2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[Emag]

How is it not?
Did the powers that be apply a different set of rules than normal to accommodate Sainz?
No they did not, Sainz was fortunate just as Norris was at Miami, no rules were broken or bent in both cases.

Getting a self-inflicted puncture in the first lap. Then the race gets red flagged and all but one car passes through the safety car line. A single car, which is enough for stewards to reset back to the initial order, is exactly the same magnitude of luck compared to managing your tires in the first stint to the best of your abilities, proceeding to set the pace on track for continuous laps, even compared to drivers which already had pit for fresh tires, and extending for a hope of a possible safety car on a track which has had a 100% safety car chance in the years we have raced.

Of course, these are exactly the same amount of lucky.

Not to mention the impeding incident in qualifying for which he did not get penalized, despite doing exactly the same thing a driver who got penalized just a week before did.

The puncture is irrelevant, the correct rules were applied.
As for a penalty, let's not go there, it was a racing incident to pretty much everyone including the stewards, the only people that saw it different were McLaren people, what a shocker...

You were the one who brought luck into it, and who was more lucky. The guy who got away with a podium after puncturing a tire just because 1/17 cars didnt go through a line in the track, or the guy who drove a great race and extended while maintaining the best pace on track on a circuit which has 100% safety car ratio.

As for the impediment, it's funny you say only McLaren fans though it was a "racing incident", which for your information, is not the correct thing to say, because by definition, there is no racing on a qualifying.

But terminology aside, everyone who saw it happening thought Sainz was gonna get a grid drop for it. Then people were surprised to see the steward's ruling.

It's baffling how you can view that from such a biased perspective. It was literally impeding which was not punished simply because Albon got through to Q3.

If Albon was out in Q1 because of it, we would have a different story.

[Emag]

How is it not?
Did the powers that be apply a different set of rules than normal to accommodate Sainz?
No they did not, Sainz was fortunate just as Norris was at Miami, no rules were broken or bent in both cases.

Getting a self-inflicted puncture in the first lap. Then the race gets red flagged and all but one car passes through the safety car line. A single car, which is enough for stewards to reset back to the initial order, is exactly the same magnitude of luck compared to managing your tires in the first stint to the best of your abilities, proceeding to set the pace on track for continuous laps, even compared to drivers which already had pit for fresh tires, and extending for a hope of a possible safety car on a track which has had a 100% safety car chance in the years we have raced.

Of course, these are exactly the same amount of lucky.

Not to mention the impeding incident in qualifying for which he did not get penalized, despite doing exactly the same thing a driver who got penalized just a week before did.

The impeding incident is a separate issue and you appear to be making it about your frustration with Sainz rather than the right outcomes. I agree the impeding should have been a penalty, the first lap incident wasn't and he was lucky with the restart.

Remember though that Lando did a false start that was obvious to the world and didn't get penalised because the automatic system to flag false alarms is flawed? We catch just as many breaks as others, and misfortune.

It was simply a counter-point to his argument about luck. Escaping a race-ending incident in a race just because 1/17 cars didnt cross the safety car line is extremely lucky. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

For all that counts, I dont care if any driver, including McLaren drivers, are punished according to the rules and consistently with the rest of the grid. If Lando had gotten a penalty in Saudi Arabia, it would have been fine, only if there was a precedent for it and new rules weren't made up on the spot. But because the way jump start is measured is flawed, he escaped the penalty like other drivers before him have done in the past. But that's another matter and something the FIA should consider for the future.

And I have no frustrations with Sainz. The rules are the rules, and for the sunday race, they were followed correctly. But he did get very lucky. First because he escaped what should have been a grid drop after qualifying, and secondly because he got a second chance after his race ended in lap 1 in Sunday..

[Emag]

https://x.com/McLarenF1_News/status/179 ... EgKuw&s=09

Andrea Stella shares that view.

[dia6olo]

Getting a self-inflicted puncture in the first lap. Then the race gets red flagged and all but one car passes through the safety car line. A single car, which is enough for stewards to reset back to the initial order, is exactly the same magnitude of luck compared to managing your tires in the first stint to the best of your abilities, proceeding to set the pace on track for continuous laps, even compared to drivers which already had pit for fresh tires, and extending for a hope of a possible safety car on a track which has had a 100% safety car chance in the years we have raced.

Of course, these are exactly the same amount of lucky.

Not to mention the impeding incident in qualifying for which he did not get penalized, despite doing exactly the same thing a driver who got penalized just a week before did.

The puncture is irrelevant, the correct rules were applied.
As for a penalty, let's not go there, it was a racing incident to pretty much everyone including the stewards, the only people that saw it different were McLaren people, what a shocker...

You were the one who brought luck into it, and who was more lucky. The guy who got away with a podium after puncturing a tire just because 1/17 cars didnt go through a line in the track, or the guy who drove a great race and extended while maintaining the best pace on track on a circuit which has 100% safety car ratio.

