Lando Norris 10second stop/go penalty - Qatar 2024

[TFSA]

OK, but then others just lifted and scrubbed a little speed. Re: Max, although I still don't think that is safe under double yellows. Whether it is more controllable is not the point. If the point is to ensure safety where there might be parts on track and a driver that is exposed, dropping to 250kph is not safe.

And you conclude that based on.. what exactly? Your stomach telling you so?

Unless you're in wet conditions, 250 on a straigth where you're not racing another car side by side, is very safe for an F1 car. There's no evidence to suggest it's inherently dangerous, as long as there's no marshals on track (they only go on track under VSC/SC/Red Flags).

[Partymood]

Inconsistent or not, I do consider it pretty harsh. And I'm saying that as a Ferrari fan.

I think the bigger inconsistency, as others have pointed out, is any desire to push 'safety' looks foolish in light of leaving the car mirror in the middle of a track for many laps and doing nothing about it, which then ruined the races of a couple drivers and caused a safety car, which bunched up the drivers and led to more incidents leading to another safety car. All for something a quick VSC could have dealt with(or hell, just somebody finding a ~10 second gap and running out and grabbing it real quick like they used to do entirely safely).

I feel like a simple drive through would have been sufficient if they wanted something harsh that still gets the point across. But they effectively gave him a 35 second penalty. That's basically just one step away from full on disqualification.

It seems harsh, because we all know it was just a broken mirror off from the racing line.

However, the point is that at double waved yellows it could have been a car stopped at the track so driver needs to respect the flag regardless. Norris couldn't have known at that time why the flag is waved so ignoring it is serious. (luckily with unserious consequences this tim)

I get it was not some 'light' infraction from a bigger picture perspective, it's just they genuinely gave him the harshest penalty possible short of full on disqualification. Seems there were a couple other alternative solutions that could have gotten the point across and made an example of him.

IIRC that is the standard penalty for the infraction, not giving it would have create a dangerous precedent (like the 1 place penalty for Verstappen, in my opinion...)

[mwillems]

OK, but then others just lifted and scrubbed a little speed. Re: Max, although I still don't think that is safe under double yellows. Whether it is more controllable is not the point. If the point is to ensure safety where there might be parts on track and a driver that is exposed, dropping to 250kph is not safe.

And you conclude that based on.. what exactly? Your stomach telling you so?

Unless you're in wet conditions, 250 on a straigth where you're not racing another car side by side, is very safe for an F1 car. There's no evidence to suggest it's inherently dangerous, as long as there's no marshals on track (they only go on track under VSC/SC/Red Flags).

Common sense, that in that small section of track if there are unseen Marshalls, Medical staff or equipment 250kph is too fast. After the Jules Bianchi incident and the speeds they were going it shouldn't need explaining. Having a puncture at high speed takes the car closer to the characteristics of wet but even without.

[bananapeel23]

OK, but then others just lifted and scrubbed a little speed. Re: Max, although I still don't think that is safe under double yellows. Whether it is more controllable is not the point. If the point is to ensure safety where there might be parts on track and a driver that is exposed, dropping to 250kph is not safe.

The yellow flag is a caution flag. A double waved yellow tells you to be prepared to stop, not to actually slow down. You lift to show that you see the flag and that you are prepared to stop if you need to. If track visibility is good and you're prepared to stop, you are fully within your right to go back to full speed after lifting.

The Bianchi crash happened because the drivers were following the rules for double-waved yellows. It just wasn't a situation where double-waved yellows were appropriate, there just wasn't an intermediate option between a yellow and a safety car. These days it would've been a VSC, but that was only implemented after Bianchi died.

[DChemTech]

OK, but then others just lifted and scrubbed a little speed. Re: Max, although I still don't think that is safe under double yellows. Whether it is more controllable is not the point. If the point is to ensure safety where there might be parts on track and a driver that is exposed, dropping to 250kph is not safe.

And you conclude that based on.. what exactly? Your stomach telling you so?

Unless you're in wet conditions, 250 on a straigth where you're not racing another car side by side, is very safe for an F1 car. There's no evidence to suggest it's inherently dangerous, as long as there's no marshals on track (they only go on track under VSC/SC/Red Flags).

Common sense, that in that small section of track if there are unseen Marshalls, Medical staff or equipment 250kph is too fast. After the Jules Bianchi incident and the speeds they were going it shouldn't need explaining. Having a puncture at high speed takes the car closer to the characteristics of wet but even without.

So what's your conclusion then? Should Lando not be penalised for doing nothing at all because others (in your view) did not do enough? Or should the entire grid be disqualified?

We can argue whether double yellow was appropriate and whether the FIA should have deployed a (virtual) safety car to begin with, sure. But fact is Max did a whole lot more than Lando when it comes to being prepared to stop.

[mwillems]

And you conclude that based on.. what exactly? Your stomach telling you so?

