The Official Formula One Thread!

[77T]

Originally Posted by INC

Please don't take this as an offensive, but you've just confused me a bit.

If you are right then that means none of the F1 teams can be F1 fans as they had no idea Verstappen won the championship at Suzuka. Worse, it means the Stuarts hate this sport. And the teams no longer want to race, but to argue.

And the worst thing is that, according to the above, you may be completely right and that this is exactly the root of the problems.

No offense taken.

My comment was to say the rules are there for anyone to read, but few fans ever read them and just react to decisions emotionally rather than factually.

All the teams have specialized motorsports attorneys who read them and consult on the rules. Yet, even though they are experts, there can be confusion when the rules are applied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by 77T

My comment was to say the rules are there for anyone to read, but few fans ever read them and just react to decisions emotionally rather than factually.

So very true, excellent point.

Maybe i missed it, was a Meatball flag ever shown?

[77T]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

So very true, excellent point.

Maybe i missed it, was a Meatball flag ever shown?

No - NW did not order that it be shown.

After the final race last year when teams pestered the RD (albeit, in some cases, fairly under 2021 procedures) they don’t have the direct access to push their agendas during on-track sessions.

I believe the RD made a good race call. If a team feels strongly about a rules compliance matter, they have the Protest process to use after the race.

Just arrived home and now will settle-in for a look at the race.

Here is the actual decision:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[enjoythemusic]

Ahhh ok. All good.

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

My comment was to say the rules are there for anyone to read, but few fans ever read them and just react to decisions emotionally rather than factually.

You're absolutely right.

But what if the facts are not facts, but opinions only? You know I prefer the strict but easy to understand rules, and I've never liked such complicated rule books that no one can really understand.

For example, in this case, It was proven that Haas would had the possibility to submit the claim immediately, as they indicated this issue twice during the race. This means Haas' appeal should have been dismissed ex officio because it was lated. What's more, they impose a punishment that makes no sense at all.

After all, if Alonso really couldn't finish the race with one mirror, then he should have been disqualified. On the other hand, if he could finish the race with a stop and go, this means that his car was not dangerous. However, in this case, he couldn't have been punished.

By the way, if the car was dangerous, then it should not go on, but should have been stopped immediately. After all, you can either stay on the track for long, or not at all. And after all if we think like that, then why are Red Bulls and Mercedeses all the time safe with the flapping front wings or flat tires and so on? Aren't these parts dangerous if they break? Only on Haas or Alpine? Oh, it's frivolous, scandalous, this is definitely not a fair play.

That's why I'm still outraged, because showing so much inconsistency within a single judgment is truly world championship performance.

But unfortunately, not in the sports sense.

But as always, of course it's my humble opinion only

[77T]

The printed rules, including all appendices, fills a 4” wide binder. Stewards are trained annually and expected to work enough events to gain experience in addition to the book learning.

They start at the lower rungs and work up to Regional, National, International and World Championship level events. Even with all of that training and experience, there is a chance that human judgement will make one side happy and the other unhappy.

Decisions don’t favor any particular team in the Stewards Room - but for people on the outside, every effort is made to publicly document the facts, the investigation, and the decisions or offenses. Of course, patterns develop and I realize fans sometimes claim favoritism but none of the constructors get preferential treatment.

ALO drove a great comeback after the collision. The penalty was proportional and less than the alternative. If shown the black & orange flag the resulting pit stop for repair (if it was even possible) would be more than 30 seconds before returning to the race.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JoeJoeBobo]

Maybe Danny Ric has locked into something more befitting his driving talents of late….an ex racer talking about racing on ESPN.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by 77T

They start at the lower rungs and work up to Regional, National, International and World Championship level events. Even with all of that training and experience, there is a chance that human judgement will make one side happy and the other unhappy.

And they tend to be level-headed, calm people who have to deal with the most passionately emotional hard-core inpatient.....

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

If shown the black & orange flag the resulting pit stop for repair (if it was even possible) would be more than 30 seconds before returning to the race.

It might seem like I'm arguing, but I'm not, I just don't understand this judgement.

