[Official] Brazilian Grand Prix 2021: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 19 of 22

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Why would they need time to dismiss it (if that is what they will end up doing).

If you subscribe to the theory, then all they have to do is issue a statement along the lines of:

"In accordance with article 14 ISC, this hearing was convened to determine whether the Right of Review exists in this case, i.e. whether ‘a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned.'
Having considered the evidence presented, in the form of onboard footage from Car 33, the Stewards have deemed that the this meets the criteria of relevant and new. The Stewards have deemed that this evidence is not significant however, and so the Right of Review is not upheld"

Browisng twitter and some semi reliable sources last night, the issue seems to be that Red Bull are arguing that something cannot be investigated, if at first Stewards deemed that no investigation was necessary.

The only problem is that in Suzuka 2019, Red Bull got an investigation into Leclerc re opened after it was deemed no investigation was necessary, so this is basically turning into a Legal battle at the moment, hence more time is needed.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Browisng twitter and some semi reliable sources last night, the issue seems to be that Red Bull are arguing that something cannot be investigated, if at first Stewards deemed that no investigation was necessary.

The only problem is that in Suzuka 2019, Red Bull got an investigation into Leclerc re opened after it was deemed no investigation was necessary, so this is basically turning into a Legal battle at the moment, hence more time is needed.

Understandable that they take the time to ensure the fully correct procedure is followed.

IMO, it seems fairly clear cut (notwithstanding the existing precedent).
The "Incident" was referred to the Stewards. The Stewards reached the decision that no investigation is necessary.
Under Art. 14, the Right of Review relates to 'at the time of the decision concerned' - not the investigation.

The regulations seem (to me) quite clear, all decisions come with a Right of Review - and the Stewards made a decision.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Understandable that they take the time to ensure the fully correct procedure is followed.

IMO, it seems fairly clear cut (notwithstanding the existing precedent).
The "Incident" was referred to the Stewards. The Stewards reached the decision that no investigation is necessary.
Under Art. 14, the Right of Review relates to 'at the time of the decision concerned' - not the investigation.

The regulations seem (to me) quite clear, all decisions come with a Right of Review - and the Stewards made a decision.

Yup completely agree.

At this stage i dont mind what the decision is, aslong as we get clear, concise reasoning for it in either direction as to why they deemed the incident acceptable/ unaccepptable

[steve_r]

LeClerc has already said that if there is no penalty he sees it as a green light to change the way that he drives - i.e. he will similarly drive people off the circuit. I am sure other drivers will be of the same mindset.

F1 stewards have backed themselves into a corner by handing out penalties in similar situations in the past, and then bafflingly deemed this incident as not even worthy of investigation.

[GingerPixel]

At this point I hope they do something utterly outrageous just to put an end to the endless back and forth about the whole thing.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by steve_r

LeClerc has already said that if there is no penalty he sees it as a green light to change the way that he drives - i.e. he will similarly drive people off the circuit. I am sure other drivers will be of the same mindset.

F1 stewards have backed themselves into a corner by handing out penalties in similar situations in the past, and then bafflingly deemed this incident as not even worthy of investigation.

Andreas Seidl has also passed comment:

“Looking at the case and compared with Lando’s case, we definitely have some questions, Lando got a penalty in Austria for something which, from our point of view, was debatable. I think you can definitely argue with what happened then it was Lando’s corner, different to what we have seen in Brazil. Therefore we are still obviously very interested in, not necessarily the ruling from today or the outcome of today’s investigation because that is a different story, a different process, but more like understanding what [FIA race director] Michael [Masi] will also brief to the drivers tonight in the drivers’ briefing on how they see things moving forward. I think, whatever the outcome is, it will definitely change the approach of the drivers to certain manoeuvres on track. That is why it is interesting to clarify [what is legal] going forward.”

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by davec

My issue on all of this is the timing. IF they said during the race that Max would be investigated AFTER the race he would "likely" have tried to stay 5 or 10 seconds in front of Bottas as that was the likely penalty. The fact that they said no investigation was necessary knowing that they had not got all the information for me is a mistake by the stewards. Max then just had to beat Bottas by any amount but now could lose second place.

Verstappen should've have gotten a 5s penalty right away. To now give it is indeed not fair because he would've stayed 5s ahead of Bottas.

If they have the possibility within the rules they should hand Verstappen a 3s penalty. I would not be pretty, but at least you send out the proper signal for future incidents where drivers are pushed wide, without changing the results after the race, when judgement was already made during the race and the driver can no longer act upon it any more.

