2021 São Paulo Grand Prix - Interlagos, Nov 12-14

[dans79]

I get that, I'm with you on that. Its just that if Lewis doesn't consider this to be an issue, why should the stewards. It's already a very slim chance of anything happening.

It doesn't matter, if they win or lose the appeal. if the stewards agree new evidence exists and thus open an investigation, they must defend in writing why they decide whatever they decide the final outcome is.

Basically Merc is going to force the FIA/stewards into clearly defining in writing what is allowed and not allowed.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... t_2021.pdf

Overtaking, according to the
circumstances, may be carried out on either
the right or the left.
A driver may not leave the track without
justifiable reason.
More than one change of direction to defend
a position is not permitted.
Any driver moving back towards the racing
line, having earlier defended his position offline, should leave at least one car width
between his own car and the edge of the
track on the approach to the corner.
However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other
drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car
beyond the edge of the track or any other
abnormal change of direction, are strictly
prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of
any of the above offences will be reported to
the Stewards.

The stewards have allowed the gentle (the squeeze) forcing of a car off track for decades, but the car doing it, had to be ahead entering the braking zone, and had to make the corner itself. Now they seem to care more about the show, and the outcome of the race more than they do the rules!

[KeiKo403]

I get that, I'm with you on that. Its just that if Lewis doesn't consider this to be an issue, why should the stewards. It's already a very slim chance of anything happening.

It doesn't matter, if they win or lose the appeal. if the stewards agree new evidence exists and thus open an investigation, they must defend in writing why they decide whatever they decide the final outcome is.

Basically Merc is going to force the FIA/stewards into clearly defining in writing what is allowed and not allowed.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... t_2021.pdf

Overtaking, according to the
circumstances, may be carried out on either
the right or the left.
A driver may not leave the track without
justifiable reason.
More than one change of direction to defend
a position is not permitted.
Any driver moving back towards the racing
line, having earlier defended his position offline, should leave at least one car width
between his own car and the edge of the
track on the approach to the corner.
However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other
drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car
beyond the edge of the track or any other
abnormal change of direction, are strictly
prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of
any of the above offences will be reported to
the Stewards.

The stewards have allowed the gentle (the squeeze) forcing of a car off track for decades, but the car doing it, had to be ahead entering the braking zone, and had to make the corner itself. Now they seem to care more about the show, and the outcome of the race more than they do the rules!

Red Bull: “TL:DR….let them race though yeah?!”

In all seriousness though this is where the issues start, a mantra of “let them race” as proven to mean don’t apply the rules.

[the poster below]

FWIW This is what Sky have said:

"We don't have a resolution to this... in fact we're going into extra time. The initial meeting that started at around 2pm UK time lasted 50 minutes, that came to an end then we've had a hiatus.

"Now, as I understand it, we are going to continue this meeting at 8pm local time, that's 5pm UK time.

"We're into some quite complicated legal argument, there's high-powered legal counsel involved from the two teams. One of the things they're currently debating, is can you have an appeal on an issue which didn't actually take place in the first place? What I mean by that is, Max Verstappen didn't get a penalty and in fact there was not even an initial stewards' investigation into his defence against Lewis Hamilton. Given there was no investigation, how can you overturn something that the stewards didn't address in the first place? They're trying to see if there's any foundation for overturning it."

Craig also adds...

"It's looking more likely that we don't get a resolution until tomorrow or maybe even until after cars get on the track for practice."

I think the fact that the incident was officially "noted" plays towards Mercedes slightly. It means that some official party took a decision to either investigate or not. And you would expect official decisions to be generally appealable unless explicitly defined as not appealable, at least as a general principle in other legal arenas. In that case, overturning the decision not to investigate would naturally lead to an investigation, with its own right to review for the party that loses. Leaving the issue as it stands provides conflicting precedents for future on track antics, and usually that's where an appeal board steps in to harmonise the 'law'.

[KeiKo403]

The stewards have placed themselves and the FIA in a tricky spot here.

