2025 Bahrain Grand Prix - Sakhir, April 11 - 13

[Cs98]

Ridiculous judgement. As if you need to gain an advantage to be penalized. NOR didn’t gain 3 spots because he started 10cm ahead of his box.

Max touching Lewis car didn’t gain or lose anything for either car.

Unserious.

If Russell would get DSQ for it then so would Leclerc. He had a similar experience with DRS opening well outside of the drs zones in this race

Nor, Rus and Lec all had drs on in the wrong spot, and it was due to Rus car being broken. I’m not sure why other drivers should be penalized for rus car being broken

They all broke the DRS rules, and there's no rule about malfunctioning third party transponders. The real inconsistency here is why only Russell was investigated? Why are the red cars avoiding the same level of scrutiny for breaking the same rule? It clearly states in article 22.1 that DRS may only be activated in the designated zones. Slam dunk but they got some of that international assistance.

[Seanspeed]

If Russell would get DSQ for it then so would Leclerc. He had a similar experience with DRS opening well outside of the drs zones in this race

Nor, Rus and Lec all had drs on in the wrong spot, and it was due to Rus car being broken. I’m not sure why other drivers should be penalized for rus car being broken

They all broke the DRS rules, and there's no rule about malfunctioning third party transponders. The real inconsistency here is why only Russell was investigated? Why are the red cars avoiding the same level of scrutiny for breaking the same rule? It clearly states in article 22.1 that DRS may only be activated in the designated zones. Slam dunk but they got some of that international assistance.

It's unbelievable that people are still pushing this conspiracy about the FIA favoring Ferrari in 2025. smh We'll of course ignore the largely unnecessary safety car that ruined Leclerc's race strategy? Ridiculous confirmation bias at work.

Also Leclerc's malfunction happened in a place where it wouldn't have benefited him at all(quite the opposite). And even Russell ultimately wasn't penalized.

[bluechris]

Nor, Rus and Lec all had drs on in the wrong spot, and it was due to Rus car being broken. I’m not sure why other drivers should be penalized for rus car being broken

They all broke the DRS rules, and there's no rule about malfunctioning third party transponders. The real inconsistency here is why only Russell was investigated? Why are the red cars avoiding the same level of scrutiny for breaking the same rule? It clearly states in article 22.1 that DRS may only be activated in the designated zones. Slam dunk but they got some of that international assistance.

It's unbelievable that people are still pushing this conspiracy about the FIA favoring Ferrari in 2025. smh We'll of course ignore the largely unnecessary safety car that ruined Leclerc's race strategy? Ridiculous confirmation bias at work.

Also Leclerc's malfunction happened in a place where it wouldn't have benefited him at all(quite the opposite). And even Russell ultimately wasn't penalized.

Correct, and to add to that, all the SCs always favor Ferrari

[bananapeel23]

Nor, Rus and Lec all had drs on in the wrong spot, and it was due to Rus car being broken. I’m not sure why other drivers should be penalized for rus car being broken

They all broke the DRS rules, and there's no rule about malfunctioning third party transponders. The real inconsistency here is why only Russell was investigated? Why are the red cars avoiding the same level of scrutiny for breaking the same rule? It clearly states in article 22.1 that DRS may only be activated in the designated zones. Slam dunk but they got some of that international assistance.

It's unbelievable that people are still pushing this conspiracy about the FIA favoring Ferrari in 2025. smh We'll of course ignore the largely unnecessary safety car that ruined Leclerc's race strategy? Ridiculous confirmation bias at work.

Also Leclerc's malfunction happened in a place where it wouldn't have benefited him at all(quite the opposite). And even Russell ultimately wasn't penalized.

Not to mention the fact that Ferrari has literally been disqualified twice this season.

[Cs98]

Nor, Rus and Lec all had drs on in the wrong spot, and it was due to Rus car being broken. I’m not sure why other drivers should be penalized for rus car being broken

They all broke the DRS rules, and there's no rule about malfunctioning third party transponders. The real inconsistency here is why only Russell was investigated? Why are the red cars avoiding the same level of scrutiny for breaking the same rule? It clearly states in article 22.1 that DRS may only be activated in the designated zones. Slam dunk but they got some of that international assistance.