In person I think that Haas filed their appeal inentionally late to not to be investigated. They simply wanted the FIA ​​to an end that only their driver is warned, and never the others. I think they were the most surprised that their appeal was investigated despite it should have been rejected.

In my opinion, you know, if Alonso was shown the black and orange flag when it looked like the mirror will fall off, then it would have been a perfect decesion. However if no one warned Alonso because no one considered this situation dangerous, then from the moment the mirror fell, the car simply could not be classified as dangerous neither after the mirror fall nor before it fell. Let me point out that, that as far as I know, Haas appealed not because Alonso's car was dangerous, but because he didn't get a black and orange flag like Magnussen.

In the same time, of course, you are right that it's possible to say that the car was dangerous and it's the team's responsibility to order the driver to the pits. However in this case, Perez should have been punished as well, since the part of the front wing coming off is no less dangerous than a mirror. In other words, in my opinion either both pilots should have kept their place, or none of them. And that's my problem.

In the same time while RBR should have known that a damaged wing worth a black and orange flag, the stewards let Perez go. But in the same time they penalise Alonso for a missing mirror which never meant a black and orange flag. And exactly this inconsistency bothers me. This system looks like the big ones get away with everything, while the little ones can be penalised for everything. And it's not a good thing, even if we all know that it's not about this.

I'd like much more to enjoy the races, and therefore I don't like that nowadays they are spending more time determining the starting grid and the outcome of the races than the racers on the track. It's a Formula 1 and not the lawyers cup. Or at least I hope so

Finally, I would like to thank you for your explanations and answers!

[Mifune]

[77T]

Originally Posted by INC

…I think that Haas filed their appeal inentionally late to not to be investigated. They simply wanted the FIA ​​to an end that only their driver is warned, and never the others. I think they were the most surprised that their appeal was investigated despite it should have been rejected.

No, it wasn’t intentional - their reasons for being late were justifiable or the Stewards would have ruled the Protest inadmissible. When you consider MAG stood to gain points if ALO was penalized, you can see the “why”. In the prize checks given to teams after season is over, those extra points can be worth millions. Well worth the Protest fee…

Originally Posted by INC

In my opinion, you know, if Alonso was shown the black and orange flag when it looked like the mirror will fall off, then it would have been a perfect decesion.

I agree if NW was a fortune teller and knew it was going to eventually fall off. But he he couldn’t know that at the time. Consider the chance that it could have remained on the car. That’s why I said earlier, let them race…
Had Haas not Protested, I don’t think ALO would have been sanctioned in parc ferme.

Originally Posted by INC

Perez should have been punished as well, since the part of the front wing coming off is no less dangerous than a mirror. In other words, in my opinion either both pilots should have kept their place, or none of them. And that's my problem.

There were subtle differences in the Haas v RBR decision. I’ve attached it below. While that Protest was also late, it was admissible. Due to the nature of the damage, and RBR’s action to share photo’s with FIA, Jo Bauer was able to determine it was safe.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

I agree if NW was a fortune teller and knew it was going to eventually fall off. But he he couldn’t know that at the time. Consider the chance that it could have remained on the car. That’s why I said earlier, let them race…

I understand your point, since you consider the decisions to be legitimate. The only difference in our view is, that I'm not. However the real strange thing is, except this, we are agree in everything

Let me see! I can agree with this: Let them race! I can agree, that whoever made this decision during the race, was absolutely right after Alonso's mirror fell off. If we read again the justification, then we can see, that all of us agreed on this. But it the same time, this means, the stewarts did everything fine during the race - and that's the weird - according to the justification too!

And now let's see the other part of the judgement:

They stated after the race, against to all former precendencies that the car was dangerous, which opinion was based on one(!) expert's opinion only. This means that the deceision was not based on facts, or the precedencies, but on a one time personal belief. However we can agree, even this doesn't mean that we can't accept an expert's opinion. It could be all right for me too. But not this way.

