2019 Italian Grand Prix - Monza, Sep 06 - 08

[nokivasara]

It's amazing how Ferrari managed to screw things up for themselves once again. In Q3 they had planned to use one to tow the other and did so with VET towing LEC and then after the red flag they had oceans of time to go out and let LEC go first to help Vettel but no, they too played the waiting game. For what? Nothing.
I get that going out earlier just would have prompted Merc to go out after them but the reds still had a pretty good shot at locking out the front row. Classic Ferrari tactics really.

You are right that they shot themselves in the foot, but equally everybody else did. I think most had a good chance on improving their times.

True. But for Ferrari this is not the place for screw-ups like this, can you imagine the uproar if they didn't have LEC in P1 and both missed out on the last lap?

[turbof1]

17 drivers got what they got because they literally drove to slowly which is easily verifiable via GPS. If one of those drivers can prove via his GPS data that he didn't drive to slowly then he should appeal.

Honestly, this is something that is 100% quantifiable, yet it seems far too many people are responding in a emotional manner.

FIA F1 sporting regulations:

27.4 At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be
deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.

"unnecessarily slowly" is not quantifiable defined. It does not matter if you are driving 300km/h, or 50km/h. You can in theory be deemed unnecessarily driving slow for both. Therefore appeal looks to be very difficult to do. Again, I think it is more than applicable here, aside even the 151c catch all rule.

a directive was given before the weekend that drivers must not go slower than 1:45 per lap. That's seems pretty quantifiable and verifiable to me.

They can still deviate from it. Extreme example: if one goes sit 10s still on the straight and after that blast towards the finish line to get the lap done in 1:45, do you think that makes him exempt from being punished under 27.4? A directive does not work exclusive, nor is it actually a fully legislative piece. It represents the director's "opinion". A directive has always been quite in a grey area regarding regulatory power for that matter.

[dans79]

FIA F1 sporting regulations:

"unnecessarily slowly" is not quantifiable defined. It does not matter if you are driving 300km/h, or 50km/h. You can in theory be deemed unnecessarily driving slow for both. Therefore appeal looks to be very difficult to do. Again, I think it is more than applicable here, aside even the 151c catch all rule.

a directive was given before the weekend that drivers must not go slower than 1:45 per lap. That's seems pretty quantifiable and verifiable to me.

They can still deviate from it. Extreme example: if one goes sit 10s still on the straight and after that blast towards the finish line to get the lap done in 1:45, do you think that makes him exempt from being punished under 27.4? A directive does not work exclusive.

I didn't see the directive directly, but I would assume it's similar to red flag and virtual safety car scenarios where the timing is done per mini sector between marshalling stations. If that is the case, then it would be hard to escape punishment given your scenario above.

[turbof1]

a directive was given before the weekend that drivers must not go slower than 1:45 per lap. That's seems pretty quantifiable and verifiable to me.

They can still deviate from it. Extreme example: if one goes sit 10s still on the straight and after that blast towards the finish line to get the lap done in 1:45, do you think that makes him exempt from being punished under 27.4? A directive does not work exclusive.

I didn't see the directive directly, but I would assume it's similar to red flag and virtual safety car scenarios where the timing is done per mini sector between marshalling stations. If that is the case, then it would be hard to escape punishment given your scenario above.

This was the first time I heard about that directive, so I don't know either. I'm not going to bother with trying to assume what is in exactly, although mini sector times seem a good assumption. Again though, a directive does not work exclusive. More I can't say about it; I always found that directives not being made public is a very untransparent way to do things. Again, it also represents the race director's opinion. There is always openings and grey areas in there.

[dans79]

More I can't say about it; I always found that directives not being made public is a very untransparent way to do things.

it's the FIA, I don't think I've ever heard of or dealt with an organization more opaque.

[Restomaniac]

It's amazing how Ferrari managed to screw things up for themselves once again. In Q3 they had planned to use one to tow the other and did so with VET towing LEC and then after the red flag they had oceans of time to go out and let LEC go first to help Vettel but no, they too played the waiting game. For what? Nothing.
I get that going out earlier just would have prompted Merc to go out after them but the reds still had a pretty good shot at locking out the front row. Classic Ferrari tactics really.

TBH Vettel sounded a little pissed off in the post qualifying interviews. I tend agree with him and can see his and his point alone. The rest of them need dragging into line.
He made the valid point that nobody gave him a tow in the first run. But when it was his turn he found himself in front of his team mate and towards the front of the pack again I just couldn’t decided it it was aimed at the full grid or his team.

[turbof1]

More I can't say about it; I always found that directives not being made public is a very untransparent way to do things.

it's the FIA, I don't think I've ever heard of or dealt with an organization more opaque.

Let us agree on that

[El Scorchio]

Again, another situation where is worded with enough ambiguity to be open to interpretation. Wiggle room for the decision and rule makers.

In their defence, although this has been coming, when it arrived it was a bit unprecedented if also predictable.

I like the red light in the pit at 3 minutes or a set time depending on circuit to get everyone out as a solution should this look likely to happen again.

