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

[TFSA]

perez put himself into that position knowing it was a tight corner with no room. he knows that cars these days have massive blindspots and is difficult to track behind the halo and wide sidepods. he essentially forced yuki to decide to either let him through or crash. it was a desperate lunge that was a hero or zero move. he was saved by the lap 1 leniency norm. had it been any other lap he wouldve been judged to be predominately at fault.

No he didn't. By my picture earlier in the thread, he had all the space in the world until Yuki cut across all the way from the left. At the point of this picture, Perez was already far enough along to be entitled to space - so there's no valid excuse for cutting across.

What Yuki did can be considered a late defensive move. He put himself in that position. Perez had a completely valid overtaking attempt. Yuki should have covered the inside earlier if he wanted to take that line.

[Cs98]

No he didn't. But my picture earlier in the thread,he had all the space in the world[/url] until Yuki cut across all the way from the left. At the point of this picture, Perez was already far enough along to be entitled to space - so there's no valid excuse for cutting across.

What Yuki did can be considered a late defensive move. He put himself in that position. Perez had a completely valid overtaking attempt. Yuki should have covered the inside earlier if he wanted to take that line.

100% Yuki's fault. The rules are very clear on this.

[dialtone]

No he didn't. But my picture earlier in the thread,he had all the space in the world[/url] until Yuki cut across all the way from the left. At the point of this picture, Perez was already far enough along to be entitled to space - so there's no valid excuse for cutting across.

What Yuki did can be considered a late defensive move. He put himself in that position. Perez had a completely valid overtaking attempt. Yuki should have covered the inside earlier if he wanted to take that line.

100% Yuki's fault. The rules are very clear on this.

This is some parallel universe stuff. Like you folks watch a different race or something.

As if rules matter when they talk about apex and the incident is before the apex. I can take a 50/50 fault, but all Yuki’s fault… lol

[organic]

AMuS article translation on the Singapore qualifying incidents/stewarding

Go into the twitter thread below for full article transcript

[Wouter]

AMuS article translation on the Singapore qualifying incidents/stewarding

Go into the twitter thread below for full article transcript

.
This is a nice part about Yuki that it was 100% his fault.

Junaid #JB17
@JunaidSamodien_
Many came to the conclusion that certain drivers or teams get away with a black eye more often than others.
Especially since Sergio Perez boxed out three opponents (Tsunoda, Albon, Lawson) in the race, but in the end
he only got five seconds, which had no influence on his result.
Tsunoda race was over after the collision, Alexander Albon dropped out of the points. In order to dispel this suspicion, many teams
in Suzuka would like to have a conversation with the sports stewards in order to resolve such contradictions in the future.

[RZS10]

Full and corrected translation:

TEAMS DEMAND BRIEFING CONCERNING DECISIONS BY THE FIA
Why does Verstappen always get away with it?

GP SINGAPORE 2023 The decisions of the stewards after qualifying for the Singapore GP could have consequences. Despite obvious cases of impeding drivers got away with warnings and an acquittal. Even Max Verstappen expected a penalty.

Decisions by the stewards will never be met with unconditional approval. Someone always feels disadvantaged. The accusation then quickly arises that there are double standards. But the four cases in qualifying for the Singapore GP were the last straw that broke the camels back. Many teams request that the cases be reopened and the verdicts explained. Even teams that weren't affected at all. A team boss spoke of a “scandal”.

What happened? It was about a whole series of hindrances of different kinds. Logan Sargeant had blocked Lance Stroll between turns 2 and 8. He was warned and Williams had to pay a fine of 5,000 euros. It was also stated that the representative of the plaintiff team arrived late for the hearing. "I was hogged by the doctors because of Lance Stroll's accident and was therefore six minutes late. I was no longer able to present our point of view. The verdict had already been made. It had never happened so quickly."

Max Verstappen was the target [of an investigation] three times. In one instance he was said to have slowed down Logan Sargeant between turns 17 and 18, in the other Yuki Tsunoda between turns 3 and 4, and then, instructed by the team, he held up half the field at the pit exit in order to get as much free air on track as possible.

One acquittal, two yellow cards.

The world champion himself expected a grid penalty. Williams was also pretty sure that Sargeant would have to drop three starting positions. The guidelines for the sports commissioners state that a penalty of three places is recommended for sustained impeding and five places for a dangerous one.

