81 replies to this topic

[PayasYouRace]

Yeah it wasn’t so much a fault with the timing system, but rather that Russell’s car was causing spurious results throughout the lap, so they disabled it everywhere except at the line with the optical system, AFAIK.

[renzmann]

Thought this had to be a clear penalty, and a severe one as well, but the argumentation not to sanction Russell is convincing

[Myrvold]

Thought this had to be a clear penalty, and a severe one as well, but the argumentation not to sanction Russell is convincing

 

Except for this bit:

 

 

Accordingly whilst technically a breach occurred the Stewards decide that as there was no sporting advantage gained, no penalty is imposed.

 

As that opens up an argument that would be better left in a drawer.

[AlexPrime]

Happy for George 

[Baddoer]

Except for this bit:

 

 

As that opens up an argument that would be better left in a drawer.

Yeah, like Hulkenburg DQ. Or even Ferrari DQ in China

[7MGTEsup]

Except for this bit:

 

 

As that opens up an argument that would be better left in a drawer.

 

According to the report he lost more time than he gained so I'm not sure how any advantage was gained from the situation. 

[Wuzak]

Yeah, like Hulkenburg DQ. Or even Ferrari DQ in China

 

Those were technical infringements.

 

George's was a sporting infringement.

[pup]

According to the report he lost more time than he gained so I'm not sure how any advantage was gained from the situation. 

 

What they didn't consider, imo, was that his problem was also slowing whomever was behind, since without his transponder data, their use of DRS was also hindered.  Lando was very close in the end, and would an extra tenth or two have made a difference?

[RedRabbit]

Yeah, like Hulkenburg DQ. Or even Ferrari DQ in China

It's not a technical breach, but technically a breach of Sporting Regulations. That's the difference

[Spillage]

I think the decision not to penalise is correct if there was no advantage gains by using it isn't the transponder a piece of F1 equipment anyway?

[MikeTekRacing]

I only heard Russel's interview, he said the DRS opened when trying to radio his team and he quickly closed it plus backed off to give the time back (he said even more than that).

This is a sporting thing, not a technical breach, it should be the same as cutting a corner and giving back the advantage - which he did.

The transponder not working was annoying for everyone, I applaud the transmission team inventing that classification on the right. It was a clear workaround. 

[NCB619]

What they didn't consider, imo, was that his problem was also slowing whomever was behind, since without his transponder data, their use of DRS was also hindered.  Lando was very close in the end, and would an extra tenth or two have made a difference?

Well.. he was summoned for using DRS when not allowed, not for not having DRS enabled for use.

[7MGTEsup]

What they didn't consider, imo, was that his problem was also slowing whomever was behind, since without his transponder data, their use of DRS was also hindered.  Lando was very close in the end, and would an extra tenth or two have made a difference?

 

Doesn't that mean that Lando could have used DRS when he wasn't allowed? What if the gap on a few laps was 1.01 seconds as they were eyeballing it?

[pup]

Doesn't that mean that Lando could have used DRS when he wasn't allowed? What if the gap on a few laps was 1.01 seconds as they were eyeballing it?

Yes thats true, which was why he got a radio message to be conservative in its use, to avoid a potential penalty. I think it’s fair to assume that he wasn’t able to use it to its full potential.

No idea of course if it was enough to make a difference, hence that question. But it seems like the stewards had blinders on to only consider how the problem affected Mercedes and not their competitors.

Minimum, it seems like some fine was in order for the team, separate to their investigation of Russel of course.

Edited by pup, Yesterday, 12:13.

[PayasYouRace]

Yes thats true, which was why he got a radio message to be conservative in its use, to avoid a potential penalty. I think it’s fair to assume that he wasn’t able to use it to its full potential.

No idea of course if it was enough to make a difference, hence that question. But it seems like the stewards had blinders on to only consider how the problem affected Mercedes and not their competitors.

Minimum, it seems like some fine was in order for the team, separate to their investigation of Russel of course.

It would be pretty outrageous to penalise someone because their car failure hindered another competitor. I don’t think that’s blinders on the stewards. It would set an ugly precedent for fines for all sorts of car failures. Slip on someone’s dropped oil? Puncture on someone’s dropped debris?

[genius83]

And the problem was not only affecting Russell or Norris but Leclerc was also  affected as was indicated in this news piece. so it is quite clear that not penalising Russell was correct.

[MikeTekRacing]

And the problem was not only affecting Russell or Norris but Leclerc was also  affected as was indicated in this news piece. so it is quite clear that not penalising Russell was correct.

why was leclerc not investigated also?

no penalty clearly the best decision, but why was Russel singled out?

[PayasYouRace]

And the problem was not only affecting Russell or Norris but Leclerc was also  affected as was indicated in this news piece. so it is quite clear that not penalising Russell was correct.

Again, why would you penalise someone for a car failure?

[MikeTekRacing]

Again, why would you penalise someone for a car failure?

you would get a penalty for speeding in the pitlane if your speed limiter fails, or for jump start if your car's clutch is bad and creeps forward.

 

It is a very good decision not to penalize him, but there were grounds for a penalty...

