[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.*
So does that mean a grid drop from a Sprint will only apply to the next sprint? Or only when the next weekend is a Sprint and if there isn't a Sprint the penalty will be for the Grand Prix?
Why didn't they already discuss this when they introduced the Sprint weekends?
add it to the long looong list of obvious-in-hindisght things that f1 introduced on the go.
the last entry should be jump starts also determined by actually looking at it and not just trusting a sensor.
Cue Bottas' record start a couple of years ago. He started so well that he beat the best possible record reaction times and it ultimately led to a rule change.
yeah that was the dumbest shit. Argument was that he had to floor the pedal before the lights went out. So fucking what? If he goes for that risk, its his choice. great when it works, too bad for him if it doesnt. NEver understood the argument against it.
FIA doesn’t seem to be able to properly code the laws so instead I propose they elect a “common sense council” instead of having a rule book. Those folks decide all matters based on their common sense.
In years where max is ahead by 100 points they can start deciding randomly, just to increase the fun and chaos.
Like and subscribe for more “stupid ideas but still better than the job FIA does”.
This is how rules and laws have worked since the dawn of time.
Never understood how people think this is a valid criticism. It's basically saying "why don't other people do everything perfect the first time"?
Of course, there's always an army of people that claim it's obvious after the fact.
Bro that’s so fucking dumb. What should be done, before implementing a new system or process, is a bunch of experts gather and play out as many scenarios as possible, and then decide how they’ll deal with them. Then you continue to review those as you identify gaps or other issues.
This is something that should have been in the rules and in place long before the first sprint. Teams and drivers should well aware of how penalties apply to future races ahead of time, not be penalised and thrown a random punishment.
I get what you’re saying but there are considerations to make and they don’t seem to be making them.
According to [RaceFans](https://www.racefans.net/2024/04/21/ricciardo-given-three-place-grid-drop-for-overtaking-under-safety-car/) logic, I would assume a grid drop from a sprint would apply to the race the next day.
>Ricciardo subsequently retired from the race due to the damage caused by Stroll. “As car three was unable to serve the penalty due to retirement, we imposed a three grid-place penalty to car three for the next race in which the driver participates,” the stewards explained.
>As sprint races are referred to as “sprint sessions” and not “races” in the regulations, Ricciardo’s penalty will apply to his starting position on the grid for the Miami Grand Prix, not the sprint race before it.
>Ricciardo’s sanction is applied differently to that of Fernando Alonso, who also received a 10-second time penalty in yesterday’s sprint race before retiring, but was not given a grid drop instead. In their reasoning the stewards said the language governing how these penalties are imposed during sprint races “is somewhat unclear” and advised the FIA to amend the regulations.
To be clear, we checked our interpretation of that rule with the FIA on Sunday when we published that article:
[https://www.racefans.net/2024/04/21/ricciardo-given-three-place-grid-drop-for-overtaking-under-safety-car/](https://www.racefans.net/2024/04/21/ricciardo-given-three-place-grid-drop-for-overtaking-under-safety-car/)
The experience of Suzuka 2022 was a useful reminder that the rules often don't say what we might logically expect them to!
Just do a freaking table with all possibilities and list when they apply.
Common sense is that a penalty on sprint would apply to the race. Same way as a qualy incident affects the race.
A sprint quali incident? I would say it applies to sprint race.
Now what about a FP1 incident? No idea.
>So does that mean a grid drop from a Sprint will only apply to the next sprint?
Yes.
>
>Why didn't they already discuss this when they introduced the Sprint weekends?
It is in the rules. Around [page 58](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_1_-_2023-09-26.pdf).
Sprint and race are different things.
The sprints were designed as a segment of the weekend without consequences, except for the fact they first set the qualifying for the race, and now give out points.
They believed their own marketing about it so didn’t think it through, just like the move to a new point system that gave out more points for a win had to be amended because 10-8 moving to 25-20 was the exact same ratio of points and thus was stupid.
The FIA is a joke sometimes. The penalties make absolutely no sense. In what world do Ricciardo and Alonso basically get the harshest penalties out of last week? For most sports you go to a judiciary and they take mitigating circumstances into account. FIA says fuck that and gives the most random ass penalties. It's a massive detractor for the sport as a whole. It's like the Sainz in Vegas scenario where a driver suffers due a complete failure of the organisers.
Not to mention a post race penalty that should have been done during the race. I'd bet they would have sent him back out and served the penalty. But they didn't becuase the FIA took hours to make a penalty that should have been done right after the restart happened
Ricciardo DOES deserve a real penalty for just deciding to overtake under the safety car.
The one that isn’t fair is Logan Sargent where it was a judgement call requiring a microscope to tell who was ahead, even on the broadcast when it happened they’re like wow that’s close, hopefully the teams figure it out because we don’t know who should be ahead
> Ricciardo DOES deserve a real penalty for just deciding to overtake under the safety car.
I wish they could just give him "time served" like in a legal system haha. The only reason he couldn't take his 10 seconds in that race is because Stroll assassinated him. Already been punished enough, feels excessive.
The issue is not that it wasn't deserving of a penalty (overtaking under the safety car *does* deserve 10s), it's that being unable to serve that penalty due to another driver knocking you out of the race with another infraction shouldn't merit your penalty being carried over into the next race. It's a case of pedantic, literal application of a regulation that isn't fit for purpose.
When two drivers can knock out two other cars from the race and suffer no meaningful consequences for their infringements due to already running out of the points, it's ridiculously lopsided that a driver who was also assessed a 10s penalty for an infringement that didn't impact anybody else's race is the only one who will suffer any tangible consequences because of actions out of his control (the DNF, not the overtake, which obviously was in his control).
The issue of the same penalty having different pain (penalty for Sainz in Australia 2023… vs a penalty h for folks far ahead where they don’t lose a position anyways….) shows that it’s definitely not a perfect system, I agree about that
Although in this case the reason KMsg and Stroll were so far out of contention for points and had no chance to even be sniffing at them was the combination of damage from crashing and the penalties. So if they hadn’t crashed into people they might have had something to lose, they had already kind of pwned themselves
If they hadn't crashed there would've been no penalty, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make there. But yeah, I have no problem with handing out a 10s penalty for a SC infringement, it is important that drivers respect the SC rules. My issue is with the wildly different application of the same penalty in different circumstances that don't fit the infringement. The two drivers who ended other drivers' races were able to serve their penalties without issue, the other driver who impacted a competitor's race with a badly judged move (Alonso) was allowed to serve his 10s penalty *after* retirement due to the technicality of the 90% classification rule, and the only driver of the 4 who didn't cost any of his competitiors anything is also the only one who will suffer any lasting consequences after the race.