Yes, it will cost the FIA/Masi/the stewards credibility, but they lost that anyway by letting it slipping the first time round.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Verstappen should've have gotten a 5s penalty right away. To now give it is indeed not fair because he would've stayed 5s ahead of Bottas.

If they have the possibility within the rules they should hand Verstappen a 3s penalty. I would not be pretty, but at least you send out the proper signal for future incidents where drivers are pushed wide, without changing the results after the race, when judgement was already made during the race and the driver can no longer act upon it any more.

Yes, it will cost the FIA/Masi/the stewards credibility, but they lost that anyway by letting it slipping the first time round.

Yes - they can award 3s (if they feel appropriate).
The code simply says - 12.4.1.h time penalty;


I agree with the principle that a retrospective penalty now would seem unfair because Verstappen is not given the chance to overcome the penalty.
But, Mercedes would also feel that it is unfair, arguing that Bottas may have made more effort to close the gap further. Their argument would be that, once Bottas realised he wasn't going to make the place, he backed off on the last few laps.

I have previously suggested that any penalty should still give a driver the chance to make up for the deficit, after Silverstone I felt the Hamilton penalty was acceptable, because it allowed Hamilton to 'race his way out of it'.

So - IF the stewards feel a penalty is appropriate (if they feel a review is appropriate first), then it should be a grid penalty at the next (Qatar) race, which achieved the following:

It penalises Verstappen in a way that affects his position in relation to other cars.
Allows Verstappen to overcome this penalty on the track.

Giving him a retrospective 3s does not (in reality) amount to a penalty at all.

[Sodemo]

What's better, amending the results of a previous race or giving a penalty for the next race (ie this race) in Saudi Arabia?

I think I would rather see a 5 place grid drop for this race.

[ascarracinguk]

So as feared the FIA have found a way to weasel out of this.

Request denied because the new evidence is ‘relevant’ but not ‘significant’

I’m not sure if onboard footage and telemetry aren’t significant then what is.

Tbh I was hoping for a clear outcome with an explanation on the stewards reasoning what ever the outcome but this leaves more questions than answers and muddies the water even more.

Does this mean that moves like Verstappens are acceptable now or not?

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Request denied because the new evidence is ‘relevant’ but not ‘significant’

That is such a cop out. Masi risks becoming the referee who loses control of the match. At some point in the next few races a driver will do exactly what Leclerc says he now understands to be permissible. If a penalty is handed out then it will all kick off again.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

That is such a cop out. Masi risks becoming the referee who loses control of the match. At some point in the next few races a driver will do exactly what Leclerc says he now understands to be permissible. If a penalty is handed out then it will all kick off again.

Yup it’s the worst of all outcomes. It doesn’t give clarity in any direction for drivers, teams or fans

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

So as feared the FIA have found a way to weasel out of this.

Request denied because the new evidence is ‘relevant’ but not ‘significant’

I’m not sure if onboard footage and telemetry aren’t significant then what is.

Tbh I was hoping for a clear outcome with an explanation on the stewards reasoning what ever the outcome but this leaves more questions than answers and muddies the water even more.

Does this mean that moves like Verstappens are acceptable now or not?

I can understand (but disagree) with the decision.
The stewards felt that the evidence was relevant (it related to the incident in in question), but was not significant. So the initial decision was that no further investigation was necessary. They have reviewed this evidence and feel it doesn't 'significantly' change that.
i.e it tells them nothing more that they didn't already know - that Verstappen ran Hamilton wide on the exit of T4.
So the decision that Verstappen running Hamilton wide is not deemed to need investigating, and so as a move it is now acceptable.

I think it's clear - drivers can run wide of the apex and take the full circuit width (and beyond) on exit, despite a car being alongside - without penalty.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What's better, amending the results of a previous race or giving a penalty for the next race (ie this race) in Saudi Arabia?

I think I would rather see a 5 place grid drop for this race.

If Verstappen is forced to start this race in Saudi Arabia that in one whopping big penalty.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I can understand (but disagree) with the decision.
The stewards felt that the evidence was relevant (it related to the incident in in question), but was not significant. So the initial decision was that no further investigation was necessary. They have reviewed this evidence and feel it doesn't 'significantly' change that.
i.e it tells them nothing more that they didn't already know - that Verstappen ran Hamilton wide on the exit of T4.
So the decision that Verstappen running Hamilton wide is not deemed to need investigating, and so as a move it is now acceptable.

