Lando Norris 10second stop/go penalty - Qatar 2024

[mwillems]

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

As has already been explained, marshalls aren't on track for double yellows. They never enter the track itself without a VSC at minimum these days, unless it's because a car has stopped in a very safe place (say, pulled off on the inside of a corner way off the track limits themselves and way off the path of danger).

And if a fan runs on track, or seem almost over a fence to get on track where cars are currently driving by?

First instance is a double yellow. Immediate danger on track, be ready to stop.

Answer: Drive 250kph whilst totally unaware of where or when the danger is, it'll all be fine...
The drivers slowed down like it was a single yellow flag.


The context of a Marshall on track is not the literal and only example. That shouldn't need explaining. Double yellow is the highest warning of danger or incident ahead. I know that people just lift some. Just lift some is not being safe, it's just making sure you have some more control over the car, it doesn't mean you are able to avoid a danger.

[mwillems]

I am a bit surprised by this claim. If anything, the penalty was consistent. It was consistent with previous penalties, the acceptable behavior (lift) is exactly what is/was requested in the past, handing out the penalty took long as usual, the marshalling post threw the flag as usual...
No idea, what you see as inconsistent.


You know that this claim is completely nonsense? Such a penalty was never given out in such a short timeframe, the pen would have always been after the SC. I even think, that the time they took was not uncommonly long.
In the end Lando was lucky, that they took similarly long to give Ham the pen. In case they would have been fast with the much more obvious pen for Ham, he could have ended up in front of Lando and destroy all chances to still taking points.


They did what they were supposed to do....lift....
Please do not make up rules, that are not there.


Double yellows? What are you intending to see different? Does this matter at all?


Even with VSC it is too fast.

As already noted last page, I think this is the main issue:

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 circumstances too - slamming the brakes mid-straight may not be the best of ideas.

There simply is no objective measure for what is slowing sufficiently - for one it may be reduce throttle for some time, for another a full lift, yet another may see braking as the only significant action. And it depends on position (straight or poor-visibility corner), weather, etc.
It's also very hard to make it objective; the closest would be "here's a map of the maximum speed at any stage of the track in case of double yellows", and even that would not account for the rate of deceleration, or influence of weather etc. Some automated system would also avoid the issue of unclear rules, but it's by no means guaranteeing a safe situation if all cars suddenly automatically decelerate.

Sorry, but this is just wrong accusation that one should not make.

It was clearly and openly defined, that a double yellow needs a clear lift. There is no breaking needed, there is no full lift needed. Reread the discussions on Rosberg in Hungary with the double yellow in his Q lap back then, it is all clearly defined.
So there is an objective definition of what needs to be done and it was simply not done by one driver.

Now you can complain about the rule, you can complain about how the mirror was handled, the weather or whatever. But accusing the stewards of a subjective judgement when it was 100% clear and objective is neither fair, not helping anyone.

Read the rules instead of a bunch of other opinions. The rules talk about a significant lift. It isn't defined what that is anywhere. There may be precedent for it's interpretation, but this has nothing to do with definition. And you can see that the speeds determined as safe are quite changeable across the incidents.

[basti313]

And if a fan runs on track, or seem almost over a fence to get on track where cars are currently driving by?

A fan on track is an immediate red flag.

Why are you trying to make up one strawman argument after the other?

Read the rules instead of a bunch of other opinions.

The FIA instructions are not a "bunch of other opinions". The topic was up for debate some 8 years ago. It was defined back then in the instructions.

I am not sure what you are up to here. The case is clear. Every driver managed to do the necessary lift, one did not. And he was not penalized for not lifting enough, he was penalized for keeping his foot planted. So what are you actually discussing here?

[mwillems]

And if a fan runs on track, or seem almost over a fence to get on track where cars are currently driving by?

A fan on track is an immediate red flag.

Why are you trying to make up one strawman argument after the other?

Read the rules instead of a bunch of other opinions.