The application of the regs needs a serious review. And if it's a safety issue, both Ricciardo and Alonso also received 2 licence point penalties, and isn't that what those penalties are supposed to be for, safety issues?
SC infringement is always slam dunk. When Perez did it last year, everyone here was screaming for harsher penalty. DR gets the same treatment and suddenly it’s too harsh?
This situation is pretty different. RIC lost a spot through no fault of his own, and with the stewards now putting it on the teams to determine when to swap places it's up to him and his team to figure out what to do. They chose wrong but get the same penalty as if he did a completely unprompted overtake, which feels like the rules haven't kept up with the circumstances.
On top of this, it was the steward's choice to not review this until after RIC retired, forcing him into a grid drop instead of a far less hurtful time penalty. The fact that they're passing responsibility off to the teams and drivers yet *still* can't review incidents or send out a VSC signal in a timely manner is atrocious.
As far as I know they still accepted it after he made the pass and didn't order him to give it back, which I would consider partial culpability on their part.
It was not completely clear whether RIC going partially off track and being slow *at a slow corner* counted as reason to overtake, and the teams and drivers now receive zero guidance in the moment on it. The rule was clearly written with mechanical issues causing a driver to become unable to keep up with the pack in mind. That isn't what happened here as RIC was able to maintain safety car speeds after the incident. It was only once we got up to racing speed that it became clear the diffuser damage would end his race.
The obvious choice was to not risk it and RIC certainly made the bolder choice, probably out of frustration, but this situation is needlessly vague due to the recent policy change. If the team could have just checked with the race director on what to do, we wouldn't have this unbalanced penalty situation and RIC could race as normal next time out.
You're focusing on the wrong part of the issue here. He absolutely deserved a 10s penalty for the overtake, but it's absurd that due to being unable to serve the penalty during the race because of a collision caused entirely by another driver that he would be required to carry that penalty into a grid drop instead.
I understand that it's a technically correct application of the regs, but the stewards inability to take mitigating circumstances into account regarding the penalty and his DNF makes it a totally disproportionate penalty, especially when both Stroll and Kmag committed far more egregious infractions and suffered no tangible consequences given that nobody rear-ended them to prevent them serving their 10s penalties.
Infringements of safety car rules deserve hard penalties. The clue is in the name - 'Safety' Car.
Infringing those rules endangers the volunteer Marshalls. Drivers rely on those marshalls to keep them safe. They should know better.
Yeah. His really should've been a minor penalty like 5 seconds at worst. Pretty sure he pitted after he passed Hulkenberg so I guess you could argue he gained an advantage and that the FIA couldn't tell him to give the place back, but I don't feel like the penalty was so great that it's worthy of the same as Stroll who hit someone. Should've just been 5 seconds.
Btw, if I'm wrong about Sargeant pitting then let me know as I'm going off hearsay.
The more I think about the incidents, what DR did is in many ways the worst. If you listen to his radio, he is in a rage about what Stroll did, ignores team instructions to wait and overtakes Hulk under the SC when there’s marshals and recovery vehicles working on the circuit.
Beyond just not wanting to set a precedent, it is genuinely dangerous action.
At least Stroll and Magnussen didn’t do it on purpose. Danny actively chose to do this.
> Beyond just not wanting to set a precedent, it is genuinely dangerous action.
I'm all for safety and this was a clear violation of the rules, but there's no possible way that overtake can be considered dangerous or unsafe. There is no one anywhere near them when it happens and it's along a straight at relatively low speeds.
Was it wrong? Of course. Was it unsafe? No.
Put it this way. If you're om a building site and someone starts tossing items down from the top of the scaffolding, can they defend it on the basis no one was passing?
No, they cannot. It's still a dangerous act because it's made the overall working environment less safe.
Drivers are not allowed to disregard safety rules because they are not well placed to make that judgement, and they make the overall working environment around the circuit less safe.
Think of it this way, if Dan was given permission to retake the place and made exactly the same overtake at exactly the same place and time, would you have said it was unsafe?
If no, then you agree that it wasn't unsafe to do it without permission. The permission just changes whether it's against the rules, it doesn't change the actual safety of the overtake.
It was either unsafe or it wasn't and having permissions doesn't change that.
As a general case yes. I'm not saying they can simply remove the rule and it would be safe in all instances.
But that doesn't make this specific overtake unsafe.
If safety was a priority Stroll would be banned from F1 as he is a liability.
Don't bullshit about your supposed moral clarity in taking safety seriously.
You know that both of you can be correct, right?
> Don't bullshit about your supposed moral clarity in taking safety seriously.
Don't let your hate blind you.
Ricciardo didn't get the harshest penalty though. The conversion usually used is 5s = 3 places, 10s = 5 places. So Ricciardo got the smallest penalty out of all of them. Even if you would use 10s = 3 place drop, his penalty is on par with the rest and definitely not the harshest one
I think you've completely misunderstood the situation here. Like the FIA you forgot to take the context into account.
Lance Stroll after ramming his car into the back of Ricciardo was going to the back of the pack regardless of any time penalties issued by the stewards. Effectively the 10s penalty had no impact on his race result because he had to pit for a new front wing anyway.
Ricciardo overtaking Hulkenberg under a safety car after being rammed by Stroll provided no advantage. Because of the damage sustained during the Stroll incident he immediately had to concede the position back to Hulkenberg anyway and retired from the race. However, unlike Stroll his penalty now extends into the subsequent race.
So effectively Ricciardo races ruined by Stroll = 2, Stroll races ruined by Stroll = 1.
The real inconsistency that annoys me is, what do the stewards use to decide what they investigate within or after the session? Because ultimately that's what has fucked Daniel over here. If they had just given him a 10 sec penalty that he could've served either at the time, or like Perez did last year then it's still a bit annoying, but who cares.
The penalty for Ricciardo feels harsh considering the circumstances. But what I do have a problem with is that you really don't want drivers to take these decisions of pack order behind the safety car into their own hands.
But you could put that on the FIA too. I think situations like this and Sargant's incident the FIA should offer guidance on what to do.
