[Rules] The FIA - what's occurring there?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes, but more importantly:

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-issues-...nd-prix-review


Phew!

The directive issued by Neilsen says that no part of the car or driver may be touched during the penalty period, whether a five or ten second penalty or a multiple penalty like a 5 second and a 10 second penalty served concurrently, ie as a 15 second penalty.
Fans may be fitted to assist radiator cooling although I would assume this is before beginning and later removed after the penalty has been completed.

So in the interests of 'transparency and to avoid further embarrassment they have simply said 'nothing' and 'no one' may touch 'the car or driver' during the penalty period. The directive specifically said this included the front and rear jacks....

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Sensible.

Feels weird to say that about the FIA. Open clarity and explanation of the changes feels like it should have been tomorrow's announcement

[Aysedasi]

Yeah, a bit weird for sure. But still, the good sense is apparently balanced by having FOUR DRS zones in the GP. Couldn't have too much 'sensible' now, could we......

[Akrapovic]

I'm glad we've dropped the sensibility and chosen chaos again.

[paulzinho]

Some pretty farcical decisions today. The first red flag kicking it all off....

I seem to remember everything worked fine when there was that rule about the race being called if a certain distance had run. Whilst I'm all for a nice standing restart when appropriate the need to throw a flag so easily these days seems bewildering. Maybe I'm just getting old!

[Aysedasi]

If you're getting old, I'm clearly in trouble.....

Red flags for 'the show'. The first was unnecessary, the second quite bizarre.

[chillibowl]

The second red flag was clearly for the entertainment factor imo. I think they really take the safety of these cars for granted…it’s going to bite them at some point!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by paulzinho

Some pretty farcical decisions today. The first red flag kicking it all off....

I seem to remember everything worked fine when there was that rule about the race being called if a certain distance had run. Whilst I'm all for a nice standing restart when appropriate the need to throw a flag so easily these days seems bewildering. Maybe I'm just getting old!

Yes.
If a race had run 75% of the apportioned distance but had to be stopped or cancelled due to 'force majeure' it was regarded as complete.

We have had the end of two races turn into absolute nonsense from a sporting point of view in the last 18 months due to this idea that a race must finish under a green flag 'for the fans' when it results in a distortion of the race result if it had not been restarted but regarded as complete.

This is a nonsense and as we saw at Melbourne the restart created more danger and resulted in the officials having the run the final lap under the safety car and then distorted the result as they weren't happy with the (dis)order they had created!

[dsg]

The teams also wanted races to finish under green flags as well, so not just "for the fans".

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by dsg

The teams also wanted races to finish under green flags as well, so not just "for the fans".

But the moves made on Sunday were not thought through nor are they wise.
Part of that is in the rules and part in the way they were applied.

The drivers themselves are not always the best people to ask.
All they want to do is race, but officialdom has a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of safety and what is in the best interests of the sport.
What we are seeing is something of the rudderless ship or a boat that is being pushed to and fro in turbulent water with no real sense of direction.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by dsg

The teams also wanted races to finish under green flags as well, so not just "for the fans".

They say that because they want the fans of their product to be excited.

And depends what is asked. The question isn’t “do you want the race to end under a green flag even if it is comedy?”

[Rusty Nail]

I often wonder why given the technology available today they can't implement a partial VSC to apply through the incident sector and the one before it. This would allow racing on the rest of the circuit but set to slow the cars significantly so that there is no danger. Keeps the tyres warm, doesn't ruin the race.

Obviously couldn't be used every time, but there are plenty of occasions where it could work.

[Plantagenet]

Given the increasing number of street circuits, the FIA really has got to get a handle on what to do if a car stops on circuit, even if way off the racing line (Hulk a good example at the weekend). If they cannot have any stopped car on circuit at any time, then there needs to be a process by which cars can be recovered/snatched very quickly, albeit it a safe manner - this may mean more marshals, cranes or changes in circuit architecture to ensure easier access to an escape route.
The current process seems to me that they just 'hope' there isn't a situation, and then they decide on the fly when one happens....and given these are happening at most races now, this is simply not defendable.
I also personally feel strongly that cars shouldn't be able to pit in a SC window, nor 'mend' cars in after a red flag - these to me give some advantages to teams out of luck and could incentivize things like what we saw at benetton with the complex politics across teams and allegiances.

[Greem]

Idle thought which could land in two or three current threads:

Is the FIA's and F1's risk aversion being driven by their insurers?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Greem

Idle thought which could land in two or three current threads:

Is the FIA's and F1's risk aversion being driven by their insurers?

I've always read that IMSAs yellow-flag-fest is about insurance. But I had a friend go to D24 and S12 as a reporter for MotorsportWeek and he directly asked an IMSA director who said SCs make it more exciting. So?

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

But the moves made on Sunday were not thought through nor are they wise.
Part of that is in the rules and part in the way they were applied.

The drivers themselves are not always the best people to ask.
All they want to do is race, but officialdom has a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of safety and what is in the best interests of the sport.
What we are seeing is something of the rudderless ship or a boat that is being pushed to and fro in turbulent water with no real sense of direction.

I don't disagree, particularly with what I have highlighted in your post above. I also believe F1 officialdom should firmly take charge and tell the teams what to do. However we have reached a point where the Teams basically run the show and FIA manage within those parameters.

