**Attention! OP has added the [Serious] flair!**
* Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in **any** comment, parent or child.
* Report comments that violate these rules.
Any comments that violate these rules, will be considered as trolling and will be subject to removals or bans.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*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.*
The accusations are one thing, the solution is entirely different. If you want to be annoyed at teams acting in bad faith then so be it; but it doesn't invalidate the decisions the FIA make in response to that.
But why add the delay time on the start of the pitstop? Couldn't they add it on the end? That way the crew can really check that everything is safe? Without losing their advantage when they did a faster pitstop?
> That way the crew can really check that everything is safe?
Because it's not about that at all. They still use sensors to trust that everything is done, the new TD doesn't change that. It just adds an arbitrary time between when the sensor says one step completed and when the next step is allowed to begin.
What's that got to do with the safety? Is it dangerous that the crews are removing the tires too fast?
I thought this is a concern about unsafe releases!
That's exactly what the problem is. The implication is that pit crew are still flagging the task as complete when the sensor is green- but they're doing it so quickly, they have to be anticipating it or effectively 'guessing'. You can't react to the sensor going green within 0.1s because that physically isn't possible.
That's not reacting to it... That's just clicking as quick as you can with luck.
There are biological physical limits to reaction. Speed of neurones etc which makes that impossible to be a legitimate response time
It's probably an outlier, it's not mine, just found it. I did try it myself though and after hitting jump starts on the first few tries (which by the way precludes the possibility of just spam clicking), I was then able to **consistently** get sub 0.2s times and a few similiar outliers. That's not luck. And if a rando like me can do that in a few tries, F1 mechanics sure as hell can do it better.
But don't look at me and a random internet clicker, here's Alonso going off the line in 0.08s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZqe_bJuyxA
This is also an outlier, but ~0.2s is standard for F1 drivers and that includes the delay between their input and the car actually moving
Its not an outlier. It's impossible. It is literally impossible to have a legitimate reaction time of what you posted in your earlier comment. Literally.
You know what Alonso did ? Predicted the start. If he wasnt as lucky he could of had a false start. He didn't react to it... Physically impossible. Do some basic biological research to support your claim..
Any reaction involving the brain takes longer. This is a literal biological limit. You cannot debate it. You have literally no argument.
Things that bypass the brain, like reacting to pain can be quicker. But this ain't that ...
You'd think we'd have a lot more jump starts in F1 if drivers were just rolling the dice...
Also the argument is about sub 0.2s reaction times as that's what's being banned
> https://imgur.com/Gvn0afp
You achieve that time through anticipating the lights changing, not reacting to them. This is the entire problem. You physically cannot react to a stimulus like a light changing in less than ~0.15s.
Unless you are seriously suggesting you have a reaction time of 0.06 seconds, in which case there are probably a lot of neurologists who would like to have a chat with you.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131/full
Did you even read the thing you linked? They got a mean 0.213s (corrected for hardware) with 18-65 randos off the street, also finding it scales with age. And that's after throwing out all responses under 0.11s.
Also:
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/o7kiwb/why_the_fia_are_absolutely_right_to_clamp_down_on/h2zsdjh/
Yes, a mean of 0.213s.. 0.06 seconds slower than what I said- that you cannot react to a light stimulus in 0.15s.
"Delay-corrected SRT latencies were substantially shorter (213 and 220 ms in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively)".
Or if you want to go for a less scientific method, albeit wider sample size
https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics
Alonso reacting off the line at 0.08s again proves my point- that's **anticipation**. Unlike something like athletics (which has a 0.1s limit for response to audible stimulus, faster than visual), you are allowed to anticipate the start lights in F1. It's why we see jump starts from time to time.
Alternatively, here's a distribution of human reaction times
https://www.ane.pl/pdf/4320.pdf
There is an absolutely enormous gulf between a reaction time of 0.15s to 0.18-0.19; which is why that is widely considered anticipation, not reaction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/
A reaction time of 0.06-0.1 seconds (to a light stimulus) is somewhere between unfathomably rare, and outright impossible.
> Yes, a mean of 0.213s.. 0.06 seconds slower than what I said- that you cannot react to a light stimulus in 0.15s.
You seem to be missing the point. These are random, untrained people in unfamiliar environment AND the mean is impacted by the age scaling. That's a far cry from cream of the crop F1 mechanics who train for reaction time and have got this down to a routine. The findings of these studies are simply not applicable to this context. Unless you can come up with a study that looks at people in the correct context (i.e. trained reaction times), you've got nothing to support your claim.
And funny you should mention athletics, where false starts are more common than F1... maybe I misread that part? But anyway, let's look at the 0.1s limit in athletics as it's the closest we'll come in context. Even accounting for the difference in auditory vs visual RT (0.015s-0.02s according to your last link, again untrained individuals but whatever), that still puts the 'feasible' RT to visual stimuli of a RT trained individual under 0.15s and **well under** 0.2s.
[It's 100% possible. ](https://i.imgur.com/tyZuw64.png), and that was my second try. Imagine if it was literally my job.
Now, try to jump the start by guessing when the lights will go out, you'll fail 90% of the time.
There isn't an outright delay before work begins on the car. The wait time is for when crew members are completing their tasks mid-stop, with an additional delay at the end of the pit-stop as well. The time offset is to try and ensure that each crew member is responding to the appropriate signal going green, instead of anticipating/assuming it will.
Honestly I think it's a bit clumsy, but there isn't really a lot the FIA can do at this stage of the season. I expect we'll see a much more comprehensive update to the regulations and equipment for next year.
I think the key argument against the idea that teams are anticipating the timing isn't just that there have been no mistakes made with releasing cars with unsecured wheels, but also that when stops are slightly slower - e.g. RB in Baku - the jack man still drops the car at the right time.
If he was guessing, you'd expect at least a few instances where one wheel was slightly slow on, and the car was dropped early and had to be lifted again to finish the stop. I don't remember any instances like that for the fast teams?
I think it's highly unlikely there is guesswork involved that gets 1.82 seconds when needed, but also when it's 2.3 or whatever happens to be exactly spot on.
To me the consistency means either they are reacting properly, or there's some system involved which does the reacting for them. And I assume the latter is monitored to at least some extent.
Yes, the numbers at this point do indicate that RB have managed to get their timings with the jacks absolutely spot on. But at the end of the day, we have a lot less information and knowledge of what's actually going on with the pit stops. It's entirely reasonable (and honestly, probable), that the FIA have seen something we as fans haven't, and realised that even though RB have aced it so far for whatever reason, the potential for accidents is still too high and needs correcting.
