2020 Russian Grand Prix - Sochi Autodrom, September 25 - 27

[El Scorchio]

Personally I think the team should have just been fined, the loophole closed, and that be the end of it. I think Mercedes and Hamilton have every right to be a bit peeved about the penalty.

the aim of doing those starts where he did is to get better feel of how the clutch bites on a non-rubbered-in surface, it is easier to get wheel spin if practices before on a very grippy surface, which is why he didn't do it where the rest did, this gives a potential and quite substantial racing advantage

a fine would then mean that you basically bought some extra performance at little (relative) cost

hence stewards deciding on in race penalty, subtracting the added points was the right move IMO

The way the rules are written he didn't break them though. The stewards only defined the actual area when they awarded the penalty. Incredible.

When you put it like that, it just sounds really shady doesn't it! Make up a reason to penalise someone, then make up a penalty for it, which 100% affects the outcome of the race. Not to mention what Salo allegedly did by leaking the decision before it was officially communicated, which has all sorts of serious implications. Very surprised this hasn't been picked up. Not to mention all this was decided by a Finn and benefitted a Finnish driver. You really have to wonder about integrity.

[SiLo]

Personally I think the team should have just been fined, the loophole closed, and that be the end of it. I think Mercedes and Hamilton have every right to be a bit peeved about the penalty.

Hamilton especially, seen as he asked the team if it was OK to do so and they said yes. As far as he was concerned he did everything by the book and to get hit with a double penalty and have the race taken away from him is a bit crazy. The stewards needed a bit of perspective and the punishment really didn't fit the crime.

I feel a lot about this the way I did about the Haas cars when they got pinged for those radio transmissions and pitting on a formation lap. That was a transgression of the rules as they are written but so what? It really just amounted to a strategy change and wasn't a big deal until the stewards got involved. That one wasn't even on any sort of safety grounds. It just felt like semantics to me.

Completely agree. I wouldn't say pit strategy is driver coaching. I really think there needs to be a big overhaul of the rules from someone that is sensible.

[adrianjordan]

I agree with those saying that an in race penalty for this was unfair. Time penalty added on to race time after the race, fair enough. But Hamilton's actual penalty will have been way more than 10 seconds because it threw him back into traffic. Plus, there was no way to appeal the decision.

[adrianjordan]

Does anyone know where Hamilton was on track when the VSC was called?

I was just wondering whether he could have pitted for fresh tyres and gone balls to the wall to the end to try and get a 1-2 or even for the win?

[SiLo]

Does anyone know where Hamilton was on track when the VSC was called?

I was just wondering whether he could have pitted for fresh tyres and gone balls to the wall to the end to try and get a 1-2 or even for the win?

I thought the same, but he would have had to be right at the pit exit to make it work. It was only out for about 15 seconds.

[f1jcw]

It is looking like for Salo, the **** is hitting the fan





Translation of the first

Yesterday's head of the arbitration committee, former pilot Mika Salo, may be in trouble.

It turned out that Salo leaked the verdict to the Finnish press 10 minutes before Hamilton's sentence was officially announced. Finnish media also shared the issue with the audience BEFORE THE RACE BEGIN.

2) It is rumored that Mika received warnings about this when he was a reporter in the past.

Betting companies were uncomfortable with yesterday's issue.

This situation will not please the FIA.

[jz11]

When you put it like that, it just sounds really shady doesn't it! Make up a reason to penalise someone, then make up a penalty for it, which 100% affects the outcome of the race. Not to mention what Salo allegedly did by leaking the decision before it was officially communicated, which has all sorts of serious implications. Very surprised this hasn't been picked up. Not to mention all this was decided by a Finn and benefitted a Finnish driver. You really have to wonder about integrity.

I'm seriously straining myself not to point out that both Salo and Bottas are also fair skinned...

[El Scorchio]

When you put it like that, it just sounds really shady doesn't it! Make up a reason to penalise someone, then make up a penalty for it, which 100% affects the outcome of the race. Not to mention what Salo allegedly did by leaking the decision before it was officially communicated, which has all sorts of serious implications. Very surprised this hasn't been picked up. Not to mention all this was decided by a Finn and benefitted a Finnish driver. You really have to wonder about integrity.

I'm seriously straining myself not to point out that both Salo and Bottas are also fair skinned...

Skin colour has --- all to do with it. Don;t know why you'd want to bring that up. Probably says more about you than anything else. It's probably an unfortunate coincidence that Salo and Bottas are both Finnish and one made an unprecedented decision which handed the other a much needed race win, but it's not a great look, objectively.

[El Scorchio]

It is looking like for Salo, the **** is hitting the fan





Translation of the first

Yesterday's head of the arbitration committee, former pilot Mika Salo, may be in trouble.

It turned out that Salo leaked the verdict to the Finnish press 10 minutes before Hamilton's sentence was officially announced. Finnish media also shared the issue with the audience BEFORE THE RACE BEGIN.

2) It is rumored that Mika received warnings about this when he was a reporter in the past.

Betting companies were uncomfortable with yesterday's issue.

This situation will not please the FIA.

Good. If he did what is claimed, then it's somewhat akin to insider trading. I'm not surprised betting companies and others would be furious.

[mrluke]

When you put it like that, it just sounds really shady doesn't it! Make up a reason to penalise someone, then make up a penalty for it, which 100% affects the outcome of the race. Not to mention what Salo allegedly did by leaking the decision before it was officially communicated, which has all sorts of serious implications. Very surprised this hasn't been picked up. Not to mention all this was decided by a Finn and benefitted a Finnish driver. You really have to wonder about integrity.

