2024 United States Grand Prix - COTA, Oct 18-20

[Luscion]

[TeamKoolGreen]

This guy Colapinto is genuinely good. Another excellent race by him to finish in the top 10

He´s ok. The fact he is looking that good is because Albon is very overated, due to being massively flattered by Latifi ( just like Russell and de Vries)

It is quite pathetic that most F1 commentary these days is not based on anything objective. Instead it is just petty little catfights between fanbases.

Russell is an F3 and F2 rookie champion, with the same amount of F2 wins as Leclerc, and beat Hamilton in 2022, and is now what.. 15 to 4 ahead in head to head qualifying ? Almost Vertappen vs Perez territory.

Russell was almost a second faster than Piastri and Max in FP1 today. But hey, if you don't like him, you can just say he was flattered by Latifi, just like De Vries was. Because objectivity doesn't matter apparently.

[Sieper]

I’m sorry but this year Russell and Hamilton are not on equal footing in the team. You cannot just look at the numbers without context.

[Dunlay]

I’m sorry but this year Russell and Hamilton are not on equal footing in the team. You cannot just look at the numbers without context.

Can you explain please?

[chrisc90]

Stewards not taking any rubbish from that right of appeal.

Imagine trying to use a decision document that details the outcome of stewards' discussions against them. Even then doing it against the rules.

[Vettel165]

Expecting a easy 1-2 for Ferrari. Then the two Mclaren drivers behind, with Max and Mercedes following the pecking order.

[chrisc90]

Expecting a easy 1-2 for Ferrari. Then the two Mclaren drivers behind, with Max and Mercedes following the pecking order.

Wrong thread my friend

[Vettel165]

Expecting a easy 1-2 for Ferrari. Then the two Mclaren drivers behind, with Max and Mercedes following the pecking order.

Wrong thread my friend

Thanks, my mistake.

[TFSA]

McLaren at just being pathetic now. I don't agree with the stewards take either, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

The appeal never had much of a chance (if any) to begin with, and it's time to take the L and move on. This is like trying to milk a dead dolphin dressed up as a cow for Halloween at this point.

[AMG.Tzan]

McLaren at just being pathetic now. I don't agree with the stewards take either, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

The appeal never had much of a chance (if any) to begin with, and it's time to take the L and move on. This is like trying to milk a dead dolphin dressed up as a cow for Halloween at this point.

Although I too agree that McLaren and Norris in particular should accept not being fit enough to beat Max, I think they’re right pushing the FIA on this!

This “who’s ahead at the apex” rule is ridiculous! If the stewards don’t take into account the defending driver pushing the other driver off track then it doesn’t make any sense…let’s turn it into NASCAR!

But I was thinking of a similar accident to that of Max/Lando at the start! Fuji GP 2008! Hamilton brakes late goes off track and takes Kimi with him! Lap 1 - Turn 1 incident! The result?? A drive through penalty…

I know this was over 15 years ago! Different rules, different penalties etc! But if the FIA want to punish you they’ll just do it regardless of if it makes any sense…

The FIA nowadays reminds me of the Ferrari/Schumacher days! Never handout penalties for clearcut offenses or even giving penalties to a rival that make absolutely no sense (Schumi-Montoya Malaysia 2002 start) or even overturning disqualifications for clear rule breaches (Ferrari bargeboards 1999)…

[TFSA]

Although I too agree that McLaren and Norris in particular should accept not being fit enough to beat Max, I think they’re right pushing the FIA on this!

This “who’s ahead at the apex” rule is ridiculous! If the stewards don’t take into account the defending driver pushing the other driver off track then it doesn’t make any sense…let’s turn it into NASCAR!

But I was thinking of a similar accident to that of Max/Lando at the start! Fuji GP 2008! Hamilton brakes late goes off track and takes Kimi with him! Lap 1 - Turn 1 incident! The result?? A drive through penalty…

You're completely misunderstanding. This is not what we are talking about here. We are not talking about the penalty or the on-track action. We're talking about the appeals/review process.

