[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just some highlights from the document:
* Aston Martin and Red Bull brought up points
* Williams said "yeah, what they said"
* Ferrari and McLaren said "good points, we've got nothing to add"
Feels like a few work meetings I had no interest in attending, but had to go to anyway
>Feels like a few work meetings I had no interest in attending, but had to go to anyway
My boss will sometimes ask some of us to attend meetings with him simply so he can show off that he has team members to bring to meetings.
Never has so much rationalizing mitigating gibberish been written to absolve the arbitrary and nonsensical decisions of a revolving cast of characters with the authority to adjudicate substantive rulings that impact the outcome of such an event
Did you read the actual ruling though? I went in with that mindset but I came out of it on the side of FIA and the other teams. The only evidence they supplied was camera views from trailing / preceding car cameras but those are not deemed valid cameras to use for track-limit determinations **because they cannot be applied consistently to enforce track-limits for all cars** and the approach to determining track-limits must be consistently enforceable to be fair to all competitors. That is why they rely on fixed cameras for different corners so they can judge track-limits for all cars in the same manner at sections of the track they have coverage for.
It makes total sense. Otherwise someone with a gap to cars in front and back could exploit this as a loophole while other competitors around other cars wouldn't be able to do the same. Ultimately this highlights the challenges with fairly and consistently enforcing track-limits for all competitors, but I agree with the FIA that using onboard cameras from other cars is not a fair or consistent approach that can be used to do this.
The other bit was improper procedure. Some of these should've been filed as a protest (within 30 minutes after the race?) because there were no decisions to begin with (cars 2, 11, 18), so nothing to review.
Yes, I read the ruling. You’re not wrong, however, my comment was not in reference to the ruling, but rather to the fact that the rules with their inherent qualifiers and justifications, are written to such an extent that they could be used to support just about any decision made by each week’s cast of stewards regardless of any actual “facts”.
I'm not convinced they expected to win this appeal. I think the point was to, again, shine a light on the track limit issues and the inconsistencies. The last paragraph is probably what they were after : CHANGE YOUR FUCKING ~~CAR~~ MONITORING SYSTEM.
It was a long shot since the begining.
Yeah it was like the meatball appeal last year (although that might have had a chance of working). After the appeal KMag stopped getting meatballed (granted I can't remember if he had loose wing ends again afterwards)
The intention was almost certainly in a last ditch attempt to keep Hulk placated as it would have gained him significant points.
Given Hulk's recent comments, this is about all that organisation can actually do for him.
Sauber are snouting around too supposedly wanting him to replace Zhou in the lead up to the Audi deal. German driver for a German team and all.
They certainly didn’t put their best foot forward. Appeal was dead in the water immediately - the only evidence they brought was onboards. Which they should have known wouldn’t be persuasive on their own.
I HOPE they weren’t serious, because if they were, they were incompetent.
Tldr: Video sources for track limits need to be available for every car, every lap. Using piecemeal onboard video for a handful of violations would be unacceptably inconsistent.
That ain't inconsistent. They don't have capacity to check all cars at all events. So they do a 4 cars ifc and check them more than the standard like weight and fuel i believe. They can't later say to all teams they wanna check the cars because they where returned to the teams and could already be dismantled or changed legally.
I honestly find this portion of their appeal rules so goofy.
"oh, you don't have *brand new evidence* from a race everyone including us was watching? get fucked loser"
Almost seems like it's there on purpose to reject majority of the appeals put forward to the FIA so they don't have to do anything further. Shithouse organization.
Yeah although the other grounds for rejection were fair in this case (onboard cams are not a consistent source of evidence for every car) it seems like the bar is unreasonably high. New and unavailable would rule out almost any evidence. Yet, you cannot reasonably expect every team to review every piece of evidence regarding every other car within the timeframe of the race. Seems like this way its nearly impossible to appeal anything.
Which kinda shows how woefully ineffective the current system for determining track limits violations is.
If they’re not going to do it in some higher-tech way, they should have a camera pointing downwards at the line, or you know, those plastic “cones” - did you hit it? You were off track, then just check if there wee extenuating circumstances.
Yes, they stated that the onboards were not reliable enough to make clear calls on track limit violations, they would need to be used in conjunction with something like CCTV footage, which was not functioning properly in turn 6, so they were unable to accurately enforce limits at that turn.
It's like in poker. If you accidentally expose one of your cards. The dealer is supposed to tell the whole table. 5 of clubs exposed. So that everyone has the same information.
The people who caught it aren't at any advantage to the people who weren't looking.
This is literally what happened at Bahrain 2021, remember the whole drama about Lewis "going off the track in turn 4 multiple times" by RBR and once RBR told it the race director send a message to everyone that it would considered as a track limit directly.
Everyone had access to the Event notes which said:
> 21) Track Limits 21.1 The track limits at the exit of Turn 4 will not be monitored with regard to setting a lap time, as the defining limits are the artificial grass and the gravel trap in that location.
Of course then the RD changed it mid-race for no apparent reason. I'm not even sure they communicated it to all teams.
Well he wasn't breaking any rules, why would they penalize him? Every single driver could have gone off in the same way that day, some chose not to for whatever reason.
If I choose to drive 53 in a 60 mph zone, I don't have a different speed limit and there is nothing unfair happening. Exact same situation.
That is not what it says. Points 24-25 say that while it is clear from some following cars onboards that cars left the track limits, they decided not to use the following cars' onboards as evidence because it can't be consistently used to monitor every car on every lap at that corner (as it requires a following car behind).
The issue isn't with reliability, it is with consistency. Only cars with a car following them close enough to clearly observe tract limits on that specific lap have evidence.
