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

[i70q7m7ghw]

No, the fast lane is not defined like this. Actually there is not even an official rule where it ends or starts. But it does not matter, as the fine was for stopping on track. And this has nothing to do with 19.1 or 19.2.

It's drawn on the pitlane map in the event notes, so yes it is defined like that.

No, there is no end indicated.

It's called the pit exit line? Otherwise how do they know when to turn the pit limiter off? And the penalty specifically cites a breach of 19.1, go and read the stewards notes and the Event Notes before you comment further rather than making the regulations up yourself.

EDIT: Here let me help you, this map shows the PIT LANE Starts, and the PIT LANE Ends location. It then shows where the FAST LANE is located within the pit lane. The fast lane does not and cannot extend beyond the pit lane. ALSO, it's irellevant because 19.2. was not mentioned as part of the stewards decision.

[i70q7m7ghw]

In the text they write the "stopping on track" article.

Here let me help you:



It doesn't say "stopping on track" anywhere in this document, it cites a breach of 19.1 from the Event Notes as the reason for the penalty.

[dans79]

It's drawn on the pitlane map in the event notes, so yes it is defined like that.

No, there is no end indicated.

It's called the pit exit line? Otherwise how do they know when to turn the pit limiter off? And the penalty specifically cites a breach of 19.1, go and read the stewards notes and the Event Notes before you comment further rather than making the regulations up yourself.

You might need to post a screenshot of the diagram from the race director's notes to put an end to this. if not I think this is just going to go around and around and around in a circle.

[Just_a_fan]

No, the fast lane is not defined like this. Actually there is not even an official rule where it ends or starts. But it does not matter, as the fine was for stopping on track. And this has nothing to do with 19.1 or 19.2.

It's drawn on the pitlane map in the event notes, so yes it is defined like that.

No, there is no end indicated.

The fast lane is defined in the Sporting Regulations. As can be seen, the fast lane only exists in the pit lane. I have highlighted it for ease of reference.

28) PIT ENTRY, PIT LANE AND PIT EXIT
28.1 The section of track between the first safety car line and the beginning of the pit lane will be
designated the “pit entry”.

28.2 The section of track between the end of the pit lane and the second safety car line will be
designated the “pit exit”.

28.3 At no time may a car be reversed in the pit lane under its own power.

28.4 The pit lane will be divided into two lanes, the lane closest to the pit wall will be designated the
"fast lane" and may be no more than 3.5 metres wide, the lane closest to the garages will be
designated the "inner lane".

Other than when cars are at the end of the pit lane under Articles 36.2 and 41, the inner lane is
the only area where any work can be carried out on a car. However, no work may be carried out
in the fast lane if it is likely to hinder other cars attempting to leave the pit lane.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Also for the avoidance of doubt, here's what article 36.1 of the sporting regulations says. This is describing the speed and throttle in the pit lane heading to the exit, not beyond the exit where drivers are allowed to release the limiter and travel at any speed. If you interpret it as such, that would mean any driver speeding up after the pit exit line would also be in breach of this regulation, which is clearly not what it means.

36) STARTING PROCEDURE
36.1 40 minutes before the start of the formation lap the pit exit will be opened and all cars, including
any that are required to start the race from the pit lane, will be permitted to leave the pit lane
to cover a reconnaissance lap. Should any driver wish to cover more than one reconnaissance
lap, this must be done by driving down the pit lane at greatly reduced speed between each of
the laps. If a driver stops in his pit between reconnaissance laps the car may only re-join the
track by being driven from the driver’s garage and not from his pit stop position.
At the end of these laps all cars starting the race from the grid should stop on the grid in starting
order with their engines stopped.
All drivers going to the pit exit at this time must do so at a constant speed and with constant
throttle. This applies over the whole of the pit lane whether a driver is going to the pit exit from
his garage or travelling through the pit lane between reconnaissance laps.
Any car which does not complete a reconnaissance lap and reach the grid under its own power
will not be permitted to start the race from the grid.
Once pit exit is opened, no more than forty two team personnel for each Competitor are
permitted on the grid.

[jz11]

and I only saw him stopping once, I don't even know where the second place he stopped was, but I'm guessing it was something similar, else they wouldn't apply the second penalty

The Stewards indicate where he carried out the second start in their notification of the incident. It might be worth reading those documents before arguing about them for multiple pages?

my mistake wording it like that, I see people here are extremely keen on how exactly something is written and just plain ignore the thought behind it - which, if you did follow my posts about this, would indicate I was talking about his second stop (I think it was second, because there is nothing but track after the one I did see) at the end of pit exit, and by "second place he stopped" was supposed to be written by me "other place he stopped", which technically would be the first one, and I just looked up the wording of the documents you referred to, and they both say the same thing without being very specific where the first and the second one took place

so, please, tell me, where did he do the first one? where can I SEE it, not read about it

to be absolutely clear, this is the place I was talking about that I did see, but haven't seen the other one
https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2020/ ... start.html

[PlatinumZealot]

Something I found strange, is Sebs crash in qualli.
He just had a big knock, but wanders out into the track to retrieve his front wing, which incidentally his team mate has just run over.

I don't recall a driver ever doing this before? They usually get behind the barrier. In fact, they are usually shepherded behind the barrier, but he walks on track and examines the main piece?
What would he be thinking? Especially as the other Ferrari has just destroyed it.

The foil hat explanation is he wanted to see something on it, or he did not want something seen on it.

The sensible answer is he wanted to clear the track, but he was out anyway. Head fuzzy due to the bump? or something 'wrong' suspected with his wing?