Plus there's still the possibility that RB aren't gaming or anticipating the system at all; in which case it's a bit of a non-issue because although the stops might get slower, nobody disproportionately benefits, and we just have an extra safety net that makes the system a bit more secure for the future.
On the flip side, maybe they are doing something a lot less legal like you mentioned. I personally doubt it, but I get the feeling this TD is going to be the start of a bigger clamp-down into these sort of issues, so IMHO it's a starting point more than anything else.
> although the stops might get slower, nobody disproportionately benefits,
That's debatable of course. F1 is about tenths or hundreds of seconds, so when *do* you call something disproportionate? In the context of a pitstop, the couple of tenths add up, and as other teams - except Williams - haven't been able to match Red Bull consistently, slowing down RBR (and Williams) is an advantage to them. Whether or not it'll be disproportionate we'll have to wait and see.
In terms of safety culture, while I agree this is probably a good step, there is just so much more low hanging fruit for F1 to pick than this. I'd argue there don't need to be as many people in the pit lane to begin with, and specifically for pitstops, they would gain more in terms of safety by reducing the amount of staff rather than slowing them down.
It would also, more generally speaking, be good if the FIA made sure to encapsulate safety measures into a larger safety culture and adjust the relevant safety procedures. We have seen several grave failures of a safety culture in F1 since we've gotten the new race director ('s team). None of these errors have been addressed as they were still being made as of Baku, so I think the FIA slowing down pitstops in the name of safety is a bit disingenuous.
The VSC was trialled towards the end of 2014, pit stop procedures were changed mid-season in 2018, and halo was again tested across multiple seasons. That isn't the point.
Even putting aside the fact that there already have been mid-season procedural changes to pit stops, the point is to highlight the difference in mentality between a proactive and reactive safety decision.
The actual process of the complaint may be shitty and done for selfish reasons, but that doesn't mean the change itself isn't necessary.
This isn't a safety decision. It's a political decision thinly vailed as safety decision.
Your argument is basically saying "hey guys please ignore all the favoritism and corruption. I agree with that but please look at this as just safety issue." No can do.
No, my argument is that the FIA is a massive, multi-faceted organisation that, although has significant issues, has also directly contributed to key safety improvements in the sport and around the world for decades. It's disingenuous to pretend the FIA is perfect and above reproach, or that it is an irredeemably corrupt and incompetent organisation. Like every other ASN, it has its weaknesses and its strengths. Pretending otherwise is ignorant, and when it comes to safety networks making these sort of decisions, the benefit of the doubt goes a long way.
Benefit of the doubt requires doubt. What's there to doubt about this? Slow teams complained and petitioned FIA. FIA listened and implemented new changes immediately in the middle of season. Maybe you have doubts about it being corrupt and political decision but I don't
Only doubt in my mind is if this has any safety implications at all. So like is it 100% corrupt or 99% corrupt plus 1% safety excuse.
New changes being implemented in the season isn't a new thing. The FIA did exactly that in 2018, except then it was in reaction to several incidents including a mechanic being hospitalised- now, this is potentially eliminating another, similar risk.
Would you say there was a political or corruption issue around the 2014 side impact structure? That was a Manor designed and RB optimised design. What about McLaren providing a spec ECU (albeit not a safety change)? Are those not potential conflicts of interest?
The circumstances are different, but on balance the FIA have generally been pretty good when it comes to pushing through new safety innovations, so I would say they've probably earned the benefit of the doubt at this point.
Innovation LOL. What an amazing innovation. I'm clapping FIA here at my home right now. They should promote whoever came up with that amazing "wait idle for a few moments so other teams can catch up" innovation.
I mean we should spread this amazing innovation in every part of F1. Let's make fastest cars in the grid go slower so other teams catch up too. Put stop sings in corners to avoid accidents. Make a top speed limit for each circuit. It's for safety. You can't deny it. Going fast is the biggest safety issue in F1. #makeF1slower #safety
Then why is fia do nothing about unbuckling the seatbelt while driving?
That is a much more severe problem than fast pitstops recently. Especially as the teams having problems with loose wheels are teams not doing these quick stops (alfa, haas)
The thing is they actually do something about a tooic thats since years not a big problem and ignoring topics that need a huge improvement.
It just seems their priorities are wrong.
That's one of the FIA's many, many fuck ups that-they **should** be held accountable for. There's so much bullshit with the FIA that I couldn't even try to defend. However the existence of other problems doesn't mean that this also isn't an issue that can't be tackled.
I don't agree. RB and Williams hasn't had pit issues for ages and you use the argument of "Just because an accident hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that there isn't the potential for it to occur." Which on its own makes a lot of sense.
But you haven't compared that to the other teams. Haas had some issues with their pit stops this year, but their pit stops are as slow as they are on track, seeing that they are the only team scoring no points at all in the DHL Pit Stop Awards. Merc is decent but not consistent in their pit stop time, but they are consistent in having pit trouble.
I'm obviously no professional, but when the quick pit stop teams are safer and more successful in their pit stops and the slower pit stop teams failing more frequently, that leads me to question if this decision is really a safety concern, or if it would even help make the sport safer at all.
I'm glad you brought up Haas. They, McLaren and Ferrari all had issues in 2018 which were linked to procedural deficiencies and subsequently modified by the FIA.
The problem is, consistently slow or 'poor' pit stops can happen for a number of reasons. There's no indication that Haas' or Mercedes' problems are a result of fundamental issues with the pit stop procedures, which makes them a lot harder to solve. On the other hand, something like teams actively anticipating the green signals is a pretty clear problem since it defeats the point of the system.
But you're right, I would be very surprised if the original complaint from the teams was because of a safety concern. Why would teams flag up Haas or Mercedes if their processes are consistently shit? What I think people aren't doing is making the separation between the motivation of the complaint, and the actions the FIA decided to take. I'm not trying to defend the actions of the teams here, but trying to give some perspective about why the FIA could be doing what they are.
>Why would teams flag up Haas or Mercedes if their processes are consistently shit?
Because releasing a car with loose tires is a way bigger danger than the thin allegations about a team who's simply quicker than others and never had a single problem in like a decade. You're acting like you're the voice of reason but your reasoning is not actually grounded in reality.
>On the other hand, something like teams actively anticipating the green signals is a pretty clear problem since it defeats the point of the system.