The FIA instructions are not a "bunch of other opinions". The topic was up for debate some 8 years ago. It was defined back then in the instructions.

I am not sure what you are up to here. The case is clear. Every driver managed to do the necessary lift, one did not. And he was not penalized for not lifting enough, he was penalized for keeping his foot planted. So what are you actually discussing here?

I've explained what I'm discussing ("up to" there aren't any secret machinations and plots, it's an F1 site...) It is not the outcome of the race or who was penalised, it is the fact that the rule is applied subjectively and what defines something as OK is not safety but "did they lift", which was never what the existing wording of the rule was meant to show.

Tell me what a sufficient lift is, how do I avoid it, is it the smallest amount of lift? If Lando had dropped 20kph, is that enough, 30kph, is that enough? Whay can cars at other races be travelling in a straight line at 260 and it's unsafe and cars travelling here in a straight line doing 280 and it's safe?

When looking at footage of fans on track it was yellow flags being waved, but that was from 2015. At Silverstone there was already a red flag due to the racing incident. Can Marshalls even red flag a race, or is that race control?
When looking at the speeds that are "safe" there seems to be inconsistency across races. When looking at this one race, the object was deemed worthy of a double yellow flag and also for some time, no flags.

It's fairly clear there is a lack of any consistency around many aspects of the application of the double yellows.
Yes, it's a penalty, if there is a double yellow, you at least need to lift. But this is the precedent but not the rule. There is nothing which shows what is safe and what is a "substantial reduction in speed". When there are double yellows there should be a VSC, this was again inconsistent.

Double yellow for me, should not mean, lift slightly or show willing. That is yellow. Double yellow is a major incident with significant danger. Dropping to 280kph and it being deemed safe is ridiculous.

[DChemTech]

big blah

Sorry, but this is just wrong accusation that one should not make.

It was clearly and openly defined, that a double yellow needs a clear lift. There is no breaking needed, there is no full lift needed. Reread the discussions on Rosberg in Hungary with the double yellow in his Q lap back then, it is all clearly defined.
So there is an objective definition of what needs to be done and it was simply not done by one driver.

Now you can complain about the rule, you can complain about how the mirror was handled, the weather or whatever. But accusing the stewards of a subjective judgement when it was 100% clear and objective is neither fair, not helping anyone.

Look, I am completely on your side with regards of the drivers (except Lando) acting correctly, and in accordance with precedent.

But let's not pretend there is any objective standard at play here.
The regulations quoted below are completely subjective. What is 'significant' is fully open to interpretation, and that there is precedent on what 'significantly' might mean, does not mean that it is objective. The wording of that precedent "there is no full lift needed" is very much open for interpretation, both in duration and magnitude of the degree of lift that is needed, and as mentioned before, it will very much depend on the conditions and location at which the flags are waved. It will always be a situation that will have to be evaluated by the stewards on a case-by-case basis.

- Double waved: Reduce your speed
significantly, do not overtake, and be
prepared to change direction or stop.

[basti313]

I've explained what I'm discussing and it is not the outcome of the race or who was penalised

Maybe you are in the wrong thread then?

, it is the fact that the rule is applied subjectively

No. It is not. A lift is quite clear.
I read, that you do not like that the lift is not safe enough. But this is not subjective appliance of the rule, they settled to the most objective judgement. But feel free to discuss, but this is definitely the wrong topic here as the case is clear.

and what defines something as OK is not safety.

No. But again...has nothing to do with the objective infringement, judgement and penalty here.

When looking at footage of fans on track it was yellow flags, but that was from 2015. And a single waved yellow at that.

Different time, right? And please get your facts right, that was a safety car.

Look, I am completely on your side with regards of the drivers (except Lando) acting correctly, and in accordance with precedent.

Good, so topic clear?

The regulations quoted below are completely subjective.

You are ignoring, that this is not everything. There are instructions, known or unknown to us that are longer than the rule book. See the flexi wing discussion on this. The instruction is a lift is enough.

