Driving standards/ stewarding

[E.B]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

So let me get this right. A driver eliminates several cars and untold damage cost to innocent parties gets a 5 place grid drop. A driver that races to 2nd and is a few cl short of a fuel sample ( but supplied enough to allow a check) gets disqualified. ?……

Agreed totally. In fact I have recently opened a discussion elsewhere (not tenths) on that very subject of penalties and whether 'the time' fits the crime so to speak..

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

So let me get this right. A driver eliminates several cars and untold damage cost to innocent parties gets a 5 place grid drop. A driver that races to 2nd and is a few cl short of a fuel sample ( but supplied enough to allow a check) gets disqualified. ?……

I think the issue stems from illegal fuel.

The penalty seems harsh, but not being able to provide a fuel sample could mean that you were running illegal fuel during the race, so while it seems dreconian but in theory the advantage of running illegal fuel is higher than punting out a few competitors.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

I think the issue stems from illegal fuel.

The penalty seems harsh, but not being able to provide a fuel sample could mean that you were running illegal fuel during the race, so while it seems dreconian but in theory the advantage of running illegal fuel is higher than punting out a few competitors.

Understood however the amount said to have been obtained is more than enough to check specific gravity, aromatic content and other chemical checks. My God it would seem you can run with a Dodgy fuel system but if you are a member of the inner circle it gets kicked under the carpet!!

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Understood however the amount said to have been obtained is more than enough to check specific gravity, aromatic content and other chemical checks. My God it would seem you can run with a Dodgy fuel system but if you are a member of the inner circle it gets kicked under the carpet!!

Indeed. youd have thought they could have written in a bit of leeway to avoid situations like this.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Indeed. youd have thought they could have written in a bit of leeway to avoid situations like this.

Or a more proportionate sanction like Constructor points loss

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Or a more proportionate sanction like Constructor points loss

This is a good suggestion and was used in Brazil in 1995 when Elf made a serious fuel error. Williams and Benetton were DQ'd and then reinstated with constructors points removed.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

So let me get this right. A driver eliminates several cars and untold damage cost to innocent parties gets a 5 place grid drop. A driver that races to 2nd and is a few cl short of a fuel sample ( but supplied enough to allow a check) gets disqualified. ?……

Yes.

One driver is found to be in breach of sporting regulations, so a penalty in line with the regulations is applied.

One car is found to be in breach of technical regulations, so a penalty in line with the regulations is applied.

It might seem harsh - but not adhering to technical regulations has to result in exclusion surely?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Indeed. youd have thought they could have written in a bit of leeway to avoid situations like this.

I understand your point - but I feel writing in leeway is not where technical regulations should go.

If the rules say 1 litre, then 1 litre it is. Not 999ml, 900ml, 300ml, or fumes.

However - if 300ml is enough for a reliable sample analysis should be conducted, then maybe the regulations should read 300ml rather than 1l. The problem is, we then get the same argument when someone is only able to extract 250ml........

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I understand your point - but I feel writing in leeway is not where technical regulations should go.

If the rules say 1 litre, then 1 litre it is. Not 999ml, 900ml, 300ml, or fumes.

However - if 300ml is enough for a reliable sample analysis should be conducted, then maybe the regulations should read 300ml rather than 1l. The problem is, we then get the same argument when someone is only able to extract 250ml........

No argument with the principle, wrong is wrong Just bemused by the penalty although there is an argument that it is performance related because the car carries less weight- 1/2 kg . Seems to be the common F1 issue - no common sense

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

No argument with the principle, wrong is wrong Just bemused by the penalty although there is an argument that it is performance related because the car carries less weight- 1/2 kg . Seems to be the common F1 issue - no common sense

I understand - and agree that it can seem a harsh penalty. I just feel it is one of those areas where ambiguity can be removed and consistency prevail.

'Breach the technical regulations and your car is disqualified.'

It should also be remembered that the DSQ came as a result of a breach of regulations, not a breach of sporting code. So the stewards were reviewing a report from the technical delegate, not the race director.

It does go towards some of the other discussions about being able to recover from a penalty. When considering technical standards vs racing standards, I feel that a breach of racing standards should allow you to 'race' out of it. e.g., a time penalty or grid penalty can be overcome by racing faster, whereas a technical penalty means the car should not be allowed to compete with others.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I understand your point - but I feel writing in leeway is not where technical regulations should go.