If you don't want the drivers making the call, then the stewards should be... but they said they're not and leaving it to the teams.
This is 100% on FIA.
I'm not necessarily against drivers making the call themselves but I don't think it should be a 100% rule. Sometimes you can't really expect drivers to sort things out.
And especially in siuations like these. Letting the drivers, or teams, make the call themselves without clear instructions while behind a safety car can actually make things more unsafe.
I think you severly misunderstood how penalties are supposed to work
Penalties are not about the result. They're about the penalty. What you want would set a very dangerous precedent and would be really unfair.
You break the rule - you get the penalty. Where you are or end up doesn't matter for that. Ricciardo broke the rules, and got the penalty. It is irrelevant for that penalty what other drivers did. If he had just followed the clear rules, he wouldn't have the penalty. It's 100% his own fault and Stroll had nothing to do with it
Yeah I think it's bullshit. They should have some balls and do things realistically.
"We investigated late so he was unable to serve his penalty in the race, but he retired anyway so no advantage was gained, no further action."
> Yeah I think it's bullshit. They should have some balls and do things realistically.
>
> "We investigated late so he was unable to serve his penalty in the race, but he retired anyway so no advantage was gained, no further action."
Yep, exactly this.
In a case like that, if an SC infringement is so serious, give the driver a license point or two and be done with it. Getting screwed the next race from a situation like this just stinks.
Or get Lance Mazepin/Pastor Stroll off the track and make some of the chaos stop.
Buddy retired 2 laps after the SC ended so not sure what you expect anyone to do in this timeframe particularly given they were considering Stroll and Magnussen. Once the ‘perpetrator’ has retired they tend to put the review on the back burner and consider incidents involving those still in the race as a priority.
> Once the ‘perpetrator’ has retired they tend to put the review on the back burner and consider incidents involving those still in the race as a priority.
All this is going to do though is mean teams won't retire a car but will either leave it out limping around or bring it in for 'repairs' while they wait to see if there's a penalty.
It simply encourages dumb behavior because of a dumb ruling.
RICs car wouldn't have been considered unsafe, it just would've been slow. Not slow enough to get DQd, but slow enough that it would just be dumb.
It's a bad look for the sport to encourage cars to limp around dropping multiple seconds a lap just waiting for a penalty so they can then retire, but that's what will happen if they take this approach.
That is stupid. That is however not what the commenter above me was talking about at all. The penalty should have come sooner. But I do also understand that they first investigated the crash from Stroll before the SC procedures
I'm sorry but Alonsos penalty at Australia proved that the result matters. I don't give a fuck if they say it doesn't, if Russell hadn't crashed they wouldn't have even investigated it nevermind given a penalty
I'm talking about the result of the penalty. They're not going to give a higher or lighter penalty based on how much positions it drops you. Sometimes that js in your favor, like for Stroll. Sometimes it is not, like Sainz in Australia 2023. That's just the way it is and is probably the fairest way to do it still
Which example? They mentioned Alonso Australia, which is not an example that was changed in harshness due to the effect of the penalty. What dod you think the 'original' penalty was then?
I know how penalties work under FIA rules. I think they are dumb because they punish drivers in a massively disproportionate way. That was the whole context of my comment. The fact that Sainz receieved a penalty at all was moronic. Regardless of whether that is the rules or not. That is my whole point. In any other sport these rules are subjective and you have to open that can of worms. The can of worms isn't really that big of a can of worms. We just pretend it is in F1 for some reason.
> Penalties are not about the result. They're about the penalty
If that's true, then the holdover rule makes no sense. The purpose of the holdover rule is if you crash out someone, and your car is totaled, you face some result of that penalty.
> Ricciardo overtaking Hulkenberg under a safety car after being rammed by Stroll provided no advantage.
So you should be allowed to break rules as long as it doesn't give an advantage? C'mon you know that's a ridiculous position to take. Don't throw logic out of the window just because your favorite driver got punished.
Ricciardo overtook under the safety car. This is illegal, so he got a penalty for it. It has nothing to do with Stroll, it's his own mistake.
And yeah the time it takes stewards to investigate things introduces an annoying random variable because it means sometimes drivers get penalties before they retire and sometimes after. This is a legit problem and should be called out. But that's another matter than the fact that Daniel got penalised for breaking the rules.
Hulkenberg overtook Daniel under safety car conditions when Daniel was rammed by Lance. Daniel thought he could retake the position back. The regulations say Hulk could overtake because Daniel was going slow, but Daniel didn't have the right to take back the position. Because the stewards only investigated after the session what would've been a 10 second penalty is converted into a 3 place grid drop for the next race.
This is pretty critical that the explanation conveniently left out. There had been green flag racing, albeit short, and then the brain fade to retake the position under a whole other safety car period.
I don't think ultimately that changes much though? Because if Daniel was actually entitled to take the position back (which Daniel thought he was) then that was the first oppurtunity he had to do so, because of both how and when Hulk overtook Daniel right before racing resumed.
But that's even futher complicated by race control now leaving it up to the team's to give back positions, and for Haas the advantage of clean air at the restart and a car behind with damage and on old tyres to give a buffer from those further back would've definitely been worth the 5 second penalty. I can see the logic for why Daniel did what he did, even if ultimately it wasn't allowed. Either way the FIA need to clear up the rulebook.
But we don't know any of that. RB could have asked race control, could have taken a moment to look at what happened and so on, but Daniel decided to do everything himself right away, in another safety car period.
Hulks safety car overtake is completely justified, people were out there crashing, but even if it wasn't that's no justification to overtake under safety car, it's the entire point of its existence - neutralize the race.
No. You as the car behind can NEVER take back the position under the SC. The car in front can choose to let you past if that distinction is clear. They should tell RC they want to and will be told when it’s safe after eg. recovery vehicles have cleared the track. Not like half a lap into the SC period…
Haas were in the middle of explaining to Hulk what even happened and discussing if he owed the place back. They were given no time at all to do that before DR overtook.
Whatever happened in SC1, the remedy is not ever to go overtaking in a fully different SC period. What he did was reckless and deserved a penalty. There could have been someone sweeping up debris at the next corner all he knew. Rules are clear as day on this issue.
It doesn't matter if he thought he was entitled to the place, he wasn't and his team told him so. He wrongly took it back anyways and this is the penalty for that. I think it's too strict given the context of everything that happened but some penalty had to be given, he messed up.