Given Red Bulls argument if the FIA agrees to open an investigation into the incident then that’s sets a dangerous precedent. How far back can you go? The appeals process is clearly defined with x number of days. Incidents which weren’t investigated or deemed not worthy of investigation at the time, there doesn’t seem to be any set guidelines for these matters to be handled. And in a sport where where the difference of 0.2mm makes a massive difference it’s obvious that rules are rules and common sense can’t prevail.

If the FIA say they can’t open an investigation as there is no scope within the regulations to allow this to occur then what? The FIA look like fools because they didn’t have the balls to enforce there own rules in the first place.

The FIA should be ambivalent towards the show, they are the governing body, not the commercial rights holder. The Ferrari 2019 coverup shows what integrity Todt lacks.

I can see this being ‘resolved’ along the lines of, there’s no investigation to appeal against therefore we have nothing further to say on the matter.

[bonjon1979]

Come on, we all know this is about max and the fans he’s brought to the sport. They want him to win, that’s why masi didn’t even bother investigating it. Then it’s would’ve been in the hands of the stewards and that was only ever going to go one way

[codetower]

It doesn't matter, if they win or lose the appeal. if the stewards agree new evidence exists and thus open an investigation, they must defend in writing why they decide whatever they decide the final outcome is.

Basically Merc is going to force the FIA/stewards into clearly defining in writing what is allowed and not allowed.

I personally don't think it's about setting a precedent. How can you set a written precedent when every situation is different? You'd need to define a braking zone and exit zone at each turn on each track. You'd need to decide how far of an apex is still considered "hitting the apex". Does it matter if drivers touch, what lap they are on, does a lasting advantage matter, do their speeds matter? How about slide... do different corners have more leeway if they are faster causing the cars to slide more. I think there are just too many variables.

I think Mercedes is simply doing what ANY team would do in their situation. You are locked into a tight battle for the WCC AND the WDC... there is a borderline (I say borderline because the stewards initially did not penalize) penalize-able offense by your direct competitor... if you can squeeze 3 points for your lead driver, and a 6 point swing for the team, then you try all you can. Those 3/6 points could determine the championship. They aren't asking to bend the rules, just to re-evaluate the initial decision.

[bonjon1979]

It doesn't matter, if they win or lose the appeal. if the stewards agree new evidence exists and thus open an investigation, they must defend in writing why they decide whatever they decide the final outcome is.

Basically Merc is going to force the FIA/stewards into clearly defining in writing what is allowed and not allowed.

I personally don't think it's about setting a precedent. How can you set a written precedent when every situation is different? You'd need to define a braking zone and exit zone at each turn on each track. You'd need to decide how far of an apex is still considered "hitting the apex". Does it matter if drivers touch, what lap they are on, does a lasting advantage matter, do their speeds matter? How about slide... do different corners have more leeway if they are faster causing the cars to slide more. I think there are just too many variables.

I think Mercedes is simply doing what ANY team would do in their situation. You are locked into a tight battle for the WCC AND the WDC... there is a borderline (I say borderline because the stewards initially did not penalize) penalize-able offense by your direct competitor... if you can squeeze 3 points for your lead driver, and a 6 point swing for the team, then you try all you can. Those 3/6 points could determine the championship. They aren't asking to bend the rules, just to re-evaluate the initial decision.

They’re not looking for clarification, it’s perfectly clear that you can’t crowd a car off the track. In this case, max did so much crowding off the track, he himself was off the track by 5 metres. The reason why they’re doing this appeal is to embarrass the fia into actually punishing max when he does this.

[the poster below]

My prediction is:

1) Mercedes "win" their right to review, because as already established the front facing camera footage for car 33 wasn't initially available, so is significant new evidence in terms of potential to impact/change the decision taken, and the decision to not investigate is a steward decision which ought to be appealable (albeit not in a decision document), and because the championship contenders are involved it is of particular importance. This assumes Mercedes filled the petition to review in time and fulfilled all the criteria for it to be formally admitted and considered on substantive merit.