I think, that in no under circumstances can a new rule or a rule's explanation be set up with a backward effect. This way they "penelised Alonso for a rule breaking" without a strict rule, as the old rule's new explanation was established only after the race. For me, that's what completly against to legal logic, like the old fashioned roman law's basics: "Nullum crimen sine lege", or the human rights law basics: "No one shall be held guilty of any [...] offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a [...] offence under [...] law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the [...] offence was committed."

So to set up a new rule: OK! To state that a one mirrored car is dangerous, and therefore in this case that car has to get a black-orange flag without exception for the future: Yes. But to change previous results by not obeying this rule? Never. This is my opinion, and therefore I think, this judgement was not legitimate with a backward effect

[SDGT3]

The FIA is justifiably getting roasted by different sources, racers, former racers, principals etc not only on this latest last race but on all things since the passing of Charlie. Way before Abu Dhabi, Masi had made inconsistent decisions.

Now Masi is gone and it seems there are even more inconsistent calls and head scratchers. For example, how does the FIA no know that Max had enough points to win the championship a couple races ago and it was brought up by someone on the Red Bull pit wall reading the rules? What a cluster ....

So the RD didn't think the wobbly mirror was dangerous during the race - for several laps. Then it comes off by itself and THEY STILL DIDN'T KNOW BY RULE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO PULL ALONSO IN? Do the rules only apply to someone if they are protested? His car is either dangerous or not. There is no grey area when it comes to safety.

I'm on the fence as to who wins the 2022 Season award for most incompetent: Ferrari strategists or FIA at f1 races.

Get rid of the FIA and have a commissioner run F1 with their own rules, race directors etc.

[77T]

I wonder…

Who is the best Race Director that such a Commissioner could hire?

What rules package would a separate, independent Commissioner use to control F1 competition?

How would teams seek redress for errors committed by officials, teams, or organizers?

Where would such proceedings occur?

When would the fines be paid and to whom?

Why would this idea yield better results since human error is the source of most grievances fans decry?

Without good answers to these questions, in advance of any change, methinks there’s no path…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

I wonder…

Me too

My personal opinion is that in a multi-billion dollar sport, it's unacceptable for these questions to arise at all.

[enjoythemusic]

Great post Paul and agree.

For me, F1 nowadays is fun to watch as sports entertainment. Gentlemen racing seems more promising and fun overall tho. Karting and F4 in Europe is quite good imho. The dedicated stuff with all Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche is ok, but am an open-wheel guy at heart... except for top LeMans stuff.

[INC]

Alonso got back his well deserved points

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...0oYCDgbGW.html

[77T]

That is the power of having a layered judicial process. The Right of Review, and a subsequent hearing concluded that Haas’s original protest was deemed inadmissible.

It was determined that the Haas team could have submitted it within the required time limits. Therefore the original decision was vacated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SDGT3]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This effectively describes the FIA.

- FIA writes in their own release that HAAS didn't file their protest within the required time frame, but said there were circumstances that allowed that not to happen but never explain what the circumstance were.... .There's no radio, mobile phones, smoke signals available to get in touch with them?

- FIA black & orange flags HAAS drivers for loose end plates earlier in the year, but failed to do the same with Perez and Alonso. Inconsistent officiating has been a theme since the passing of Whiting.

- FIA doesn't know one of their drivers won the championship because they don't know their own written rules.

- FIA has years to come up with rules on a budget cap with loopholes you could drive a truck through, but then doesn't know how to police it and penalties are vague.

- FIA literally negotiates the penalty with a team who breached spending cap.

- FIA turns down the Ferrari P/U so they effectively run an entire year with less HP for a breach but fail to disclose they actually punished Ferrari and if they punished them (which everyone knew they did) they won't admit it to any one including their competitors.

These are just off the top of my head. It's like a banana republic running a multi-billion dollar global enterprise.

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

That is the power of having a layered judicial process.

Now I'm arguing with you a little, but only a little bit

Everything that was decided on the counter-appeal was exactly what should have been said in the first time. This means incompetent judgment even if I believe that the truth has prevailed. I don't think this should happen in a supersport, as it turns the entire judging system into a stand-up comedy.

