2023 Singapore Grand Prix - Marina Bay, Sep 15 -17

[mwillems]

This won't happen because everyone knows the level of stewardship is rather poor and the criticism levelled at the FIA by everyone else would be intense.

Edit: Of course we had some transparency when the Race Directors audio was transmitted and that did not work out well for the FIA.

If they stewards and the FIA can't do their job properly, then they deserve every bit of grief they get as far as I am concerned.

I agree, but I wouldn't willingly bring that level of scrutiny on myself. Hell if my partner asks if I finished off the chocolate hobnobs the answers going to be no! Id rather a scowl than a rant

[lando.perez]

I have a quick doubt about the race, Do you remember that Alonso went a bit out of the path to the pit lane when the safety car? I thought that if you lose time (you don't get the benefit) you should not get a penalty, but for instance, he got a +5s.... that correct?

[mwillems]

You can’t always be consistent and transparent. You sometimes have to haggle a bit for the sake of overall fairness. Like when Checo went on the radio to complain that Lewis overtook him offtrack. Yes, that was right, but you more or less forced him there so no need to penalize. When Lewis did it at race start he (narrowly) avoided a penalty for going off track by giving back the position. Both cases if to the letter of the rule wrong decisions but that were fair and warranted. IMHO you have to leave some leeway and accept inconsistent ruling if the outcome the stewards are aiming towards is fair.

It's the wild inconsistency. I wouldn't mind the leeway if it were genuinely used for the application of common sense. It seems more like it is to protect the stewards and FIA as the decisions vary so much that this sense seems less than common.

Regarding Hamiltons escape route at the start, I understand the Russell place but not Norris. That seemed harsh.

[TimW]

You can’t always be consistent and transparent. You sometimes have to haggle a bit for the sake of overall fairness. Like when Checo went on the radio to complain that Lewis overtook him offtrack. Yes, that was right, but you more or less forced him there so no need to penalize. When Lewis did it at race start he (narrowly) avoided a penalty for going off track by giving back the position. Both cases if to the letter of the rule wrong decisions but that were fair and warranted. IMHO you have to leave some leeway and accept inconsistent ruling if the outcome the stewards are aiming towards is fair.

It's the wild inconsistency. I wouldn't mind the leeway if it were genuinely used for the application of common sense. It seems more like it is to protect the stewards and FIA as the decisions vary so much that this sense seems less than common.

Regarding Hamiltons escape route at the start, I understand the Russell place but not Norris. That seemed harsh.

On a track with gravel traps he would have braked and probably lost some positions. Would that have been harsh?

That fact that they can use the run-off changes racing completely. They can take the outside line, purposely take a 'risky' position, and bail out without losing position. More so, it is actually safer. It is becoming a common tactic, e.g Verstappen(France) and Alonso(Sochi) have used it too. Alonso did it to make a point actually, but that was not followed up on.

[hollus]

I have a quick doubt about the race, Do you remember that Alonso went a bit out of the path to the pit lane when the safety car? I thought that if you lose time (you don't get the benefit) you should not get a penalty, but for instance, he got a +5s.... that correct?

In this case it is a safety thing. There are clear explicit instructions that, when entering the pits, you have stay left of the line all the way. Alonso went left-right-left.
So crossing that line does not attract a penalty on grounds of gaining an advantage (which it does, longer radius), but because of the safety concerns. The official reason was "not following stewards instructions" or something similar.

[mwillems]

You can’t always be consistent and transparent. You sometimes have to haggle a bit for the sake of overall fairness. Like when Checo went on the radio to complain that Lewis overtook him offtrack. Yes, that was right, but you more or less forced him there so no need to penalize. When Lewis did it at race start he (narrowly) avoided a penalty for going off track by giving back the position. Both cases if to the letter of the rule wrong decisions but that were fair and warranted. IMHO you have to leave some leeway and accept inconsistent ruling if the outcome the stewards are aiming towards is fair.

It's the wild inconsistency. I wouldn't mind the leeway if it were genuinely used for the application of common sense. It seems more like it is to protect the stewards and FIA as the decisions vary so much that this sense seems less than common.

Regarding Hamiltons escape route at the start, I understand the Russell place but not Norris. That seemed harsh.

On a track with gravel traps he would have braked and probably lost some positions. Would that have been harsh?

That fact that they can use the run-off changes racing completely. They can take the outside line, purposely take a 'risky' position, and bail out without losing position. More so, it is actually safer. It is becoming a common tactic, e.g Verstappen(France) and Alonso(Sochi) have used it too. Alonso did it to make a point actually, but that was not followed up on.

If there was no runoff would Russell close him down so eagerly? Hamilton will always avoid contact and other drivers know this and will be more aggressive with space in the comfort he can both handle the lack of it and avoid in general, contact. So the comparison is moot, everyone would drive differently with no run off and gravel.

And we didnt have gravel. Just fine margins and inconsistent decisions.