2) Red Bull "win" the investigation that follows, because they successfully argue Verstappen simply tried to defend position by braking later than all previous instances that weekend, on an unfamiliar line into the corner, and his car control on that one off instance was the best he could do under the circumstances. The lack of gravel on the outside minimised risk and the fact is that the status quo was maintained only temporarily, and given that Hamilton passed him in the end, this all suggests that the equitable thing to do here is nothing, since Verstappen otherwise lacks the opportunity to respond to any penalty in terms of racing on track for the previous event. However I would expect the stewards to nonetheless clarify that they are not setting precedent by taking no action despite the investigation and they will say that future instances where this type of thing happens (irrespective of the competitors involved) will be treated by... [insert preferred penalty / telling off].

[Andres125sx]

Sorry to say this guys, but using precedents as an argument is useless in F1. Stewards decisions have been so volatile over the years, and even into same season, that any argument can be defended with some similar precedent, any

That is the problem exactly, while different stewads judge each race, decisions will never be consistent. It´s been the same for decades but I think FIA is happy providing that bit of controversy to the championship. I can´t think of any other reason to keep this nosense

[Stu]

If nothing comes of this I really hope Mercedes allow Bottas to "let them race"

Yeah, but he needs to able to be in striking distance before engaging the brake magic switch inadvertently…..

[AeroDynamic]

Probably the right prediction but it will be given for the wrong reasons. FIA this year have been exposed for not living up to what they preach; they do judge each driver differently, and they do judge the outcome of an incident. its just not consistent, and it's a mess.

at the end of the day, there shouldn't have needed to be any onboard footage needed. Everything is an excuse that don't fly; whatever the reason is, he went 4 car widths off track and impeded a driver who was 1 whole car length ahead when he attacked for the position. He did not make the corner, period.

letting a driver off for doing that gives a huge advantage to him in these battles on track; if they crash in this situation, Verstappen wins. he can get seconds or a penalty but he stays ahead in the championship.

a driver cannot race him around corners otherwise he will be taken out, and a penalty is no bueno by that point. Because no penalty or seconds can allow the DNF'd driver to fight for the championship anymore.. unless the other driver is DSQ from a subsequent race.

Tha FIA have to apply the same principle they do with the technical rules and live what they preach; a driver was impeded by another driver who lost control and failed to make the corner, and maintained the position from an advantage of being off track.

if Latifi or Mazepin or Lando do that to someone else, they get penalised or investigated. Being a title rival or a popular driver shouldn't mean FOM protecting your racing and keeping the FIA off you

[dans79]

nothing till tomorrow!

[TimW]

Can they revert the decision and give him a non penalty(e.g a reprimand)? That would be the easy way out for them. They acknowledge that it was wrong, but do not affect the result.

It is also equivalent to the minimum they should have done in the race, giving him a black and white flag. (Why did they not do that?)

[Andres125sx]

I’ll say it again. Blaming the stewards or getting mad at them for deciding the championship is backwards. Blame the driver for not racing within the rules and ruining the spectacle. Taking it out on the stewards is why we are going to keep going in circles. We just need to hold the driver accountable; like, “hey racer, why you being dirty for? You ruin your reputation and the championship now that the racing is being decided by penalties because of your pathetic racing manouvres”

Stewards are those who put the limits, and drivers need to know the limits because that´s their job. If stewards don´t punish this, then all the grid will start pushing out of track any car trying to pass at the outside, as that is within the limits according to the stewards and they can keep their position this way

Obviously it´s the drivers who play dirty who start all this, but if stewards start allowing this then all drivers will do it.

Lecrers said it, but for example Alonso has already do it several times, several seasons back, after someone did the same as Max and Stewards didn´t punish him either. Then some more drivers did start do in it too, then they were punished. Some time later the cycle starts again, and again, and again. And here we are

That´s the reason I said probably FIA is happy with this, because this is far from new, but they do nothing to solve it so, or they´re useless, or they´re ok with it

[Andres125sx]

Can they revert the decision and give him a non penalty(e.g a reprimand)? That would be the easy way out for them. They acknowledge that it was wrong, but do not affect the result.

FIA favourite (when it´s their interest) is: That cannot be done, but it was not clear in the rulebook so there will be no penalty. Anyone doing this in the future will be punished