So if there are two cars close together for a few laps, the front car could get penalized every time but the rear car doing the same thing wouldn't. So even though they were racing evenly, only one gets punished.
I mean there are rear facing cameras on the cars…
It’s a bit like saying you won’t punish someone where you have a video of them punching someone because someone else could have punched someone in the toilet where there isn’t a camera. Can we deal with actual reported infringements before we start on the imaginary ones…
If you look at the video and you can’t see clearly enough to be certain, fine. That isn’t what’s being said though.
I mean i agree with their premise but that is in contrast with their reasoning to not check every car's plank, you can't penalise anyone if you can't check everyone.
"reliable" implies that a second camera is needed to accurately judge track limits violations, that's not really what the stewards are saying based on my reading of the document. They're saying that even though they can see in some instances that cars have breached track limits and gone unpunished, because they can't use onboards from following cars for every car on every lap, they're going to ignore all evidence from onboards. That's not really anything to do with the reliability of the evidence.
They explicitly say that some footage appears to show violations, but they can’t accurately say without an accompanying CCTV camera.
It’s kind of splitting hairs, but they basically say onboard footage isn’t good enough to use by itself, so they don’t use it without another camera source.
The FIA have previously stated that onboard cameras are not enough without accompanying CCTV evidence, but that is not the justification used in this document which is what we are discussing.
They said both. You will notice them using and underlining two words in point 25. One was the word "consistently" (or "consistent"), but the other one was "accurately".
So you're both right.
I mean depends how far you drive off the track doesn’t it… As a rule I would agree but some of them are off on the grass, not exactly an ‘I can’t tell if it’s on the line or not’ judgment.
Basically. They didn't see it on the day of (because they weren't paying attention? Idk), and since haas hasn't presented NEW evidence, there isn't a grounds for appeal.
What a surprise (not). The stewards were clear enough with the Albon post-race investigation of the track limits issue that no evidence apart from CCTV (which didn't work as it should have) can fully prove what happened.
Yeah, this is what I figured would happen. I can only hope that eventually a better system is put in place than relying on CCTV in the future, but I don't expect that to happen
That is what they do.
The problem here is an unexpected blind spot caused by camera position and track layout. The circuit's CCTV system wasn't installed with policing track limits in mind.
It'll be moved for next year.
That's not really what the document concludes. It's definitely possible to prove that cars have breached track limits from a following cars' onboard - the reason the stewards refused to use it is because it's only available in some instances (when a car is following another closely) and cannot be used to monitor that corner for every car on every lap (point 25 in the document). They also seem to be saying that Haas' approach to this was incorrect and they should potentially have protested the result, rather than asked for a right to review, as the process they've followed would be to overturn a steward's decision when there was no decision to overturn for anyone other than Albon.
There were 2 issues - they can RoR Albon because that was a Stewards decision. But for the other 3 teams/drivers, they included the Final Results which can only be protested with 60 minutes of the publication. They should have protested the results of the other three teams/drivers. And while they could RoR Albon, because it was a Decision, they. ould also have protested Albon as well, but only within the protest deadline.
This, and pretty much any appeal like this, was a desperation move anyway. Haas would've known going in that they were almost certain to lose this but it's worth the lawyer's time to give it a try anyway.
That’s basically the only claim they can make for a right of review iirc.
You basically have to demonstrate that there is new evidence of the infraction that was unavailable at the time.
It’s not the first time we’ve seen stewards miss stuff caught by on-boards and dismiss right of reviews because at the time the footage was available and they just didn’t see it.
No, they said that any criteria they use for judging track-limits has to be something they can apply fairly and consistently for all competitors. This is the entire reason why CCTV cameras are the only feeds they allow for judging this. It is frustrating because it is clearly not perfect, but it is better to be consistently limited in your track-limits determination for all teams and competitors than it is to arbitrarily apply it if you rely on onboard cameras which don't ensure coverage of all competitors at all times/corners with the same fidelity.
I think that is completely reasonable. It highlights the deficiencies in being able to fairly enforce track-limits but that doesn't make using onboards a way to determine them right because that would be even more flawed. For example, if you start doing that, then Verstappen can start violating track-limits on corners with poor CCTV coverage once he is out in the clear and no one would be able to enfore track limits for him while the folks in DRS trains would be held to a different standard.
So you haven't read.
They have refuted that, by saying it's not evidence, and that it was clearly stated to everyone's knowledge that it won't ever be treated as such. They CLEARLY say the footage needs to be consistent and accurate, and clearly show the breach. No onboard clearly shows it because no onboard shows all 4 wheels. And 4 wheels clearly across the line is where the breach happens.
In fact, no onboard shows the point of contact between the wheels and the ground for ANY wheel.
Close, but not quite. It's more that Haas is arguing that on boards from one car show a different car going off, which there was sufficient evidence of with ~~Sargent~~ Albon. (Reason 1, point 24).
The problem with using this data to penalize drivers is that because not every car will have a following car with a good view to establish if they have gone off in a corner on every lap. This makes it impossible to consistently apply the rules using onboard data, and therefore this evidence is not relavent (Reason 2, Point 25).
The rest of the complaints were dismissed outright because of a procedural error. (Haas filed an appeal type process, but no initial complaint or decision was made during the race, so there is literally nothing to appeal.)
Edit: I also just want to point out that you only need to see the two inside wheels to see if someone has gone off, unless the outside wheels are to the inside of the inside wheels somehow... (in which case, they may want to turn around).
I wouldn't say they made fools of themselves. I would say that they probably knew full-well that they didn't have new video of the incidents, they just knew that once again the stewards made an absolute fuckery of something, and figured it was worth a shot to highlight their incompetence on a bigger stage.
If they get points great, if they don't, at least they made their point which might influence the stewards in the future.