What is 'significant' is fully open to interpretation, and that there is precedent on what 'significantly' might mean, does not mean that it is objective.

The definition in the instructions makes it objective.

Again, if you are not happy, that is maybe another discussion worth, but I just do not like to twist it here to unfair and subjective stewarding when the stewards did nothing wrong.

It will always be a situation that will have to be evaluated by the stewards on a case-by-case basis.

No, it was not and will not be like this.

[DChemTech]

Good, so topic clear?

It never was unclear.

You are ignoring, that this is not everything. There are instructions, known or unknown to us that are longer than the rule book. See the flexi wing discussion on this. The instruction is a lift is enough.

Unwritten or obscured rules are not rules. A rulebook needs to be objective, SMART and clear on and off itself (including appendices, sure, provided they are accessible). Indeed, exactly the same issue happens with flexiwings.
There were objective quantitative measurements that were passed, and still wings were deemed illegal based on 'the spirit of the rules'. To my knowledge engineers are not using seance tables to figure out what they are or are not allowed to do. If you want something to be actionable and enforceable, make it quantitative and write it down. If not, it's subjective by default. Which for engineering rules should never be the case. For sporting rules, including double yellows, it is inevitable some of them will be though. Which is what it is, but at least acknowledge it is. Don't try to cast something as objective while it is obviously not.

The definition in the instructions makes it objective.

No it does not. If the definition is subjective (which anything that is not quantitative and time-bound in nature is), it's still subjective. That there are 'instructions' does not change that.

Again, if you are not happy, that is maybe another discussion worth, but I just do not like to twist it here to unfair and subjective stewarding when the stewards did nothing wrong.

I am not unhappy with the rules or stewarding. I am just pointing out that it is inherently a subjective affair, and open to interpretation.

No, it was not and will not be like this.

It was, and unless rules are installed that make very quantitative statements like "lift by at least X for duration Y", it always will be. And that is completely fine.

[basti313]

It was, and unless rules are installed that make very quantitative statements like "lift by at least X for duration Y", it always will be.

Seems like only for us armchair experts. I hear no real expert, no driver, no team member saying that the necessary lift is unclear or subjective.

And that is completely fine.

On this we agree.

[DChemTech]

It was, and unless rules are installed that make very quantitative statements like "lift by at least X for duration Y", it always will be.

Seems like only for us armchair experts. I hear no real expert, no driver, no team member saying that the necessary lift is unclear or subjective.

And that is completely fine.

On this we agree.

"clear" and "subjective" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can very well be that all teams/drivers have a good feeling about what is expected from them, without any quantitative requirements that can be objectively measured being put to paper. I guess in day-to-day driving it's the same; typically there is an enforced speed limit that is objective (and clearly quantified), but there is also an expectation that people behave differently in snowy/rainy/foggy conditions - and most people know what is expected without any objective guidelines being provided.
Still, both in that case and in F1, there will always be edge-cases that are open for discussion, precisely because of the lack of an exact criterion. Now personally I do not think that currently there was such an edge-case, the only outlier was very clearly not acting at all, and that is a point on which also mwillems agrees. But clearly he disagrees on whether the others did act sufficiently, and while I do not agree with his objections, I do recognize the general notion that such disagreement in the end is due to the rule being subjective. We can bring out all kinds of arguments as to why his assessment is wrong - precedent, statements of people with much more experience on the matter, etcetera, but it all remains a matter of well-substantiated opinion, rather than a quantitative statement.

[mwillems]

I've explained what I'm discussing and it is not the outcome of the race or who was penalised

Maybe you are in the wrong thread then?

, it is the fact that the rule is applied subjectively

No. It is not. A lift is quite clear.
I read, that you do not like that the lift is not safe enough. But this is not subjective appliance of the rule, they settled to the most objective judgement. But feel free to discuss, but this is definitely the wrong topic here as the case is clear.

and what defines something as OK is not safety.

No. But again...has nothing to do with the objective infringement, judgement and penalty here.