His way apologizing to the team I suspect. He was literally picking up the peices of his derailed campaign.

[PlatinumZealot]

stopping at a completely blind corner exit where cars behind you may come at 150-200km/h is gray area to you Phil?

clearly my English skills are too weak to convey what I think about this, and I don't think I'll be able to debate this any longer in a way I won't regret later and probably get a message from one or more moderators here afterwards, so I'll just stop here

If it were completely blind How did Hamilton look in his wing mirrors to see when the track was clear?

Watch this video you can clearly see around the corner and Hamilton is checking his mirrors with his car angled to do just that.

https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2020/ ... start.html

Why fabricate things when you can check the facts.

You have clearly lost credibility in this discussion and I suggest that you cease and desist.

[PlatinumZealot]

What's interesting in this discussion is the difference in people's familiarity/intuitions about how regulations should be written.

One comparison I think is apt is that engineers are trained or intuit 'defensive thinking', which is widget X should be protected against failure mode Y. However, a field like computer security is trained to think adversarially - is widget X protected against a motivated attacker exploiting Y. After working with some security folks I've noticed this distinction and find it quite deeply held/trained.

(this is not a comment on Hamilton, but a suggestion for people to try and wear the other hat and think through how regulations could be written if a person is more familiar with one style of analytic thinking as compared to the other)

As a good engineer you have to consider all faliure modes and scenarios that you can think of. If time and resources are limited you focus on the scenarios that you can afford and then the one that has the biggest impact.

How can someone misuse this equipment? What can this equipment to bring grievous bodily harm? Can expect to nail 100% of the things.. But at least they try..

On the other side of the coin the Stewards clearly are not good at thinking of different scenarios pro-actively. They tend to be more reactive in their governance.

[dans79]

On the other side of the coin the Stewards clearly are not good at thinking of different scenarios pro-actively. They tend to be more reactive in their governance.

The VSC being the biggest example of the last decade!

[nzjrs]

What's interesting in this discussion is the difference in people's familiarity/intuitions about how regulations should be written.

One comparison I think is apt is that engineers are trained or intuit 'defensive thinking', which is widget X should be protected against failure mode Y. However, a field like computer security is trained to think adversarially - is widget X protected against a motivated attacker exploiting Y. After working with some security folks I've noticed this distinction and find it quite deeply held/trained.

(this is not a comment on Hamilton, but a suggestion for people to try and wear the other hat and think through how regulations could be written if a person is more familiar with one style of analytic thinking as compared to the other)

As a good engineer you have to consider all faliure modes and scenarios that you can think of. If time and resources are limited you focus on the scenarios that you can afford and then the one that has the biggest impact.

It's really not quite that. A widget can be perfectly well designed and it's failure modes can be non-amplifying, neutral or absent. But when the widget is used with express adversarial intent then it is not strictly speaking a failure mode and wouldn't even be registered by most engineers most of the time.

It's really a different way of thinking and it's developed certain aspects of my professional engineering. Its also basically mandatory if you do anything internet related sadly.

[jz11]

stopping at a completely blind corner exit where cars behind you may come at 150-200km/h is gray area to you Phil?

clearly my English skills are too weak to convey what I think about this, and I don't think I'll be able to debate this any longer in a way I won't regret later and probably get a message from one or more moderators here afterwards, so I'll just stop here

If it were completely blind How did Hamilton look in his wing mirrors to see when the track was clear?

Watch this video you can clearly see around the corner and Hamilton is checking his mirrors with his car angled to do just that.

https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2020/ ... start.html

Why fabricate things when you can check the facts.

You have clearly lost credibility in this discussion and I suggest that you cease and desist.

funny thing about this, I asked previously - did anyone pass him while he was there, and I remember being told no, no one did, I just 3 cars doing that, not race conditions of course, yet funny non the less

a blind corner is a corner where you don't see what is at its exit and the corner in Sochi is just that, no marshals with white flags, not straight like in Monza, both of which were used as the "opposition" as direct examples, yet somehow I'm wrong about this corner being blind and lose all credibility? and of course at some point you will see what is at the exit

so who is making stuff up right now?

also, the lowest form of discussion is attacking the other side personally ignoring the point, which is very much what you are doing here, think about it before you tell someone to go away because they have no credibility

so, no one still with a link to a video where we can see both of Hamiltons practice starts?

[dans79]

also, the lowest form of discussion is attacking the other side personally ignoring the point, which is very much what you are doing here, think about it before you tell someone to go away because they have no credibility

Two points:

1. you are doing exactly what your are complaining about
2. didn't you say you weren't going to debate this anymore?

[jz11]

also, the lowest form of discussion is attacking the other side personally ignoring the point, which is very much what you are doing here, think about it before you tell someone to go away because they have no credibility

Two points:

1. you are doing exactly what your are complaining about
2. didn't you say you weren't going to debate this anymore?

I'm not debating the issue, I'm asking where can I see the other practice start

and I didn't try to discredit anyone and tell them to go away, except inquiring if Diesel is really thick, that is my worst offense as far as I can see, I also didn't make things up by calling a blind corner not blind, because part way through you can see exit

[dans79]

and I didn't try to discredit anyone and tell them to go away, except inquiring if Diesel is really thick, that is my worst offense as far as I can see, I also didn't make things up by calling a blind corner not blind, because part way through you can see exit

What's blind and what's not is very much an opinion not a fact, yet your argument is your opinion is the only correct one.

In my opinion a blind corner is one where I can't possibly avoid an incident until it's to late.