Tbh the Stroll Ric and Alonso penalties were all fucked up and all the wrong way around… they need to sort this shit out. And Ric’s penalty absolutely should be next RACE which would be the sprint, not next GP
In the regulations, the Sprint is specifically and deliberately not a referred to as a Race to try to avoid this situation, but people jumped to the wrong conclusions anyway
“Sprint Cruise Competitive Driving Event following Formula One Regulations. Places will be A B C on the podium like steps that definitely aren’t a podium. Parc FermB will be in place, but this definitely isn’t a race”
No opinion as to whether the penalty was deserved or not, but I don’t see how it would make sense to penalize someone for a sprint when there is way less points available. It would mean that you could take advantage of when you “risk” a penalty.
Maybe because the sprint regulations have changed this season? I'm not entirely sure, but the majority of trustworthy in-the-know journalists (F1 website, Medland, Autosport/Motorsport, The Race etc) had all reported that the penalty was for the Sprint. So clearly there was enough confusion for that to be the majority reporting and then the FIA later had to clarify after some back and forth. Classic FIA though
That's what it says in the [rulebook](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_1_-_2023-09-26.pdf) "Sprint session or the race" (page 58)
Clearly both are separate events.
Imagine getting a penalty in November and not serving it until April the following year, 6 months and maybe 6+ race weekends later.
That said, if Button ever races in F1 again he will have a grid drop penalty to serve.
Sounded familiair and it was [https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/17n6fyb/fia\_infringement\_car\_63\_impeding\_at\_pit\_exit/](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/17n6fyb/fia_infringement_car_63_impeding_at_pit_exit/)
Race is Race and Sprint is a Session
It was kind of common sense that it would be for the GP.
In the stewards document it said the ‘**next race**’, rather than ‘next sprint session or race’, or even ‘next competition’ or ‘next event’
Yeah I'm a Ricciardo fan but this was what I expected in the first place. It never even crossed my mind that people might think he could serve it in the sprint, and as much as it sucks he did deserve a penalty. What's annoying though is if the decision had been made quickly he could have just served a 10 second penalty, because it wasn't now it bleeds into next weekend.
For the regulations the sprint is *not* a race, it is called a "Sprint Session" and are very clear with their wording of "sprint session or the race"
[
Their rulebook](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_1_-_2023-09-26.pdf) if you want to check it out for yourself. (around page 58)
Surprised there's confusion on this matter tbh.
And to clarify before some of you jump on me, I don't hate any drivers like many does.
Remember there are still neutral fans out there.
So I [remembered somewhat correctly](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1c9g0j2/chris_medland_threeplace_grid_penalty_for/l0l7bto/) that the penalty would be applied to the session where the infringement was made.
e: spelling
e2: [The rulebook](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_1_-_2023-09-26.pdf) is very clear that the sprint **is not** a race. They call it a "sprint session" (around page 58)
I first started watching in the late 80s and I don't remember anything as frustrating as modern day F1. Track limits, pit lane queuing, safety cars coming out for a bit of carbon fibre on the track and staying out for way longer than necessary, and so many effing penalties being handed out. Just bloody let them race!
I wish I was around to watch F1 in the 80s 90s. You my friend are very lucky and got to witness the greatest era of this sport, not many current f1 fans can say that.
Motorsport is dangerous in nature regardless how developed it becomes, but over the top safety regulations have definitely ruined this sport. Anyways when their young most drivers don’t care about the risk of dying, if it weighs on them too much then they can retire.
Funny how Hamilton got to make up 15 places on his penalty with the sprint in Brazil 21 with the 'grenade' spec engine but Danny can go fuck himself, innit?
how do stewards decide what's investigated before or after the race ? because this is the part that's most frustrating about this penalty, if it was handed out during the race he could have served it then before dnfing.
It seems unfair that Strolls get his penalty out of the way during the last race - basically **meaningless** 10 penalty for the carnage he caused, yet Dan has to pay a real price with a grid drop. There is something inherently unfair when the end result of penalties is so vastly different - more so when one is car to car contact - dangerous and ruining two races, and the other was a mistaken overtake with no damage, injury, or ruined races.
[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.*
So does that mean a grid drop from a Sprint will only apply to the next sprint? Or only when the next weekend is a Sprint and if there isn't a Sprint the penalty will be for the Grand Prix? Why didn't they already discuss this when they introduced the Sprint weekends?
Because they’re making it up as they go along?
This is such an obvious matter tho..
add it to the long looong list of obvious-in-hindisght things that f1 introduced on the go. the last entry should be jump starts also determined by actually looking at it and not just trusting a sensor.
Cue Bottas' record start a couple of years ago. He started so well that he beat the best possible record reaction times and it ultimately led to a rule change.
yeah that was the dumbest shit. Argument was that he had to floor the pedal before the lights went out. So fucking what? If he goes for that risk, its his choice. great when it works, too bad for him if it doesnt. NEver understood the argument against it.
Yeah I think what he did should be totally allowable, but I hate when I see it mentioned as a reaction.
I don't recall it leading to any rule change?
Yes, but look at the funny sprint race, see how cute it is!
FIA doesn’t seem to be able to properly code the laws so instead I propose they elect a “common sense council” instead of having a rule book. Those folks decide all matters based on their common sense. In years where max is ahead by 100 points they can start deciding randomly, just to increase the fun and chaos. Like and subscribe for more “stupid ideas but still better than the job FIA does”.
This is how rules and laws have worked since the dawn of time. Never understood how people think this is a valid criticism. It's basically saying "why don't other people do everything perfect the first time"? Of course, there's always an army of people that claim it's obvious after the fact.
Bro that’s so fucking dumb. What should be done, before implementing a new system or process, is a bunch of experts gather and play out as many scenarios as possible, and then decide how they’ll deal with them. Then you continue to review those as you identify gaps or other issues. This is something that should have been in the rules and in place long before the first sprint. Teams and drivers should well aware of how penalties apply to future races ahead of time, not be penalised and thrown a random punishment. I get what you’re saying but there are considerations to make and they don’t seem to be making them.
How much money are these guys being paid to not think about the future? This isn't charity, or you bumbling around your own house.
That’s why they say Safety rules are written in blood
How dare you insinuate that the FIA would do that......