Another news:

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...HSIDGMXmg.html

FIA stated about RBR, that:

- there is no accusation or evidence that RBR (Red Bull Racing) has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in fraudulent manner

- In the summary, it was revealed Red Bull exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap of £118,036,000 by less than 5% (£1,864.000 or 1.6%), which is a minor breach. The FIA said they acknowledge that had Red Bull applied “the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of their Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,438” and therefore they would have exceeded the cap by $432,652 or 0.37%."

According to this breach RBR will receive:

- a minor sporting penalty in the form of 10% reduction in their allocated Restricted Wind Tunnel Testing and Restricted Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) limits. Based on Red Bull’s championship position, the coefficient used to calculate their allocation will drop from 70% to 63%.

- Regarding sanctions, Red Bull must pay $7million to the FIA within 30 days of the date of execution of the ABA.

I think, that in one hand both this sanction is acceptable and proportional with RBR's spending cup breach, and in the other hand this decision is absolutely fine.

[77T]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Definitely agree.

I expect a single RD next year. Clarification on safe/unsafe so all agree on what will happen re: black/orange during different sessions.

I know you want FIA officials sacked and a new structure.

I don’t see that happening unless a better team could be formed on short notice. Or unless the rules are overhauled.

As a thought-experiment and just for the fun of it - - if you were told to use 100 total words to lay down no more than 10 rules, what would you propose?...

Anyone can play - just wondering what the folks here believe are the most important rules.

I’ll start:
Rule #1 - Don’t hit a car you can see.

Penalty:
250k € cash & transfer $3mm € from guilty driver’s team cost cap to team cap of each car damaged by the offense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jatco]

Originally Posted by INC

Alonso got back his well deserved points

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...0oYCDgbGW.html

Bravo...and rightfully so...imo

[daveathall]

So if the breach is less than 5% and the team report it after the event "in good faith" they will only be given a cursory punishment. Seems like those teams with enough money to pay the fine afterwards can go over the limit. Seems pointless having a cap and unfair to those who the cap was introduced to help originally, the less rich teams.

Expect to see Mercedes, McLaren, Ferrari, RBR et al, all "slightly" over the limit, but, in good faith, admitting the fact.

[77T]

Dave, I do not believe RBR reported it.

But during the investigation they worked with the FIA in a forthright manner, admitted the accounting errors, cooperated fully, and answered all questions in the spirit of the cost cap rules.

All are learning the process - there is an entire rules appendix on this cap. It will take some more cases to learn the ropes methinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by 77T

Definitely agree.

I expect a single RD next year. Clarification on safe/unsafe so all agree on what will happen re: black/orange during different sessions.

I know you want FIA officials sacked and a new structure.

I don’t see that happening unless a better team could be formed on short notice. Or unless the rules are overhauled.

As a thought-experiment and just for the fun of it - - if you were told to use 100 total words to lay down no more than 10 rules, what would you propose?...

Anyone can play - just wondering what the folks here believe are the most important rules.

I’ll start:
Rule #1 - Don’t hit a car you can see.

Penalty:
250k € cash & transfer $3mm € from guilty driver’s team cost cap to team cap of each car damaged by the offense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's a good rule... these were the exact words from Randy Pobst at a race we raced in together a couple weekends ago.

Without getting into details, just a couple jump to mind:

1. Crash damage should not be counted against the cap. No one wants a team to not go to a race because they ran out of money due to damage.

2. Lunch, sick leave etc. should not be counted against the cost cap. The spirit of the rule is "competitive advantage". Osso Buco at the Ferrari factory compared to bangers and beans at the Red Bull factory cafeteria doesn't sound like it would give anyone an advantage.

Dave, appx. half the teams on the grid didn't even come up to the cap due to lack of funds. So if it were me writing the rules....

3. Any team in violation of the cost cap will pay 10X the amount they went over the cost cap to each team that did not go over the cost cap. This will not only hurt the team that breached the cap, but help their direct competitors. It also gives incentive to all teams to self police each other as it's in their direct interest to watch costs more closely.

Follow me for more rules and regulations throughout the rest of the season and off season as I campaign for F1 Commissioner!

