2024 Azerbaijan Grand Prix - Baku, Sep 13-15

[TFSA]

Nah you guys have got it wrong. Back to racing kindergarden with you.

In that case, you need to explain why it was ruled a racing incident.

The only way to rule this a racing incident, is if Sainz didn't have the right to move into Perez space. Otherwise, everything else points to Perez being at fault, as per my list of reasons above.

The argument about "been around long enough" doesn't apply here, because we have very very few precents of drivers crashing into each other on a straigth. Most crashes happen in corners. If you believe you have been around long enough, you need to show us some precedents that supports your argument - because the only two recent ones we have (this and Monaco) doesn't support your argument. Both were ruled as racing incidents (In fact, Monaco was never even investigated - they just looked and it and was like "Well, sh*t happens when you're racing 3 peeps side-by-side").

[dialtone]

The only way to rule this a racing incident, is if Sainz didn't have the right to move into Perez space. Otherwise, everything else points to Perez being at fault..

Stewards actually do say the he has the right to hold that line as the leading car.

It was thus apparent that while ahead, and having the right to drive his line

[TFSA]

The only way to rule this a racing incident, is if Sainz didn't have the right to move into Perez space. Otherwise, everything else points to Perez being at fault..

Stewards actually do say the he has the right to hold that line as the leading car.

It was thus apparent that while ahead, and having the right to drive his line

Which they then continue with "Sainz did move slightly towards a car that he had limited vision of" - thus labeling him doing so as a contributing factor.

[dialtone]

The only way to rule this a racing incident, is if Sainz didn't have the right to move into Perez space. Otherwise, everything else points to Perez being at fault..

Stewards actually do say the he has the right to hold that line as the leading car.

It was thus apparent that while ahead, and having the right to drive his line

Which they then continue with "Sainz did move slightly towards a car that he had limited vision of" - thus labeling him doing so as a contributing factor.

Right, but that’s besides the point of establishing if they are side by side or if sainz has or not the right to follow the line.

A poster earlier said that if those 2 are true, what’s the point of racing incident? Those 2 are true.

[TFSA]

Right, but that’s besides the point of establishing if they are side by side or if sainz has or not the right to follow the line.

A poster earlier said that if those 2 are true, what’s the point of racing incident? Those 2 are true.

It really isn't. This is the Stewards having a hard time making their mind up and explaining it properly.

It's like they are of two minds here - they both think Sainz has the right to hold his line, but they also think he shouldn't have moved into the line of the other car. Those two are conflicting statements - either he has the right to hold his line or he doesn't. If he does, then it's Perez job the get out of the way, which he had plenty of space, time and opportunity to do so. Instead, they settled on something, which mostly sounds like "Technically, Sainz didn't do anything wrong, but we still think he did, so he has to take part of the blame".

That's simply not good enough. This is once again sup-par stewarding. The decision itself (racing incident) was a good one - no complaints there. But their reasoning needs to be more clear-cut and better explained - we can't have a sport where people, including drivers and fans, have problems understanding the rules and decisions, through no fault of their own. That's simply not acceptable

[dialtone]

That's simply not good enough. This is once again sup-par stewarding. The decision itself (racing incident) was a good one - no complaints there. But their reasoning needs to be more clear-cut and better explained - we can't have a sport where people, including drivers and fans, have problems understanding the rules and decisions, through no fault of their own. That's simply not acceptable

This will go in circles now, but that’s conflicting because Sainz did nothing wrong, as they say fairly clearly. He was ahead and followed the racing line, it would be ridiculous if that’s in any way wrong.

[CMSMJ1]

I think after several pages and some fairly immature posts on the matter it would be good to just let this one roll down the pan and into the sewers of F1 crashes and non events.

The stewards didn't rule to give anyone the bragging rights of my driver was right, and yours was wrong..

Realistically - if that scenario was run again ten times they'd not have crashed so hard. it is good no-one was hurt and they live to fight another day.

Brilliant.

Move on now, the repetitive bickering is getting old - thanks

[TFSA]

This will go in circles now, but that’s conflicting because Sainz did nothing wrong, as they say fairly clearly. He was ahead and followed the racing line, it would be ridiculous if that’s in any way wrong.

But then they can't follow that up with the line that they did: "Sainz did move slightly towards a car that he had limited vision of" - That sentence in itself implies that they don't consider what Sainz did very smart, and since they are using it as a factor in how they reached their judgment, they are therefore - whether they will admit to it or not - blaming him somewhat. What they are doing simply isn't aligning with what they are saying.

As for whether Sainz actually did do something wrong: If two cars are racing side by side on a straigth, even if one is slightly ahead, it makes sense to me that neither car has any right to move into the other cars space. Seanspeed made two pretty good posts on this on Page 31, and i find it very hard to disagree with him, since that was also my position in Discord chat when we were arguing this on race day.


EDIT: @CMSMJ1 sorry, i was writing my post before you posted yours. I'll let this be my last post on the subject.

[F1NAC]

I was just watching onboard highlights, and noticed how Hulk got shafted. So he got yellows and then double yellows when approaching T2, and just when he got near wrecked cars, it was green flag(note the flag lights on his steering wheel - yellows turned off) and only slightly after it was VSC. So Double yellow with 2 wrecked cars and loads of debris on the road and the green for few seconds and then VSC... Why is nobody reporting about that. This was major screw up by FIA...

[Andres125sx]

Nah you guys have got it wrong. Back to racing kindergarden with you.

I really have no biases in this case, but I have been around long enough and experienced a whole bunch of these conversations to know what is accepted as along side. A front wheel to rear wheel doesn't count as the leading driver cannot judge your car properly. Your car has to be "alongside" his field of view that he can reasonable react to you. It was accepted in the drivers' meetings that it has to be front wheel to side pod. If not the following driver must yield if he doesn't want to crash.

Indeed, it´s common sense!

If the chase car FW is not past the cockpit of the lead car, the chase car is outside the field of view of the lead driver. How the lead driver could be forced to respect chase car space when he can´t see him?

That´s like saying F1 drivers must drive with an eye on both mirrors constantly to check if someone put his nose side to side with your rear wheels... absolute nosense


Anyone who has raced at any category knows when you´re trying to pass someone, if you cannot put your vehicle side by side (more or less) with your rival, you didn´t earn the space yet, so he still owns the right to use the ideal line

This is pretty basic at any racing category