Unless you're in wet conditions, 250 on a straigth where you're not racing another car side by side, is very safe for an F1 car. There's no evidence to suggest it's inherently dangerous, as long as there's no marshals on track (they only go on track under VSC/SC/Red Flags).

Common sense, that in that small section of track if there are unseen Marshalls, Medical staff or equipment 250kph is too fast. After the Jules Bianchi incident and the speeds they were going it shouldn't need explaining. Having a puncture at high speed takes the car closer to the characteristics of wet but even without.

So what's your conclusion then? Should Lando not be penalised for doing nothing at all because others (in your view) did not do enough? Or should the entire grid be disqualified?

We can argue whether double yellow was appropriate and whether the FIA should have deployed a (virtual) safety car to begin with, sure. But fact is Max did a whole lot more than Lando when it comes to being prepared to stop.

No, I made that statement already very clear, he should have been penalised. Read the messages. I said that the application of the rule is inconsistent and that Race Controls handling of the situation was poor and that light lifting or braking to 250kph is not what the rule asks drivers to do.

[mwillems]

OK, but then others just lifted and scrubbed a little speed. Re: Max, although I still don't think that is safe under double yellows. Whether it is more controllable is not the point. If the point is to ensure safety where there might be parts on track and a driver that is exposed, dropping to 250kph is not safe.

The yellow flag is a caution flag. A double waved yellow tells you to be prepared to stop, not to actually slow down. You lift to show that you see the flag and that you are prepared to stop if you need to. If track visibility is good and you're prepared to stop, you are fully within your right to go back to full speed after lifting.

The Bianchi crash happened because the drivers were following the rules for double-waved yellows. It just wasn't a situation where double-waved yellows were appropriate, there just wasn't an intermediate option between a yellow and a safety car. These days it would've been a VSC, but that was only implemented after Bianchi died.

It explicitly says that, and gives an example of a situation that it is for. You don't second guess the condition of the track and say, yeah, I think 250kph should be alright for this one...

Double waved: Reduce your speed significantly, do not overtake, and be prepared to change direction or stop. There is a hazard wholly or partly blocking the track and/or marshals working on or beside the track.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 0.2024.pdf

And just for clarity, for the third time, this is not about whether the penalty should have been given, but the flexible application to a driver. Clearly, Race Control decided they didn't have to follow the letter of the law and they could in fact be subjective with application.

[bananapeel23]

OK, but then others just lifted and scrubbed a little speed. Re: Max, although I still don't think that is safe under double yellows. Whether it is more controllable is not the point. If the point is to ensure safety where there might be parts on track and a driver that is exposed, dropping to 250kph is not safe.

The yellow flag is a caution flag. A double waved yellow tells you to be prepared to stop, not to actually slow down. You lift to show that you see the flag and that you are prepared to stop if you need to. If track visibility is good and you're prepared to stop, you are fully within your right to go back to full speed after lifting.

The Bianchi crash happened because the drivers were following the rules for double-waved yellows. It just wasn't a situation where double-waved yellows were appropriate, there just wasn't an intermediate option between a yellow and a safety car. These days it would've been a VSC, but that was only implemented after Bianchi died.

It explicitly says that, and gives an example of a situation that it is for. You don't second guess the condition of the track and say, yeah, I think 250kph should be alright for this one...

Double waved: Reduce your speed significantly, do not overtake, and be prepared to change direction or stop. There is a hazard wholly or partly blocking the track and/or marshals working on or beside the track.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 0.2024.pdf

And just for clarity, for the third time, this is not about whether the penalty should have been given, but the flexible application to a driver. Clearly, Race Control decided they didn't have to follow the letter of the law and they could in fact be subjective with application.

Yes, I've read appendix H.

Note the "be prepared to stop or change direction". Also note that an F1 car going 320 kph has about 60% more kinetic energy than one going 250kph. I'd argue that is a fairly significant reduction in energy and braking distance and signals a preparedness to stop should it be required.

[Ben1980]

I've not read everything, so apologies if needed.

If they say, no need for a safety car if debris is off line, and not a concern. Then why the need for double yellow flags? Surely you can't have both?

[bananapeel23]

I've not read everything, so apologies if needed.

If they say, no need for a safety car if debris is off line, and not a concern. Then why the need for double yellow flags? Surely you can't have both?

Because they were indecisive. To even throw the double-waved yellows was arguably a mistake. That does not mean that the driver doesn't have to respect it. It is not a mitigating circumstance. Double-waved yellows are double-waved yellows whether it's Verstappen walking down the fastest straight in F1 to kick his car or a tiny mirror on track.

