2024 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal, June 07 - 09

[dialtone]

So your comparison is a much more lenient penalty for a more lenient infringement? Don't really see your point. Btw, did Sainz get a penalty for destroying Albon's car?

Sainz clearly didn’t lose control on purpose, exactly like checo didn’t lose control on purpose. Albon was a very unfortunate event, not sure why the comparison, you think somehow Sainz did it on purpose?

On purpose? Intent isn't a pre-requisite for a penalty being warranted, just because you didn't intend for a certain outcome doesn't mean you are absolved of all responsibility. I'd argue most crashes (including those that are penalised) are unintentional but stem from a lack of control or poor decision making leading to a bad outcome. In the case of Sainz he lost control and was about to slide off the track before he himself through his own steering inputs turned his rear back into the middle of the circuit, collecting Albon.

It reminded me of this crash, albeit less dramatic.

Given RBR declared they did have checo rejoin unsafely to avoid SC, the intentionality of breaking the rules shows that the penalty is not a deterrent enough.

[AR3-GP]

It's funny seeing the drama regarding Perez limping back to the pits. When Hamilton had a tire failure in Silverstone 2020, not one person said he should have been penalized for driving around a car in a dangerous condition to take the checkered flag.

The problem with building a world view around dislike of a specific team and driver is the inevitable contradictions of oneself when blindly pursuing this expression of dislike.

[Sieper]

Unfair, that was a hero move by Lewis, winning on 3 wheels. No one can do that.

[TFSA]

The standard for pretty much any race is that the driver is told to bring the car back to the pits if it's in a condition to do so. Perez car was able to make it back to the pits. Unfortunately it just shedded Carbon fiber all over the track on the way there - which the team couldn't necessarily predict until he actually got going.

This is a stupid discussion. This is not something that is realistic to police.
This guy on Reddit said it the best:

Take the opposite of this:

A piece of a team's car gets broken, they can still realistically get the car back to the pits. The team tells the driver to stop the car because a safety car would benefit the other driver.

How are you going to realistically police the line on if a car is broken enough to not make it to the pits? People arguing that "there's bits of carbon fiber which is going to fall off if they make it to the pits" could allow a team to argue parking the car when in a situation where a safety car would've been otherwise unnecessary. I'm not talking about anything premeditated before the race, only situations that arise due to mistakes.

EDIT:
To the poster below me:

Will Buxton compared it to Singapore 2008.

He since deleted the tweet. Most people on Reddit (see the thread i linked above) agree that this was an absolutely ridiculous take.

[AR3-GP]

Will Buxton compared it to Singapore 2008.

If Perez had stopped on the track, and it had cost Hamilton, Norris, or Leclerc the win (with Verstappen benefitting from the SC) the same crowd would be saying that Red Bull pulled a Singapore 2008.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The forum needs to work on producing more productive discussions.

[Cs98]

Sainz clearly didn’t lose control on purpose, exactly like checo didn’t lose control on purpose. Albon was a very unfortunate event, not sure why the comparison, you think somehow Sainz did it on purpose?

On purpose? Intent isn't a pre-requisite for a penalty being warranted, just because you didn't intend for a certain outcome doesn't mean you are absolved of all responsibility. I'd argue most crashes (including those that are penalised) are unintentional but stem from a lack of control or poor decision making leading to a bad outcome. In the case of Sainz he lost control and was about to slide off the track before he himself through his own steering inputs turned his rear back into the middle of the circuit, collecting Albon.

It reminded me of this crash, albeit less dramatic.
https://youtu.be/oK17_ctnXv0?t=134

Given RBR declared they did have checo rejoin unsafely to avoid SC, the intentionality of breaking the rules shows that the penalty is not a deterrent enough.

You're making all sorts of assumptions.

1, He wasn't instructed to rejoin, he did that on his own, they spoke about making it back to the pits several corners later.

2, we don't know if the engineer had actually seen the full extent of the damage when he said that, the TV coverage is obviously delayed and showed the car a while after the crash.

3, this is a marginal call. We see damaged cars driving back all the time, judging which one is "too damaged" and which one is okay to drive back is not an exact science.

RB got this one wrong and got a penalty for it, fair enough. I can recall a situation in Japan 2019 where Ferrari intentionally kept Leclerc out with a damaged front wing and he got an equivalent penalty, 25k fine + an in race time penalty, and his front wing nearly took Hamilton's head off when it came off on the straight, far more dangerous. Did you have a problem with that one? Or what about Silverstone 2020, was Hamilton's car in a safe condition when he finished that race? What if the tyre carcass came off and landed in the middle of the track? He was instructed to finish wasn't he?

And what about Sainz, does he not deserve a penalty for taking someone out in an incident he 100% caused himself by turning back to the middle of the track?

[dialtone]

Just to give a last contribution, I didn’t compare it to singapore, that’s a bad take. I compared it to taking a 5s penalty by overtaking off track.

[organic]

For me if the team knew that the car was unsafe and should have waited for a safety car and still chose not to it's manipulating the race

We've seen lesser instances of this from RB before. I believe they chose to retire Checo towards the end of Abu Dhabi 2021 in case he broke down and the safety car ran to the end.

And I don't think they'd be the only team to do this: if you can get back to the pits and it benefits your driver you try it. But if RB knowingly broke a safety rule then like dialtone says, they did it knowing a penalty was inbound which implies the penalty is inadequate. Penalties should prevent the action, not just make it a less attractive option.

