2024 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix - Yas Marina, Dec 06 - 08

[Waz]

Geezuz, FIA stewards are beyond ridiculous now. It's not that Hulk gets a penalty for something they're allowed to do every other race, it's that Russell has escaped a penalty yet again.

[Waz]

Ofcourse it's like that ..
My god, why don't they just decide beforehand in March who deserves to be wdc/wcc !?

Let's quit the conspiracies. This is a clear cut rule break (same with Lando in Qatar). You're not allowed to overtake in the pit exit of Abu Dhabi. The drivers were briefed on this in the driver briefing.

Hulkenberg and Haas are, unfortunately, the makers of their own misfortune here.

Sorry, but the FIA/FOM has/have been meddling in the championship outcome since at least the 90s, if not before. As soon as money got involved. Believe anything else is naive.

[BMMR61]

So with the swansong for several drivers tomorrow it's a time for a few regrets. Bottas showed today that he is still a very quick F1 driver. Carlos proved himself Mr Reliable for Ferrari despite their lack of loyalty - he will sadly, probably never again feature in a Grand Prix despite all he has achieved for the Scuderia. Three of the four Red Bull driver roles are unannounced going into 2025, does anyone thinks that is fair on their drivers who have no options? Ocon has permitted Renault (I refuse to use that stupid name) to squeeze him out of his seat for the last race of his contract, and, yes, I know his bone-headed racecraft has been the issue. Let's just enjoy a closing scene of a great 2024 unfold at a less than brilliant circuit, expecting McLaren will now, in all probability, clinch their first title since 2008. And let's chill enough to forget about highly unlikely conspiracies that have dogged F1 since the "Drive to Survive" generation of fans arrived.

[hollus]

Who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory /pukes/, and maybe the stewards might have some british bias, but coparing Russell today to Verstappen last race is comparing apples to bricks.
Verstappen was 16 seconds outside his time delta:
https://www.racefans.net/2024/12/06/rus ... osive-row/
Russell today was not and physically moved out of the track when he could to make space. He had placed himself in a very inconvenient place, though.

[pipoloko]

Who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory /pukes/, and maybe the stewards might have some british bias, but coparing Russell today to Verstappen last race is comparing apples to bricks.
Verstappen was 16 seconds outside his time delta:
https://www.racefans.net/2024/12/06/rus ... osive-row/
Russell today was not and physically moved out of the track when he could to make space. He had placed himself in a very inconvenient place, though.

I still dont get it
Verstappen was penalized for blocking another driver during a preparation lap, nearly causing a collision.
Why wasn't George Russell penalized when he almost caused a dangerous crash with another driver during their hot lap?
Why wasn’t the Haas driver penalized for blocking Charles Leclerc?
Why wasn’t Sergio Pérez penalized for blocking Carlos Sainz (if I’m correct)?
Why are preparation laps treated as more important than hot laps, where cars are at full speed?

[hollus]

But traffic ruining laps has always existed. It is part of the logic behind the 20-15-10 system. Now, being 16 seconds slower than you are allowed to be puts you in a different category from "random unintended blockage".

Let me quote the key passage in teh racefans article above, as it might be hard to find:

When they reached the first Safety Car lines to begin their final flying laps, only one of the trio was outside the 100-second limit. Alonso took 94 seconds, Russell pushed it almost to the limit, taking 98, and Verstappen took 118. That was what led the stewards to look into whether he had slowed “unnecessarily” during the lap, and found he had.

[chrisc90]

Was Max not 16seconds ABOVE the delta? Hence going slow? I cant see Max being 16seconds too slow on a lap. Thats just mega amounts.


Although Qatar quali chat aint the place for this topic.

[Oleo]

But traffic ruining laps has always existed. It is part of the logic behind the 20-15-10 system. Now, being 16 seconds slower than you are allowed to be puts you in a different category from "random unintended blockage".

Let me quote the key passage in teh racefans article above, as it might be hard to find:

When they reached the first Safety Car lines to begin their final flying laps, only one of the trio was outside the 100-second limit. Alonso took 94 seconds, Russell pushed it almost to the limit, taking 98, and Verstappen took 118. That was what led the stewards to look into whether he had slowed “unnecessarily” during the lap, and found he had.

So am I reading this right? He was 18 seconds slow at the end of the lap, after being passed by alonso and after being passed by russell, causing probably a loss of like 6 seconds each. So really at the relevant moment he was like 6 seconds slow?

[Ben1980]

Who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory /pukes/, and maybe the stewards might have some british bias, but coparing Russell today to Verstappen last race is comparing apples to bricks.
Verstappen was 16 seconds outside his time delta:
https://www.racefans.net/2024/12/06/rus ... osive-row/
Russell today was not and physically moved out of the track when he could to make space. He had placed himself in a very inconvenient place, though.

I still dont get it
Verstappen was penalized for blocking another driver during a preparation lap, nearly causing a collision.
Why wasn't George Russell penalized when he almost caused a dangerous crash with another driver during their hot lap?
Why wasn’t the Haas driver penalized for blocking Charles Leclerc?
Why wasn’t Sergio Pérez penalized for blocking Carlos Sainz (if I’m correct)?
Why are preparation laps treated as more important than hot laps, where cars are at full speed?

Max wasn't penalised for blocking, but driving too slow..

[FittingMechanics]

Was Max not 16seconds ABOVE the delta? Hence going slow? I cant see Max being 16seconds too slow on a lap. Thats just mega amounts.