Forget what happened on the track itself here. This is McLaren critisizing the stewards handling of the review proces here, saying that the stewards dismissal of the appeal on the basis of not being based on new or relevant evidence is incorrect - so they've now upgraded from critisizing their decision in regards to what happened on track, to critisizing their decision in regards to the appeals process.

This is why it's a new level of pathetic.

[hollus]

If you think of it, the FIA saying that there is nothing new in that appeal means that the stewards either
a) Thought that Lando was ahead at some point in the straight
or
b) Considered the possibility and thought that he was not ahead in a meaningful way.

Both (a) and (b) have really interesting implications.

They have the right to reject the appeal, but it puts them in error in one way or another (that is "a", "b" or "nothing new").

[TFSA]

If you think of it, the FIA saying that there is nothing new in that appeal means that the stewards either
a) Thought that Lando was ahead at some point in the straight
or
b) Considered the possibility and thought that he was not ahead in a meaningful way.

Both (a) and (b) have really interesting implications.

They have the right to reject the appeal, but it puts them in error in one way or another (that is "a", "b" or "nothing new").

The answer here is B.

The thing about an appeal, viewed as a general concept (outside of motor racing as well), is what you can challenge two things:

• The way the rules/laws were interpreted.
• The evidence available.

The thing about how F1 rules work though, is that you are not, on appeal (at least not for appeals filed outside the normal time window that is right after a race, before the final race classification is published), allowed to challenge how the stewards interpreted the rules. If the stewards interpreted that Max is the defending driver, then you have to accept that interpretation, even if you think it was wrong (i disagree with the stewards personally).

You're only allowed to challenge the ruling based on evidence - that is, you believe that evidence was missing that wasn't available at the time, which shows the situation in a different light.

In regards to the on-track incident, while Verstappens front-facing camera wasn't available at the time of the race, since it wasn't streamed, and had to be downloaded later, there was a perfectly good helicopter view available, which the stewards have surely seen. I've used this picture myself to argue what McLaren was arguing (that Lando had completed the overtake), but the stewards disagree, and interpret the rules different - and Max front-facing camera isn't really that interesting for that determination, when a perfectly good helicopter shot shows it as well - arguably better than the driver camera does (my screenshot isn't the best, but pausing on the right frame was annoying).

So the stewards must surely, if not definitely, gone with option B - they've seen it, but decided that the overtake wasn't complete.

Also, how you think that puts them in error is a little bit mysterious to me. Unless the FIA says otherwise later (they rarely do), the stewards are essentially the gods of how the rules are interpreted. If they don't think that Norris was ahead enough to have completed an overtake, then the overtake wasn't completed, and we have to accept that interpretation of what constitutes an overtake - even if we don't like it.

[Seanspeed]

The whole 'who is ahead at the apex' stuff is again, really quite moot. Bottom line is that Norris overtook off track, which is blatantly illegal. There is nothing in the rules allowing exceptions for this. They can be upset that Max wasn't penalized for running somebody off-track, sure, but there is no world in which penalizing Norris for overtaking off-track(and not giving the position back) was the incorrect call.

I've explained several times here and elsewhere how all this could easily be fixed, but it doesn't seem anybody really wants that, because I think the teams and especially drivers enjoy being able to run others off-track in some legal manner when convenient and dont want that taken away from their toolbox.

[hollus]

A better wider helicopted view (Max is pointing a bit to the inside, Lando a bit to the outside), next to your zoomed in pic:





Axle to axle, there is zero doubt , and getting your axle alongside to the other driver´s axle is a FIA way to define "alongside".
Whether Max's car could at that point fully fit behind Lando´s car is more questionable, one needs VAR style perspective lines.

The whole penalty was worded as overtaking outside, and certainly it looks questionable who was overtaking.
This weekend, FIA did not say "we checked and we think Lando was never fully ahead". What FIA said is "nothing new". But McLarens appeal is not on a rule being applied wrongly, but on the wrong rule being applied. And thre is no question on what rule was applied.

I am not surprised that FIA covered their derrieres on the nothing new techincality, but I still think that they are holding two things as true that cannot be true simultaneously.