But on this Saturday evening in Singapore, all the delinquents were lucky. The referees were merciful, which made the defendants happy but most of the others terribly upset. “The decision making is not consistent and the guidelines are always interpreted differently. You never know what applies,” complained a sports director.

Verstappen received two yellow cards and an acquittal. Everyone could live with the acquittal in the Sargeant case. Verstappen was stuck in a traffic jam in front of the two last corners that arose because everyone wanted to leave space to the car in front. The Red Bull driver explained that he was in the middle of it all, being overtaken sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right, and that he thought it was the safest solution to stick to his line. That made sense.

No plaintiff in Tsunoda case

Many observers struggled more with the impeding of Tsunoda. The Japanese driver made clear what he thought of it on the radio with a few swear words. Red Bull excused their driver's behaviour by claiming he was told too late about Tsunoda's approach.

The verdict was a warning and a fine of 5,000 euros for Red Bull. While the stewards saw this in line with old verdicts, several team managers complained: “Our drivers would have received a starting grid penalty for that one.”

Verstappen was helped by the fact that there was no plaintiff. Alpha Tauri had decided not to send the driver or a team member to the hearing. They didn't want to spoil things for their friendly sister team. But that can not have any influence on the verdict. If the testimony is refused, then the content of the radio message satisfies the charge. And it was pretty clear.

There was also just a warning for the long waiting time at the pit exit. The time of 14 seconds mentioned in the decision document was already wrong. It was 18. The fact that no one was negatively impacted is, first of all, incorrect and secondly irrelevant. There have been cases where impeding was penalised, even though the affected driver made it through to the next qualifying stage.

Wrong timing after pit blockade

One engineer also contradicts the claim that in the end everyone ended up in another traffic jam on the track anyways: "The stewards can't even make that calculation. The drivers are sent out of the garages according to a certain 'time loop'. It accounts for the current traffic on the track, the time required for the ideal warm-up lap and also unforeseen incidents such as weighing the car at the end of the lap. If 18 seconds are suddenly added for no reason, the entire timing is no longer correct."

Many came to the conclusion that certain drivers or teams get away with a slap on the wrist more often than others. Especially since in the race Sergio Perez boxed/rammed three opponents (Tsunoda, Albon, Lawson) out of his way, but in the end only got five seconds, which had no influence on his result. Tsunoda's race was over after the collision, Alexander Albon dropped out of the points. In order to dispel this suspicion, many teams in Suzuka would like to have a conversation with the stewards in order to resolve such contradictions in the future.

[RZS10]

I did not want to mix my own opinion into the post with the article, it's cleaner this way i think ... but yea ...

It seems that it's not only the viewers who see a pattern emerge, the teams see it as well, it's not necessarily just one team or one driver but different standards get applied depending on who is involved.

It also seems that the FIA simply did not publish the summons for the affected teams/drivers since Williams did attend the hearing and it's now clear that at the very least Aston Martin was summoned (but did not get to have their say) - so it's almost certain that Alpha Tauri did choose not to attend afterall and not that they just weren't 'invited'.

[mwillems]

Perez sending it up the inside is not the same as BEING alongside and deserving space.

He had part of his car alongside for a good 2 seconds before reaching the apex of the corner. He was in control of the car and wasn't carrying excessive speed. Yuki simply turned in and afforded him no space on the apex, as Perez is entitled to per the rules.

I thought the rules were that you need a significant amount? which is more than perez had?

Looking at the video, hes almost entirely behind tsunoda until the braking point. But i will happily concede that Tsunoda does come across to the apex. Thanks for having my check it again to correct my understanding.

The precedent set for moves on the inside is that the front wheels along or in front of the rear wheels of the target. For a move in the outside to afford space you need to have the car alongside on the outside or in front. This is predominantly (but not always) how this is viewed.

Perez looked in control, not taking too much kerb, alongside and for a sufficient time that it wasn't a divebomb.
It's never 100% anyone's fault but Yuki could have been more aware, I put this down to a racing incident but weighted slightly towards Yuki. He had time and reason to be aware of a potential move. He didn't have anyone on the outside of him and had a wider line if he was aware of Perez, he just wasn't aware of Perez.. but Perez was there for about 1.7 seconds before the apex despite knowing that Perez with a faster better car would at some point attack.

[mwillems]

I did not want to mix my own opinion into the post with the article, it's cleaner this way i think ... but yea ...