[RZS10]

I have a quick doubt about the race, Do you remember that Alonso went a bit out of the path to the pit lane when the safety car? I thought that if you lose time (you don't get the benefit) you should not get a penalty, but for instance, he got a +5s.... that correct?

In this case it is a safety thing. There are clear explicit instructions that, when entering the pits, you have stay left of the line all the way. Alonso went left-right-left.
So crossing that line does not attract a penalty on grounds of gaining an advantage (which it does, longer radius), but because of the safety concerns. The official reason was "not following stewards instructions" or something similar.

That's roughly what was shown in the broadcast "Failing to follow race directors instructions - crossing the line at pit entry.

The decision doc says:

Failure to enter the pit lane to the left of the white line, contrary to the Race Director’s Event Note (item 14.1, document 16)

The race director's notes say:

14.1
In accordance with Chapter 4, Article 4 and 6 of Appendix L to the ISC drivers must follow the procedures at pit entry and pit exit.

And that then says:

4. Entrance to the pit lane
d) Except in cases of force majeure [...] any part of a tyre of a car entering the pit lane must not cross, in any direction, any line painted on the track for the purpose of separating cars entering the pit lane from those on the track. For the avoidance of doubt, crossing means that the outside of any tyre should not go beyond the outside, with respect to the pit lane, of the relevant line painted on the track.

They simply aren't allowed to cross the line on pit entry, it says "any" so it's probably already the inside line of the two of the separator, Nando went over both with all wheels anyways.

All docs are here: https://www.fia.com/documents/champions ... -2023-2042
Sporting code and appendices: https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/123

p.s. i'm almost certain i saw some other drivers cross the line with at least one tyre ... i'd have to watch it again

[organic]

<…>

<…>

<…>

Isn't a place where there is lots of ying-yang the exact opposite of an echo chamber? if anything it was an echo chamber before and now it isn't, resulting in discussions that are just opposing sentiments & tribalism that go round and around in circles.

I don't agree that it's a loud "certain" group of fans. Many people on all sides contribute to these low quality discussions - if there wasn't engagement on all sides then there wouldn't be anything to argue/disagree about, would there?

[RZS10]

[snip]

Ok yea, it's different with a few more words. Thanks for explaining a bit further!

I don't want to go into the specifics of any situations that weekend, i think everyone had their say in that

I think i still disagree on the fundamental principle that there could be fairness with inconsistent ruling, imho those two (fairness and consistency) go hand in hand and you can't have one without the other, it's kinda in the definition of the word "fair" (third in the list, those are from cambridge and merriam webster)
- marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
- conforming with the established rules
- something fair is reasonable and is what you expect or deserve

The drivers should know what to expect in which situation, ergo they should expect consistent decisions by the stewards. Those do have the catalogue of old decisions and situations for a reason afterall.

The other thing is: some leeway here or there in situations that aren't slam dunk penalties might be expected, right? The rules explicitly give the stewards some room, was someone pushed off? Did someone gain an advantage? Whose corner was it? Some stuff is hard to quantify as those situations are highly dynamic - people here on the forum will disagree even with boatloads of data, (visual) analysis, video and even with statements from the drivers involded - so some decisions will be partially subjective as long as humans decide (as mwillems wrote a bit further up one would hope with common sense) but that is not the same as inconsistence.

[organic]

We need professional stewards.. that's the main problem with stewarding atm IMO

[mwillems]

Agreed. Managed by an organisation at arms length from F1 or the FIA.

It still has flaws but it at least has honest flaws from honest mistakes.

That is far more palatable than the deep distrust in decisions often made by the sport.

It would also put criticism of decisions at arms length of F1 and the FIA, in theory this would be easier to.implement.

[denyall]

The inconsistent stewarding is a feature not a bug. Just like with all pro sports, technology and changes to officiating have been proposed for years and while a lot could be done, not a lot IS done.

Buzz, news, controversy make money and at the end of the day, the people who run sports are doing so to make money.

[Sieper]

Even in jury sports, where there are several judges making a call based on a given set of rules/valuation points we have different calls. Often so much that the highest and lowest score are dropped.

I truly believe consistency is impossible. And like I said, f.e. Perez on Albon, 5 secs is consistent, but it doesn’t feel totally right to me. One is out of the points, the other scores some extra points due to his mistake.

[mwillems]

The inconsistent stewarding is a feature not a bug. Just like with all pro sports, technology and changes to officiating have been proposed for years and while a lot could be done, not a lot IS done.

Buzz, news, controversy make money and at the end of the day, the people who run sports are doing so to make money.

Cricket and Tennis are great examples of technology which is on display to all has helped improve decision making.

Of course life is dialectic and it created VAR in football just to have a balance. But fundamentally I don't agree that the sport can't be improved. Technology could take some of these decisions into the public domain and to a set of clear rules.

[dans79]

Buzz, news, controversy make money and at the end of the day, the people who run sports are doing so to make money.

Well then maybe the teams should go after the fIA legally for having a conflict of interest.