[DChemTech]

The problem is not that the FIA judged it subjetively, it is that the rule ís inherently subjective. There is no objective interpretation of "reduce significantly". It depends very much on location and cicumstances too - slamming the brakes mid-straight may not be the best of ideas.
Now Ive taken my fair share of issue with subjective interpretation of what should be objective rules, e.g. subjective statements declaring wings too flex while passing all te objective tests meant to decide that, but here I struggle coming up with a truly objective alternative. Reduce speed to max. X KPH? Depends very much on location, visibility, weather...
Reduce speed by 50% compared to what would be considered normal at a given time and location, in the shortest time possible considering all circumstances? Still subjective as hell.

[mwillems]

The yellow flag is a caution flag. A double waved yellow tells you to be prepared to stop, not to actually slow down. You lift to show that you see the flag and that you are prepared to stop if you need to. If track visibility is good and you're prepared to stop, you are fully within your right to go back to full speed after lifting.

The Bianchi crash happened because the drivers were following the rules for double-waved yellows. It just wasn't a situation where double-waved yellows were appropriate, there just wasn't an intermediate option between a yellow and a safety car. These days it would've been a VSC, but that was only implemented after Bianchi died.

It explicitly says that, and gives an example of a situation that it is for. You don't second guess the condition of the track and say, yeah, I think 250kph should be alright for this one...

Double waved: Reduce your speed significantly, do not overtake, and be prepared to change direction or stop. There is a hazard wholly or partly blocking the track and/or marshals working on or beside the track.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 0.2024.pdf

And just for clarity, for the third time, this is not about whether the penalty should have been given, but the flexible application to a driver. Clearly, Race Control decided they didn't have to follow the letter of the law and they could in fact be subjective with application.

Yes, I've read appendix H.

Note the "be prepared to stop or change direction". Also note that an F1 car going 320 kph has about 60% more kinetic energy than one going 250kph. I'd argue that is a fairly significant reduction in energy and braking distance and signals a preparedness to stop should it be required.

250kph in an area where they may be marshalls on track is not safe.

And then those lifting and not braking in that section are not reducing speed.

The decision was also made quite a long time after Race Control had decided that in fact, the situation didn't merit any flags at all. So yes, since the flag was there, it's a penalty. But the race control was a frigging joke and lifting slightly is certainly not following the rules, and nor in my opinion is dropping to 250 kph.

[Ben1980]

I've not read everything, so apologies if needed.

If they say, no need for a safety car if debris is off line, and not a concern. Then why the need for double yellow flags? Surely you can't have both?

Because they were indecisive. To even throw the double-waved yellows was arguably a mistake. That does not mean that the driver doesn't have to respect it. It is not a mitigating circumstance. Double-waved yellows are double-waved yellows whether it's Verstappen walking down the fastest straight in F1 to kick his car or a tiny mirror on track.

Of course the driver should respect it, I don't think anyone thinks it isn't a penalty, though I think most can also see how it was missed.

But, I do think the punishment didn't fit the crime. Also, why it took so long is beyond me.

[chrisc90]

Few speed numbers

Max - 274kmh (before he got back on the throttle leading into the corner)
Norris - 324kmh (flat out)
Charles - 285kmh (before accelerating again)
Oscar - 274kmh (before accelerating again)


Not sure on anyone else. Obviously quite a few extra circumstances around that too

[Peter Piper]

From https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... _v0146.pdf

...
19:47 WAVED BLUE FLAG FOR CAR 77 (BOT) TIMED AT 19:47:19
19:47 WAVED BLUE FLAG FOR CAR 77 (BOT) TIMED AT 19:47:28
19:47 WAVED BLUE FLAG FOR CAR 77 (BOT) TIMED AT 19:47:56
19:48 DOUBLE YELLOW IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:48 DRS DISABLED IN ZONE 1
19:48 TRACK SURFACE SLIPPERY IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:48 DRS ENABLED IN ZONE 1
19:48 DOUBLE YELLOW IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:48 DRS DISABLED IN ZONE 1
19:48 TRACK SURFACE SLIPPERY IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:48 DRS ENABLED IN ZONE 1
19:48 DOUBLE YELLOW IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:48 DRS DISABLED IN ZONE 1
19:48 TRACK SURFACE SLIPPERY IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:48 DRS ENABLED IN ZONE 1
19:48 DOUBLE YELLOW IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:48 DRS DISABLED IN ZONE 1
19:48 TRACK SURFACE SLIPPERY IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:48 DRS ENABLED IN ZONE 1
19:48 DOUBLE YELLOW IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:49 TRACK SURFACE SLIPPERY IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:50 CLEAR IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:50 TRACK SURFACE SLIPPERY IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:51 CLEAR IN TRACK SECTOR 2
19:53 WAVED BLUE FLAG FOR CAR 77 (BOT) TIMED AT 19:53:48
19:53 WAVED BLUE FLAG FOR CAR 77 (BOT) TIMED AT 19:53:56
19:56 SAFETY CAR DEPLOYED
...