2024 Austrian Grand Prix - Spielberg, June 28 - 30

[organic]

[Watto]

I agree, it was a relatively innocuous and common thing with unexpectedly big consequences. Penalty is fair and consistent with how this has been treated in the past.

What they failed to address adequately was whether or not Norris gained a lasting advantage from his first off track lunge. With this lunge, he reduced the gap to Verstappen by shoving both off, used the DRS on the run to T4, and only then did he carefully let Verstappen back through in a manner such that the gap between them became smaller than it had ever been under normal circumstances (Was something like 0.050s after T4). This kept him even closer than before for DRS on the next lap.

This is similar to Verstappen cheekily trying to give Hamilton the position back just before the DRS line in Jeddah '21, so he could then re-overtake with DRS (stewards disallowed it) or Hamilton cheekily letting Raikkonen through in Spa that one year after the illegal bus stop pass. letting them back through" is not enough. You have to give up the "lasting advantage" that you gained. If Norris made that mistake on his own, he would have dropped out of DRS.

I agree with much of this.


I think Max deserved his penalty for causing a collision was primary his fault.


But lando exceeding track limits and the stewarts taking to long to make call when I think it was clear also played into the fiasco. in quali they can almost instantly make the call for some reason in the race it takes 5-6 laps to make the same decision.

Understand there are some that are more grey that need longer investigations don't think that was one of the,

While I do think it was poor from Max here too. I really think the hes a dirty racer has been a bit unfair too. Hes super aggressive so is always going to push limits but think when he was challenged by Charles in 22 it was clean between them too - maybe because Max knew/thought Charles would get his elbows out so to speak and didn't think Lando would here but learnt a lesson.

I think both were at fault for elements of what happened, so I really don't think either side taking the highroad is that fair either.

No supporter of RBR can complain about stewards taking their time after the Jeddah SC restart where Perez was ahead of position and waited after the restart to give position back allowing Max to stay close to LEC while being defended by PER.

Or whoever complained about NOR’s penalty served before retirement, total nonsense I agree but PER came back from retirement to serve a penalty.

If there is a team out there that plays with the rules and the stewards delays it’s RBR.

I don't disagree with that at all.

Just that the stewards taking a long time to make black and white decisions doesn't really help anyone. I think we just get a mess of their own making. We can see how quick - and I understand why - they can make quick decisions in Quali but not the race on track limits - the call on Oscar was a tight but correct call made very quickly. But I guess teams have too much control over RC sometimes too trying to influence decisons

Norris my first though was he served the penalty - didn't see the whole stop but saw them working on the car before Lando got out so assumed they waited before doing that.

Max absolutely deserved the penalty and it was given it was very poor racing from him here.


Saw is follow up interview before too, didn't quite admit fault directly but I think he certainly softened his stance a little.

[CHT]

Whatever happens at Austria is good for F1 and finally we have a driver and team who are able to consistently challenge RB and Max.
Mclaren now has got the best driver pairing and there is a good chance Mclaren may win the WCC this year due to Perez underperforming.
And I hope they do.

[NSBiker]

Question about Sparks, or more specifically, No Sparks at 2024 Austrian GP.
Typically the Ti skid blcks make loads of sparks under the cars, all of em, with the heaviest shows early on in Qualifying (new blocks installed) and when the cars are heavy with fuel at the race start.
Apart from a small shower from Sainz, I believe, during the race, there were virtually zero sparks on display.
There were however, many instances of cars bottoming and a brown dusty plume of ground up Plank material puffing out the back.
The plank dust I can understand, but what happened to the spark generating skid blocks.?
All I can think of is a technical directive forcing teams to change the material or eliminate the skid blocks entirely.
Was there a technical rule change.?

[Aesop]

Norris got schooled and should watch Max overtake Sainz at Austria last year again and again: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/j-VaBVwjgL0
I am curious to see whether the biased British pundits and F1TV dare mention it next couple of days but man I am looking forward to the press conference. No way Max will be holding back. You wanted racing? You got it.

[FW17]

Norris got schooled and should watch Max overtake Sainz at Austria last year again and again: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/j-VaBVwjgL0
I am curious to see whether the biased British pundits and F1TV dare mention it next couple of days but man I am looking forward to the press conference. No way Max will be holding back. You wanted racing? You got it.

Why would they? they got a chance to insult Max by calling him immature.

[AR3-GP]

Question about Sparks, or more specifically, No Sparks at 2024 Austrian GP.
Typically the Ti skid blcks make loads of sparks under the cars, all of em, with the heaviest shows early on in Qualifying (new blocks installed) and when the cars are heavy with fuel at the race start.
Apart from a small shower from Sainz, I believe, during the race, there were virtually zero sparks on display.
There were however, many instances of cars bottoming and a brown dusty plume of ground up Plank material puffing out the back.
The plank dust I can understand, but what happened to the spark generating skid blocks.?
All I can think of is a technical directive forcing teams to change the material or eliminate the skid blocks entirely.
Was there a technical rule change.?

I don't think anything changed. The titanium parts are only in certain sections of the plank.




If there is a difference, it's probably related to a change in the ride height at the front and rear due to conditions in the race. Laptimes are much slower in the race so the downforce generated is less. This means the car lowers less with speed. The tire pressures also rise more in a multi-lap stint so the radius of the tire increases slightly which also raises the car.

[bluechris]

Norris got schooled and should watch Max overtake Sainz at Austria last year again and again: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/j-VaBVwjgL0
I am curious to see whether the biased British pundits and F1TV dare mention it next couple of days but man I am looking forward to the press conference. No way Max will be holding back. You wanted racing? You got it.