If the rules say 1 litre, then 1 litre it is. Not 999ml, 900ml, 300ml, or fumes.

However - if 300ml is enough for a reliable sample analysis should be conducted, then maybe the regulations should read 300ml rather than 1l. The problem is, we then get the same argument when someone is only able to extract 250ml........

I posted a similar comment on FB on this exact topic. No doubt the amount required for a single test is much much smaller than the 1L sample they take.

I suspect that the sample size is to not just allow 1, 2 or even 3 tests of the fuel, but more than that. They need to cover lab errors, the need to perform confirmation tests if the test is negative, the ability to send out for multiple tests by an alternate lab is the fuel supplier makes a stink/appeal, etc.

As to some level of variability in quantity taken as a sample (i.e. how much less than 1L might be acceptable). I suspect that like many things the the stewards deal with. The regulations expect absolute values but then behind the scenes there is some allowance for some delta that is acceptable. The allowance is not published because as you mention above, it opens a can of worms and allow teams to try to game the system. Think of the topic of how much the car can move on a potential jump-start. We know they don't (and can't) expect ZERO movement because of potential errors in measurement systems. So there is a unwritten and uncommunicated level of movement that is OK.

Basically place the requirement upon the teams to supply 1L. However if something slightly less than 1L might be accepted, that would be up to the stewards via their internal (unpublished) limits to accept or not. I frankly suspect they just have calibrated containers and just eyeball it up to the 1L mark (or even slightly above). I do wonder how often they are dribbling out the last few drops to get an adequate sample.

In this case the sample size was roughly 1/3 of the required. So that is not within the realm of being "ok".

On a side note, given fuel and lubricant formulations are proprietary and guarded information. I wonder what the procedure is that the stewards use to secure and dispose of samples when they are done.

Richard

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Fully agreed.



Yes, that would be indeed be unworkable.

For me it's indeed a) the nature/safety concern of the corner/situation and b) the foreseeability of the consequences.

So indeed, rule infringements in a more dangerous situation should have more severe punishment.

About the consequences, of course you can’t foresee a 51G impact, a car write-off, let alone championship consequences, so one should indeed not retroactively apply penalties based on that. However you can foresee a serious safety concern if you do not leave enough room in a high speed corner. Similarly if you force another driver off into a gravel trap it is not as if the consequences of that action will be a complete surprise. No, you can foresee that it will have significant consequences for the race of the other driver and therefore a stronger penalty is in order in my view.

If you want to change the risk vs. reward balance in the drivers head how he will approach a fight in relation to the other driver and the rules I think it is only logical to have drivers know beforehand that foreseeable consequences for the other driver will be considered for the height of a potential penalty.

I think a lot of the problems hinge around the tiny margins here. Had Verstappen not made his second turn-in for another metre or two, he might have run slightly wide (where there is plenty of run-off) but he probably wouldn't have made contact, and so the consequences of the incident would have been wholly different. Both drivers were pushing hard, both made errors (hence the "predominantly liable" judgement, and therefore both were to some extent responsible for the outcome. Verstappen could presumably foresee any potential outcome as well as Hamilton could, but calculated the risk/reward balance differently.



As it happens the Red Bull wheel disintegrated whereas the Mercedes one didn't - who knows why? Had that wheel not disintegrated and the tyre flown off, perhaps the increased grip would have prevented Verstappen going off as he did. Had the Merc wheel broken as the Red Bull one did, the Merc might have ploughed further into the Red Bull, taking both out. Again, who knows?



Whatever, it is surely apparent that attempting to rewrite rules to take account of hypothetical outcomes is an exercise in futility.....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Or a more proportionate sanction like Constructor points loss

Thought about this a little bit - and here's why I think it would be a bad idea.

Let's say we go into the final race, and Cars 33 and 44 have a one point gap. Mercedes decide to under-fuel Car 44 - Car 44 wins the race, sets fastest lap and LH wins the WDC.
Mercedes are docked points in the WCC - but can you imagine the uproar from MV fans? (And the same would be true if roles reversed).

[Adam43]

I am gutted for Vettel. Really am, he’s a favorite of mine now. It will have helped, but only a tiny amount, probably not changing the result.

But the rule and the decision are fine. It’s rarely an issue. When was the last problem? 2012 Spain? Any others?