In my view it's a very similar situation to overtaking off the track last year for 5s penalties. They've since increased the penalty for doing that to 10s and it seems to have been stomped out - whenever drivers gain a position that may be unfair they give it back

[Cs98]

For me if the team knew that the car was unsafe and should have waited for a safety car and still chose not to it's manipulating the race

We've seen lesser instances of this from RB before. I believe they chose to retire Checo towards the end of Abu Dhabi 2021 in case he broke down and the safety car ran to the end.

And I don't think they'd be the only team to do this: if you can get back to the pits and it benefits your driver you try it. But if RB knowingly broke a safety rule then like dialtone says, they did it knowing a penalty was inbound which implies the penalty is inadequate. Penalties should prevent the action, not just make it a less attractive option.

In my view it's a very similar situation to overtaking off the track last year for 5s penalties. They've since increased the penalty for doing that to 10s and it seems to have been stomped out - whenever drivers gain a position that may be unfair they give it back

There's no hard and fast rule for determining what is an unsafe car. Gaining a position off the track is black and white, either you went off or you didn't. With damage it's shades of grey. Several relevant examples have been given where a car was clearly damaged but instructed to keep driving and no penalty was incurred. Another example was this very weekend when Albon spent like 3 minutes returning to the pits with a severely damaged rear suspension whilst others were doing hotlaps next to him. Why was that deemed safe? The car was crabbing and he could barely steer. Face it, this is a completely subjective standard, and upping the punishment for falling foul of a subjective standard is not going to solve anything.

[AR3-GP]

For me if the team knew that the car was unsafe and should have waited for a safety car and still chose not to it's manipulating the race

The team had no involvement in Perez driving away from the accident scene. Perez was not stationary for more than 1.5 seconds. This is simply reactionary from Perez to drive back onto the circuit. There is no radio instruction. They would never have been able to intervene in such a short amount of time, let alone worry about "Waiting for a safety car". The guy drove off. How could they have told him to wait for a safety car?



Bird did not ask if Perez was "ok" , that is how quickly Perez left the scene. Once Perez got going again, why would Red Bull tell him to stop on the track with the limited footage availabe, and a car that was driven back onto the circuit with moderate speed. This crucifixion is nonsense.

[Sieper]

The standard for pretty much any race is that the driver is told to bring the car back to the pits if it's in a condition to do so. Perez car was able to make it back to the pits. Unfortunately it just shedded Carbon fiber all over the track on the way there - which the team couldn't necessarily predict until he actually got going.

This is a stupid discussion. This is not something that is realistic to police.
This guy on Reddit said it the best:

Take the opposite of this:

A piece of a team's car gets broken, they can still realistically get the car back to the pits. The team tells the driver to stop the car because a safety car would benefit the other driver.

How are you going to realistically police the line on if a car is broken enough to not make it to the pits? People arguing that "there's bits of carbon fiber which is going to fall off if they make it to the pits" could allow a team to argue parking the car when in a situation where a safety car would've been otherwise unnecessary. I'm not talking about anything premeditated before the race, only situations that arise due to mistakes.

EDIT:
To the poster below me:

Will Buxton compared it to Singapore 2008.

He since deleted the tweet. Most people on Reddit (see the thread i linked above) agree that this was an absolutely ridiculous take.

This is so cool. And he deleted it too I see his true colors … shining through.

[Sieper]

For me if the team knew that the car was unsafe and should have waited for a safety car and still chose not to it's manipulating the race

The team had no involvement in Perez driving away from the accident scene. Perez was not stationary for more than 1.5 seconds. This is simply reactionary from Perez to drive back onto the circuit. There is no radio instruction. They would never have been able to intervene in such a short amount of time, let alone worry about "Waiting for a safety car". The guy drove off. How could they have told him to wait for a safety car?

https://i.postimg.cc/VsGDtZ6y/F1-TV-202 ... timize.gif

Bird did not ask if Perez was "ok" , that is how quickly Perez left the scene. Once Perez got going again, why would Red Bull tell him to stop on the track with the limited footage that was available?

He tries to get back in the race, in the hope the damage is not too bad. Oh those dirty cheats. Hate em.

[Luscion]

For me if the team knew that the car was unsafe and should have waited for a safety car and still chose not to it's manipulating the race

The team had no involvement in Perez driving away from the accident scene. Perez was not stationary for more than 1.5 seconds. This is simply reactionary from Perez to drive back onto the circuit. There is no radio instruction. They would never have been able to intervene in such a short amount of time, let alone worry about "Waiting for a safety car". The guy drove off. How could they have told him to wait for a safety car?

https://i.postimg.cc/VsGDtZ6y/F1-TV-202 ... timize.gif

Bird did not ask if Perez was "ok" , that is how quickly Perez left the scene. Once Perez got going again, why would Red Bull tell him to stop on the track with the limited footage that was available?

He tries to get back in the race, in the hope the damage is not too bad. Oh those dirty cheats. Hate em.

The big thing here is Red Bull admitting to telling Perez to try to bring the car back to the pits because they wanted to avoid a safety car, most likely knowing they would get a penalty

[chrisc90]

The big thing here is Red Bull admitting to telling Perez to try to bring the car back to the pits to avoid a safety car, knowing they would get a penalty

They never directly told him that though. Perez asks if he should bring it back to the pits, and his engineer agrees.

[Luscion]

The big thing here is Red Bull admitting to telling Perez to try to bring the car back to the pits to avoid a safety car, knowing they would get a penalty

They never directly told him that though. Perez asks if he should bring it back to the pits, and his engineer agrees.

its literally in the fia document saying they admitted to it when they were summoned