I think it's clear - drivers can run wide of the apex and take the full circuit width (and beyond) on exit, despite a car being alongside - without penalty.

Which if true makes a complete mockery of the sporting regs around crowding drivers off the track.

It’s ok though. It’s now open season in terms of F1 driving standards. If that sort of thing is acceptable then attach bumpers and go banger racing from now on

[Sodemo]

I suppose they had to try and determine intent, did Max intentionally drive Lewis off the track, or did he do so, whilst not in control of the car through understeer etc?

I mean for me, as the steering angle is more shallow than the other attempts at taking the corner, it looks as though he isn't applying enough steering lock to make it around, ergo, he intentionally forced Lewis wide and off the track. Thats just me looking at the video footage, but surely the FIA have access to telemetry and all other such information. Surely they can tell the relative steering angles before even looking at footage?

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

So as feared the FIA have found a way to weasel out of this.

Request denied because the new evidence is ‘relevant’ but not ‘significant’

I’m not sure if onboard footage and telemetry aren’t significant then what is.

Tbh I was hoping for a clear outcome with an explanation on the stewards reasoning what ever the outcome but this leaves more questions than answers and muddies the water even more.

Does this mean that moves like Verstappens are acceptable now or not?

what a great surprise maFIA doesn't want golden boy Max to lose the title, how much would anyone bet if it was a midpack driver there would have been real punishment

[gert]

Regardless of the persons involved, IMO this is very very bad decision.
Not F1/FIA's finest hour.
Their worst, after Spa, in fact.

This should have been reviewed and a statement should have been made on what is acceptable and what is not.
An eventual time penalty or fien is not even important; it is the claricy of what drivers can and cannot do that matters.



Several drives and teams have already stated they will adapt their driving styles to what is now officially seen 'not even worthy of taking a look at'.

So, I expect no complaints the next time driver X pushes driver Y off the track or simply crashes into hin in a corner.
Not even if his name is Mazepin.


Not the right forward, I think.

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Masi risks becoming the referee who loses control of the match.

I really hope he goes. He may have done some good things but after Spa, now this.

[Taxi645]

I have been saying for ages that crowding other drivers off track should be punished more severely and more often. I did not get much support for that opinion unfortunately.


Verdicts like the one in the race in Brazil only erode this further. I have always said that the "let them race" adagio would undesirable consequences. I does not matter if it was on purpose on not, I should be enforced regardless. A racing driving should control his car and he should not make other drivers the victim of a lack of it.


Perhaps now the views will change.

[ascarracinguk]

Drivers briefing will be interesting. Oh to be a fly on the wall when one of them asks Masi if crowding off the track is now ‘just one of those’

[gert]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I have been saying for ages that crowding other drivers off track should be punished more severely and more often. I did not get much support for that opinion unfortunately.


Verdicts like the one in the race in Brazil only erode this further. I have always said that the "let them race" adagio would undesirable consequences. I does not matter if it was on purpose on not, I should be enforced regardless. A racing driving should control his car and he should not make other drivers the victim of a lack of it.


Perhaps now the views will change.

Not sure if I stated it at the time, but in general I agree with you.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

That is such a cop out. Masi risks becoming the referee who loses control of the match. At some point in the next few races a driver will do exactly what Leclerc says he now understands to be permissible. If a penalty is handed out then it will all kick off again.

They've fudged it, which is what I thought might happen, rather than actually dealing with the incident and drawing a line under it. So next time this happens again, it will all kick off again as you say.

[steve_r]

The message is clear: Let them race. Except when they do something naughty, which is allowed expect when it isn't.

[S griffin]

So it’s all over now. On the one hand, it means we can finally move on for all this.

But OTOH, I agree that it sets a dangerous precedent. And yes, the FIA’s verdict seems more a cop out than anything else. Norris’ penalty has been bought up in comparison and it’s a very good point. For me Norris at least took the corner as tightly as possible, yet he still gets a penalty. Not like Max, who made no attempt to make the corner properly. So how come he gets away with it? Because he too ran off track? It makes no sense

I have grown tired of seeing constant racing incidents, caused by nothing more than an innocent mistake investigated and subsequently punished with time penalties or grid penalties, yet drivers deliberately swerving at others or forcing other cars off track is given no more than a warning at best. Things need to change before we have a major accident that’s caused by something like a Mazepin chop or a Verstappen squeeze

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

So it’s all over now.

Nah. It's only just started..... Just measure the volume of Horner's next rant when Lewis forces Max off the track the next time he tries to overtake him.