I'm seriously straining myself not to point out that both Salo and Bottas are also fair skinned...

Skin colour has --- all to do with it. Don;t know why you'd want to bring that up. Probably says more about you than anything else. It's probably an unfortunate coincidence that Salo and Bottas are both Finnish and one made an unprecedented decision which handed the other a much needed race win, but it's not a great look, objectively.

Even giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming it has nothing to do with it...

They are naive to prosecute the person who is currently the most outspoken in the sport with regard to inequality on what is at best a grey area.

Its not a good look, it just feels like retaliation, you made us look bad in Mugello with your tshirt stunt so we are making sure you don't win. If you don't get in line we will ban you from a race.

How come Hamilton gets points every time he touches another car? We saw leclerc put stroll into the wall today with not even an investigation.

As I said, even if race has absolutely nothing to do with it, FIA are doing a very good job of making Ham's case for him.

[bosyber]

If you abort the corner early the angle of approach is shallow, if you abort later the angle is much more difficult and younhave to slow down much more to have a chance to make it. Sainz was a bit too greedy in trying to keep speed. He should have cut his losses.

Having said that, the concrete wall there needs to be removed. Or a different way to rejoin needs to be thought up as this is too dangerous.

I have no doubt this will be changed next year.

Might have missed anyone elses response to this - yeah, so if you just ignore the corner you might be fine, can go at full speed, or maybe a bit slower, not losing much, but if you work to try and get it, but can't quite manage (like Grosjean), you lose a lot of pace; Sainz too should have slowed down, might have made that - too tight - turn, but again, why if you only bail out halfway do you lose more.

And then there's the fact that between that - unprotected, because intended to be well behind the safety asphalt and so not meant to have fast cars come close - wall that protects the marshalls and the track there's only a few meters space and a foam thingy to stop any car/debris from 'entering' the track, causing problems, which means that effectively this diversion makes missing the corner and joining the track more dangerous than without it. It is just not fit for purpose.

[epo]

Hamilton and his team made mistakes and got punished, Hamilton apparently doesn't know anything about the rule book, so yeah also his fault. And if you give those time penalties then also give to penalties to his license. Because he now is playing oh i'm the victim and they are searching me, fo please.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Personally I think the team should have just been fined, the loophole closed, and that be the end of it. I think Mercedes and Hamilton have every right to be a bit peeved about the penalty.

the aim of doing those starts where he did is to get better feel of how the clutch bites on a non-rubbered-in surface, it is easier to get wheel spin if practices before on a very grippy surface, which is why he didn't do it where the rest did, this gives a potential and quite substantial racing advantage

a fine would then mean that you basically bought some extra performance at little (relative) cost

hence stewards deciding on in race penalty, subtracting the added points was the right move IMO

A racing advantage? Can you send me a link to where that's mentioned in the stewards decision? As far as I know, the penalty was purely for being "out of position", there was zero mention of a racing advantage.

This is the wording in the official documents released by the stewards:

Breach of the FIA International Sporting Code Article 12.1.1 (i), failure to follow the
instructions contained in the Event Notes (v3) item 19.1, practice start location at
13:35 and Article 36.1 FIA Formula 1 Sporting Regulations.

The driver performed the practice start near the end, but directly in the pit exit. Art 36.1
requires drivers to use constant throttle and constant speed in the pit exit other than in
the place designated for practice starts in the Event Notes item 19.1., which is defined
as the place ”on the right hand side” after the pit exit lights (and is not part of the track
as defined by lines) which has been known to all competitors and used without
exception.

The part in brackets which I've highlighted in bold is NOT mentioned in 19.1 of the event notes, it was added by the stewards after when issuing the penalty.

[bonjon1979]

Does anyone have the overhead view of Hamilton's practice starts, he seemed to be over on the right hand side as the rules require? Maybe he's further to the left than it looks?

[jz11]

Personally I think the team should have just been fined, the loophole closed, and that be the end of it. I think Mercedes and Hamilton have every right to be a bit peeved about the penalty.

the aim of doing those starts where he did is to get better feel of how the clutch bites on a non-rubbered-in surface, it is easier to get wheel spin if practices before on a very grippy surface, which is why he didn't do it where the rest did, this gives a potential and quite substantial racing advantage

a fine would then mean that you basically bought some extra performance at little (relative) cost

hence stewards deciding on in race penalty, subtracting the added points was the right move IMO

A racing advantage? Can you send me a link to where that's mentioned in the stewards decision? As far as I know, the penalty was purely for being "out of position", there was zero mention of a racing advantage.

This is the wording in the official documents released by the stewards:

Breach of the FIA International Sporting Code Article 12.1.1 (i), failure to follow the
instructions contained in the Event Notes (v3) item 19.1, practice start location at
13:35 and Article 36.1 FIA Formula 1 Sporting Regulations.

The driver performed the practice start near the end, but directly in the pit exit. Art 36.1
requires drivers to use constant throttle and constant speed in the pit exit other than in
the place designated for practice starts in the Event Notes item 19.1., which is defined
as the place ”on the right hand side” after the pit exit lights (and is not part of the track
as defined by lines) which has been known to all competitors and used without
exception.

The part in brackets which I've highlighted in bold is NOT mentioned in 19.1 of the event notes, it was added by the stewards after when issuing the penalty.

do you really need a steward to tell you that practicing start on a surface that has better relation to to the surface you are going to start on start finish straight is a racing advantage?

or you expected them to write absolutely all the points layed out here in this discussion in their official ruling statement? which clearly has little effect on convincing people that wording matters over the idea behind the rule, so why bother?