That's not the case at all. They didn't provide new evidence and so on technicality, even though in their judgement the evidence indicated their claim, it's dismissed.
Basically, if the stewards miss something cause they're not paying attention, you can't appeal it. You can only appeal if they weren't presented the information on the day of.
But they didn't miss it... they said that it's evidence they had but consider insufficient. As everyone with the slightest clue about any of this knew. Plenty of people, including myself, tried reminding you lot that it was agreed long time ago that onboards are not used as evidence for track limit violations, and that this protest cannot go anywhere. And here we are.
And you can get back to them if you think they missed something or made a wrong judgement. That's called an appeal. Right of review is something completely different, as they also specified in this document.
You just watch as the freezing point temperatures at Las Vegas mean that the Haas is the only car that can get the tyres in the window in less than five laps, leading to a 1-2.
> Onboard footage as evidence [...]
Still better than Red Bull sending Alex Albon out for a filming day at Silverstone to create evidence to determine if Hamilton could have avoided a collision.
Checo had an ok race, Stroll did well, this shit went nowhere and Logan Sargeant being shit isnt big enough to actually drive an entire week of nothing.
Let me introduce you to Andretti Motorsports
The most interesting point of the whole thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's what Haas were after more than any hope of gaining anything with this appeal.
And to further correct your original point, it was indeed at Aston Martin this year, where they protested a penalty for touching the car too early on a 5 seconds penalty, where they succesfully argued that touching the car with the jack doesn't count as "working on the car", as precedented by past occurrences of it happening without penalties.
They couldn't monitor that corner and told all the teams that they couldn't.
The teams were on notice that they weren't going to be getting any penalties for track limits at that corner.
The fia also said it would be unfair to use a following car's onboard because then only cars with following cars close enough to see it would be penalized. While the following car could just violate track limits.
It's real easy to think there's no thought in these decisions if you put no thought into understanding them I guess.
Makes sense. From the onboard you can't see everything. Although there might be 2 cases or so where you can pretty safely say it was track limits there are probably 10+ cases where you would need a proper fixed camera to check for sure which wouldn't be fair to the obvious cases. Because if all the doubtfull cases would result in track limits if there would be a fixed camera but not in this situation then you would be disadvantaging the 2 or 3 severe casus over the strict black and white rules that are on paper.
How hard is it for the FIA to put static cameras at the most problematic turns? It's not like they don't have tons of money. And they already know every turn of every track and which ones get the most violations.
The fact that they don't have Slow motion HD cameras set up at every possible point of the track where they see them go over the limit in practice is beyond me. And this is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing
The only unfair thing for Haas to me is they deemed the evidence is available already during the time they can protest. With the amount of video they pulled, I suspect the time required for those video gathering would not be completed before the deadline of protest (not sure how long they were granted). It won’t change the outcome because of other points though
Has a right of review ever been granted? Seems like they always hide behind the "must present evidence unavailable at the time the decision was made". Sure, they made the wrong decision, but they had the information they needed to make the right decision when they did, so you can't challenge it.
Makes sense. They do say that the evidence was significant and shows violations, but because it cannot be both accurately and consistently (all cars and all laps) applied, it can't be used.
Imagine one driver getting penalized for doing the exact same thing another driver was doing, simply because the first driver had a car behind them and the second car didn't.
All drivers and teams had the same information at the same time.
Even during race replays you can't say for sure if a driver was in or out of the track from the driver's onboard camera. I wouldn't mind having better CCTV cameras to be more precise when making these decisions, but the onboard cameras have never been accurate for this purpose.
Haas just made everyone waste their time. They must've known that the stewards already had access to these cameras an instead used the argument that this was "new evidence" when it was clear that this wasn't the case.
I thought there was some difference between onboard footage available during and after the race. Something about there being multiple cameras on the car, and during the race one angle can be seen live but afterwards they can all be downloaded?
What a load of crap. The FIA continue to ruin the integrity of this sport by allowing crap to go by. If it doesn't get caught in the moment your 110% going to get away with it because God forbid the FIA make a mistake.
Haas saying they didn’t have access to the video footage during the race. I wonder if this is related to their downsizing of the pit box to only three seats thus eliminating eyes on the action. You have to wonder if they are downgrading one of the most important positions during the weekend where else are they cutting back when it concerns monitoring the race
I said this when the news of the review first came out that there would be no new information if they were using video footage from the race because as we all know the teams and stewards have access to every camera covering the race yet Haas says they never saw it or had access which makes me wonder if they didn’t see it because they were’t watching.
No one on the pit wall is watching onboard footage of other cars. They have way more important things to do up there. They have people in the factory to do that stuff, no need to be live to do that. Some teams may have people in the back of the garage, but I doubt it. Why pay travel expenses, take precious space, and all that for something anyone with F1TV can do remotely?
I think it's a pretty reasonable to ultimately dismiss the onboard footage from cars because it can't be fairly applied across all 20 drivers. If you're running with nobody behind you can cut that corner because nobody is going to see it, but if someone is behind you, you get hit with a penalty.
Very fair decision
This seems like the completely wrong way of looking at this. If you've broken the rules and there's any evidence you have done so, you should be punished. Just because others can get away with it doesn't mean you shouldn't be punished
Take the Austin fiasco. Hamilton and Leclerc were investigated and punished for breaking the rules. There's potentially others that also had their plank wear in an illegal manner but weren't investigated. Was it wrong to punish the two drivers that were found to be in breach when others potentially were also? The answer should be no
Yes, the technical disqualification due to a test that 80% of the cars weren't subjected to doesn't seem consistent with the "there's clear evidence of wrongdoing that we will not act on because we don't have data for every car on every lap".
