[Official] Monaco Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Exactly, there's no way you should allow side by side in the Monaco pitlane.

Are people suggesting that a specific regulation should be introduced for Monaco only?
Or that side by side driving should be banned at all pit lanes?

Driving side by side in a pit lane is currently not banned - and has happened in the past on a number of occasions.

[Peter Mallett]

Exactly, the unsafe release question only arose because there was contact between the cars and Max was adjudged to have been the cause. Would have been the same at any other circuit.

[S griffin]

It's the stewards discresion on what is an unsafe release. This one was made worse by the contact between the two

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think these days 5 seconds is the standard penalty rather than a drive thru.

There is no standard penalty for the breach of regulations that Verstappen was deemed to have made.

I assume you are referring to the 10s stop-go penalty when you talk about a drive through?
Article 28.13c, 'If a car is deemed to have been released in an unsafe condition during a race a penalty under Article 38.3(d) will be imposed on the driver concerned.'
Article 38.3d - 'A ten second stop‐and‐go time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least ten seconds and then re‐join the race.'


However, Verstappen's penalty was for breach of Article 28.13a - 'Cars must not be released from a garage or pit stop position in way that could endanger pit lane personnel or another driver.'.
There is no 'standard' penalty for breach of 28.13a.


p.s it's through, not 'thru', save that for Fast Food Joints

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's the stewards discresion on what is an unsafe release. This one was made worse by the contact between the two

It was not an unsafe release, that refers to the condition of the car. It was a release that could endanger pit lane personnel or another driver.

There is a clear difference between the two circumstances in the regulations, and associated penalties.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Are people suggesting that a specific regulation should be introduced for Monaco only?

seems wrong to have different rules for different places. arguably thats not very sporting and potentially could lead to even more rules and exceptions being added for all manner of idiotic reasons (rich dude x wants the last race of the year to matter more so pays double to get double points).

but in this one case, i would be in favour to any set of rules that allows Monaco to stay on the calendar indefinitely...or at least until i have had a chance to go there.

in fairness though, i suppose they already do have safety exemptions for Monaco. no new track would be sanctioned with pits of this size, limited run off, so close to the water, different race weekend format, bar next to a corner..safety is already of secondary concern so why not also a distinct rule for the pits?

[Mike Harte]

I believe that Monaco already has a specific rule change - that maybe is shared with one or two other venues - in that the pit lane speed limit is lower, because of the confined space.

If that is actually the case, and not just my memory playing tricks on me, then why not have one or more other track specific rules and regulations.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I believe that Monaco already has a specific rule change - that maybe is shared with one or two other venues - in that the pit lane speed limit is lower, because of the confined space.

If that is actually the case, and not just my memory playing tricks on me, then why not have one or more other track specific rules and regulations.

A number of tracks have a speed limit of 60kph, rather than the usual 80kph. Monaco is one of those, another is Ricard.

The justification though is layout rather than space. The width is not the factor considered, but rather the distance from pit entry to first garage. It gives the team in the first garage long enough in terms of time from when a car entering the pit lane becomes visible, until the point it reaches their garage.

I don't think the overall pit lane regulations should be changed though for one circuit.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It was not an unsafe release, that refers to the condition of the car. It was a release that could endanger pit lane personnel or another driver.

There is a clear difference between the two circumstances in the regulations, and associated penalties.

That’s a little harsh. It is often, even if technically incorrectly, referred to as unsafe release.

Even then the sub point part of the regulation isn’t titled unsafe. It doesn’t seem false to describe the whole of 28.13 as unsafe release reg. Your splitting it up gives the impression that they are different regulations as opposed to a sub set of the same one. Albeit they are more specific on the penalty for one of part than the others where they give themselves flexibility. Presumably to allow for the potential differences in situation (timing, severity, track, other circumstances).

I feel a colloquial use of unsafe does not demonstrate the opinion is any less valid.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I believe that Monaco already has a specific rule change - that maybe is shared with one or two other venues - in that the pit lane speed limit is lower, because of the confined space.

If that is actually the case, and not just my memory playing tricks on me, then why not have one or more other track specific rules and regulations.

Monaco also has a different race distance than the standardised just shy of 200 miles everywhere else has. And Thursday practice. It had its different parc ferme and presentation after the race, although other circuits now do the stop on the track thing. And then there is the rule that the winner has to jump in a swimming pool

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It was not an unsafe release, that refers to the condition of the car. It was a release that could endanger pit lane personnel or another driver.

There is a clear difference between the two circumstances in the regulations, and associated penalties.

Actually the direct rule you quoted does say unsafe release for the event in question. The previous regulation listed refers to unsafe CONDITION, that is usually for mechanical problem, wheel nut etc. If you wish to be pedantic you should read the actual words you typed.

And also, Monaco does have very specific conditions from the FIA regarding the track status and its allowance on the FIA calendar for F1. Most everything about the track requires a variance from the rules including length, run-off areas, pit lane entry time and yes width is covered, and the podium ceremony is spelled out in the rules. To argue making rules for one track is unnecessary when there already are a multitude for the exact track is beyond insane, it's exactly what the FIA has done.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Actually the direct rule you quoted does say unsafe release for the event in question. The previous regulation listed refers to unsafe CONDITION, that is usually for mechanical problem, wheel nut etc. If you wish to be pedantic you should read the actual words you typed.