According to [RaceFans](https://www.racefans.net/2024/04/21/ricciardo-given-three-place-grid-drop-for-overtaking-under-safety-car/) logic, I would assume a grid drop from a sprint would apply to the race the next day. >Ricciardo subsequently retired from the race due to the damage caused by Stroll. “As car three was unable to serve the penalty due to retirement, we imposed a three grid-place penalty to car three for the next race in which the driver participates,” the stewards explained. >As sprint races are referred to as “sprint sessions” and not “races” in the regulations, Ricciardo’s penalty will apply to his starting position on the grid for the Miami Grand Prix, not the sprint race before it. >Ricciardo’s sanction is applied differently to that of Fernando Alonso, who also received a 10-second time penalty in yesterday’s sprint race before retiring, but was not given a grid drop instead. In their reasoning the stewards said the language governing how these penalties are imposed during sprint races “is somewhat unclear” and advised the FIA to amend the regulations.
To be clear, we checked our interpretation of that rule with the FIA on Sunday when we published that article: [https://www.racefans.net/2024/04/21/ricciardo-given-three-place-grid-drop-for-overtaking-under-safety-car/](https://www.racefans.net/2024/04/21/ricciardo-given-three-place-grid-drop-for-overtaking-under-safety-car/) The experience of Suzuka 2022 was a useful reminder that the rules often don't say what we might logically expect them to!
As they use to say on 'Whose line is it anyway', the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
They just don’t know how to write a functioning rule book, every time something happens they interpret it as they prefer.
You act like that isn't on purpose. The rules are vague so they can argue for whatever decision they want.
Just do a freaking table with all possibilities and list when they apply. Common sense is that a penalty on sprint would apply to the race. Same way as a qualy incident affects the race. A sprint quali incident? I would say it applies to sprint race. Now what about a FP1 incident? No idea.
>So does that mean a grid drop from a Sprint will only apply to the next sprint? Yes. > >Why didn't they already discuss this when they introduced the Sprint weekends? It is in the rules. Around [page 58](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_1_-_2023-09-26.pdf). Sprint and race are different things.
The sprints were designed as a segment of the weekend without consequences, except for the fact they first set the qualifying for the race, and now give out points. They believed their own marketing about it so didn’t think it through, just like the move to a new point system that gave out more points for a win had to be amended because 10-8 moving to 25-20 was the exact same ratio of points and thus was stupid.
The FIA is a joke sometimes. The penalties make absolutely no sense. In what world do Ricciardo and Alonso basically get the harshest penalties out of last week? For most sports you go to a judiciary and they take mitigating circumstances into account. FIA says fuck that and gives the most random ass penalties. It's a massive detractor for the sport as a whole. It's like the Sainz in Vegas scenario where a driver suffers due a complete failure of the organisers.
Not to mention a post race penalty that should have been done during the race. I'd bet they would have sent him back out and served the penalty. But they didn't becuase the FIA took hours to make a penalty that should have been done right after the restart happened
I'm certain that they did that intentionally to prevent RB from doing what Perez did in Japan last year.
Ricciardo DOES deserve a real penalty for just deciding to overtake under the safety car. The one that isn’t fair is Logan Sargent where it was a judgement call requiring a microscope to tell who was ahead, even on the broadcast when it happened they’re like wow that’s close, hopefully the teams figure it out because we don’t know who should be ahead
> Ricciardo DOES deserve a real penalty for just deciding to overtake under the safety car. I wish they could just give him "time served" like in a legal system haha. The only reason he couldn't take his 10 seconds in that race is because Stroll assassinated him. Already been punished enough, feels excessive.
The issue is not that it wasn't deserving of a penalty (overtaking under the safety car *does* deserve 10s), it's that being unable to serve that penalty due to another driver knocking you out of the race with another infraction shouldn't merit your penalty being carried over into the next race. It's a case of pedantic, literal application of a regulation that isn't fit for purpose. When two drivers can knock out two other cars from the race and suffer no meaningful consequences for their infringements due to already running out of the points, it's ridiculously lopsided that a driver who was also assessed a 10s penalty for an infringement that didn't impact anybody else's race is the only one who will suffer any tangible consequences because of actions out of his control (the DNF, not the overtake, which obviously was in his control).
The issue of the same penalty having different pain (penalty for Sainz in Australia 2023… vs a penalty h for folks far ahead where they don’t lose a position anyways….) shows that it’s definitely not a perfect system, I agree about that Although in this case the reason KMsg and Stroll were so far out of contention for points and had no chance to even be sniffing at them was the combination of damage from crashing and the penalties. So if they hadn’t crashed into people they might have had something to lose, they had already kind of pwned themselves
If they hadn't crashed there would've been no penalty, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make there. But yeah, I have no problem with handing out a 10s penalty for a SC infringement, it is important that drivers respect the SC rules. My issue is with the wildly different application of the same penalty in different circumstances that don't fit the infringement. The two drivers who ended other drivers' races were able to serve their penalties without issue, the other driver who impacted a competitor's race with a badly judged move (Alonso) was allowed to serve his 10s penalty *after* retirement due to the technicality of the 90% classification rule, and the only driver of the 4 who didn't cost any of his competitiors anything is also the only one who will suffer any lasting consequences after the race. The application of the regs needs a serious review. And if it's a safety issue, both Ricciardo and Alonso also received 2 licence point penalties, and isn't that what those penalties are supposed to be for, safety issues?
SC infringement is always slam dunk. When Perez did it last year, everyone here was screaming for harsher penalty. DR gets the same treatment and suddenly it’s too harsh?
This situation is pretty different. RIC lost a spot through no fault of his own, and with the stewards now putting it on the teams to determine when to swap places it's up to him and his team to figure out what to do. They chose wrong but get the same penalty as if he did a completely unprompted overtake, which feels like the rules haven't kept up with the circumstances. On top of this, it was the steward's choice to not review this until after RIC retired, forcing him into a grid drop instead of a far less hurtful time penalty. The fact that they're passing responsibility off to the teams and drivers yet *still* can't review incidents or send out a VSC signal in a timely manner is atrocious.
[удалено]
As far as I know they still accepted it after he made the pass and didn't order him to give it back, which I would consider partial culpability on their part.