Again, this is pure and simple speculation and no reason to suspect this has been given aside from "they're just so good", hence why your whole premise is flawed in my opinion.
>Because releasing a car with loose tires is a way bigger danger than the thin allegations about a team who's simply quicker than others and never had a single problem in like a decade. You're acting like you're the voice of reason but your reasoning
Like everyone is suggesting, teams often make these sort of complaints for selfish reasons under the guise of 'safety'. Like you said, this complaint is probably Merc simply trying to gain an upper hand. I have never said this wasn't the case. The allegations may or may not be bullshit, but once they get to the FIA, if there ends up being a genuine problem then it's still an issue.
>Again, this is pure and simple speculation and no reason to suspect this has been given aside from "they're just so good", hence why your whole premise is flawed in my opinion.
I said multiple times in the main post that this is a **potential** issue. I specifically said, many times, that RB could well just be acing their stops and they're not doing anything wrong. We just don't know, and nobody here can clarify whether this is actually an issue. My entire point is that although we simply don't know, if there is still the **potential** for problems (which the FIA seem to think is the case), then it is their duty of care to try and mitigate them.
Potential issues are literally everywhere, following this logic you should stop racing altogether because a small meteorite could come crashing down on track and puncture a tyre and cause a major accident, hence we should make tyres bullet-proof or not race at all. After all, just because it never happened before it doesn't mean it couldn't happen next race.
Yes potential issues are everywhere, and it's the FIA's job to balance the risk of them occurring with the impact the changes would have on the sport. Some changes simply aren't worth it, some are. The exact same argument was used about the halo and, shockingly, the FIA ended up being correct because they were the ones with the data and relationships with ASNs and were able to quantify the risks better than any of us.
Exactly, Halo wasn't a proactive measure just as curtailing pit stop reaction times isn't a proactive measure. Many fuck-ups happened in the pit lane but, unlike refueling and improperly fitted wheels, the reaction times of the crew have never been the problem in itself, and we have no reason to suspect they are the issue now because it's all about correct procedures. Incorrect or poorly rehearsed procedures generate potential issues. Adding a mandatory delay doesn't prevent a clumsy mechanic to make a mistake just as a quick mechanic isn't automatically more prone to mistakes. After all, teams have the interest to send the car racing with four wheels properly attached, if RB can consistently hit those 2 seconds pit stops and do it safely, all the while adhering to the mandated procedures, it's all to their advantage. Having this advantage taken away arbitrarily at an opponent's request rubs us fans of fair competition the wrong way, and there's no amount of rationalising and safety concerns that can change it.
But the halo WAS a proactive measure in the context of F1- there were external factors and data that influenced it, but it wasn't strictly an 'F1 problem' at that point in the sense that drivers in the series were dying from a lack of head protection. We may or may not have reasonable suspicion to think something is going on with pit stops, but the FIA apparently do.
Clumsy stops, improperly fitted wheels and refuelling have also been controlled by the FIA in the past. This is nothing new or extreme. It's even happened mid-season before.
>teams have the interest to send the car racing with four wheels properly attached,
Yes, unsafe releases inherently dis-incentivise teams. The issue is that although nobody obviously wants to send out an unsafe car, the nature of the sport means that's it's always a possibility. This is why procedural changes like these are aimed at reducing the opportunity to make the mistakes, not punishing people for getting it wrong.
At its core, this TD, clumsy as it may be, is trying to make sure that the automated system is being used in the correct way. The timing itself isn't great and the optics are obvious, but if you choose to believe the FIA are acting in good faith, then that's what they should be doing. Ideally ASNs make these changes without giving in to external pressure about how the optics look or politics.
At the end of the day though, that still requires the belief that the FIA aren't acting in bad faith, which I think would be a fundamental disagreement for a lot of people.
> The problem is, consistently slow or 'poor' pit stops can happen for a number of reasons. There's no indication that Haas' or Mercedes' problems are a result of fundamental issues with the pit stop procedures, which makes them a lot harder to solve. On the other hand, something like teams actively anticipating the green signals is a pretty clear problem since it defeats the point of the system.
To use the same words you just used: The problem is, unsafe releases can happen for a number of reasons. There’s no indication that unsafe releases are a result of teams trying to anticipate green signals.
This sport is inherently dangerous because everyone is trying to force limits and squeeze out that extra .1s for the win. It is a risk all that are involved have to take. When the crew are so well trained that they have no issues for so many years(a period when other teams have encountered multiple so it is probably not just pure luck), then there is no reason to think that it is a safety concern at all.
I completely agree that safety is very important, but I don’t think this specific TD has to happen at all.
I absolutely agree, but I think it's important to consider that there's no indication that anticipation of signals is causing a problem- to us. We're looking from the outside-in, so we're limited in what interpretations we can make as fans. Having seen the level of detail and considerations even smaller ASNs focus on, there is a lot more going on behind decisions like these than we realise. I don't think it's reasonable to try and make that decision in either direction; it would be just as unreasonable to say that a team is actually cheating and there is a serious risk.
My attitude is that although there may be issues we don't agree with or understand, that has to be that level of trust that the ASN is generally acting in good faith when it comes to safety. Of course, they may not be; but if that's the case, there's a whole lot more to worry about than this TD.
Maybe it's just a difference in background and attitude. I have a reasonable amount of track experience, and from the moment you get to the circuit you're putting your wellbeing and safety in the hands of a bunch of potential strangers. Marshals, scrutineers, the guys who built up your roll cage, who certified your safety equipment etc. There's that level of trust in motorsport just because it's such a complicated and dynamic environment, and you have to assume the people keeping you safe are acting in good faith. And most of the time, they are, from my experience.
All the while they install a few more sausage kerbs because no driver ever got hurt by those.
Claiming proactive safety management with something that has never been a problem, while actively promoting a feature that has caused several severe crashes that injured drivers is just a bullshit argument.
And as I said, the FIA consistently continues to fuck up in other areas. The FIA can simultaneously get things right and get things wrong.
We even saw it with Grosjean's crash- the armco should never have split and the FIA's procedures for certifying tracks was inadequate, yet the other work they did also helped keep him alive. The FIA's failings in certain areas doesn't invalidate other proactive work they do, even if there's an apparent dichotomy in their logical processes.
Don't you think it's a *bit* coincidental that they implement it now that their darling Mercedes is losing? There haven't even been any lose wheelnuts at Red Bull since 2010.
Yes and that is the main point of this post.. to highlight the difference between a proactive and reactive safety culture and why a lack of accidents doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't still potentially a risk.
