2024 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[dialtone]

No.
The rules on restricted number components clearly states:
"Penalties applied under the provisions of this Article are cumulative and apply only to the
Competition where they have been incurred."

But I still think they will find a slot to run some laps.

Have they been incurred if no race has happened?

[Gillian]

Of course it means race otherwise they would have given the penalty in sprint race.

no, that goes back to a different part of the rulebook:

"The first time an additional element is used: Ten (10) grid place penalty for the race."

It’s almost endearing that you folks believe that he will skip a penalty if they don’t race here.

PU penalties are bound to the race weekend, they do not carry over. That's why they came up with the rule to prevent stockpiling PU's in a weekend.

[basti313]

No.
The rules on restricted number components clearly states:
"Penalties applied under the provisions of this Article are cumulative and apply only to the
Competition where they have been incurred."

But I still think they will find a slot to run some laps.

Have they been incurred if no race has happened?

If the new ICE was since yesterday in the car, yes. If not...no.

[FittingMechanics]

no, that goes back to a different part of the rulebook:

"The first time an additional element is used: Ten (10) grid place penalty for the race."

It’s almost endearing that you folks believe that he will skip a penalty if they don’t race here.

PU penalties are bound to the race weekend, they do not carry over. That's why they came up with the rule to prevent stockpiling PU's in a weekend.

But if the loophole is accurate, if you used one ICE in FP1, other one in FP2 and third in FP3 by that reading you get only one +15 penalty (stockpiling).

It probably means that they consider only ICE used for the race as a "used" component. So you can't stockpile.

You have to announce the use and then get penalty in advance.

[basti313]

It’s almost endearing that you folks believe that he will skip a penalty if they don’t race here.

PU penalties are bound to the race weekend, they do not carry over. That's why they came up with the rule to prevent stockpiling PU's in a weekend.

But if the loophole is accurate, if you used one ICE in FP1, other one in FP2 and third in FP3 by that reading you get only one +15 penalty (stockpiling).

It probably means that they consider only ICE used for the race as a "used" component. So you can't stockpile.

You have to announce the use and then get penalty in advance.

Why do you not read the rules? This would clear up this question...

[avantman]

It does sound like a loophole but is the penalty that was imposed really served if the race is cancelled?

Surely not. So I think it carries over.

If you don't serve a penalty it carries over.

How many F1 races have been cancelled? a loophole? seriously?

[AR3-GP]

But if the loophole is accurate, if you used one ICE in FP1, other one in FP2 and third in FP3 by that reading you get only one +15 penalty (stockpiling).

No. There is no such thing as stockpiling.

[FittingMechanics]

But if the loophole is accurate, if you used one ICE in FP1, other one in FP2 and third in FP3 by that reading you get only one +15 penalty (stockpiling).

No. There is no such thing as stockpiling.

https://i.postimg.cc/8CTTRQQ7/image.png

So it looks like Max might not need to serve the penalty if the race is cancelled.

[AR3-GP]

But if the loophole is accurate, if you used one ICE in FP1, other one in FP2 and third in FP3 by that reading you get only one +15 penalty (stockpiling).

No. There is no such thing as stockpiling.

https://i.postimg.cc/8CTTRQQ7/image.png

So it looks like Max might not need to serve the penalty if the race is cancelled.

I agree. There is no provision in the regulations for carrying forward an engine penalty to the "next competition". That is in contrast to the sporting regulations regarding driving infringements, for which there is a written provision for carrying forward a penalty to the driver's next race if circumstances mean that it is not served in the weekend where the infringement occurred.

[organic]

Yeah seems like a small oversight could benefit Max if the race isn't run.

If it is not cancelled, the car probably still will be good enough for Max to nab a podium with the wet weather

[pantherxxx]

It's a win-win situation for Red Bull. If there's no race it's good, if there's a race in rainy conditions, Verstappen will use his superior skills and win.

[AR3-GP]

If there's no race, they will save the engine mileage too.

[Gillian]

No. There is no such thing as stockpiling.

https://i.postimg.cc/8CTTRQQ7/image.png

So it looks like Max might not need to serve the penalty if the race is cancelled.

I agree. There is no provision in the regulations for carrying forward an engine penalty to the "next competition". That is in contrast to the sporting regulations regarding driving infringements, for which there is a written provision for carrying forward a penalty to the driver's next race if circumstances mean that it is not served in the weekend where the infringement occurred.

This is correct and thank you for finding the rule. I was too lazy to actually look it up but I remembered it from the McLaren Honda days. Imagine carrying forward all those penalties back in 2015

[Gillian]

It's a win-win situation for Red Bull. If there's no race it's good, if there's a race in rainy conditions, Verstappen will use his superior skills and win.

You are forgetting one scenario: We get just a handfull racing laps with Norris on P1 and Verstappen out of the points. That's a 12 (or 13 with fastest lap) points gain for Norris.

[langedweil]

It's a win-win situation for Red Bull. If there's no race it's good, if there's a race in rainy conditions, Verstappen will use his superior skills and win.

You are forgetting one scenario: We get just a handfull racing laps with Norris on P1 and Verstappen out of the points. That's a 12 (or 13 with fastest lap) points gain for Norris.

A handful laps would mean 25% of points, that would be 6.25 with a win .. +3 = 9.25
Still lower than the avg needed 12.
Hard to say who'd get fastest lap when wet, but that one is floating around as well.