As for the impediment, it's funny you say only McLaren fans though it was a "racing incident", which for your information, is not the correct thing to say, because by definition, there is no racing on a qualifying.

But terminology aside, everyone who saw it happening thought Sainz was gonna get a grid drop for it. Then people were surprised to see the steward's ruling.

It's baffling how you can view that from such a biased perspective. It was literally impeding which was not punished simply because Albon got through to Q3.

If Albon was out in Q1 because of it, we would have a different story.

I actually misread part of the comment and was referring to the race incident that resulted in Sainz's puncture not the qualifying incident.
In terms of impeding in qualifying, there is a level of inconsistency by the stewards that I think most of us no matter who we follow are aware of and annoyed with, it feels like pot luck as to whether you are penalised or not.
I'd actually go a step further and say it feels like you are less likely to be penalised if you are Red Bull or Mercedes, that could just be me but I have felt for some time now that those two teams get away with a lot more before being penalised...

[Vanja #66]

Not to mention the impeding incident in qualifying for which he did not get penalized, despite doing exactly the same thing a driver who got penalized just a week before did.

Not that I feel the need to "defened" Sainz, just want to clarify how these things are not the same in eyes of stewards. First of all, Monaco is Monaco, a very short, tight and slow street circuit, so stewards would have to penalise something like 3/4 drivers if they were to apply impeding penalties for every potential incident which is why I believe they take into account other circumstances. Second, regardless of it being Monaco, Albon finished his Q1 lap in full speed and went through to Q2, which Mag did not. Third, stewards noted Sainz did move out of the racing line as quick as possible. Fourth, Albon was not sure if he was impeded (as per FIA report) and said it was a gray area and "the part of the circuit was particularly difficult at it is a sequence of blind corners and that Car 55 could not have seen Car 23 approaching any sooner." Stewards then made a judgement he lost 0.15s in that chicane and, with everything else taken into account, decided there is no reason to impose a penalty.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... r%2023.pdf

Sainz did say he could have moved outside the track completely, but felt it wasn't necessary. I guess no one wants to go over those speed bumps and damage the floor.

Piastri wasn't warned of Magnussen by his wall in Imola, which is basically a slam dunk penalty if confirmed, no matter what else happens.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... r%2020.pdf

[mwillems]

Getting a self-inflicted puncture in the first lap. Then the race gets red flagged and all but one car passes through the safety car line. A single car, which is enough for stewards to reset back to the initial order, is exactly the same magnitude of luck compared to managing your tires in the first stint to the best of your abilities, proceeding to set the pace on track for continuous laps, even compared to drivers which already had pit for fresh tires, and extending for a hope of a possible safety car on a track which has had a 100% safety car chance in the years we have raced.

Of course, these are exactly the same amount of lucky.

Not to mention the impeding incident in qualifying for which he did not get penalized, despite doing exactly the same thing a driver who got penalized just a week before did.

The impeding incident is a separate issue and you appear to be making it about your frustration with Sainz rather than the right outcomes. I agree the impeding should have been a penalty, the first lap incident wasn't and he was lucky with the restart.

Remember though that Lando did a false start that was obvious to the world and didn't get penalised because the automatic system to flag false alarms is flawed? We catch just as many breaks as others, and misfortune.

It was simply a counter-point to his argument about luck. Escaping a race-ending incident in a race just because 1/17 cars didnt cross the safety car line is extremely lucky. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

For all that counts, I dont care if any driver, including McLaren drivers, are punished according to the rules and consistently with the rest of the grid. If Lando had gotten a penalty in Saudi Arabia, it would have been fine, only if there was a precedent for it and new rules weren't made up on the spot. But because the way jump start is measured is flawed, he escaped the penalty like other drivers before him have done in the past. But that's another matter and something the FIA should consider for the future.

And I have no frustrations with Sainz. The rules are the rules, and for the sunday race, they were followed correctly. But he did get very lucky. First because he escaped what should have been a grid drop after qualifying, and secondly because he got a second chance after his race ended in lap 1 in Sunday..

Most aren't doubting that the impeding should have been punished, he was lucky as Stella says and as has been said in here so its not like anyone is disagreeing that he was lucky. For me, it swings both ways so I don't get hung up and i think thats the only difference in the way we look at it. We had a blatant false start in Jeddah and our good luck in Miami got us the win because the FIA didnt get the Safety Car out promptly vs Carlos getting P3 at Monaco, feels like we have the advantage. So I'm happy with our luck

The two incidents though are not related, apart from the fact he got some luck. Only 1 issue has an outcome that could be challenged and we could be annoyed about, and that's why it feels like conflation based on annoyance at his luck and not just 1 incident.

[mwillems]

Anyway, each to their own as they say, no one opinion is right

[mwillems]

Not to mention the impeding incident in qualifying for which he did not get penalized, despite doing exactly the same thing a driver who got penalized just a week before did.