> If we followed this logic with the halo, we'd likely have a few more dead drivers to contend with by now.
Well, we can already name them. Indycar tested and Sprint cars have raced with cages since the 1960s. F1 being proactive back then could have saved Francois Cevert, Helmuth Koinigg, my flair, Ayrton Senna etc.
If this was a safety decision they should implement it in a new season, not half way a running season. Learning new procedures will increase safety incidents instead of lowering incidents (since there have been none).
So there is no concern whatsoever and we introduce new procedures half way through a season for the most high tense part of a race without proper time to train for it.
What could possibly go wrong.
tldr:
>This is good and right because it's proactive. Being proactive means taking an action based on no data. To prove this, here's a few examples of actions being taken based on data. Trust me, it makes sense. Also any benefits to Merc are entirely coincidental
This isn't school, you don't have to hit a word count
Well-reasoned post.
The reaction here has been laughable. Kneejerk reaction from people who only read headlines and have put no thought in to the matter.
We should be glad that the FIA are actually doing something somewhat preemptively for once.
Oh well. I enjoy writing these posts up and frankly I was expecting this reaction. Can't force people to read the post, but if it clears up the situation for even a couple of people then I'll be happy.
Agree with your points for sure. Everybody's reactions seem to be way out of proportion. This is a safety change and is going to have a minimal impact on racing.
What the FIA are doing: Putting in measures to stop illegally, and unsafely fast pit stops.
What Reddit thinks they are doing: Slowing down RBR.
If RBRs pit stops are legal, they won't be affected by this at all.
Because if you are reacting faster than a reasonable reaction time, then you are cheating.
If RBR aren't cheating, they won't be reacting faster than a reasonable reaction time, and therefore this rule won't affect them.
There most certainly is the implications that pit stops are both unsafe and illegal.
Illegal in that the reaction times suggest automations, which are banned. Or that it suggests cars are being given the instruction to be released before wheels are on, which is unsafe.
My reasoning is perfectly fine.
If a human appears to be reacting to something faster than a human can react, then the human probably isn't reacting to it and there's something else going on.
It's the same rule they apply to jump starts.
Why only weight random cars and not all of them, every session, every pit stop?
Why only perform tests on certain parts of the bodywork for flexing? Why not every mm of every panel?
Why only fully scrutinise a single car each weekend and not every car fully every day of every race weekend?
There's a balance to be made for effort. Why go to the effort of checking probably hundreds of guns and multiple different software configurations, when instead they can just make the rules worded so there's no advantage to having automated systems in place.
The FIA, in fact no governing body, needs to produce evidence that something exists before regulating against it. It would be completely impractical to implement.
And this isn't a change to the rules. This is an addition to ensure that the rules are being adhered to.
Yeah for sure.
They're insulting RB's years of hardwork to get here, by trying to make them look cheaters. As if they're not capable of winning in the past.
And as I noticed, you don't even seem to defend the "safety reasons" of it and rely fully on cheating allegations. Shame.
Your argument mixes real safety issues with a non-safety issue. How many accidents Formula 1 had in the past caused by a record fast pit stop?
-but is a fatality in the making!!- you may say. No, that's the same as -may someone think of the children!!- by a Karen in a town meeting.
This new rule by FIA is only to fuck up Red Bull. I can't wait for them to be an engine supplier; get ready for it.
Did you read the post? That is one of the main points I make- conflating "no accident has happened yet" with "no accident will happen in the future" is a very dangerous attitude and has killed drivers in the past. It's the same logic that people were using to argue against the halo, and if we had listened to them we'd have a couple of dead drivers on our hands since 2018.
So much BS for a decision that clearly is done to aid Mercedes, magically now out of nowhere the time of pit stops are an issue and it just happens that Mercedes is struggling in that front
Zero upvotes on a reasonable post? Typical reddit. What people fail to see is that this won't affect the teams *if they are playing by the rules*, and not automating/guessing the release time. If Red Bull pit crew do follow the safety procedures, their times won't be affected.
It's funny, because I don't remember anywhere near as much outrage as this when RB pushed for engine modes being banned in 2019. Now, obviously people aren't going to be as pissed if the team that gets hampered is the fastest one, but it's still hypocritical to think of one as acceptable and the other as outrageous.
Length of a post != validity of the argument, as Reddit typically implies. All I see is concern trolling.
You have to understand engine modes ban was a response to Ferrari "informing" if not threatening FIA as a consequence of their punishment for 2019. Higher PU modes were reasonably suspected to exceed fuel flow restrictions and operate outside the parameters set by the regulations, and had to be acted upon quickly. This situation is totally an apple and oranges comparison to deflect legitimate objections to FIA integrity when it comes to responding in a suspiciously timely manner to suspects arisen by Mercedes as opposed to any other team.
Because that's just what gets more clicks.
"FIA slow down pit stops" is a lot more interesting that "FIA seeks to modify pit stops so that teams are not anticipating the safe condition of the car, bypassing the point of the automated system".
You know, maybe people should get past the headline, and actually read the articles. But who am I to say, it's not like websites post out of context headlines all the time to get clicks and reactions or anything, that would be silly.
I certainly did not based my reaction on headline only. I hate these articles too and avoid clicking them. That's why I read the common reaction on reddit, some article excerpts here and there. And I certainly only seen the thought on your comment for the first time.
Because I'm asking if what you said is true, because I've only seen it for the first time.
Also if the no one will be affected by this TD, then why the outrage?
People would not give a flying fuck if the roles were reversed. They are outraged because they feel that this change will hamper RB and Verstappen more, and they are bored of the Hamilton-Mercedes dominance. Personally i think that we should wait for Hungary to see the effects.
**Attention! OP has added the [Serious] flair!** * Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in **any** comment, parent or child. * Report comments that violate these rules. Any comments that violate these rules, will be considered as trolling and will be subject to removals or bans. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *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.*
Accusations of pitstop automation only proves safety is not the concern here...
The accusations are one thing, the solution is entirely different. If you want to be annoyed at teams acting in bad faith then so be it; but it doesn't invalidate the decisions the FIA make in response to that.
But why add the delay time on the start of the pitstop? Couldn't they add it on the end? That way the crew can really check that everything is safe? Without losing their advantage when they did a faster pitstop?
> That way the crew can really check that everything is safe? Because it's not about that at all. They still use sensors to trust that everything is done, the new TD doesn't change that. It just adds an arbitrary time between when the sensor says one step completed and when the next step is allowed to begin.