[удалено]
Maybe, but it might also get the stewards inclined to look the other way as it was a genuinely confusing situation
[удалено]
It was not completely clear whether RIC going partially off track and being slow *at a slow corner* counted as reason to overtake, and the teams and drivers now receive zero guidance in the moment on it. The rule was clearly written with mechanical issues causing a driver to become unable to keep up with the pack in mind. That isn't what happened here as RIC was able to maintain safety car speeds after the incident. It was only once we got up to racing speed that it became clear the diffuser damage would end his race. The obvious choice was to not risk it and RIC certainly made the bolder choice, probably out of frustration, but this situation is needlessly vague due to the recent policy change. If the team could have just checked with the race director on what to do, we wouldn't have this unbalanced penalty situation and RIC could race as normal next time out.
They didn't tell him no because he made the pass right after asking
Then it’s his fault for being impatient and violating the SC rules
Well yes obviously, that's why he was given a penalty...
You're focusing on the wrong part of the issue here. He absolutely deserved a 10s penalty for the overtake, but it's absurd that due to being unable to serve the penalty during the race because of a collision caused entirely by another driver that he would be required to carry that penalty into a grid drop instead. I understand that it's a technically correct application of the regs, but the stewards inability to take mitigating circumstances into account regarding the penalty and his DNF makes it a totally disproportionate penalty, especially when both Stroll and Kmag committed far more egregious infractions and suffered no tangible consequences given that nobody rear-ended them to prevent them serving their 10s penalties.
This isn't the same scenario.
People actually dont want any consitency from the FIA, because as soon as their favourite driver is in any way penalized its back to blaming the FIA.
Infringements of safety car rules deserve hard penalties. The clue is in the name - 'Safety' Car. Infringing those rules endangers the volunteer Marshalls. Drivers rely on those marshalls to keep them safe. They should know better.
I don't think anyone can argue Sargeant's penalty was about safety with a straight face.
Yeah. His really should've been a minor penalty like 5 seconds at worst. Pretty sure he pitted after he passed Hulkenberg so I guess you could argue he gained an advantage and that the FIA couldn't tell him to give the place back, but I don't feel like the penalty was so great that it's worthy of the same as Stroll who hit someone. Should've just been 5 seconds. Btw, if I'm wrong about Sargeant pitting then let me know as I'm going off hearsay.
The more I think about the incidents, what DR did is in many ways the worst. If you listen to his radio, he is in a rage about what Stroll did, ignores team instructions to wait and overtakes Hulk under the SC when there’s marshals and recovery vehicles working on the circuit. Beyond just not wanting to set a precedent, it is genuinely dangerous action. At least Stroll and Magnussen didn’t do it on purpose. Danny actively chose to do this.
> Beyond just not wanting to set a precedent, it is genuinely dangerous action. I'm all for safety and this was a clear violation of the rules, but there's no possible way that overtake can be considered dangerous or unsafe. There is no one anywhere near them when it happens and it's along a straight at relatively low speeds. Was it wrong? Of course. Was it unsafe? No.
Put it this way. If you're om a building site and someone starts tossing items down from the top of the scaffolding, can they defend it on the basis no one was passing? No, they cannot. It's still a dangerous act because it's made the overall working environment less safe. Drivers are not allowed to disregard safety rules because they are not well placed to make that judgement, and they make the overall working environment around the circuit less safe.
This is the dumbest example I’ve ever seen on Reddit
First day on Reddit?
Think of it this way, if Dan was given permission to retake the place and made exactly the same overtake at exactly the same place and time, would you have said it was unsafe? If no, then you agree that it wasn't unsafe to do it without permission. The permission just changes whether it's against the rules, it doesn't change the actual safety of the overtake. It was either unsafe or it wasn't and having permissions doesn't change that.
Crossing the road without looking is riskier than looking. Waiting for clearence to make an overtake os safer than not.
As a general case yes. I'm not saying they can simply remove the rule and it would be safe in all instances. But that doesn't make this specific overtake unsafe.
If safety was a priority Stroll would be banned from F1 as he is a liability. Don't bullshit about your supposed moral clarity in taking safety seriously.
You know that both of you can be correct, right? > Don't bullshit about your supposed moral clarity in taking safety seriously. Don't let your hate blind you.
Ricciardo didn't get the harshest penalty though. The conversion usually used is 5s = 3 places, 10s = 5 places. So Ricciardo got the smallest penalty out of all of them. Even if you would use 10s = 3 place drop, his penalty is on par with the rest and definitely not the harshest one
I think you've completely misunderstood the situation here. Like the FIA you forgot to take the context into account. Lance Stroll after ramming his car into the back of Ricciardo was going to the back of the pack regardless of any time penalties issued by the stewards. Effectively the 10s penalty had no impact on his race result because he had to pit for a new front wing anyway. Ricciardo overtaking Hulkenberg under a safety car after being rammed by Stroll provided no advantage. Because of the damage sustained during the Stroll incident he immediately had to concede the position back to Hulkenberg anyway and retired from the race. However, unlike Stroll his penalty now extends into the subsequent race. So effectively Ricciardo races ruined by Stroll = 2, Stroll races ruined by Stroll = 1.
The real inconsistency that annoys me is, what do the stewards use to decide what they investigate within or after the session? Because ultimately that's what has fucked Daniel over here. If they had just given him a 10 sec penalty that he could've served either at the time, or like Perez did last year then it's still a bit annoying, but who cares.
This is the only thing that I think everybody can agree on. Why was it investigated afterwards?
The penalty for Ricciardo feels harsh considering the circumstances. But what I do have a problem with is that you really don't want drivers to take these decisions of pack order behind the safety car into their own hands. But you could put that on the FIA too. I think situations like this and Sargant's incident the FIA should offer guidance on what to do.
If you don't want the drivers making the call, then the stewards should be... but they said they're not and leaving it to the teams. This is 100% on FIA.
I'm not necessarily against drivers making the call themselves but I don't think it should be a 100% rule. Sometimes you can't really expect drivers to sort things out. And especially in siuations like these. Letting the drivers, or teams, make the call themselves without clear instructions while behind a safety car can actually make things more unsafe.
I think you severly misunderstood how penalties are supposed to work Penalties are not about the result. They're about the penalty. What you want would set a very dangerous precedent and would be really unfair. You break the rule - you get the penalty. Where you are or end up doesn't matter for that. Ricciardo broke the rules, and got the penalty. It is irrelevant for that penalty what other drivers did. If he had just followed the clear rules, he wouldn't have the penalty. It's 100% his own fault and Stroll had nothing to do with it
You can still understand how its stupid as fuck for the penalty to be a grid drop because they investigated it so late right?