The full text for article 28.13 a) reads:
'Cars must not be released from a garage or pit stop position in way that could endanger pit lane personnel or another driver. Competitors must provide a means of clearly establishing, when being viewed from both above and in the front of the car, when a car was released.'

I am not seeing the words 'unsafe', let alone 'unsafe release' within article 28.13 a)?


Articles 28.13 b) through d) all use the phrase 'released in an unsafe condition' That is different to saying 'unsafe release'. So yes, I do wish to be pedantic on this because I feel it is important in the context of application of the regulations to the incident that was the origin of this discussion. Verstappen's car was not in an unsafe condition, so I struggle to see why the term 'unsafe release' is being used.

Could you please point me to the part of the regulations where the phrase 'unsafe release' is used?

[chillibowl]

speaking for myself, but i read 'unsafe conditions' and 'unsafe release' as essentially being synonymous phrases.

[Peter Mallett]

Actually no, I think unsafe condition refers to the state of the car such as loose wheel, etc. Unsafe release would be to release the car directly into the path of a car in the "fast lane" of the pit road causing that car to swerve or take other evasive action, such as fly.

[Greem]

Ooh, a rules and language quibble, what fun

The term "unsafe release" has been around and in common usage in F1 for many years.

I've got copies of the SRs back a few years and 28.13 (a) used to say (in 2016/2017):

Originally Posted by FIA F1 Sporting Regulations 2017

It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car from his garage or pit stop position only when it is safe to do so.

Ergo, to breach that the term would be that the release was not safe - unsafe. The wording changed for the 2018 SRs to use the words already quoted, with "endanger" in the stead of "safe". The intent of the rule has been flipped - you must not cause any danger, rather than you must do things safely.

In the current version of the International Sporting code, there's a clause in the PENALTIES section:

Originally Posted by FIA International Sporting Code 2019

12.1.1 Any of the following offences, in addition to any offences specifically referred to previously, shall be deemed to be a breach of these rules:

12.1.1.h Any unsafe act or failure to take reasonable measures, thus resulting in an unsafe situation.

So there's a general clause in the ISC, and a specific point in the F1 SRs.

Teams must not cause a dangerous situation; to do so is an unsafe act. So everyone is right, hooray!

Is everyone bored yet?

EDIT: Peter is bang on, too, but I'll leave the clauses about cars themselves being in unsafe conditions for a rainy day...

[Peter Mallett]

@rse!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Greem

Ooh, a rules and language quibble, what fun

The term "unsafe release" has been around and in common usage in F1 for many years.

I've got copies of the SRs back a few years and 28.13 (a) used to say (in 2016/2017):



Ergo, to breach that the term would be that the release was not safe - unsafe. The wording changed for the 2018 SRs to use the words already quoted, with "endanger" in the stead of "safe". The intent of the rule has been flipped - you must not cause any danger, rather than you must do things safely.

In the current version of the International Sporting code, there's a clause in the PENALTIES section:



So there's a general clause in the ISC, and a specific point in the F1 SRs.

Teams must not cause a dangerous situation; to do so is an unsafe act. So everyone is right, hooray!

Is everyone bored yet?

EDIT: Peter is bang on, too, but I'll leave the clauses about cars themselves being in unsafe conditions for a rainy day...

Greem, I appreciate the clarity you bring here, and accept that I had not considered the ISC in my previous posts.

A query if I may, does the ISC state a typical penalty for the 'unsafe' clause?

[Greem]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Greem, I appreciate the clarity you bring here, and accept that I had not considered the ISC in my previous posts.

A query if I may, does the ISC state a typical penalty for the 'unsafe' clause?

No, the ISC Article 12 outlines the reasons for penalising entrants/teams/drivers etc, details the potential penalties available to clerks of the course and/or stewards, and details the application of penalties, levying of fines, appeal process for penalties/fines/suspensions and so on.

It is then added to, superseded (potentially; I haven't yet seen a series with regs that do that) or amended by individual series' sporting regulations. In the case of F1, the 2019 SRs section 38.3 detail the application of penalties for "any driver involved in an Incident".

The current SRs provide a bit more detail to the penalties listed in the ISC, with specific clarifications for safety car or VSC situations and other specific F1 situations.

The absolute minimum penalty for a driver involved in an Incident (FIA capitalisation as it refers to a definition in the SRs and the ISC) is a 5 second time penalty. There is no specific reference to a penalty for unsafe release.

So.... the penalty given to Verstappen was the absolute minimum that could be applied under the current rules and therefore pretty fair, in my opinion. The 'danger' side of things was about as mild as it could be, given the outcome.

If anyone's feeling academic, try and determine when the current cascade of 5s/10s/drive-through/10s stop-go penalties came into being

[Adam43]

I believe it was relatively recently and the rationale was two fold for the time penalties. Firstly is provided an option for a penalty that was less than a stop go or drive through. It is also more consistent across circuits, as a drive through could be a really small penalty at a circuit like Silverstone. So you might give a drive through or stop go and the impact could vary by many seconds depending on circuit. I suppose also it clarified, or at least made it more consistent, about what you do if a penalty is given out near the end.

Edit: 2014? https://sidepodcast.com/post/permane...oints-cost-cap

[Greem]

Give that man a doughnut; it was indeed 2014.