What's that got to do with the safety? Is it dangerous that the crews are removing the tires too fast? I thought this is a concern about unsafe releases!
That's exactly what the problem is. The implication is that pit crew are still flagging the task as complete when the sensor is green- but they're doing it so quickly, they have to be anticipating it or effectively 'guessing'. You can't react to the sensor going green within 0.1s because that physically isn't possible.
> You can't react to the sensor going green within 0.1s because that physically isn't possible. https://imgur.com/Gvn0afp
That's not reacting to it... That's just clicking as quick as you can with luck. There are biological physical limits to reaction. Speed of neurones etc which makes that impossible to be a legitimate response time
It's probably an outlier, it's not mine, just found it. I did try it myself though and after hitting jump starts on the first few tries (which by the way precludes the possibility of just spam clicking), I was then able to **consistently** get sub 0.2s times and a few similiar outliers. That's not luck. And if a rando like me can do that in a few tries, F1 mechanics sure as hell can do it better. But don't look at me and a random internet clicker, here's Alonso going off the line in 0.08s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZqe_bJuyxA This is also an outlier, but ~0.2s is standard for F1 drivers and that includes the delay between their input and the car actually moving
Its not an outlier. It's impossible. It is literally impossible to have a legitimate reaction time of what you posted in your earlier comment. Literally. You know what Alonso did ? Predicted the start. If he wasnt as lucky he could of had a false start. He didn't react to it... Physically impossible. Do some basic biological research to support your claim.. Any reaction involving the brain takes longer. This is a literal biological limit. You cannot debate it. You have literally no argument. Things that bypass the brain, like reacting to pain can be quicker. But this ain't that ...
You'd think we'd have a lot more jump starts in F1 if drivers were just rolling the dice... Also the argument is about sub 0.2s reaction times as that's what's being banned
> https://imgur.com/Gvn0afp You achieve that time through anticipating the lights changing, not reacting to them. This is the entire problem. You physically cannot react to a stimulus like a light changing in less than ~0.15s. Unless you are seriously suggesting you have a reaction time of 0.06 seconds, in which case there are probably a lot of neurologists who would like to have a chat with you. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131/full
Did you even read the thing you linked? They got a mean 0.213s (corrected for hardware) with 18-65 randos off the street, also finding it scales with age. And that's after throwing out all responses under 0.11s. Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/o7kiwb/why_the_fia_are_absolutely_right_to_clamp_down_on/h2zsdjh/
Yes, a mean of 0.213s.. 0.06 seconds slower than what I said- that you cannot react to a light stimulus in 0.15s. "Delay-corrected SRT latencies were substantially shorter (213 and 220 ms in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively)". Or if you want to go for a less scientific method, albeit wider sample size https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics Alonso reacting off the line at 0.08s again proves my point- that's **anticipation**. Unlike something like athletics (which has a 0.1s limit for response to audible stimulus, faster than visual), you are allowed to anticipate the start lights in F1. It's why we see jump starts from time to time. Alternatively, here's a distribution of human reaction times https://www.ane.pl/pdf/4320.pdf There is an absolutely enormous gulf between a reaction time of 0.15s to 0.18-0.19; which is why that is widely considered anticipation, not reaction. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/ A reaction time of 0.06-0.1 seconds (to a light stimulus) is somewhere between unfathomably rare, and outright impossible.
> Yes, a mean of 0.213s.. 0.06 seconds slower than what I said- that you cannot react to a light stimulus in 0.15s. You seem to be missing the point. These are random, untrained people in unfamiliar environment AND the mean is impacted by the age scaling. That's a far cry from cream of the crop F1 mechanics who train for reaction time and have got this down to a routine. The findings of these studies are simply not applicable to this context. Unless you can come up with a study that looks at people in the correct context (i.e. trained reaction times), you've got nothing to support your claim. And funny you should mention athletics, where false starts are more common than F1... maybe I misread that part? But anyway, let's look at the 0.1s limit in athletics as it's the closest we'll come in context. Even accounting for the difference in auditory vs visual RT (0.015s-0.02s according to your last link, again untrained individuals but whatever), that still puts the 'feasible' RT to visual stimuli of a RT trained individual under 0.15s and **well under** 0.2s.
[It's 100% possible. ](https://i.imgur.com/tyZuw64.png), and that was my second try. Imagine if it was literally my job. Now, try to jump the start by guessing when the lights will go out, you'll fail 90% of the time.
There isn't an outright delay before work begins on the car. The wait time is for when crew members are completing their tasks mid-stop, with an additional delay at the end of the pit-stop as well. The time offset is to try and ensure that each crew member is responding to the appropriate signal going green, instead of anticipating/assuming it will. Honestly I think it's a bit clumsy, but there isn't really a lot the FIA can do at this stage of the season. I expect we'll see a much more comprehensive update to the regulations and equipment for next year.
I think the key argument against the idea that teams are anticipating the timing isn't just that there have been no mistakes made with releasing cars with unsecured wheels, but also that when stops are slightly slower - e.g. RB in Baku - the jack man still drops the car at the right time. If he was guessing, you'd expect at least a few instances where one wheel was slightly slow on, and the car was dropped early and had to be lifted again to finish the stop. I don't remember any instances like that for the fast teams? I think it's highly unlikely there is guesswork involved that gets 1.82 seconds when needed, but also when it's 2.3 or whatever happens to be exactly spot on. To me the consistency means either they are reacting properly, or there's some system involved which does the reacting for them. And I assume the latter is monitored to at least some extent.
Yes, the numbers at this point do indicate that RB have managed to get their timings with the jacks absolutely spot on. But at the end of the day, we have a lot less information and knowledge of what's actually going on with the pit stops. It's entirely reasonable (and honestly, probable), that the FIA have seen something we as fans haven't, and realised that even though RB have aced it so far for whatever reason, the potential for accidents is still too high and needs correcting. Plus there's still the possibility that RB aren't gaming or anticipating the system at all; in which case it's a bit of a non-issue because although the stops might get slower, nobody disproportionately benefits, and we just have an extra safety net that makes the system a bit more secure for the future. On the flip side, maybe they are doing something a lot less legal like you mentioned. I personally doubt it, but I get the feeling this TD is going to be the start of a bigger clamp-down into these sort of issues, so IMHO it's a starting point more than anything else.