Although Qatar quali chat aint the place for this topic.

I'm surprised this is still not clear. Race director prior to the weekend says what the slowest "legal" lap is on the track. This means that you can't slow down too much on the cooldown lap because it would be dangerous.

Max went outside this limit (slower than allowed) by 18 seconds. Others kept it within the limits.

This happens sometimes, for example if you are close to the limit but then there is a massive queue of cars waiting to start the lap. Or if you are close to the limit and couple of fast cars come around so you have to slow down even more. Stewards seems to have thought that Verstappen abused this limit and gained an advantage and in doing so made it more dangerous for other drivers.

Maybe harsh but that laptime they have to make is there for a reason.

[Ben1980]

But Max likely gets just a reprimand if he didn't get in the way of George. Who was only within his delta by 2 seconds.

[Farnborough]

I don't feel the stewards have been at all cognizant of their own process here in regard to driver personality and the views of those drivers.

Don't think it can argued that Verstappen was outside the directive layed down by pre~event briefing and rules combination. That can't really be in dispute.

In regard to any penalties decided, George SHOULD have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the decisions in judgment. He didn't even need to be called there at all.

Its purely up to the stewards to decide IF there's any mitigation to be given (they have all the footage to examine) by considering the rules breach and listening to Verstappen.

To bring George in, effectively placing him as some sort of prosecution lawyer is extremely niave from the stewarding point of view.

Thereby generating the friction we see now. George is incidental in this process and should not have been part of that meeting.

The question for the stewarding element is only to decide the penalty handed out for a clear breech.

It was not a 50/50 decision of apportioning blame here, George was not under suspicion and therefore not a part of the ongoing process between MV, RB and stewards.

If it's a clear breech of anything in rules, that can't be in contention if clear and incontrovertible evidence is there. However that may have come to the attention of stewarding team.

They made the decision about Lando, while wearing big boy pants without interviewing either driver, they need to observe the same sense of application in other scenario.

IF they felt that George was in any way potentially driving without care in approaching Max (he'd of had warning from his team, presumably as part of his prep) then that should have been considered separately to it's own conclusion, not combined and taken as some influencing " evidence" in prosecution of an undeniable breech of rules, which is the core of this incident.

It's literally like putting two dogs in a fight, then being surprised when they realise its got a little bit vicious.

[Gillian]

I don't feel the stewards have been at all cognizant of their own process here in regard to driver personality and the views of those drivers.

Don't think it can argued that Verstappen was outside the directive layed down by pre~event briefing and rules combination. That can't really be in dispute.

In regard to any penalties decided, George SHOULD have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the decisions in judgment. He didn't even need to be called there at all.

Its purely up to the stewards to decide IF there's any mitigation to be given (they have all the footage to examine) by considering the rules breach and listening to Verstappen.

To bring George in, effectively placing him as some sort of prosecution lawyer is extremely niave from the stewarding point of view.

Thereby generating the friction we see now. George is incidental in this process and should not have been part of that meeting.

The question for the stewarding element is only to decide the penalty handed out for a clear breech.

It was not a 50/50 decision of apportioning blame here, George was not under suspicion and therefore not a part of the ongoing process between MV, RB and stewards.

If it's a clear breech of anything in rules, that can't be in contention if clear and incontrovertible evidence is there. However that may have come to the attention of stewarding team.

They made the decision about Lando, while wearing big boy pants without interviewing either driver, they need to observe the same sense of application in other scenario.

IF they felt that George was in any way potentially driving without care in approaching Max (he'd of had warning from his team, presumably as part of his prep) then that should have been considered separately to it's own conclusion, not combined and taken as some influencing " evidence" in prosecution of an undeniable breech of rules, which is the core of this incident.

It's literally like putting two dogs in a fight, then being surprised when they realise its got a little bit vicious.

Exactly

[search]

Magnussen is under investigation for a not-allowed pit lane start. Not exactly a happy place for Haas this weekend.

[venkyhere]

I don't feel the stewards have been at all cognizant of their own process here in regard to driver personality and the views of those drivers.

Don't think it can argued that Verstappen was outside the directive layed down by pre~event briefing and rules combination. That can't really be in dispute.

In regard to any penalties decided, George SHOULD have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the decisions in judgment. He didn't even need to be called there at all.

Its purely up to the stewards to decide IF there's any mitigation to be given (they have all the footage to examine) by considering the rules breach and listening to Verstappen.

To bring George in, effectively placing him as some sort of prosecution lawyer is extremely niave from the stewarding point of view.

Thereby generating the friction we see now. George is incidental in this process and should not have been part of that meeting.

The question for the stewarding element is only to decide the penalty handed out for a clear breech.

It was not a 50/50 decision of apportioning blame here, George was not under suspicion and therefore not a part of the ongoing process between MV, RB and stewards.

If it's a clear breech of anything in rules, that can't be in contention if clear and incontrovertible evidence is there. However that may have come to the attention of stewarding team.

They made the decision about Lando, while wearing big boy pants without interviewing either driver, they need to observe the same sense of application in other scenario.

IF they felt that George was in any way potentially driving without care in approaching Max (he'd of had warning from his team, presumably as part of his prep) then that should have been considered separately to it's own conclusion, not combined and taken as some influencing " evidence" in prosecution of an undeniable breech of rules, which is the core of this incident.

It's literally like putting two dogs in a fight, then being surprised when they realise its got a little bit vicious.

well said. Summarized succinctly.
Except it was a bulldog and a fox, not two dogs.