It’s a pragmatic consistent approach to the problem.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

You would appear to be arguing that penalties should only be decided after the race, in order to adjust the race result to give the "desired" result.



In reality a penalty is given, based on the stewards assessment of the incident, and all the participants conduct themselves for the rest of the race to achieve the best result they can........as it should be.

I'd put it to you that it's not good enough anymore?

The more those types of collisions occur, the more unsatisfactory it'll be.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I'd put it to you that it's not good enough anymore?

The more those types of collisions occur, the more unsatisfactory it'll be.

Are they occurring any more frequently than they have in the past? I don't believe they are. I'd be delighted to see some statistics on this, if you have them.

[Aysedasi]

I don't believe they are either. The whole business has been massively hyped up as a result of the Lewis/Max accident and the Bottas brain fade. Two accidents and we want to make major changes to culpability, responsibility, compensation....? No, I don't think so. That would be unsatisfactory.

[S griffin]

If anything, we’ve gone too far the other way, to the point that every incident, no matter how big or small is investigated. Racing incidents are very rare these days or so it seems.

For me, yes these are the best drivers in the world, but it’d be unrealistic to expect them not to mistakes. They are still human and what’s more they are very competitive, so incidents will happen from time to time. Personally I would rather stewards concentrated on dirty and/or dangerous driving, even ones that don’t result in incidents. That for me should be stamped out as much as possible.

[greentrumpet]

^^^ This. As cars have got safer we've seen dirty driving tolerated, even encouraged. Schumacher may have felt emboldened after he took Hill out to try a similar trick against JV. If cynical dangerous driving isn't punished F1 will end up like bumper cars/BTCC.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

If anything, we’ve gone too far the other way, to the point that every incident, no matter how big or small is investigated. Racing incidents are very rare these days or so it seems.

For me, yes these are the best drivers in the world, but it’d be unrealistic to expect them not to mistakes. They are still human and what’s more they are very competitive, so incidents will happen from time to time. Personally I would rather stewards concentrated on dirty and/or dangerous driving, even ones that don’t result in incidents. That for me should be stamped out as much as possible.

Dirty dangerous driving, yes I agree. The trouble with that (for the stewards) is that we know full well from this and the British GP thread that there are widely differing views and one man's racing incident is another man's dirty/dangerous driving.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Dirty dangerous driving, yes I agree. The trouble with that (for the stewards) is that we know full well from this and the British GP thread that there are widely differing views and one man's racing incident is another man's dirty/dangerous driving.

Location usually checks out!
(not aimed at anyone in particular, just a generalisation.)

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I am gutted for Vettel. Really am, he’s a favorite of mine now. It will have helped, but only a tiny amount, probably not changing the result.

But the rule and the decision are fine. It’s rarely an issue. When was the last problem? 2012 Spain? Any others?

It’s a pragmatic consistent approach to the problem.

The Marko POV has already changed and he thinks a Disqualification was simply too much and the rule needs to be looked at again. Everyone has a barrow to push, I wonder if his POV would change if a Mercedes was disqualified for the same problem.

As for motor damage from a car contact incident such as RB suffered there should be provision for a motor change without it affecting the 3 motor total as it is no fault of the team and they should not be penalised for it as effectively happens now. How that would be arranged without handing the team a brand new motor I have no idea but the replacement should reflect within reason the same wear and tear the damaged one had on it but of course that would be mission impossible I suspect.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Casper

As for motor damage from a car contact incident such as RB suffered there should be provision for a motor change without it affecting the 3 motor total as it is no fault of the team and they should not be penalised for it as effectively happens now. How that would be arranged without handing the team a brand new motor I have no idea but the replacement should reflect within reason the same wear and tear the damaged one had on it but of course that would be mission impossible I suspect.

Yes, I agree with that.

[Adam43]

The umpire can bring out a box of six engines that have all done a similar number of laps and they can chose.

[Lancsbreaker]

I'd agree that if an engine, and/or a gearbox that were genuinely physically damaged in a collision with (or as a result of) third party contact could be excluded from the cap on numbers of replacement units. Those caused by driver error alone - eg Leclerc's Monaco gearbox issue - should not be excluded, though. However I was a little suspicious that Perez was claiming very soon after the Hungary shunt - which appeard to be a relatively glancing blow from Bottas - that his engine was damaged.......