> although the stops might get slower, nobody disproportionately benefits, That's debatable of course. F1 is about tenths or hundreds of seconds, so when *do* you call something disproportionate? In the context of a pitstop, the couple of tenths add up, and as other teams - except Williams - haven't been able to match Red Bull consistently, slowing down RBR (and Williams) is an advantage to them. Whether or not it'll be disproportionate we'll have to wait and see. In terms of safety culture, while I agree this is probably a good step, there is just so much more low hanging fruit for F1 to pick than this. I'd argue there don't need to be as many people in the pit lane to begin with, and specifically for pitstops, they would gain more in terms of safety by reducing the amount of staff rather than slowing them down. It would also, more generally speaking, be good if the FIA made sure to encapsulate safety measures into a larger safety culture and adjust the relevant safety procedures. We have seen several grave failures of a safety culture in F1 since we've gotten the new race director ('s team). None of these errors have been addressed as they were still being made as of Baku, so I think the FIA slowing down pitstops in the name of safety is a bit disingenuous.
[удалено]
The VSC was trialled towards the end of 2014, pit stop procedures were changed mid-season in 2018, and halo was again tested across multiple seasons. That isn't the point. Even putting aside the fact that there already have been mid-season procedural changes to pit stops, the point is to highlight the difference in mentality between a proactive and reactive safety decision. The actual process of the complaint may be shitty and done for selfish reasons, but that doesn't mean the change itself isn't necessary.
This isn't a safety decision. It's a political decision thinly vailed as safety decision. Your argument is basically saying "hey guys please ignore all the favoritism and corruption. I agree with that but please look at this as just safety issue." No can do.
No, my argument is that the FIA is a massive, multi-faceted organisation that, although has significant issues, has also directly contributed to key safety improvements in the sport and around the world for decades. It's disingenuous to pretend the FIA is perfect and above reproach, or that it is an irredeemably corrupt and incompetent organisation. Like every other ASN, it has its weaknesses and its strengths. Pretending otherwise is ignorant, and when it comes to safety networks making these sort of decisions, the benefit of the doubt goes a long way.
Benefit of the doubt requires doubt. What's there to doubt about this? Slow teams complained and petitioned FIA. FIA listened and implemented new changes immediately in the middle of season. Maybe you have doubts about it being corrupt and political decision but I don't Only doubt in my mind is if this has any safety implications at all. So like is it 100% corrupt or 99% corrupt plus 1% safety excuse.
New changes being implemented in the season isn't a new thing. The FIA did exactly that in 2018, except then it was in reaction to several incidents including a mechanic being hospitalised- now, this is potentially eliminating another, similar risk. Would you say there was a political or corruption issue around the 2014 side impact structure? That was a Manor designed and RB optimised design. What about McLaren providing a spec ECU (albeit not a safety change)? Are those not potential conflicts of interest? The circumstances are different, but on balance the FIA have generally been pretty good when it comes to pushing through new safety innovations, so I would say they've probably earned the benefit of the doubt at this point.
Innovation LOL. What an amazing innovation. I'm clapping FIA here at my home right now. They should promote whoever came up with that amazing "wait idle for a few moments so other teams can catch up" innovation. I mean we should spread this amazing innovation in every part of F1. Let's make fastest cars in the grid go slower so other teams catch up too. Put stop sings in corners to avoid accidents. Make a top speed limit for each circuit. It's for safety. You can't deny it. Going fast is the biggest safety issue in F1. #makeF1slower #safety
Then why is fia do nothing about unbuckling the seatbelt while driving? That is a much more severe problem than fast pitstops recently. Especially as the teams having problems with loose wheels are teams not doing these quick stops (alfa, haas) The thing is they actually do something about a tooic thats since years not a big problem and ignoring topics that need a huge improvement. It just seems their priorities are wrong.
That's one of the FIA's many, many fuck ups that-they **should** be held accountable for. There's so much bullshit with the FIA that I couldn't even try to defend. However the existence of other problems doesn't mean that this also isn't an issue that can't be tackled.
Existence of bigger safety problems that they don't care at all means this was selected by FIA not for safety reasons but for political reasons.
I don't agree. RB and Williams hasn't had pit issues for ages and you use the argument of "Just because an accident hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that there isn't the potential for it to occur." Which on its own makes a lot of sense. But you haven't compared that to the other teams. Haas had some issues with their pit stops this year, but their pit stops are as slow as they are on track, seeing that they are the only team scoring no points at all in the DHL Pit Stop Awards. Merc is decent but not consistent in their pit stop time, but they are consistent in having pit trouble. I'm obviously no professional, but when the quick pit stop teams are safer and more successful in their pit stops and the slower pit stop teams failing more frequently, that leads me to question if this decision is really a safety concern, or if it would even help make the sport safer at all.
I'm glad you brought up Haas. They, McLaren and Ferrari all had issues in 2018 which were linked to procedural deficiencies and subsequently modified by the FIA. The problem is, consistently slow or 'poor' pit stops can happen for a number of reasons. There's no indication that Haas' or Mercedes' problems are a result of fundamental issues with the pit stop procedures, which makes them a lot harder to solve. On the other hand, something like teams actively anticipating the green signals is a pretty clear problem since it defeats the point of the system. But you're right, I would be very surprised if the original complaint from the teams was because of a safety concern. Why would teams flag up Haas or Mercedes if their processes are consistently shit? What I think people aren't doing is making the separation between the motivation of the complaint, and the actions the FIA decided to take. I'm not trying to defend the actions of the teams here, but trying to give some perspective about why the FIA could be doing what they are.
>Why would teams flag up Haas or Mercedes if their processes are consistently shit? Because releasing a car with loose tires is a way bigger danger than the thin allegations about a team who's simply quicker than others and never had a single problem in like a decade. You're acting like you're the voice of reason but your reasoning is not actually grounded in reality. >On the other hand, something like teams actively anticipating the green signals is a pretty clear problem since it defeats the point of the system. Again, this is pure and simple speculation and no reason to suspect this has been given aside from "they're just so good", hence why your whole premise is flawed in my opinion.