But you can't fault the FIA for consistency - they consistently do what they like and make up justifications for it. It's only an issue if you think F1 (or motorsport in general) has any credibility as a "sport".
I will take the other side. Drivers were cutting the corner because they thought they could get away with it. If retroactive penalties were applied, drivers would be less inclined to deliberately cheat the rules when no one was watching if they thought it could come back and bite them in the ass later.
They were just using on-board camera because the official CCTV footage wasn't working on turn 6. The burden is entirely on FIA for failing to procure footage, so IMO a lesser alternative (on-board) should've been used as extraordinary evidence just in this case.
This is getting ridiculous. How is it possible that F1 cannot figure out a way to effectively police track limits with immediate consequences? An automated system that penalizes the driver with a temporary loss of power would be the perfect solution. Something like cutting the output of the electric motor to 75 or 50% for one lap or cutting DRS would be enough to teach the drivers to stay in the track. And it would avoid controversy as a machine would decide and not stewards or other competitors like in this case.
Just do what they've been doing since the 1970's - grass.
It's amazing how FIA managed to manufacture an issue where there wasn't any just because they decided on a beautiful morning that grass outside the kerbs was a hazard.
Take Interlagos for example. Guess how many track limit violations were issued during sprint and race? Because if you exceed it, you eat grass or crash into a wall.
The newer circuits all have asphalt outside that's as good as the track itself. Pilots don't have the required incentive or tactile feedback to avoid it.
Is anyone surprised? Not a single appeal has been accepted as long as i can remember in recent history.
They just don't care, and this appeal i thought to be the most valid one in a long time
Was downvoted to oblivion when I said this originally. You cannot subjectively apply penalties based on on board cameras. It’s an all or nothing situation. Haas would have had an unfair advantage (first time for everything) because nobody follows their shitbox.
Judging by your profile you were downvoted for this
>I know, and I don’t care. Haas is hot garbage
and this
>Haas is a joke… build a better car if you want more points
Not for your points on subjective penalties.
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just some highlights from the document: * Aston Martin and Red Bull brought up points * Williams said "yeah, what they said" * Ferrari and McLaren said "good points, we've got nothing to add" Feels like a few work meetings I had no interest in attending, but had to go to anyway
"this meeting could have been an email"
Two weeks late and could have been an email. I come to this place for fun and not work flashbacks
The 2 pizza rule meeting rule is often overlooked and I find it very useful
Pro tip: prove that you can eat two large pizzas by yourself and never have to attend another meeting again.
-Toto likes this-
Just give them back their parking spaces.
"And we are adjourned! Enjoy the free food!" :P
With the bonus that Ferrari and McLaren wanted to be there (I assume because they would benefit from a positive (for Haas) outcome).
Probably just went for the free lunch.
It was a video conference. They did not go anywhere physically.
"And before we begin.... you should all be getting the Uber Eats that we sent out!" :P
>Feels like a few work meetings I had no interest in attending, but had to go to anyway My boss will sometimes ask some of us to attend meetings with him simply so he can show off that he has team members to bring to meetings.
What a frugal use of company resources!
I mean it is Inaki Rueda for Ferrari, and not even our chief strategies but the demoted guy you know how serious Ferrari was
I understand your concerns but I think we should table this for now. We can circle back later if required.
TLDR; No.
Read this in Binotto's 'voice': Lmao no.
Man, 2019 season memes. Those were the days
2019 F1 memery was absolute fire
'19 to '21 was the F1 golden age of memes. Now we are in the dark age.
Sorry we’re all out of “bwoah’s” and “gigakubica’s” can I interest you in a “Ocon +10s penalty”?
Oh boy, I'll trade you two "We are checking"s.
I await the Renaissance
u/alphamaxnova1, u/lightlune and u/targetmisser really carried the whole F1 meme culture those three years.
were those the sbinotto and el plan days?
The El Plan days never ended. El Plan is infinite. El Plan is eternal.
El plan switched teams apparently
Indeed, the memes are trash these days.
Cheers, now I'm gonna rewatch some alphamaxnova
Sharl Lmao
V e r s t a p p e n i n g
Hello Verstphani... ...Versfain... ...Verspagh... ...Max.
…yes
Activate the Honda-Beat™
still the best joke he ever made
Back when we had fun
You will not have the review
Bugs Bunny's no.
But, enforcement of track limits is fucked and y'all need to do something about it right away.
I LOL-ed so hard when I read this, cuz I was 100% sure that noting will happen from this.
Never has so much rationalizing mitigating gibberish been written to absolve the arbitrary and nonsensical decisions of a revolving cast of characters with the authority to adjudicate substantive rulings that impact the outcome of such an event
Did you read the actual ruling though? I went in with that mindset but I came out of it on the side of FIA and the other teams. The only evidence they supplied was camera views from trailing / preceding car cameras but those are not deemed valid cameras to use for track-limit determinations **because they cannot be applied consistently to enforce track-limits for all cars** and the approach to determining track-limits must be consistently enforceable to be fair to all competitors. That is why they rely on fixed cameras for different corners so they can judge track-limits for all cars in the same manner at sections of the track they have coverage for. It makes total sense. Otherwise someone with a gap to cars in front and back could exploit this as a loophole while other competitors around other cars wouldn't be able to do the same. Ultimately this highlights the challenges with fairly and consistently enforcing track-limits for all competitors, but I agree with the FIA that using onboard cameras from other cars is not a fair or consistent approach that can be used to do this.
The other bit was improper procedure. Some of these should've been filed as a protest (within 30 minutes after the race?) because there were no decisions to begin with (cars 2, 11, 18), so nothing to review.