When looking at footage of fans on track it was yellow flags, but that was from 2015. And a single waved yellow at that.

Different time, right? And please get your facts right, that was a safety car.

Look, I am completely on your side with regards of the drivers (except Lando) acting correctly, and in accordance with precedent.

Good, so topic clear?

The regulations quoted below are completely subjective.

You are ignoring, that this is not everything. There are instructions, known or unknown to us that are longer than the rule book. See the flexi wing discussion on this. The instruction is a lift is enough.

What is 'significant' is fully open to interpretation, and that there is precedent on what 'significantly' might mean, does not mean that it is objective.

The definition in the instructions makes it objective.

Again, if you are not happy, that is maybe another discussion worth, but I just do not like to twist it here to unfair and subjective stewarding when the stewards did nothing wrong.

It will always be a situation that will have to be evaluated by the stewards on a case-by-case basis.

No, it was not and will not be like this.

Nope this is the right thread, pintless having a thread for every little aspect of the same incident.

The documents from the 2021 Austrian GP suggest that the drivers didn't lift sufficiently, not that they didn't lift. Why is it that they lifted and got punished? Because your rationale is not correct.

So what I'm asking for, is documentary evidences of what is "sufficient" or "Substantial". Either you can show this, or you can't. You're opinion on it is moot unless you can demonstrate any kind of method of measurement or determination.

The application of the rule is subjective across races (Austria speeds vs Qatar Speeds). Sainz doing 283kph doesn't get penalised but at 260kph or so at Austria you do get a stop go. Why?

The application of the double waved yellows is highly subjective, even in the race itself where it was both a double waved, and then no yellow and at other races there has been nothing shown for some debris, or just a single yellow.

Double yellows seem to merit a similar lift as a single yellow yet the rules show quite a different set of circumstances, in that one can have people exposed on track with the implication that life is also on the line, yet there is little difference in what is expect from the drivers. Because they are subjectively applying their own appreciation of the danger.

Race control knew it was just a mirror that is what deemed certain speed reductions OK, in their subjective opinion. But what if in that moment someone was also climbing over the fence to get on track? Red flags can only be called by Race Control. Marshalls can not red flag a race, they just present it under instruction and so double yellow is the most serious warning available to a Marshall. A lift is not an acceptable response to a double yellow to any individual with common sense.

That is why Double yellows represent a much higher level of danger to life. The current application and reactions to the double yellow flags is open to interpretation in so many ways that in some quite real circumstances it could be dangerous. A double yellow should rely on no more information from anyone to qualify it or what is safe. It shouldn't rely on a driver knowing or being told it is debris or that it is a person. It means one thing, "substantially reduce your speed", which no one can define

[mwillems]

Interestingly, I just discovered this was being looked at last year by the FIA.

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-d ... flag-zones

What is of particular interest is that it is talking about the double yellows that are shown under a VSC. The two are not exclusive as someone was trying to use as a reason for lifting being sufficient. The implication being that there may be exposed individuals and there needs to be a defined maximum speed limit in that area. The FIA have noted themselves that speeds in double yellow flags need much higher reduction in speed, but this only becomes available when there is a VSC and it is shown within the delta time on the drivers wheel. All because the double yellow is there to represent to the drivers a potential danger to life, theirs and others.

[basti313]

The documents from the 2021 Austrian GP suggest that the drivers didn't lift sufficiently, not that they didn't lift. Why is it that they lifted and got punished? Because your rationale is not correct.

You are expressing a very strong opinion for very weak facts. Similar to the persons on track this is just wrong, they did no lift. Back then also Sergio Perez, Carlos Sainz, Pierre Gasly, Charles Leclerc, Antonio Giovinazzi, and Daniel Ricciardo were under investigation because of the sector times. All of them showed a lift in the telemetry, the two punished drivers not.

It seems like you have a problem with a rule no one else has a problem with. Not even Lando, not even McLaren.

"subjective"

I think your definition of subjective and objective is weird/wrong. I am not here to discuss wordings just for the sake of discussion.

