2023 Italian Grand Prix - Monza, Sep 01 - 03

[dialtone]

That Merc is somewhat taking advantage of the 5s penalty is preposterous. We should have a tin foil hat forum topic. I’m no fan of theirs but c’mon.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/russe ... /10515918/

Russell said he lunged around Ocon and skipped the chicane knowing he could get away with it. He never gave the position back. It was more important to make the undercut work as the time penalty wouldn't hurt so much compared to what he gained.

“And I knew if I fell behind him, my chance to undercut the guys ahead would disappear. So I went in very hot into Turn 1, knowing there was a bit of a risk to miss the corner, and that's what happened.

“In Monza, it's a bit of a shame, because it's always a bit of a ‘get out of jail free’ card with the run-off there. And that gives drivers, especially when you're fighting, the chance to miss the corner. So I'd probably like to see a bit of a change in that corner in the future.”

Russell said he had no regrets about making a risky move that would probably earn a penalty: “I knew that P5 was probably the worst that we could have achieved, considering the gap to the guy in P6.

“So it would have only compromised me if it was a safety car right at the end [and the field bunched up].”

It was quite similar to Sainz's illegal overtake on lap 47 where he lunged Leclerc into the 2nd chicane, skipped it, and kept the position. Except Russell got a penalty and Sainz didn't ( ).

Didn’t see GR interview and it’s extremely disappointing. And Sainz should have been penalized for that probably but I’m told same team drivers can practically stab one another without any penalties.

EDIT: this bothers me a lot… 5s is no deterrent then, raise the penalty for cutting to 20s or drive through or remove the simple time penalty after the race, you have to lose track position.

[Just_a_fan]

What about half a car on the grass?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... tember.jpg

It's fine, BW flag. The car briefly touched the grass before going back on the kerb. Both Leclerc and Lewis were lucky it was there. Evading someone cutting across in a braking zone isn't exactly risk free in and of itself.

For future reference, forcing another driver on to the grass is ok so long as they don't break part of the car?

[Spoutnik]

[chrisc90]

Wow that’s dangerous!

[fourmula1]

they were braking so late, he wasn't even close enough, not very dangerous in this case.

[Just_a_fan]

That's the now-accepted "let them race!" driver standard, it seems. Perhaps it's onsidered OK between team mates but we'll have to see if non-team mates get told off for similar going forward.

[Tiny73]

What about half a car on the grass?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... tember.jpg

It's fine, BW flag. The car briefly touched the grass before going back on the kerb. Both Leclerc and Lewis were lucky it was there. Evading someone cutting across in a braking zone isn't exactly risk free in and of itself.

For future reference, forcing another driver on to the grass is ok so long as they don't break part of the car?

Only when it’s the driver you continually rail against being the victim of said move. If he’s the perpetrator then he should be burnt at the stake.

[Cs98]

What about half a car on the grass?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... tember.jpg

It's fine, BW flag. The car briefly touched the grass before going back on the kerb. Both Leclerc and Lewis were lucky it was there. Evading someone cutting across in a braking zone isn't exactly risk free in and of itself.

For future reference, forcing another driver on to the grass is ok so long as they don't break part of the car?

Your words, not mine. If you forcefully push someone onto the grass when they are entitled to space and they lose control of their car and crash I think that's worthy of a penalty. But if the squeeze isn't so forceful and there's no clear damage, no loss of control, and no loss of position, I'm fine with the BW even if there's a touch of grass. A relevant example besides the one we are discussing would be Vettel v Alonso in Monza 2011.

[Juzh]

That's the now-accepted "let them race!" driver standard, it seems. Perhaps it's onsidered OK between team mates but we'll have to see if non-team mates get told off for similar going forward.

Leclerc was doing to perez as well, very blatant. Starts braking, checks mirror and looks perez is trying to send it down the inside, turns car to the right mid braking to cover inside.

[Just_a_fan]

It's fine, BW flag. The car briefly touched the grass before going back on the kerb. Both Leclerc and Lewis were lucky it was there. Evading someone cutting across in a braking zone isn't exactly risk free in and of itself.

For future reference, forcing another driver on to the grass is ok so long as they don't break part of the car?

Your words, not mine. If you forcefully push someone onto the grass when they are entitled to space and they lose control of their car and crash I think that's worthy of a penalty. But if the squeeze isn't so forceful and there's no clear damage, no loss of control, and no loss of position, I'm fine with the BW even if there's a touch of grass. A relevant example besides the one we are discussing would be Vettel v Alonso in Monza 2011.

So squeezing a skilful/lucky driver on to the grass is OK. But squeezing someone on to the grass who is unable to control their car for whatever reason is grounds for hanging from the nearest tree. OK, at least we know the ground rules going forward.

Of course, this approach basically reverts to the idea that the outcome should be punished and not the action. Which is a strange approach in most walks of life.

[Just_a_fan]

That's the now-accepted "let them race!" driver standard, it seems. Perhaps it's onsidered OK between team mates but we'll have to see if non-team mates get told off for similar going forward.

Leclerc was doing to perez as well, very blatant. Starts braking, checks mirror and looks perez is trying to send it down the inside, turns car to the right mid braking to cover inside.

As I said, it's becoming the accepted way of driving now thanks to the "let them race!" cries of a few years ago. At some point we're going to have an incident like Webber's where the following car is launched (not that it was down to Heikki moving that time, it was just a simple error by Webber himself) and then there will be crying and shouting and much beating of chests.

[Cs98]

For future reference, forcing another driver on to the grass is ok so long as they don't break part of the car?

Your words, not mine. If you forcefully push someone onto the grass when they are entitled to space and they lose control of their car and crash I think that's worthy of a penalty. But if the squeeze isn't so forceful and there's no clear damage, no loss of control, and no loss of position, I'm fine with the BW even if there's a touch of grass. A relevant example besides the one we are discussing would be Vettel v Alonso in Monza 2011.