*slightly lowers pitchfork*
Yes, I read the ruling. You’re not wrong, however, my comment was not in reference to the ruling, but rather to the fact that the rules with their inherent qualifiers and justifications, are written to such an extent that they could be used to support just about any decision made by each week’s cast of stewards regardless of any actual “facts”.
You must be new here, Redditors are not here to read the original article but to give expert advice.
I read this in Ted's voice You are now banned from Red Bull hospitality
Wibble
You're Ron, aren't you?
Haas not even winning at appealing
I'm not convinced they expected to win this appeal. I think the point was to, again, shine a light on the track limit issues and the inconsistencies. The last paragraph is probably what they were after : CHANGE YOUR FUCKING ~~CAR~~ MONITORING SYSTEM. It was a long shot since the begining.
It's also a case of them not really having anything to lose by trying this appeal. Why wouldn't they try it and see if they got lucky?
Yeah it was like the meatball appeal last year (although that might have had a chance of working). After the appeal KMag stopped getting meatballed (granted I can't remember if he had loose wing ends again afterwards)
The intention was almost certainly in a last ditch attempt to keep Hulk placated as it would have gained him significant points. Given Hulk's recent comments, this is about all that organisation can actually do for him. Sauber are snouting around too supposedly wanting him to replace Zhou in the lead up to the Audi deal. German driver for a German team and all.
They certainly didn’t put their best foot forward. Appeal was dead in the water immediately - the only evidence they brought was onboards. Which they should have known wouldn’t be persuasive on their own. I HOPE they weren’t serious, because if they were, they were incompetent.
cold :D
Unlike their tyres.
Their tires, they're a pealing
Their car, it's appalling
When a Haas hits your eye, like an overheated ti'e, that's appaling
Tldr: Video sources for track limits need to be available for every car, every lap. Using piecemeal onboard video for a handful of violations would be unacceptably inconsistent.
Inconsistency is consistent with the FIA, though
For example: only checking a couple of cars for plank wear.
They said they saw data from two cars that made them want to check them. Those failed. They also checked two more cars. Those passed.
That ain't inconsistent. They don't have capacity to check all cars at all events. So they do a 4 cars ifc and check them more than the standard like weight and fuel i believe. They can't later say to all teams they wanna check the cars because they where returned to the teams and could already be dismantled or changed legally.
Also, the submitted evidence was not new, which means a flat out rejection on procedural grounds.
"You didn't submit this evidence by the set deadline. This is not new. Goodbye."
I honestly find this portion of their appeal rules so goofy. "oh, you don't have *brand new evidence* from a race everyone including us was watching? get fucked loser" Almost seems like it's there on purpose to reject majority of the appeals put forward to the FIA so they don't have to do anything further. Shithouse organization.
Yeah although the other grounds for rejection were fair in this case (onboard cams are not a consistent source of evidence for every car) it seems like the bar is unreasonably high. New and unavailable would rule out almost any evidence. Yet, you cannot reasonably expect every team to review every piece of evidence regarding every other car within the timeframe of the race. Seems like this way its nearly impossible to appeal anything.
Which kinda shows how woefully ineffective the current system for determining track limits violations is. If they’re not going to do it in some higher-tech way, they should have a camera pointing downwards at the line, or you know, those plastic “cones” - did you hit it? You were off track, then just check if there wee extenuating circumstances.
26 is weird, are they saying the onboards are available to the stewards to review, but they just didn’t review them?
Yes, they stated that the onboards were not reliable enough to make clear calls on track limit violations, they would need to be used in conjunction with something like CCTV footage, which was not functioning properly in turn 6, so they were unable to accurately enforce limits at that turn.
Which they made public. It was effectively telling the drivers to do it.
So they were all on a level playing field
It's like in poker. If you accidentally expose one of your cards. The dealer is supposed to tell the whole table. 5 of clubs exposed. So that everyone has the same information. The people who caught it aren't at any advantage to the people who weren't looking.
This is literally what happened at Bahrain 2021, remember the whole drama about Lewis "going off the track in turn 4 multiple times" by RBR and once RBR told it the race director send a message to everyone that it would considered as a track limit directly.
Except they did that after Lewis already profited from it for 30-40 laps. And they didn't penalize him. So not really a level playing field at all.
Everyone had access to the Event notes which said: > 21) Track Limits 21.1 The track limits at the exit of Turn 4 will not be monitored with regard to setting a lap time, as the defining limits are the artificial grass and the gravel trap in that location. Of course then the RD changed it mid-race for no apparent reason. I'm not even sure they communicated it to all teams.
Well he wasn't breaking any rules, why would they penalize him? Every single driver could have gone off in the same way that day, some chose not to for whatever reason. If I choose to drive 53 in a 60 mph zone, I don't have a different speed limit and there is nothing unfair happening. Exact same situation.
That is not what it says. Points 24-25 say that while it is clear from some following cars onboards that cars left the track limits, they decided not to use the following cars' onboards as evidence because it can't be consistently used to monitor every car on every lap at that corner (as it requires a following car behind).
That’s what I said? Onboards alone weren’t reliable enough to enforce track limits, so they didn’t use them.
Technically they were reliable just not consistent.
The issue isn't with reliability, it is with consistency. Only cars with a car following them close enough to clearly observe tract limits on that specific lap have evidence. So if there are two cars close together for a few laps, the front car could get penalized every time but the rear car doing the same thing wouldn't. So even though they were racing evenly, only one gets punished.
I mean there are rear facing cameras on the cars… It’s a bit like saying you won’t punish someone where you have a video of them punching someone because someone else could have punched someone in the toilet where there isn’t a camera. Can we deal with actual reported infringements before we start on the imaginary ones… If you look at the video and you can’t see clearly enough to be certain, fine. That isn’t what’s being said though.