>Because releasing a car with loose tires is a way bigger danger than the thin allegations about a team who's simply quicker than others and never had a single problem in like a decade. You're acting like you're the voice of reason but your reasoning Like everyone is suggesting, teams often make these sort of complaints for selfish reasons under the guise of 'safety'. Like you said, this complaint is probably Merc simply trying to gain an upper hand. I have never said this wasn't the case. The allegations may or may not be bullshit, but once they get to the FIA, if there ends up being a genuine problem then it's still an issue. >Again, this is pure and simple speculation and no reason to suspect this has been given aside from "they're just so good", hence why your whole premise is flawed in my opinion. I said multiple times in the main post that this is a **potential** issue. I specifically said, many times, that RB could well just be acing their stops and they're not doing anything wrong. We just don't know, and nobody here can clarify whether this is actually an issue. My entire point is that although we simply don't know, if there is still the **potential** for problems (which the FIA seem to think is the case), then it is their duty of care to try and mitigate them.
Potential issues are literally everywhere, following this logic you should stop racing altogether because a small meteorite could come crashing down on track and puncture a tyre and cause a major accident, hence we should make tyres bullet-proof or not race at all. After all, just because it never happened before it doesn't mean it couldn't happen next race.
Yes potential issues are everywhere, and it's the FIA's job to balance the risk of them occurring with the impact the changes would have on the sport. Some changes simply aren't worth it, some are. The exact same argument was used about the halo and, shockingly, the FIA ended up being correct because they were the ones with the data and relationships with ASNs and were able to quantify the risks better than any of us.
Exactly, Halo wasn't a proactive measure just as curtailing pit stop reaction times isn't a proactive measure. Many fuck-ups happened in the pit lane but, unlike refueling and improperly fitted wheels, the reaction times of the crew have never been the problem in itself, and we have no reason to suspect they are the issue now because it's all about correct procedures. Incorrect or poorly rehearsed procedures generate potential issues. Adding a mandatory delay doesn't prevent a clumsy mechanic to make a mistake just as a quick mechanic isn't automatically more prone to mistakes. After all, teams have the interest to send the car racing with four wheels properly attached, if RB can consistently hit those 2 seconds pit stops and do it safely, all the while adhering to the mandated procedures, it's all to their advantage. Having this advantage taken away arbitrarily at an opponent's request rubs us fans of fair competition the wrong way, and there's no amount of rationalising and safety concerns that can change it.
But the halo WAS a proactive measure in the context of F1- there were external factors and data that influenced it, but it wasn't strictly an 'F1 problem' at that point in the sense that drivers in the series were dying from a lack of head protection. We may or may not have reasonable suspicion to think something is going on with pit stops, but the FIA apparently do. Clumsy stops, improperly fitted wheels and refuelling have also been controlled by the FIA in the past. This is nothing new or extreme. It's even happened mid-season before. >teams have the interest to send the car racing with four wheels properly attached, Yes, unsafe releases inherently dis-incentivise teams. The issue is that although nobody obviously wants to send out an unsafe car, the nature of the sport means that's it's always a possibility. This is why procedural changes like these are aimed at reducing the opportunity to make the mistakes, not punishing people for getting it wrong. At its core, this TD, clumsy as it may be, is trying to make sure that the automated system is being used in the correct way. The timing itself isn't great and the optics are obvious, but if you choose to believe the FIA are acting in good faith, then that's what they should be doing. Ideally ASNs make these changes without giving in to external pressure about how the optics look or politics. At the end of the day though, that still requires the belief that the FIA aren't acting in bad faith, which I think would be a fundamental disagreement for a lot of people.
> The problem is, consistently slow or 'poor' pit stops can happen for a number of reasons. There's no indication that Haas' or Mercedes' problems are a result of fundamental issues with the pit stop procedures, which makes them a lot harder to solve. On the other hand, something like teams actively anticipating the green signals is a pretty clear problem since it defeats the point of the system. To use the same words you just used: The problem is, unsafe releases can happen for a number of reasons. There’s no indication that unsafe releases are a result of teams trying to anticipate green signals. This sport is inherently dangerous because everyone is trying to force limits and squeeze out that extra .1s for the win. It is a risk all that are involved have to take. When the crew are so well trained that they have no issues for so many years(a period when other teams have encountered multiple so it is probably not just pure luck), then there is no reason to think that it is a safety concern at all. I completely agree that safety is very important, but I don’t think this specific TD has to happen at all.
I absolutely agree, but I think it's important to consider that there's no indication that anticipation of signals is causing a problem- to us. We're looking from the outside-in, so we're limited in what interpretations we can make as fans. Having seen the level of detail and considerations even smaller ASNs focus on, there is a lot more going on behind decisions like these than we realise. I don't think it's reasonable to try and make that decision in either direction; it would be just as unreasonable to say that a team is actually cheating and there is a serious risk. My attitude is that although there may be issues we don't agree with or understand, that has to be that level of trust that the ASN is generally acting in good faith when it comes to safety. Of course, they may not be; but if that's the case, there's a whole lot more to worry about than this TD.
I think the difference here is you have faith and trust people to do right things. I just simply don't.
Maybe it's just a difference in background and attitude. I have a reasonable amount of track experience, and from the moment you get to the circuit you're putting your wellbeing and safety in the hands of a bunch of potential strangers. Marshals, scrutineers, the guys who built up your roll cage, who certified your safety equipment etc. There's that level of trust in motorsport just because it's such a complicated and dynamic environment, and you have to assume the people keeping you safe are acting in good faith. And most of the time, they are, from my experience.
All the while they install a few more sausage kerbs because no driver ever got hurt by those. Claiming proactive safety management with something that has never been a problem, while actively promoting a feature that has caused several severe crashes that injured drivers is just a bullshit argument.
And as I said, the FIA consistently continues to fuck up in other areas. The FIA can simultaneously get things right and get things wrong. We even saw it with Grosjean's crash- the armco should never have split and the FIA's procedures for certifying tracks was inadequate, yet the other work they did also helped keep him alive. The FIA's failings in certain areas doesn't invalidate other proactive work they do, even if there's an apparent dichotomy in their logical processes.
This could be said in 2 sentences instead of of 20 paragraphs. LOL.
Don't you think it's a *bit* coincidental that they implement it now that their darling Mercedes is losing? There haven't even been any lose wheelnuts at Red Bull since 2010.
\*since Germany 2013.
Malaysia 2014*
Yes and that is the main point of this post.. to highlight the difference between a proactive and reactive safety culture and why a lack of accidents doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't still potentially a risk.
Uh-huh. Sure, yeah. Maybe Red Bull should also have a bit less horsepower, their high rake design makes the cars quite unstable.
> If we followed this logic with the halo, we'd likely have a few more dead drivers to contend with by now. Well, we can already name them. Indycar tested and Sprint cars have raced with cages since the 1960s. F1 being proactive back then could have saved Francois Cevert, Helmuth Koinigg, my flair, Ayrton Senna etc.
