2024 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal, June 07 - 09

[AR3-GP]

Sargeant crashes at 2023 Singapore GP, drives back to the pits with damaged front wing,

[AR3-GP]

Piastri races back to the pits with front wing under his tire after he and Hamilton collide at Monza 2023:

[AR3-GP]

Why are all these cars not just parking?

[bluechris]

To me the penalty is harsh. Perez continued immediately and after some moments he understood the his wing got big damage. Many many people had hit front wings and went to the pits to repair it with no penalty what so ever, why this situation is different?

[Watto]

To me the penalty is harsh. Perez continued immediately and after some moments he understood the his wing got big damage. Many many people had hit front wings and went to the pits to repair it with no penalty what so ever, why this situation is different?

Only thing I can think of is they consider the FW repairable and the rear not

[ringo]

The thing that stands out is the situation.

I see the comparisons to other cases, but if your car is in the barriers and cannot be repaired to race, then it should be retired from the race.
That's the difference. Those other case like Hamilton on 3 wheels or Piastri front wing. The car was moving on track and not parked in a barrier.

If you have a puncture or broken wing while on track and in motion then by all means keep driving and return to the pits for a repair to continue racing safely.
If there is a final lap and the race ends by crossing the line then its okay to do so.

That's the distinction that i find should influence the severity of the penalty in the case of Checo. Does a car pitched out of the track with severe damage rejoin just to retire in the pits?

A rear wing cannot be replaced at a pit stop.
Secondly the rear crash structure can also be damaged and should another car crash into it then that endangers checo and the driver in the other car.
If a front wing lost the crash structure completely, then it should be retired. An end plate or wing elements does not expose the driver to a solid impact.

I was a bit harsh in using the terms manipulation and piquet.

I think for the above reasons stated my intention was to hilight that the incident was more serious than the penalty would suggest.

Redbull would have known the risks and decided that Checo should try to return to avoid the SC. It's obvious that Checo was immobile. Most times a car is retired from a race in the pits, it's racing on the track and not parked. So this was done by the team or team player Checo not to save the engine or to try a repair. It was likely done to not draw out a safety car.

A similar tactic was used by Tsunoda and Alfa Tauri in the Dutch Grand Prix but with an opposite effect. I beleive he came the pits then was told to get back out there and continue running despite the car being in no condition to run and then he brought out the safety car which effectively closed up the race and brought redbull into contention.

[AR3-GP]

The ruling sets a new precedent surrounding cars with damage returning to the pits. Is there anything stopping a team from protesting rivals who return to the pits with damage?

[Watto]

The thing that stands out is the situation.

I see the comparisons to other cases, but if your car is in the barriers and cannot be repaired to race, then it should be retired from the race.
That's the difference. Those other case like Hamilton on 3 wheels or Piastri front wing. The car was moving on track and not parked in a barrier.

If you have a puncture or broken wing while on track and in motion then by all means keep driving and return to the pits for a repair to continue racing safely.
If there is a final lap and the race ends by crossing the line then its okay to do so.

That's the distinction that i find should influence the severity of the penalty in the case of Checo. Does a car pitched out of the track with severe damage rejoin just to retire in the pits?

A rear wing cannot be replaced at a pit stop.
Secondly the rear crash structure can also be damaged and should another car crash into it then that endangers checo and the driver in the other car.
If a front wing lost the crash structure completely, then it should be retired. An end plate or wing elements does not expose the driver to a solid impact.

I was a bit harsh in using the terms manipulation and piquet.

I think for the above reasons stated my intention was to hilight that the incident was more serious than the penalty would suggest.

Redbull would have known the risks and decided that Checo should try to return to avoid the SC. It's obvious that Checo was immobile. Most times a car is retired from a race in the pits, it's racing on the track and not parked. So this was done by the team or team player Checo not to save the engine or to try a repair. It was likely done to not draw out a safety car.

A similar tactic was used by Tsunoda and Alfa Tauri in the Dutch Grand Prix but with an opposite effect. I beleive he came the pits then was told to get back out there and continue running despite the car being in no condition to run and then he brought out the safety car which effectively closed up the race and brought redbull into contention.

I posted above re teh read win not being replaceable but I guess you could argue on pure safety grounds some sharp carbon fibre puncturing someone elses tyre coming to a high speed corner it close to a concrete barrier could easily be considered dangerous too

[ringo]

Yes it is also dangerous. A rear wing is huge compared though. And remember a damaged rear suspension can also release heavier parts that are pulled up in the upwash. Check Massa's accident.
In most cases the cars that lose end plates are moving. They cannot pull over to stop. So it's a much different kettle of fish.

In Checo's case if this were a world championship race with 10 laps to go with Max on a worn tyre 15 seconds ahead of a Norris on a fresher medium tyre, redbull would have chosen to risk safety of the drivers and pay $25,000 fine to avoid a safety car coming out to neutralize the race. A sporting penalty is given whenever safety is breached in the race.
This carries no weigth when a team gets a championship and the #2 driver who retired his car gets a 3 place grid drop.
So I think this needs to be looked on because something like this can play out again if Redbull are at risk of losing the contructors.

The intent is not speculation either. The team has been quoted as saying they wanted to avoid a safety car and that's why Perez was instructed to bring it to the pits.

[AR3-GP]

If he stopped on the track and the safety car caused Norris/Hamilton/Leclerc to lose the race to Verstappen, I'm sure many here would suddenly feel very differently.

[ringo]

He wouldnt be on the track. He would be at the barriers. No one would argue with a stoppage there. And it would in fact be the normal and right thing to do.

[AR3-GP]

He wouldnt be on the track. He would be at the barriers. No one would argue with a stoppage there. And it would in fact be the normal and right thing to do.

He wouldn't be at the barriers because the crash was not substantial. This is proven by the fact that he spent no more than 2 seconds stationary.

People have questioned Red Bull for not telling Perez to pull off at T10 because it was "dangerous". Had Red Bull been caught instructing Perez to stop his car on the circuit, and the neutralization helped Verstappen win over someone like Hamilton or Leclerc, we would never here the end of it. Singapore 2008.

Drivers have driven damaged cars back to the pits all of the time when it was dodgy to do so. It is par the course in motorsport in and outside of F1. The issue that people have is not with Perez or his rear wing or debris. The issue here is that one hopes that Verstappen would have lost the race, and Red Bull's quick thinking is perceived to have prevented one's favored outcome.

One can perform a simple thought experiment to understand that this is the crux of the matter. How would one feel if Perez left the accident site, fully capable with engine and 4 wheels, and then Red Bull instructed him to stop, leading to a SC intervention that caused Hamilton or Leclerc to lose, and Verstappen to win. If Red Bull is now guilty in one's mind for "telling him to stop and causing a safety car", then the car damage was never the issue here.

[bluechris]

Guys i think Perez and RB, didn't want for the 3nd time to show to the world the bottom of the car that a crane would had done.

[venkyhere]

Guys i think Perez and RB, didn't want for the 3nd time to show to the world the bottom of the car that a crane would had done.

Exactly, this is the real reason.

[TFSA]

A rear wing cannot be replaced at a pit stop.

It actually can. You're allowed to park your car in the garage under a pit stop. There's just no point in racing because it takes too long.

If the race had been Red Flagged in the Albon/Sainz crash, there's absolutely a possibility they could have replaced the rear wing, if they have one of similar spec available.