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

That's a good rule... these were the exact words from Randy Pobst at a race we raced in together a couple weekends ago.

Without getting into details, just a couple jump to mind:

1. Crash damage should not be counted against the cap. No one wants a team to not go to a race because they ran out of money due to damage.

2. Lunch, sick leave etc. should not be counted against the cost cap. The spirit of the rule is "competitive advantage". Osso Buco at the Ferrari factory compared to bangers and beans at the Red Bull factory cafeteria doesn't sound like it would give anyone an advantage.

Dave, appx. half the teams on the grid didn't even come up to the cap due to lack of funds. So if it were me writing the rules....

3. Any team in violation of the cost cap will pay 10X the amount they went over the cost cap to each team that did not go over the cost cap. This will not only hurt the team that breached the cap, but help their direct competitors. It also gives incentive to all teams to self police each other as it's in their direct interest to watch costs more closely.

Follow me for more rules and regulations throughout the rest of the season and off season as I campaign for F1 Commissioner!

I like rule 3, in fact, I agree with them all.

I'm not saying that this happened, but if I was accounting for my team and noticed that I had seriously underspent, I would look at, and count in anything that could take that amount up, not in an attempt to make my team look good, but, if I had accounted for lunch and dinner feeding in my overall total and know that others were close to their limit without adding it in, then, am I not massaging the figures and rules to my advantage? Am I not attempting to get another teams total to be looked at again. I'm not saying that that happened, but, there are cleverer people with tactics than me in those teams.

What I don't agree with, is that a team can negotiate their own punishment. That punishment will now become the standard. Surely that is wrong, "we didn't go over the 5% limit so why are you punishing us more than RBR" sort of thing.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by 77T

Dave, I do not believe RBR reported it.

But during the investigation they worked with the FIA in a forthright manner, admitted the accounting errors, cooperated fully, and answered all questions in the spirit of the cost cap rules.

All are learning the process - there is an entire rules appendix on this cap. It will take some more cases to learn the ropes methinks.

I agree, if I am honest, I think it would be very difficult to standardise the development costs across the board for all teams so that a fair cap can be set.

[SDGT3]

Addendum (a) to rule #3. In addition to the 10X payment to other teams that did not go over the cost cap in any given year, any team in violation of the cost cap will result in an equal reduction of the cost cap for the following year. For example, if a team had a "minor" violation of $1.6m a reduction of an equal amount will be enforced for the following year.

[INC]

In my opinion, it's time to state that the cost cap idea became a complete failure.

#1: According to the rules, it's legal to exceed the limit with a small overspend. This means that even those who created this rule did not take it seriously.

#2: A cost up, that contains many spending but not all of them is worthless.

#3: Limiting all expenses can be a possible solution, but then it must cover everything, like the wages of pilots and all costs without exception, including those that a factory teams gets from their owners.

In that case, it would be possible to see some kind of parity between the teams.

But where would all this lead? Thus, F1 would become a sport where almost identical cars would compete with the same talented drivers, which in turn would become a completely uninteresting dodgem race. Mostly, if the teams intend to spend billions of dollars. Neither the drivers nor the advertisers nor the fans will care for this so called "race".

Supersport is about money.

If you limit the spending, you also limit the income of the teams, which is beyond ridiculous. For example, why would a team want to sell more memorabilia, street cars, or whatever, if they couldn't invest that extra money into developing their own supercars? Why should they get more advertisers or raise the price of their ad space if FIA won't let them spend that money on their cars? With this rate of inflation and rising costs, it's not even certain that the teams will be able to finance as many races as they are required to participate in the next year.

[daveathall]

I must admit, I'm in the camp of no cap at all. It is just my opinion but, it is stifling the innovation of the top teams. One of the reasons that RBR were in breech of the cap were that they spent on spare parts (that were never used). Well c'mon, that's just churlish, even more so than the "lunch" issue. Does all testing stop when a certain spare part runs out.

I know that they are trying to stop such domination that the results are a foregone conclusion, I just think that there may be a better way of achieving it. Don't ask me, I'm not clever enough.