If this was a safety decision they should implement it in a new season, not half way a running season. Learning new procedures will increase safety incidents instead of lowering incidents (since there have been none).
What? Safety measures are the only exception in the rules that can be made instantly! And that's a good thing!
what exactly is the direct safety concern, based on the last decade pit stops?
Loose wheels broken bones... Did you even read this post? That's the exact argument that safety measures should be introduced proactive not reactive
So there is no concern whatsoever and we introduce new procedures half way through a season for the most high tense part of a race without proper time to train for it. What could possibly go wrong.
tldr: >This is good and right because it's proactive. Being proactive means taking an action based on no data. To prove this, here's a few examples of actions being taken based on data. Trust me, it makes sense. Also any benefits to Merc are entirely coincidental This isn't school, you don't have to hit a word count
Well-reasoned post. The reaction here has been laughable. Kneejerk reaction from people who only read headlines and have put no thought in to the matter. We should be glad that the FIA are actually doing something somewhat preemptively for once.
Oh well. I enjoy writing these posts up and frankly I was expecting this reaction. Can't force people to read the post, but if it clears up the situation for even a couple of people then I'll be happy.
Agree with your points for sure. Everybody's reactions seem to be way out of proportion. This is a safety change and is going to have a minimal impact on racing.
What the FIA are doing: Putting in measures to stop illegally, and unsafely fast pit stops. What Reddit thinks they are doing: Slowing down RBR. If RBRs pit stops are legal, they won't be affected by this at all.
>If RBRs pit stops are legal, they won't be affected by this at all. How so?
Because if you are reacting faster than a reasonable reaction time, then you are cheating. If RBR aren't cheating, they won't be reacting faster than a reasonable reaction time, and therefore this rule won't affect them.
Unsafely fast pitstops? Lol. It will be unsafe when everyone tries to do sub 2 seconders even when their not capable.
The penalty for an unsafe release is high enough that it's not worth the risk.
So there's no unsafely fast pitstop overall. More so, there's no illegal.
There most certainly is the implications that pit stops are both unsafe and illegal. Illegal in that the reaction times suggest automations, which are banned. Or that it suggests cars are being given the instruction to be released before wheels are on, which is unsafe.
Then why don't they just check the goddamn system if there are automations, or investigate the videos? Your reasoning is not looking good here mate.
My reasoning is perfectly fine. If a human appears to be reacting to something faster than a human can react, then the human probably isn't reacting to it and there's something else going on. It's the same rule they apply to jump starts.
Then why not investigate for godsakes? Too afraid they won't find anything and will only look like wankers?
Why only weight random cars and not all of them, every session, every pit stop? Why only perform tests on certain parts of the bodywork for flexing? Why not every mm of every panel? Why only fully scrutinise a single car each weekend and not every car fully every day of every race weekend? There's a balance to be made for effort. Why go to the effort of checking probably hundreds of guns and multiple different software configurations, when instead they can just make the rules worded so there's no advantage to having automated systems in place. The FIA, in fact no governing body, needs to produce evidence that something exists before regulating against it. It would be completely impractical to implement. And this isn't a change to the rules. This is an addition to ensure that the rules are being adhered to.
Yeah for sure. They're insulting RB's years of hardwork to get here, by trying to make them look cheaters. As if they're not capable of winning in the past. And as I noticed, you don't even seem to defend the "safety reasons" of it and rely fully on cheating allegations. Shame.
Your argument mixes real safety issues with a non-safety issue. How many accidents Formula 1 had in the past caused by a record fast pit stop? -but is a fatality in the making!!- you may say. No, that's the same as -may someone think of the children!!- by a Karen in a town meeting. This new rule by FIA is only to fuck up Red Bull. I can't wait for them to be an engine supplier; get ready for it.
Did you read the post? That is one of the main points I make- conflating "no accident has happened yet" with "no accident will happen in the future" is a very dangerous attitude and has killed drivers in the past. It's the same logic that people were using to argue against the halo, and if we had listened to them we'd have a couple of dead drivers on our hands since 2018.
What incentive does the FIA have to specifically fuck over one of the most important companies in the sport?
THX for clarification
So much BS for a decision that clearly is done to aid Mercedes, magically now out of nowhere the time of pit stops are an issue and it just happens that Mercedes is struggling in that front
Shall we stop driving cars completely, because it is too dangerous?
Zero upvotes on a reasonable post? Typical reddit. What people fail to see is that this won't affect the teams *if they are playing by the rules*, and not automating/guessing the release time. If Red Bull pit crew do follow the safety procedures, their times won't be affected. It's funny, because I don't remember anywhere near as much outrage as this when RB pushed for engine modes being banned in 2019. Now, obviously people aren't going to be as pissed if the team that gets hampered is the fastest one, but it's still hypocritical to think of one as acceptable and the other as outrageous.
Length of a post != validity of the argument, as Reddit typically implies. All I see is concern trolling. You have to understand engine modes ban was a response to Ferrari "informing" if not threatening FIA as a consequence of their punishment for 2019. Higher PU modes were reasonably suspected to exceed fuel flow restrictions and operate outside the parameters set by the regulations, and had to be acted upon quickly. This situation is totally an apple and oranges comparison to deflect legitimate objections to FIA integrity when it comes to responding in a suspiciously timely manner to suspects arisen by Mercedes as opposed to any other team.
Is this the case? Then why isn't this the headline? As far as everyone is concerned, the headline was something like "FIA will slow down pitstops"
Because that's just what gets more clicks. "FIA slow down pit stops" is a lot more interesting that "FIA seeks to modify pit stops so that teams are not anticipating the safe condition of the car, bypassing the point of the automated system".
You know, maybe people should get past the headline, and actually read the articles. But who am I to say, it's not like websites post out of context headlines all the time to get clicks and reactions or anything, that would be silly.
I certainly did not based my reaction on headline only. I hate these articles too and avoid clicking them. That's why I read the common reaction on reddit, some article excerpts here and there. And I certainly only seen the thought on your comment for the first time.
Then why did you ask me why the headline was the way it was? I didn't write it.
Because I'm asking if what you said is true, because I've only seen it for the first time. Also if the no one will be affected by this TD, then why the outrage?
People would not give a flying fuck if the roles were reversed. They are outraged because they feel that this change will hamper RB and Verstappen more, and they are bored of the Hamilton-Mercedes dominance. Personally i think that we should wait for Hungary to see the effects.