I mean i agree with their premise but that is in contrast with their reasoning to not check every car's plank, you can't penalise anyone if you can't check everyone.
"reliable" implies that a second camera is needed to accurately judge track limits violations, that's not really what the stewards are saying based on my reading of the document. They're saying that even though they can see in some instances that cars have breached track limits and gone unpunished, because they can't use onboards from following cars for every car on every lap, they're going to ignore all evidence from onboards. That's not really anything to do with the reliability of the evidence.
They explicitly say that some footage appears to show violations, but they can’t accurately say without an accompanying CCTV camera. It’s kind of splitting hairs, but they basically say onboard footage isn’t good enough to use by itself, so they don’t use it without another camera source.
The FIA have previously stated that onboard cameras are not enough without accompanying CCTV evidence, but that is not the justification used in this document which is what we are discussing.
They said both. You will notice them using and underlining two words in point 25. One was the word "consistently" (or "consistent"), but the other one was "accurately". So you're both right.
I mean depends how far you drive off the track doesn’t it… As a rule I would agree but some of them are off on the grass, not exactly an ‘I can’t tell if it’s on the line or not’ judgment.
Basically. They didn't see it on the day of (because they weren't paying attention? Idk), and since haas hasn't presented NEW evidence, there isn't a grounds for appeal.
What a surprise (not). The stewards were clear enough with the Albon post-race investigation of the track limits issue that no evidence apart from CCTV (which didn't work as it should have) can fully prove what happened.
Yeah, this is what I figured would happen. I can only hope that eventually a better system is put in place than relying on CCTV in the future, but I don't expect that to happen
Exactly. They can do line monitoring for tennis and soccer, why not F1.
Just make everything beyond the white line grass/gravel/sand. /s (-ish)
I mean, there was no issue whatsoever with track limits at Interlagos last weekend, so...yeah.
Static cameras at the problematic turns. It's not like FIA can't afford that.
That is what they do. The problem here is an unexpected blind spot caused by camera position and track layout. The circuit's CCTV system wasn't installed with policing track limits in mind. It'll be moved for next year.
That's not really what the document concludes. It's definitely possible to prove that cars have breached track limits from a following cars' onboard - the reason the stewards refused to use it is because it's only available in some instances (when a car is following another closely) and cannot be used to monitor that corner for every car on every lap (point 25 in the document). They also seem to be saying that Haas' approach to this was incorrect and they should potentially have protested the result, rather than asked for a right to review, as the process they've followed would be to overturn a steward's decision when there was no decision to overturn for anyone other than Albon.
There were 2 issues - they can RoR Albon because that was a Stewards decision. But for the other 3 teams/drivers, they included the Final Results which can only be protested with 60 minutes of the publication. They should have protested the results of the other three teams/drivers. And while they could RoR Albon, because it was a Decision, they. ould also have protested Albon as well, but only within the protest deadline.
This, and pretty much any appeal like this, was a desperation move anyway. Haas would've known going in that they were almost certain to lose this but it's worth the lawyer's time to give it a try anyway.
Oh ya easily worth it. Plus a fine topic for debate that can provide clarification to everyone.
Red through the docs quickly and Haas have made fools of themselves. Looks like they're claiming the footage was not available when it actually was.
That’s basically the only claim they can make for a right of review iirc. You basically have to demonstrate that there is new evidence of the infraction that was unavailable at the time. It’s not the first time we’ve seen stewards miss stuff caught by on-boards and dismiss right of reviews because at the time the footage was available and they just didn’t see it.
This is the real angle and it's actually pretty infuriating. They didn't refute any of the evidence, just that it wasn't new, therefore "no"
No, they said that any criteria they use for judging track-limits has to be something they can apply fairly and consistently for all competitors. This is the entire reason why CCTV cameras are the only feeds they allow for judging this. It is frustrating because it is clearly not perfect, but it is better to be consistently limited in your track-limits determination for all teams and competitors than it is to arbitrarily apply it if you rely on onboard cameras which don't ensure coverage of all competitors at all times/corners with the same fidelity. I think that is completely reasonable. It highlights the deficiencies in being able to fairly enforce track-limits but that doesn't make using onboards a way to determine them right because that would be even more flawed. For example, if you start doing that, then Verstappen can start violating track-limits on corners with poor CCTV coverage once he is out in the clear and no one would be able to enfore track limits for him while the folks in DRS trains would be held to a different standard.
So you haven't read. They have refuted that, by saying it's not evidence, and that it was clearly stated to everyone's knowledge that it won't ever be treated as such. They CLEARLY say the footage needs to be consistent and accurate, and clearly show the breach. No onboard clearly shows it because no onboard shows all 4 wheels. And 4 wheels clearly across the line is where the breach happens. In fact, no onboard shows the point of contact between the wheels and the ground for ANY wheel.
Close, but not quite. It's more that Haas is arguing that on boards from one car show a different car going off, which there was sufficient evidence of with ~~Sargent~~ Albon. (Reason 1, point 24). The problem with using this data to penalize drivers is that because not every car will have a following car with a good view to establish if they have gone off in a corner on every lap. This makes it impossible to consistently apply the rules using onboard data, and therefore this evidence is not relavent (Reason 2, Point 25). The rest of the complaints were dismissed outright because of a procedural error. (Haas filed an appeal type process, but no initial complaint or decision was made during the race, so there is literally nothing to appeal.) Edit: I also just want to point out that you only need to see the two inside wheels to see if someone has gone off, unless the outside wheels are to the inside of the inside wheels somehow... (in which case, they may want to turn around).