At the moment FIA are in a no win situation as they are blamed for complying with the teams wishes and are blamed when they don't. I would love to see FIA take firm control and say "This is how it is done and any team that doesn't like it can go home" but the sport is a victim of its own success and the inmates run the asylum.

In regard to safety I believe the red flags were in the interest of safety. I don't see any problem red flagging the race to clean up large areas of debris quickly following an incident, rather than many wasted laps behind a safety car.

Also standing starts happen at almost every race and and are well within normal safety limits. In dry clear weather there is no reason they cannot happen on lap 1 or lap 60. I can guarantee Lewis and Mercedes were pushing for a standing start as much as Max and Red Bull were arguing against one. I also guarantee this would be different if roles were reversed.

It is certainly unfair to the leader, but as long as they are managed consistently then there shouldn't be a problem as everyone knows the situation.

That being said, in the future should teams want some other practice to be the norm such as parc ferme red flag rules or rolling starts during the race, or god forbid FIA take control and put out a similar standard operating practice, then as long as that is consistently applied, then that would also be good.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Greem

Idle thought which could land in two or three current threads:

Is the FIA's and F1's risk aversion being driven by their insurers?

It's undoubtedly a big element, at the very least.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Greem

Idle thought which could land in two or three current threads:

Is the FIA's and F1's risk aversion being driven by their insurers?

I would think that and a fear of prosecution.

But then if they were really risk averse, then why even a potentially dangerous standing re start?

If they were truly intent on finishing under green, then why not a rolling restart through the first couple of corners and actually be risk averse?

[alc59]

I think that the sport is painting itself into a corner on this stuff. It is difficult to anticipate all the possiblle circumstances and there are questions of degree, so scope for judgement being brought into play is very desirable.
However if the FIA and the teams sit down and agree something it effectively becomes a rule, which tends to discourage or eliminate judgement.
My opinion is that, in reguatory terms, these agreements should be seen as statements of good practice. This means they are not mandatory, but if circumstances indicate there is a better way of achieving the right outcome, there is no problem.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by dsg

I don't disagree, particularly with what I have highlighted in your post above. I also believe F1 officialdom should firmly take charge and tell the teams what to do. However we have reached a point where the Teams basically run the show and FIA manage within those parameters.

At the moment FIA are in a no win situation as they are blamed for complying with the teams wishes and are blamed when they don't. I would love to see FIA take firm control and say "This is how it is done and any team that doesn't like it can go home" but the sport is a victim of its own success and the inmates run the asylum.

In regard to safety I believe the red flags were in the interest of safety. I don't see any problem red flagging the race to clean up large areas of debris quickly following an incident, rather than many wasted laps behind a safety car.

Also standing starts happen at almost every race and and are well within normal safety limits. In dry clear weather there is no reason they cannot happen on lap 1 or lap 60. I can guarantee Lewis and Mercedes were pushing for a standing start as much as Max and Red Bull were arguing against one. I also guarantee this would be different if roles were reversed.

It is certainly unfair to the leader, but as long as they are managed consistently then there shouldn't be a problem as everyone knows the situation.

That being said, in the future should teams want some other practice to be the norm such as parc ferme red flag rules or rolling starts during the race, or god forbid FIA take control and put out a similar standard operating practice, then as long as that is consistently applied, then that would also be good.

indeed, standing starts happen all the time so yes they should not be considered as inherently more dangerous then what we see at the opening of every race...thats a very reasonable point.

but i do get stuck on the inference that a late stage re start is the same as an opening race start.

i can point to tire allotments, variable car and track conditions, changing light levels etc etc. but what about the drivers state of readiness?

is it reasonable for athletes to operate at peak performance for a long period of time, have them stop and take a (undetermined amount of) break, and then expect them to be able to get back out there and immediately hit that peak level again?

the body cools down (F1 body warmers heard it hear first), muscles tighten up, adrenaline flow shifts, reaction times slow down...given our current state of understanding of how the human body functions in these types of situation surely we know that our bodies just cant be turned on and off like this.

i understand the motivation of finishing a race under racing conditions but to do this they are asking us to also accept a suboptimal level of performance from the drivers and that frankly presents a higher level of danger while offering less athletic performance. thats a poor trade off at best no?

idk, maybe i am moving too far off the point here and looking too hard for reasons to rationalize my position?

[NaBUru38]

The second-to-last red flag was perfect. But the last red flag was ridiculous.

I see two correct options. One was to keep the yellow flag (or virtual safety car), and do an extra lap on yellow. And the other was to do the red flag, and restart the race with actual racing.

If a race is red flagged, laps shouldn't be counted until the green flag is deployed.

I'm not sure what the rulebook says, but if it's wrong, it should be changed.

[bjohnsonsmith]

When a race is red flagged, why is the restart a standing start?

[S griffin]

I understand they do standing starts because they are more exciting for the spectators, so I don’t mind them doing it usually. But not when there are 5 laps or less of the race to run

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I understand they do standing starts because they are more exciting for the spectators, so I don’t mind them doing it usually. But not when there are 5 laps or less of the race to run

That is what I remember as well. As you say, when it works out OK, it can create great action on track. Or... it can create real problems if it doesn't work out as hoped.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

I know the rules can't really work with this, but there's a massive difference between a standard start with 48 laps to go, and a standing start with 2 laps to go.