Again: The claims here were a clear accusation of the stewards. Unfair, unbiased and impolite. That is what I do not like.
Enough time and topics to criticize the stewards in case of the usual grey area crashes and fights. But in this clear case it is just bad manners.

[DChemTech]

The documents from the 2021 Austrian GP suggest that the drivers didn't lift sufficiently, not that they didn't lift. Why is it that they lifted and got punished? Because your rationale is not correct.

You are expressing a very strong opinion for very weak facts. Similar to the persons on track this is just wrong, they did no lift. Back then also Sergio Perez, Carlos Sainz, Pierre Gasly, Charles Leclerc, Antonio Giovinazzi, and Daniel Ricciardo were under investigation because of the sector times. All of them showed a lift in the telemetry, the two punished drivers not.

It seems like you have a problem with a rule no one else has a problem with. Not even Lando, not even McLaren.

"subjective"

I think your definition of subjective and objective is weird/wrong. I am not here to discuss wordings just for the sake of discussion.

Again: The claims here were a clear accusation of the stewards. Unfair, unbiased and impolite. That is what I do not like.
Enough time and topics to criticize the stewards in case of the usual grey area crashes and fights. But in this clear case it is just bad manners.

I am, and it seems you are too if you judge my definition being weird or wrong (unsubstantiated, by the way).
(MW dictionary)
Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. [...] of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

As soon as words like 'significant', 'substantial' or other qualitative rather than quantitative terms come into play, it is inherently influenced by opinions. My understanding of objective/subjective is not wrong.

Again: That something is subjective and always will be does not mean I accuse the stewards of anything. In fact I have stated -countless times- that I agree with their opinion on this matter. But that does not make it objective in the least!

[basti313]

I am, and it seems you are too if you judge my definition being weird or wrong (unsubstantiated, by the way).

In the quote above you wanted a "measure" to accept something as objective. This is just wrong and not in agreement with the definition you quote. There is not a single word on "measure" in the quote.

There is the wording "facts". And the instructions to the drivers are that they have to lift. That is an objective fact. I am not sure, why you try to ignore this. And there is no definition on how much is a lift. A lift is a lift, period. That is a fact and nothing else.

As soon as words like 'significant', 'substantial' or other qualitative rather than quantitative terms come into play, it is inherently influenced by opinions.

That is why F1 uses general, racing and race director instructions to define such things.

Again: That something is subjective and always will be does not mean I accuse the stewards of anything. In fact I have stated -countless times- that I agree with their opinion on this matter. But that does not make it objective in the least!

That was not aimed at you. It is what some here try to make out of it and strongly do it for example in the McLaren thread.
The whole discussion does not make any sense, it is objectively clear and the discussion is just there to accuse the stewards. Please let them not pull you into this nonsense to delegitimate the penalty.
I already wrote, please split it off. The double yellow rule is a nice topic. Also parts lying on the track are a nice discussion. This is and will be ignored, not because it makes sense, but just because the agenda is clearly not discussing security.

[DChemTech]

I am, and it seems you are too if you judge my definition being weird or wrong (unsubstantiated, by the way).

In the quote above you wanted a "measure" to accept something as objective. This is just wrong and not in agreement with the definition you quote. There is not a single word on "measure" in the quote.

There is the wording "facts". And the instructions to the drivers are that they have to lift. That is an objective fact. I am not sure, why you try to ignore this. And there is no definition on how much is a lift. A lift is a lift, period. That is a fact and nothing else.

As soon as words like 'significant', 'substantial' or other qualitative rather than quantitative terms come into play, it is inherently influenced by opinions.

That is why F1 uses general, racing and race director instructions...

A lift is a lift, but precisely adding the adverb "significant" makes it subjective - now the question is "by how much", and lacking a quantitative statement, that is open to interpretation.

The notion that measure or quantity is not literally in the quote does not change that for a rule to be objective it must be measureable. That is implied by the "without interpretation", which qualitative terms like 'significant' are inherently subject