[PayasYouRace]

you would get a penalty for speeding in the pitlane if your speed limiter fails, or for jump start if your car's clutch is bad and creeps forward.

 

It is a very good decision not to penalize him, but there were grounds for a penalty...

But those would be sporting infringements, even if caused by a technical problem.

 

George rightly undid the advantage that opening the DRS when he shouldn’t have had, and rightly avoided a penalty. But having a car failure doesn’t warrant a penalty, and there would be no grounds for it.

[MikeTekRacing]

But those would be sporting infringements, even if caused by a technical problem.

 

George rightly undid the advantage that opening the DRS when he shouldn’t have had, and rightly avoided a penalty. But having a car failure doesn’t warrant a penalty, and there would be no grounds for it.

George briefly opened DRS and closed it...thus indeed giving back the advantage. But does slowing down after a jump start avoid the penalty? or slowing down after speeding in the pitlane?

I agree a technical issue should not generate a penalty, but a sporting breach CAN, even if you give the advantage back.

I am happy it did not, but I am sure they could have argued differently. 

[PayasYouRace]

George briefly opened DRS and closed it...thus indeed giving back the advantage. But does slowing down after a jump start avoid the penalty? or slowing down after speeding in the pitlane?

I agree a technical issue should not generate a penalty, but a sporting breach CAN, even if you give the advantage back.

I am happy it did not, but I am sure they could have argued differently. 

But he didn’t make any sporting infringements that affected other drivers. It was only a technical failure, and one that affected FIA equipment on the car, that had any sort of effect on the other cars. No grounds for considering a penalty there, at all.

[pup]

And the problem was not only affecting Russell or Norris but Leclerc was also  affected as was indicated in this news piece. so it is quite clear that not penalising Russell was correct.

 

The problem was solely Russell's, but it was affecting whomever was behind him - first Leclerc, then Norris.  The FIA was giving whomever was behind Russell full manual control over their DRS since it wouldn't have worked otherwise, because Russell wasn't showing up on the timing.  Ferrari apparently didn't bother to tell Leclerc about it until he discovered it on his own.  He's lucky he didn't spin off.

[NCB619]

you would get a penalty for speeding in the pitlane if your speed limiter fails, or for jump start if your car's clutch is bad and creeps forward.

 

It is a very good decision not to penalize him, but there were grounds for a penalty...

I would say the difference is there is a variable measurable metric to the 'sporting advantage' gained by having DRS open when it fails (gap to/from competitors), rather than something that's black/white of "jump start", or "speed in pitlane". Both of them, arguably, once the bell has been rung, you can't unring it

[7MGTEsup]

George briefly opened DRS and closed it...thus indeed giving back the advantage. But does slowing down after a jump start avoid the penalty? or slowing down after speeding in the pitlane?

I agree a technical issue should not generate a penalty, but a sporting breach CAN, even if you give the advantage back.

I am happy it did not, but I am sure they could have argued differently. 

 

I would be interested to see what would happen if you jumped the start but then bogged really badly and dropped 10 places. Would they still punish you even though you didn't gain anything?

[PayasYouRace]

I would be interested to see what would happen if you jumped the start but then bogged really badly and dropped 10 places. Would they still punish you even though you didn't gain anything?

Didn’t we have this discussion after Jeddah last year? Norris jumped the start but stopped and started again, losing out. Didn’t he still get a penalty?

[7MGTEsup]

Didn’t we have this discussion after Jeddah last year? Norris jumped the start but stopped and started again, losing out. Didn’t he still get a penalty?

 

I can't remember what I did last week let alone remember how everyone’s start was at a grand prix a year ago. But I can recall races from 30 years ago, not sure what that says about modern races. It's probably more down to there being nothing on TV back then so I recorded races and watched them back multiple times and also, I was a teenager so memories from that time in life are seared into my brain.

[BillBald]

I would be interested to see what would happen if you jumped the start but then bogged really badly and dropped 10 places. Would they still punish you even though you didn't gain anything?

 

I can't remember what year it was, but Martin Brundle at Monaco moved forward, hit the brakes, was last away from the grid, and still got the usual penalty.

[IrvTheSwerve]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don’t like the thought of ‘undoing’ any advantage you unfairly gained. If you broke a rule, you should be penalised…regardless of what happens after.

[7MGTEsup]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don’t like the thought of ‘undoing’ any advantage you unfairly gained. If you broke a rule, you should be penalised…regardless of what happens after.

 

Does that mean you would be happy for anyone who completes an overtake off track or runs wide (skips a chicane) to get a 10 second penalty even if they let the other driver back through or back off to negate any advantage?

[IrvTheSwerve]

Does that mean you would be happy for anyone who completes an overtake off track or runs wide (skips a chicane) to get a 10 second penalty even if they let the other driver back through or back off to negate any advantage?

Probably inconsistent of me, but no.  ​ 

[pup]

Didn’t we have this discussion after Jeddah last year? Norris jumped the start but stopped and started again, losing out. Didn’t he still get a penalty?

I think that was the one where he didn’t move far forward enough to set off the detection sensors and so he got away with it. But certainly a lot of forumers wanted him tarred and feathered.