Max hasnt given him the opportunity to do that? didnt he? you think Norris is stupid and he started racing before 3 years? even Stroll knows how to do that.

[venkyhere]

For a change, not talking about the infamous lap64 contact at T3.


Driver A has inside corner
Driver B is slinging around the outside.
Driver A washes wide 'onto'' driver B in the middle of the corner, whether intentional or due to understeer from too much speed.
Driver B steps out of the track, goes wide around the corner, and gains position at the exit, also avoiding a clash with A.

What do FIA rules say, does driver B have to give the position back or incur a penalty ?
Does the answer to above Q depend upon who was the 'overtaker' and who was the 'defender' ?

Looking for a clear answer other than 'maybe' , 'depends' etc.

[Vanja #66]

For a change, not talking about the infamous lap64 contact at T3.


Driver A has inside corner
Driver B is slinging around the outside.
Driver A washes wide 'onto'' driver B in the middle of the corner, whether intentional or due to understeer from too much speed.
Driver B steps out of the track, goes wide around the corner, and gains position at the exit, also avoiding a clash with A.

What do FIA rules say, does driver B have to give the position back or incur a penalty ?
Does the answer to above Q depend upon who was the 'overtaker' and who was the 'defender' ?

Looking for a clear answer other than 'maybe' , 'depends' etc.

Not even professional stewards could give you a straight answer, every incidental situation depends on the context. What's more, I don't think there are clear directives and guidelines that stewards follow any more, their inconsistency is wild and seemingly depends largely on presence of contact that causes damage.

[venkyhere]

For a change, not talking about the infamous lap64 contact at T3.


Driver A has inside corner
Driver B is slinging around the outside.
Driver A washes wide 'onto'' driver B in the middle of the corner, whether intentional or due to understeer from too much speed.
Driver B steps out of the track, goes wide around the corner, and gains position at the exit, also avoiding a clash with A.

What do FIA rules say, does driver B have to give the position back or incur a penalty ?
Does the answer to above Q depend upon who was the 'overtaker' and who was the 'defender' ?

Looking for a clear answer other than 'maybe' , 'depends' etc.

Not even professional stewards could give you a straight answer, every incidental situation depends on the context. What's more, I don't think there are clear directives and guidelines that stewards follow any more, their inconsistency is wild and seemingly depends largely on presence of contact that causes damage.

I asked it because of two cases of 'car gaining advantage by going around the outside of the corner' :
1. NOR was the attacker on the outside, VER defender on the inside, VER forced NOR out further, NOR went around the outside off the track, gained position.
2. NOR was the attacker on the inside, VER defender on the outside, NOR divebombed inside and forced VER outside, VER went around the outside off the track, gained position.

In case of 1, NOR gave position back.
In case of 2, VER didn't give position back.

Did NOR have to give back position ? (I think yes, because he was attacking)
Should VER definitely give back position ? I am unable to decide as he is the guy defending. The forum is full of vitriolic attacks that he should defintiely have, but I want to know what the rules say.

This is for my understanding, purely because it will help me appreciate racing events like this better and enhance my 'live watching' experience. Mods, please dont construe this as yet another spark ignition for a NOR v VER debate.

[cheeRS]

For a change, not talking about the infamous lap64 contact at T3.


Driver A has inside corner
Driver B is slinging around the outside.
Driver A washes wide 'onto'' driver B in the middle of the corner, whether intentional or due to understeer from too much speed.
Driver B steps out of the track, goes wide around the corner, and gains position at the exit, also avoiding a clash with A.

What do FIA rules say, does driver B have to give the position back or incur a penalty ?
Does the answer to above Q depend upon who was the 'overtaker' and who was the 'defender' ?

Looking for a clear answer other than 'maybe' , 'depends' etc.

It’s always at least a bit subjective. If driver A under steered and driver B went off the track and passed, we’ve seen examples of needing to give the position back - that exact scenario happened in this same race.

However, if driver A purposely drove into driver B, or squeezed driver B until he hit him as was the case with Max, we already know the answer to who was to blame for that, per the stewards. It’s just another case of “either you back out, or we crash”.

[TimW]

While I do think it was poor from Max here too. I really think the hes a dirty racer has been a bit unfair too. Hes super aggressive so is always going to push limits but think when he was challenged by Charles in 22 it was clean between them too - maybe because Max knew/thought Charles would get his elbows out so to speak and didn't think Lando would here but learnt a lesson.

I think both were at fault for elements of what happened, so I really don't think either side taking the highroad is that fair either.

I think the aggression and the level or risk is why the penalty is right, and Max is to blame.

If you look at the collision as a separate inchident, then it is certainly no clearcut penalty to me. Norris has done worse crowding himself, e.g. the start in Spain. But if you consider the laps before, and the level of elbows out driving by Max, that forced Norris to be aggressive too. So Norris could not give more space, without giving up the chance to overtake.

The dirtiest move in my opinion was actually the first moving under braking.

[langedweil]

I'm glad I missed the greater part of the continued circular discussion in this thread because of travelling, my God ..

[elmo putney]

Lurker here.

Norris has done worse crowding himself, e.g. the start in Spain.

Not taking sides but there is a difference between crowding in an acceleration zone and a braking zone. In an acceleration zone the crowded has an escape path - lift off. Under braking they are already at the limit of adhesion, the crowded can't escape the inevitable by braking a bit harder, and I think a lot of casual fans do not appreciate that subtlety.

I'll go back under my rock now.