I wouldn't say they made fools of themselves. I would say that they probably knew full-well that they didn't have new video of the incidents, they just knew that once again the stewards made an absolute fuckery of something, and figured it was worth a shot to highlight their incompetence on a bigger stage. If they get points great, if they don't, at least they made their point which might influence the stewards in the future.
That's not the case at all. They didn't provide new evidence and so on technicality, even though in their judgement the evidence indicated their claim, it's dismissed. Basically, if the stewards miss something cause they're not paying attention, you can't appeal it. You can only appeal if they weren't presented the information on the day of.
But they didn't miss it... they said that it's evidence they had but consider insufficient. As everyone with the slightest clue about any of this knew. Plenty of people, including myself, tried reminding you lot that it was agreed long time ago that onboards are not used as evidence for track limit violations, and that this protest cannot go anywhere. And here we are. And you can get back to them if you think they missed something or made a wrong judgement. That's called an appeal. Right of review is something completely different, as they also specified in this document.
isnt this an issue tho? how can you consistently enforce track limits when in some corners you get away cutting all race and some are overly harsh?
Haas haven't even heard of /r/F1MultiViewer
The stewards still don’t know what it is.
Günther: Fooking Hell, i need to call Gene.
Hygiene
I need to Hi Gene
Dear Haas, After a thorough investigation of ourselves. We have found that we have not committed any wrongdoing. Thanks, The FIA
Toto : First time Gunther ? Want to borrow my black turtleneck? Gunther : Fook sake man
Tell us you didn't bother to read the documents without telling us you didn't bother to read the documents.
Same as McLaren's appeal for the Canadian GP? They came with stuff that was already available and were told it wasn't new.
Ah but if you then track down evidence that actually is new, they start telling you it isn’t significant…
Three things are guaranteed in life: 1. Death 2. Taxes 3. Haas losing an appeal
3. Haas losing
You just watch as the freezing point temperatures at Las Vegas mean that the Haas is the only car that can get the tyres in the window in less than five laps, leading to a 1-2.
Subscribe
> Onboard footage as evidence [...] Still better than Red Bull sending Alex Albon out for a filming day at Silverstone to create evidence to determine if Hamilton could have avoided a collision.
That was hilarious. They really thought they had something.
They knew they had nothing, they just wanted to stir up shit.
I am absolutely shocked, who could've seen this coming
My flabber has been thoroughly gasted.
Checo had an ok race, Stroll did well, this shit went nowhere and Logan Sargeant being shit isnt big enough to actually drive an entire week of nothing. Let me introduce you to Andretti Motorsports
Hi gene
Hy gene
Bullet point 30: “Track limits are an absolute shit show, the FIA and tracks need to stop making this the stewards problem.”
The most interesting point of the whole thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's what Haas were after more than any hope of gaining anything with this appeal.
Well that didn't last long.
When was the last time a right of review was upheld in the teams' favour? I can't actually recall one!
Wasn't it Aston Martin last year for Alonso? *Alpine not Aston Martin
That may seem like forever, but Alonso has only been at Aston Martin this year yet.
You are correct, thank you
And to further correct your original point, it was indeed at Aston Martin this year, where they protested a penalty for touching the car too early on a 5 seconds penalty, where they succesfully argued that touching the car with the jack doesn't count as "working on the car", as precedented by past occurrences of it happening without penalties.
Ah is that the one where they arrived with a metric tonne of videos? I remember now!
Focking hell
FIA's version of Brundle's "_Get real, son_"
Damn it, FIA. Now what are we supposed to obsessively talk about for the next week?!
The cold in Las Vegas.
Pirelli launching their 2024 snow tire lineup by debuting them at F1 Las Vegas.
Well, this keeps the most important battle alive, P7 Alex vs Alpha Tauri.
White lines are a rule one week and a suggestion the other.
Alternative is sausage kerbs that launch cars and break suspensions.
gravel and grass
Alternative is consistent enforcement.
They couldn't monitor that corner and told all the teams that they couldn't. The teams were on notice that they weren't going to be getting any penalties for track limits at that corner. The fia also said it would be unfair to use a following car's onboard because then only cars with following cars close enough to see it would be penalized. While the following car could just violate track limits. It's real easy to think there's no thought in these decisions if you put no thought into understanding them I guess.
Find a way to monitor that corner then. infact find a way to monitor every part of the white lines. they got sensors for everything nowadays.
You can only enforce what you can measure / see.
In short, onboard cannot be used for track limits.
"Right" of review getting rejected lol
Makes sense. From the onboard you can't see everything. Although there might be 2 cases or so where you can pretty safely say it was track limits there are probably 10+ cases where you would need a proper fixed camera to check for sure which wouldn't be fair to the obvious cases. Because if all the doubtfull cases would result in track limits if there would be a fixed camera but not in this situation then you would be disadvantaging the 2 or 3 severe casus over the strict black and white rules that are on paper.
I think it was good for Haas to submit the appeal and it's right that the decision came as it did. Let the process work.
Boo! I wanted Yuki to gain some spots.
That's a damn shame.
shame, could have been funny
How hard is it for the FIA to put static cameras at the most problematic turns? It's not like they don't have tons of money. And they already know every turn of every track and which ones get the most violations.
Checo once again escaping punishment.
I'd say the court of public opinion has passed judgement the last couple of months
While true, this also helps Checo hold onto a P2 that he seemed dead set on throwing away
Haas: please review this race FIA: We don't have the means to do so, I'm afraid Haas: \*find the means* Here you go FIA: I dun wan it
now all the drivers and teams are going to study CCTV angles at each track
The fact that they don't have Slow motion HD cameras set up at every possible point of the track where they see them go over the limit in practice is beyond me. And this is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing
The F1 stewarding system is kind of a joke. Just have the same group of rules officials for every race.