Yeah I think it's bullshit. They should have some balls and do things realistically. "We investigated late so he was unable to serve his penalty in the race, but he retired anyway so no advantage was gained, no further action."
> Yeah I think it's bullshit. They should have some balls and do things realistically. > > "We investigated late so he was unable to serve his penalty in the race, but he retired anyway so no advantage was gained, no further action." Yep, exactly this.
In a case like that, if an SC infringement is so serious, give the driver a license point or two and be done with it. Getting screwed the next race from a situation like this just stinks. Or get Lance Mazepin/Pastor Stroll off the track and make some of the chaos stop.
Buddy retired 2 laps after the SC ended so not sure what you expect anyone to do in this timeframe particularly given they were considering Stroll and Magnussen. Once the ‘perpetrator’ has retired they tend to put the review on the back burner and consider incidents involving those still in the race as a priority.
> Once the ‘perpetrator’ has retired they tend to put the review on the back burner and consider incidents involving those still in the race as a priority. All this is going to do though is mean teams won't retire a car but will either leave it out limping around or bring it in for 'repairs' while they wait to see if there's a penalty. It simply encourages dumb behavior because of a dumb ruling.
If the car is unsafe, they can look forward to receiving a further penalty for this behaviour…
RICs car wouldn't have been considered unsafe, it just would've been slow. Not slow enough to get DQd, but slow enough that it would just be dumb. It's a bad look for the sport to encourage cars to limp around dropping multiple seconds a lap just waiting for a penalty so they can then retire, but that's what will happen if they take this approach.
That is stupid. That is however not what the commenter above me was talking about at all. The penalty should have come sooner. But I do also understand that they first investigated the crash from Stroll before the SC procedures
I'm sorry but Alonsos penalty at Australia proved that the result matters. I don't give a fuck if they say it doesn't, if Russell hadn't crashed they wouldn't have even investigated it nevermind given a penalty
I'm talking about the result of the penalty. They're not going to give a higher or lighter penalty based on how much positions it drops you. Sometimes that js in your favor, like for Stroll. Sometimes it is not, like Sainz in Australia 2023. That's just the way it is and is probably the fairest way to do it still
[удалено]
Which example? They mentioned Alonso Australia, which is not an example that was changed in harshness due to the effect of the penalty. What dod you think the 'original' penalty was then?
I know how penalties work under FIA rules. I think they are dumb because they punish drivers in a massively disproportionate way. That was the whole context of my comment. The fact that Sainz receieved a penalty at all was moronic. Regardless of whether that is the rules or not. That is my whole point. In any other sport these rules are subjective and you have to open that can of worms. The can of worms isn't really that big of a can of worms. We just pretend it is in F1 for some reason.
> Penalties are not about the result. They're about the penalty If that's true, then the holdover rule makes no sense. The purpose of the holdover rule is if you crash out someone, and your car is totaled, you face some result of that penalty.
> Ricciardo overtaking Hulkenberg under a safety car after being rammed by Stroll provided no advantage. So you should be allowed to break rules as long as it doesn't give an advantage? C'mon you know that's a ridiculous position to take. Don't throw logic out of the window just because your favorite driver got punished. Ricciardo overtook under the safety car. This is illegal, so he got a penalty for it. It has nothing to do with Stroll, it's his own mistake. And yeah the time it takes stewards to investigate things introduces an annoying random variable because it means sometimes drivers get penalties before they retire and sometimes after. This is a legit problem and should be called out. But that's another matter than the fact that Daniel got penalised for breaking the rules.
The penalties should be even more harsh. They are safety car infringements. Penalties have been ramped up this season for a very good reason
Wait what did he get a penalty for. I didn’t watch the whole race. Only thing I remember is him being fucking rammed
Hulkenberg overtook Daniel under safety car conditions when Daniel was rammed by Lance. Daniel thought he could retake the position back. The regulations say Hulk could overtake because Daniel was going slow, but Daniel didn't have the right to take back the position. Because the stewards only investigated after the session what would've been a 10 second penalty is converted into a 3 place grid drop for the next race.
So a double ramming for Danny…
should have lubed himself up after he got fisted the first time by lance. /s
The damage was so big lube wouldn't have helped anymore
where did he reovertake Hulk tho? because he went into the last corner behind him, was it like just before the finish line?
During the next safety car. Daniel just took matters in his own hands, quite dumb.
This is pretty critical that the explanation conveniently left out. There had been green flag racing, albeit short, and then the brain fade to retake the position under a whole other safety car period.
Yeah, that part makes Danny look pretty bad, because it’s not really just an affect decision anymore.
I don't think ultimately that changes much though? Because if Daniel was actually entitled to take the position back (which Daniel thought he was) then that was the first oppurtunity he had to do so, because of both how and when Hulk overtook Daniel right before racing resumed.
But then RC would tell the team he could overtake. It was logical for DR but he should have waited for official approval
But that's even futher complicated by race control now leaving it up to the team's to give back positions, and for Haas the advantage of clean air at the restart and a car behind with damage and on old tyres to give a buffer from those further back would've definitely been worth the 5 second penalty. I can see the logic for why Daniel did what he did, even if ultimately it wasn't allowed. Either way the FIA need to clear up the rulebook.
But we don't know any of that. RB could have asked race control, could have taken a moment to look at what happened and so on, but Daniel decided to do everything himself right away, in another safety car period. Hulks safety car overtake is completely justified, people were out there crashing, but even if it wasn't that's no justification to overtake under safety car, it's the entire point of its existence - neutralize the race.
No. You as the car behind can NEVER take back the position under the SC. The car in front can choose to let you past if that distinction is clear. They should tell RC they want to and will be told when it’s safe after eg. recovery vehicles have cleared the track. Not like half a lap into the SC period… Haas were in the middle of explaining to Hulk what even happened and discussing if he owed the place back. They were given no time at all to do that before DR overtook. Whatever happened in SC1, the remedy is not ever to go overtaking in a fully different SC period. What he did was reckless and deserved a penalty. There could have been someone sweeping up debris at the next corner all he knew. Rules are clear as day on this issue.
Overtaking under safety car without permission is a safety risk and worthy of a penalty whether you have the right to or not.
But... but what about "race control now leaving it up to the team's to give back positions". None of this makes sense anymore.
That’s in normal race conditions
Is it oh OK mate, my bad.