Again like the weird idea I posted earlier, I love a bit of theoretical blue sky thinking so indulge me. Maybe if necessary have everyone drive to a delta and maintain certain gaps on the outlap. If you need to somehow dictate what order the cars need to be in, then so be it.

Back in the real world, let the teams and drivers know that the expectation is to have them avoid what happened here again and leave it in their hands. If they can’t manage, then come up with something which will manage the situation. As said. I think it was amusing and novel to see it once, but you don’t want to see more and more qualifying sessions gravitate toward this situation.

It is fascinating and maybe unique in F1 and motorsport though, the way changing rules and specification to solve one problem will inadvertently and almost unfailingly manage to open a random Pandora’s box somewhere else.

[Restomaniac]

More I can't say about it; I always found that directives not being made public is a very untransparent way to do things.

it's the FIA, I don't think I've ever heard of or dealt with an organization more opaque.

I think we can all agree on that.

With regard to your point about a team being able to leave the pit lane with a second on the clock. Yes that is true but then they don’t get a qualifying lap in. That’s the point you seem to be missing in this if I may be so bold. You seem to be getting hung up on the rules instead of using logic.

When they ALL leave it that late to go out there was never a way for them all to get out and then do their tyre warm ups, battery charging, leaving space, etc and then all make the line no matter what happened at the front. As such if it didn’t happen at the start of the lap they would of been climbing all over each other at the end of it. When leaving it that late it was always going to end up as a circus show just by the mathematics of it. The transcripts show that because drivers were being told how tight it was before they had even left the pits. There just wasn’t the time as they had all been caught navel gazing.

[Sieper]

There is only one driver who benefitted massively.

[NathanOlder]

There is only one driver who benefitted massively.

Obviously Sainz as he got another run in

[dans79]

That’s the point you seem to be missing in this if I may be so bold. You seem to be getting hung up on the rules instead of using logic.

The discussion has been about who and why people should or shouldn't get penalties, the rules are the only thing that matter in this case.

[Phil]

As far as I go, everybody waited until the last moment to get out, just to get a tow. I'm not singling anyone out because the 3 drivers (and I think you'd agree it actually was 5 drivers at certain points being in front and blocking) could have been any random 3 drivers. It's not like Hamilton, Albon or Ricciardo would have done any different in that situation, trying to slow down so others would go in front (and oh yes, there were more than enough opportunities for that. It's not like the blocking happened across the whole outlap). Number one rule in a greed fest: it is always a team effort.

I have bad news: there is no rule that teams have to go out for a second run in Q3. They can, but are under no obligation to do so. Us spectactors arent ‘owed’ a climax. So as far as i see it, there is no requirement to point fingers and ask for penalties. As far as blocking; again, if you leave it that late and 9 cars go out with a margin of 40 seconds, pretty much everyone is screwed anyway, given they dont have the time to do the outlap that is probably required to bring the tires into the optimal temperature nor the space. They took the risk and for most it worked out alright (they got the position they wanted, mainly Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault). Pretty much the only loser here was RedBull with Albon.

[turbof1]

That’s the point you seem to be missing in this if I may be so bold. You seem to be getting hung up on the rules instead of using logic.

The discussion has been about who and why people should or shouldn't get penalties, the rules are the only thing that matter in this case.

Regardless of agreeing or disagreeing, I do think we need to have a good look at the rules should we wish to avoid this kind of farce in the future. The rules do need to represent logic, regardless of what we believe that logic is.

[turbof1]

As far as I go, everybody waited until the last moment to get out, just to get a tow. I'm not singling anyone out because the 3 drivers (and I think you'd agree it actually was 5 drivers at certain points being in front and blocking) could have been any random 3 drivers. It's not like Hamilton, Albon or Ricciardo would have done any different in that situation, trying to slow down so others would go in front (and oh yes, there were more than enough opportunities for that. It's not like the blocking happened across the whole outlap). Number one rule in a greed fest: it is always a team effort.

I have bad news: there is no rule that teams have to go out for a second run in Q3. They can, but are under no obligation to do so. Us spectactors arent ‘owed’ a climax. So as far as i see it, there is no requirement to point fingers and ask for penalties. As far as blocking; again, if you leave it that late and 9 cars go out with a margin of 40 seconds, pretty much everyone is screwed anyway, given they dont have the time to do the outlap that is probably required to bring the tires into the optimal temperature nor the space. They took the risk and for most it worked out alright (they got the position they wanted, mainly Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault). Pretty much the only loser here was RedBull with Albon.

You are late to the party.

I'm not going to reiterate everything I said again. It's not productive and at one point we do need to move on. Look at my comments regarding 27.4 sportings regulations and 151c international sporting where I believe (emphasis on "I believe!" that's a personal opinion, nothing more) the breaches have been made. And of course you can't punish people for getting out late. That's not what I was getting at either (above all else, my biggest gripe is the share general greed that enabled this situation which puts the sport in a bad daylight).

Again, no matter what mine or your opinions are, I do think most of us agree, aside any discussion about current rules, this should be avoided in the future. I don't necessarily care how or what. I have ideas how they can avoid this without necessarily sacrificing the greed (because it isn't bad entertainment), but others might have better or more interesting ideas.