So squeezing a skilful/lucky driver on to the grass is OK. But squeezing someone on to the grass who is unable to control their car for whatever reason is grounds for hanging from the nearest tree. OK, at least we know the ground rules going forward.

If you break the rules and cause a crash you get punished, that's what happens. And sure, you can place faith in the other driver to get out of the way of your mistake. But that's a risk the rule-breaker is taking, if something does go wrong you will have to take responsibility because it was you who broke the rules, not the the other guy. It's really not that difficult.

And enough with the lynching rhetoric. It's not befitting the topic of a 5 second penalty, nor this forum at all really.

Of course, this approach basically reverts to the idea that the outcome should be punished and not the action. Which is a strange approach in most walks of life.

I don't find it strange at all in other walks of life. You crash into another car under the influence and the person in the other car passes away. You think you are getting off with more or less time served than if they are unharmed? You run a red light and cause a crash, more or less punishment than if the crash was avoided? The outcome of illegal activity is a consideration when determining what is appropriate punishment.

[Just_a_fan]

Your words, not mine. If you forcefully push someone onto the grass when they are entitled to space and they lose control of their car and crash I think that's worthy of a penalty. But if the squeeze isn't so forceful and there's no clear damage, no loss of control, and no loss of position, I'm fine with the BW even if there's a touch of grass. A relevant example besides the one we are discussing would be Vettel v Alonso in Monza 2011.

So squeezing a skilful/lucky driver on to the grass is OK. But squeezing someone on to the grass who is unable to control their car for whatever reason is grounds for hanging from the nearest tree. OK, at least we know the ground rules going forward.

If you break the rules and cause a crash you get punished, that's what happens. And sure, you can place faith in the other driver to get out of the way of your mistake. But that's a risk the rule-breaker is taking, if something does go wrong you will have to take responsibility because it was you who broke the rules, not the the other guy. It's really not that difficult.

And enough with the lynching rhetoric. It's not befitting the topic of a 5 second penalty, nor this forum at all really.

Of course, this approach basically reverts to the idea that the outcome should be punished and not the action. Which is a strange approach in most walks of life.

I don't find it strange at all in other walks of life. You crash into another car under the influence and the person in the other car passes away. You think you are getting off with more or less time served than if they are unharmed? You run a red light and cause a crash, more or less punishment than if the crash was avoided? The outcome of illegal activity is a consideration when determining what is appropriate punishment.

There were people calling for quite draconian penalties - drive-throughs, 10s stop-and-go, etc. They are pretty much a lynching in motorsport terms.

Yes, serious offences do carry further punishment, but you still get a punishment for "victimless crimes" such as speeding. Drive at 60mph on an empty 40mph road and you get punished. No one is hurt but the rule has been broken. But at Monza we see people causing others to go on to the grass and it's considered ok so long as they don't crash - "no harm, no foul", a so-called "victimless crime". But that's not how rules should be implemented. You break the rule, you get a penalty. The outcome should be irrelevant to the question "was the rule broken?"

[chrisc90]

Anyone else think that the penalty/ rule that George?? got for overtaking another car off track was a bit lenient? Or whether it should be better addressed in future?

I mean the car was struggling to overtake the car infront because the car wasn’t fast enough to overtake properly.

That then allowed him to open up a bigger gap effectively negating the 5 second penalty that was given for overtaking off track. It is also interesting that the gaining a lasting advantage wasn’t used aswell given it allowed clearer air to drive faster.

I mean it’s technically a massive loophole in the regs that isn’t properly penalised. You can’t overtake the car infront (let’s use Monaco as a example, but you know you have 3 tenths or so advantage and no extra stops needed to pit, so you can make back your 5 seconds penalty pretty easily, therefore you just got flat out over the swimming pool chicane - get track position and know your safe from the penalty because you have a faster car and can get the time back.

Another example could have been for Max to simply use the run off area at turn 1/2 in Monza and get ahead of Carlos - who was clearly slowing him up and it would have gave him the track position and Max would have easily pulled more than 5 seconds in the following 5-10laps over the Ferrari. It effectively nulls the penalty completely and gives you an advantage.
I know a lot of people would think that it’s completely unfair to be allowed to retain the position and gain a lasting advantage.

(If I’m mistaken with the incident and driver then please forgive me)

[Cs98]

There were people calling for quite draconian penalties - drive-throughs, 10s stop-and-go, etc. They are pretty much a lynching in motorsport terms.

Yes, serious offences do carry further punishment, but you still get a punishment for "victimless crimes" such as speeding. Drive at 60mph on an empty 40mph road and you get punished. No one is hurt but the rule has been broken. But at Monza we see people causing others to go on to the grass and it's considered ok so long as they don't crash - "no harm, no foul", a so-called "victimless crime". But that's not how rules should be implemented. You break the rule, you get a penalty. The outcome should be irrelevant to the question "was the rule broken?"

You are invoking what some random said instead of arguing what actually happened or what the person you are arguing with is advocating for. Not a great justification to keep using lynching rhetoric I must say.

You don't always get a punishment for breaking a law, there are absolutely warnings that are issued by law enforcement in certain cases. If those warnings are not heeded, then further punishment might become necessary. The B&W flag fills that warning function in F1. A less blunt tool for less obvious situations.

The outcome should be irrelevant to the question "was the rule broken?"

There is no set penalty for every rule, and it's precisely because the circumstances can be so different despite the same rule applying. You can get a 5s penalty for "causing a collision", and you can get a black flag. There is no one size fits all punishment for every rule, and much of it depends on the severity of the rule-break, and the outcome (like we've already established is the case in real life).