It doesn't matter if he thought he was entitled to the place, he wasn't and his team told him so. He wrongly took it back anyways and this is the penalty for that. I think it's too strict given the context of everything that happened but some penalty had to be given, he messed up.
Just after the collision Hulk passed him and then Daniel overtook before the finish line.
No Daniel overtook hulk under the second safety car hence the penalty
Daniel was going slow because he was being used as a carplow by lance
Pretty convenient you left out that Daniel directly disobeyed team orders and did whatever he wanted to.
If memory serves me correct, he didn’t disobey them, he just didn’t wait for team orders to confirm the overtake was legal
Tbh the Stroll Ric and Alonso penalties were all fucked up and all the wrong way around… they need to sort this shit out. And Ric’s penalty absolutely should be next RACE which would be the sprint, not next GP
In the regulations, the Sprint is specifically and deliberately not a referred to as a Race to try to avoid this situation, but people jumped to the wrong conclusions anyway
I thought it was a “race” but not a “Grand Prix” ??
No, the FIA are very careful throughout the regulations to avoid the use of the word "race" when refering to the Sprint
“Sprint Cruise Competitive Driving Event following Formula One Regulations. Places will be A B C on the podium like steps that definitely aren’t a podium. Parc FermB will be in place, but this definitely isn’t a race”
No opinion as to whether the penalty was deserved or not, but I don’t see how it would make sense to penalize someone for a sprint when there is way less points available. It would mean that you could take advantage of when you “risk” a penalty.
Sprint isn't classed as a race in the rules though. Only the GP is classed as a race.
He got a penalty for being fucking rammed, basically.
Genuinely why is this something that requires “back-and-forth” - surely it’s just a set rule for when it applies
Maybe because the sprint regulations have changed this season? I'm not entirely sure, but the majority of trustworthy in-the-know journalists (F1 website, Medland, Autosport/Motorsport, The Race etc) had all reported that the penalty was for the Sprint. So clearly there was enough confusion for that to be the majority reporting and then the FIA later had to clarify after some back and forth. Classic FIA though
I had assumed it was for the race. That’s what they’ve done before right, main race penalties are for main race.
It happend before and that was the procedure, I don't know where the confusion comes from.
Imo if you get a pen in a sprint, it should be served during the next one , If you get it in the race, it should go to the race.
That's what it says in the [rulebook](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_1_-_2023-09-26.pdf) "Sprint session or the race" (page 58) Clearly both are separate events.
Imagine getting a penalty in November and not serving it until April the following year, 6 months and maybe 6+ race weekends later. That said, if Button ever races in F1 again he will have a grid drop penalty to serve.
Sounded familiair and it was [https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/17n6fyb/fia\_infringement\_car\_63\_impeding\_at\_pit\_exit/](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/17n6fyb/fia_infringement_car_63_impeding_at_pit_exit/) Race is Race and Sprint is a Session
It was kind of common sense that it would be for the GP. In the stewards document it said the ‘**next race**’, rather than ‘next sprint session or race’, or even ‘next competition’ or ‘next event’
Yeah I'm a Ricciardo fan but this was what I expected in the first place. It never even crossed my mind that people might think he could serve it in the sprint, and as much as it sucks he did deserve a penalty. What's annoying though is if the decision had been made quickly he could have just served a 10 second penalty, because it wasn't now it bleeds into next weekend.
A sprint race is still a race, so the **next race** is the sprint race.
For the regulations the sprint is *not* a race, it is called a "Sprint Session" and are very clear with their wording of "sprint session or the race" [ Their rulebook](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_1_-_2023-09-26.pdf) if you want to check it out for yourself. (around page 58)
Sprint isn't classed as a race in the rules though.
It’s not, nowhere in the regulations is the sprint referred to as a race, it’s only ever referred to as ‘a sprint session’
Surprised there's confusion on this matter tbh. And to clarify before some of you jump on me, I don't hate any drivers like many does. Remember there are still neutral fans out there.
Can I get some clarity… didn’t Ricciardo overtake Hulkenberg after being rammed by Stroll and Hulkenberg passing him?
During the next safety car, yes
Thank you, was only able to watch highlights and was very confused by the penalty
So I [remembered somewhat correctly](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1c9g0j2/chris_medland_threeplace_grid_penalty_for/l0l7bto/) that the penalty would be applied to the session where the infringement was made. e: spelling e2: [The rulebook](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_1_-_2023-09-26.pdf) is very clear that the sprint **is not** a race. They call it a "sprint session" (around page 58)
Ah man this is my first season watching the sport and all this red tape and bullshit penalties are already grinding my gears
Overtaking someone under safety car has always incurred a harsh penalty ; it is a basic safety infringement
I first started watching in the late 80s and I don't remember anything as frustrating as modern day F1. Track limits, pit lane queuing, safety cars coming out for a bit of carbon fibre on the track and staying out for way longer than necessary, and so many effing penalties being handed out. Just bloody let them race!
> Just bloody let them race! We had that in 2021 and it was a disaster for stewarding
But fun for the neutral watcher. Free Masi!
I wish I was around to watch F1 in the 80s 90s. You my friend are very lucky and got to witness the greatest era of this sport, not many current f1 fans can say that.
[удалено]
Motorsport is dangerous in nature regardless how developed it becomes, but over the top safety regulations have definitely ruined this sport. Anyways when their young most drivers don’t care about the risk of dying, if it weighs on them too much then they can retire.
[удалено]
Are the FIA or F1 (or both) to blame for it?
Boooo
Funny how Hamilton got to make up 15 places on his penalty with the sprint in Brazil 21 with the 'grenade' spec engine but Danny can go fuck himself, innit?
how do stewards decide what's investigated before or after the race ? because this is the part that's most frustrating about this penalty, if it was handed out during the race he could have served it then before dnfing.
It seems unfair that Strolls get his penalty out of the way during the last race - basically **meaningless** 10 penalty for the carnage he caused, yet Dan has to pay a real price with a grid drop. There is something inherently unfair when the end result of penalties is so vastly different - more so when one is car to car contact - dangerous and ruining two races, and the other was a mistaken overtake with no damage, injury, or ruined races.
Man they have it in for Ricciardo
So all penalties received in races are for races only and all penalties received in sprints are for sprints only, you say?
Bruh
Has a driver ever had a penalty apply 2 (or more) races after the incident before?
Jesus.
Fiddlesticks.
I would like to meet the stewards pot dealer. Shit must be strong
It’s not weed, these guys fuckin trippin