit was not being fully monitored by them and was of poor fidelity.

How is a driver meant to know that he has gone an inch over the line - unless the FIA with their exclusive camera surveillance tell him so?

[southernstars]

How do you come up with that? Except in the case of a severe breach, the driver simply cannot see whether his car has fully crossed the white line. The teams can see what is on the public feed, but they have no special access to the full-course video that even the FIA admit was not being fully monitored by them and was of poor fidelity.

How is a driver meant to know that he has gone an inch over the line - unless the FIA with their exclusive camera surveillance tell him so?

 

It's like that one corner in Mexico with the stupid bollard. The bollard is the only thing the driver can see from the cockpit, and makes a natural reference point. Except they placed the bollard in such a spot that to clip it, you go outside track limits.