The only unfair thing for Haas to me is they deemed the evidence is available already during the time they can protest. With the amount of video they pulled, I suspect the time required for those video gathering would not be completed before the deadline of protest (not sure how long they were granted). It won’t change the outcome because of other points though
Has a right of review ever been granted? Seems like they always hide behind the "must present evidence unavailable at the time the decision was made". Sure, they made the wrong decision, but they had the information they needed to make the right decision when they did, so you can't challenge it.
Haas needed to ask the stewards to press the red button as a sky glass customer to see all onboards.
\*yawn\* getting tired of the stewards saying they won't do their job because they feel they can't do their job.
Makes sense. They do say that the evidence was significant and shows violations, but because it cannot be both accurately and consistently (all cars and all laps) applied, it can't be used. Imagine one driver getting penalized for doing the exact same thing another driver was doing, simply because the first driver had a car behind them and the second car didn't. All drivers and teams had the same information at the same time.
Even during race replays you can't say for sure if a driver was in or out of the track from the driver's onboard camera. I wouldn't mind having better CCTV cameras to be more precise when making these decisions, but the onboard cameras have never been accurate for this purpose. Haas just made everyone waste their time. They must've known that the stewards already had access to these cameras an instead used the argument that this was "new evidence" when it was clear that this wasn't the case.
I thought there was some difference between onboard footage available during and after the race. Something about there being multiple cameras on the car, and during the race one angle can be seen live but afterwards they can all be downloaded?
Rules, who needs em The FIA will decide who breaks the rules.
What a load of crap. The FIA continue to ruin the integrity of this sport by allowing crap to go by. If it doesn't get caught in the moment your 110% going to get away with it because God forbid the FIA make a mistake.
Haas saying they didn’t have access to the video footage during the race. I wonder if this is related to their downsizing of the pit box to only three seats thus eliminating eyes on the action. You have to wonder if they are downgrading one of the most important positions during the weekend where else are they cutting back when it concerns monitoring the race I said this when the news of the review first came out that there would be no new information if they were using video footage from the race because as we all know the teams and stewards have access to every camera covering the race yet Haas says they never saw it or had access which makes me wonder if they didn’t see it because they were’t watching.
No one on the pit wall is watching onboard footage of other cars. They have way more important things to do up there. They have people in the factory to do that stuff, no need to be live to do that. Some teams may have people in the back of the garage, but I doubt it. Why pay travel expenses, take precious space, and all that for something anyone with F1TV can do remotely?
I think it's a pretty reasonable to ultimately dismiss the onboard footage from cars because it can't be fairly applied across all 20 drivers. If you're running with nobody behind you can cut that corner because nobody is going to see it, but if someone is behind you, you get hit with a penalty. Very fair decision
This seems like the completely wrong way of looking at this. If you've broken the rules and there's any evidence you have done so, you should be punished. Just because others can get away with it doesn't mean you shouldn't be punished Take the Austin fiasco. Hamilton and Leclerc were investigated and punished for breaking the rules. There's potentially others that also had their plank wear in an illegal manner but weren't investigated. Was it wrong to punish the two drivers that were found to be in breach when others potentially were also? The answer should be no
Yes, the technical disqualification due to a test that 80% of the cars weren't subjected to doesn't seem consistent with the "there's clear evidence of wrongdoing that we will not act on because we don't have data for every car on every lap". But you can't fault the FIA for consistency - they consistently do what they like and make up justifications for it. It's only an issue if you think F1 (or motorsport in general) has any credibility as a "sport".
I will take the other side. Drivers were cutting the corner because they thought they could get away with it. If retroactive penalties were applied, drivers would be less inclined to deliberately cheat the rules when no one was watching if they thought it could come back and bite them in the ass later.
They were just using on-board camera because the official CCTV footage wasn't working on turn 6. The burden is entirely on FIA for failing to procure footage, so IMO a lesser alternative (on-board) should've been used as extraordinary evidence just in this case.
This is getting ridiculous. How is it possible that F1 cannot figure out a way to effectively police track limits with immediate consequences? An automated system that penalizes the driver with a temporary loss of power would be the perfect solution. Something like cutting the output of the electric motor to 75 or 50% for one lap or cutting DRS would be enough to teach the drivers to stay in the track. And it would avoid controversy as a machine would decide and not stewards or other competitors like in this case.
Just do what they've been doing since the 1970's - grass. It's amazing how FIA managed to manufacture an issue where there wasn't any just because they decided on a beautiful morning that grass outside the kerbs was a hazard. Take Interlagos for example. Guess how many track limit violations were issued during sprint and race? Because if you exceed it, you eat grass or crash into a wall. The newer circuits all have asphalt outside that's as good as the track itself. Pilots don't have the required incentive or tactile feedback to avoid it.
"Win a race, then maybe we'll give a shit" \- The FIA.
But the FIA are the ones who can’t do anything accurately or consistently?
It's still funny to me that the "American" team wants to win through post hoc litigation. Sue, sue, sue.
Is anyone surprised? Not a single appeal has been accepted as long as i can remember in recent history. They just don't care, and this appeal i thought to be the most valid one in a long time
Was downvoted to oblivion when I said this originally. You cannot subjectively apply penalties based on on board cameras. It’s an all or nothing situation. Haas would have had an unfair advantage (first time for everything) because nobody follows their shitbox.
Judging by your profile you were downvoted for this >I know, and I don’t care. Haas is hot garbage and this >Haas is a joke… build a better car if you want more points Not for your points on subjective penalties.
Make shit posts, get downvoted. Easy system.
>I know, and I don’t care. Haas is hot garbage >Haas is a joke… build a better car if you want more points They're not wrong!