Not that I feel the need to "defened" Sainz, just want to clarify how these things are not the same in eyes of stewards. First of all, Monaco is Monaco, a very short, tight and slow street circuit, so stewards would have to penalise something like 3/4 drivers if they were to apply impeding penalties for every potential incident which is why I believe they take into account other circumstances. Second, regardless of it being Monaco, Albon finished his Q1 lap in full speed and went through to Q2, which Mag did not. Third, stewards noted Sainz did move out of the racing line as quick as possible. Fourth, Albon was not sure if he was impeded (as per FIA report) and said it was a gray area and "the part of the circuit was particularly difficult at it is a sequence of blind corners and that Car 55 could not have seen Car 23 approaching any sooner." Stewards then made a judgement he lost 0.15s in that chicane and, with everything else taken into account, decided there is no reason to impose a penalty.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... r%2023.pdf

Sainz did say he could have moved outside the track completely, but felt it wasn't necessary. I guess no one wants to go over those speed bumps and damage the floor.

Piastri wasn't warned of Magnussen by his wall in Imola, which is basically a slam dunk penalty if confirmed, no matter what else happens.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... r%2020.pdf

As we were discussing before, you can't apply normal rules to Monaco so I agree with you largely here. However, if you know there is a car approaching (And he should) then you don't go through an area like that at that speed because the risk is you'll get caught and impeding.

I don't think it was as serious as some make out and the fact that Albon got through is important because it relates directly to the amount he was blocked, which obviously wasn't that much

But I still think he should and could have been out of the way and therefore a penalty would have been understandable, and I think he was lucky

[Vanja #66]

I don't think it was as serious as some make out and the fact that Albon got through is important because it relates directly to the amount he was blocked, which obviously wasn't that much

Worth noting, incident happened 4 minutes into the session and Albon later dropped his time by over 1s over 4-5 laps. Piastri/Mag happened 16 minutes into the session and was Mags final attempt. The severity of consequences between the two events is incomparable.

[Emag]

I don't think it was as serious as some make out and the fact that Albon got through is important because it relates directly to the amount he was blocked, which obviously wasn't that much

Worth noting, incident happened 4 minutes into the session and Albon later dropped his time by over 1s over 4-5 laps. Piastri/Mag happened 16 minutes into the session and was Mags final attempt. The severity of consequences between the two events is incomparable.

Yes but you dont punish based on consequences, you punish based on actions.

If I shoot someone, but they survive, does that mean that I dont get to go to prison?

[Vanja #66]

Yes but you dont punish based on consequences, you punish based on actions.

If I shoot someone, but they survive, does that mean that I dont get to go to prison?

In my previous reply I laid out 4 distinct differences, 3 of which were as noted by stewards In terms of impeding in Monaco where there's barely enough room even in Q3, my personal view is that stewards should absolutely take consequences into account when it comes to Q1 with 20 cars, but this is not what they even mentioned. That's all from my side on this topic

[Emag]

Yes but you dont punish based on consequences, you punish based on actions.

If I shoot someone, but they survive, does that mean that I dont get to go to prison?

In my previous reply I laid out 4 distinct differences, 3 of which were as noted by stewards In terms of impeding in Monaco where there's barely enough room even in Q3, my personal view is that stewards should absolutely take consequences into account when it comes to Q1 with 20 cars, but this is not what they even mentioned. That's all from my side on this topic

The differences were more or less directly tied to the consequences, and in my opinion, it is wrong to lay out judgement just based on consequences. If you want to go down that path, you're opening up a jar of sh*t because there's a lot of examples to bring into the discussion...

I dont think Monaco should be held to different standards. If they are gonna treat the race like any other race in the calendar, then they are implicitly accepting there is nothing wrong with the track, which means the same set of rules should apply like elsewhere.

Anyway, its in the past now. Not the first time stewards take inconsistent decisions.

[mwillems]

I don't think it was as serious as some make out and the fact that Albon got through is important because it relates directly to the amount he was blocked, which obviously wasn't that much

Worth noting, incident happened 4 minutes into the session and Albon later dropped his time by over 1s over 4-5 laps. Piastri/Mag happened 16 minutes into the session and was Mags final attempt. The severity of consequences between the two events is incomparable.

Good point, I falsely recollected that it was his final lap. In that case I think that raises the requirement for a penalty. He's got pedals that go fast and slow and they should be able to manage where they are caught and passed. But it is what it is.

[SmallSoldier]

I don't think it was as serious as some make out and the fact that Albon got through is important because it relates directly to the amount he was blocked, which obviously wasn't that much

Worth noting, incident happened 4 minutes into the session and Albon later dropped his time by over 1s over 4-5 laps. Piastri/Mag happened 16 minutes into the session and was Mags final attempt. The severity of consequences between the two events is incomparable.

Vanja, you know well that penalties aren’t applied based on outcome, it’s the action that is penalized not the outcome of such action.

[LionsHeart]

I just came across an article that says Ferrari will be bringing the next update package to Silverstone. Interesting. Now I hope even more that McLaren will have time to prepare updates there. The update race is in full swing.