It seems that it's not only the viewers who see a pattern emerge, the teams see it as well, it's not necessarily just one team or one driver but different standards get applied depending on who is involved.

It also seems that the FIA simply did not publish the summons for the affected teams/drivers since Williams did attend the hearing and it's now clear that at the very least Aston Martin was summoned (but did not get to have their say) - so it's almost certain that Alpha Tauri did choose not to attend afterall and not that they just weren't 'invited'.

Yes, very much agreed. The standards at this race were baffling.

I should like it if all stewards decisions were documented in full as to how a conclusion was made and what references to previous incidents/precedents were used, that way we can see which ones were ignored and understand the decisions better.

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.

[Sieper]

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.

[SiLo]

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.

One issue with Lewis on Perez was that stupid curb they have there. If he goes over it too far the car can ride the plank and then potentially spit him out for a crash, so its better to either go over all the way quickly, or be much further on the inside.

[RZS10]

You can’t always be consistent and transparent. You sometimes have to haggle a bit for the sake of overall fairness. IMHO you have to leave some leeway and accept inconsistent ruling if the outcome the stewards are aiming towards is fair.

You'd have to elaborate on that one, do you mean that there has been so much inconsistency in the past that a fair ruling according to the letter of the law would end up being unfair because others got away with it before or do you say that it's ok for the stewards to "haggle" or ignore the rules and not apply penalties when they believe it's for the sake of what they subjectively perceive as fairness (or believe to be good for the sport)?

[Sieper]

You can’t always be consistent and transparent. You sometimes have to haggle a bit for the sake of overall fairness. IMHO you have to leave some leeway and accept inconsistent ruling if the outcome the stewards are aiming towards is fair.

You'd have to elaborate on that one, do you mean that there has been so much inconsistency in the past that a fair ruling according to the letter of the law would end up being unfair because others got away with it before or do you say that it's ok for the stewards to "haggle" or ignore the rules and not apply penalties when they believe it's for the sake of what they subjectively perceive as fairness (or believe to be good for the sport)?

Yes. I noticed people are usually only calling for very strict ruling when it advantages their driver of interest. That is one thing, I don’t believe most people are interested in fair ruling at all.

Point two is I believe it is impossible to rule totally consistent, and have that be fair in every situation. It sounds easy to achieve, just apply rule x in situation y and all is well. It hardly ever is.

To me, the best situation are truly independent (eg, no personal or team preferences) stewards with a lot of experience that aim to deliver fair judgement. Here in NL our judges have to adhere to “reasonableness and fairness” that gives them the ability to make a judgement that suits the situation. That would be my ideal scenario.

IMHO the stewards have been doing that reasonably well this season. Ferrari not getting punished to the letter for the qualy infringement, and the explanation behind it, I could totally live with. It felt right. Checo getting the 5 sec penalty on Albon (strict to the letter correct) felt too light. But, when bumping in to others you could also take yourself out, so in a way he simply got lucky. But to me stewards could have punished even harder. It didn’t feel totally right but, I could live with it.

I think they are really trying to make fair judgement, maybe they need even more leeway? But that would be so hard under the time confines of live racing going on.

[Cs98]

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.

There was no forcing anyone off track there. Hamilton carried too much speed trying to gain in the braking zone and subsequently overcooked the exit. Perez stuck tight to the apex and left room on the outside, which is why there was plenty of room between them through the whole corner. If we had followed the precedent set at the beginning of 2021 that position should've been handed back ASAP, but they didn't even look into it. Same as if precedent had been followed Verstappen and Sargeant should've had grid penalties for the impeding incidents.

These cryptically described "emerging patterns" are nothing more than different stewards applying different standards at different races. Some fans, the more conspiratorial in nature, will always try to use that inconsistency to score a cheap goal in the injustice department. So when someone else gets a beneficial call (particularly a rival), it's favouritism and injustice. When their team/guy gets a beneficial call, it's business as usual or some other excuse as to why precedent didn't need to be followed in that particular case. As you point out in your other comment, most people are not interested in fairness at all, they'd sell fairness for a nickel if it meant their driver of choice benefitted. The media obviously loves this stuff and plays into it with provocative titles designed to generate clicks galore. The whole thing is reductive and divisive when the solution is quite simple. A dedicated F1 stewarding team. This would at least eliminate the most obvious inconsistencies.

[dans79]

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.