It's unbelievable that people are still pushing this conspiracy about the FIA favoring Ferrari in 2025. smh We'll of course ignore the largely unnecessary safety car that ruined Leclerc's race strategy? Ridiculous confirmation bias at work.

Also Leclerc's malfunction happened in a place where it wouldn't have benefited him at all(quite the opposite). And even Russell ultimately wasn't penalized.

It's exactly as unbelievable as calling the FIA "unserious" for not penalising Russell when Leclerc wasn't even investigated for the same breach. The shameless team advocacy works both ways. In this case I just found it particularly ironic because Leclerc got off lighter than Russell but that still wasn't good enough to escape a scathing FIA performance review from mr dialtone (who definitely didn't want to see him penalised to see Leclerc move up the order)

[Seanspeed]

They all broke the DRS rules, and there's no rule about malfunctioning third party transponders. The real inconsistency here is why only Russell was investigated? Why are the red cars avoiding the same level of scrutiny for breaking the same rule? It clearly states in article 22.1 that DRS may only be activated in the designated zones. Slam dunk but they got some of that international assistance.

It's unbelievable that people are still pushing this conspiracy about the FIA favoring Ferrari in 2025. smh We'll of course ignore the largely unnecessary safety car that ruined Leclerc's race strategy? Ridiculous confirmation bias at work.

Also Leclerc's malfunction happened in a place where it wouldn't have benefited him at all(quite the opposite). And even Russell ultimately wasn't penalized.

It's exactly as unbelievable as calling the FIA "unserious" for not penalising Russell when Leclerc wasn't even investigated for the same breach. The shameless team advocacy works both ways. In this case I just found it particularly ironic because Leclerc got off lighter than Russell but that still wasn't good enough to escape a scathing FIA performance review from mr dialtone (who definitely didn't want to see him penalised to see Leclerc move up the order)

Well yea I wouldn't agree with that other person, either. But it doesn't have to be one or the other. You seemed to take his not greatly well argued post and simply made an opposing viewpoint that was arguably even more unreasonable.

Ultimately both drivers went unpunished for basically the same reason. But Russell was also the only one where the infraction could potentially have benefited him...

[Quantum]

You seemed to take his not greatly well argued post and simply made an opposing viewpoint that was arguably even more unreasonable.

Ultimately both drivers went unpunished for basically the same reason. But Russell was also the only one where the infraction could potentially have benefited him...

I'm trying to find the bit where using DRS outside the predefined activation zones requires "potential benefit" as a qualifier for starting an investigation

As it is written, and what happened for all to see, Leclerc should've been investigated too.

Alleged breach of Article 22.1 h) of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations –
Alleged usage of the DRS system outside the pre-defined activation zones.
The driver adjustable bodywork may only be activated by the driver in any of the predetermined activation zones around each circuit.

Unreasonable to me, is adding unsourced and unwritten metrics for initiating investigations of Article breaches. The only way it isn't unreasonable is if it's written in the rules that it's "ok to use DRS anywhere you like so long as you don't get a potential benefit" ....then we wont investigate you.
I can't find that written anywhere, so frankly it is an invalid excuse as per the article itself.

Also, I don't think Ferrari are being favoured by the FIA, I'll just make that clear so we understand each other.

What's far more important is why the stewards didn't pick up on the Ferrari when it is clear they should've.

[basti313]

You seemed to take his not greatly well argued post and simply made an opposing viewpoint that was arguably even more unreasonable.

Ultimately both drivers went unpunished for basically the same reason. But Russell was also the only one where the infraction could potentially have benefited him...

I'm trying to find the bit where using DRS outside the predefined activation zones requires "potential benefit" as a qualifier for starting an investigation

As it is written, and what happened for all to see, Leclerc should've been investigated too.

/quote]
No. Because it was not outside the DRS zone. They just got a wrong distance trigger because of the transponder sitting on the finish line. You could see this in live timing.

Russel on the other hand opened it on a wrong spot when he used the manual switch.

[Quantum]

No. Because it was not outside the DRS zone. They just got a wrong distance trigger because of the transponder sitting on the finish line. You could see this in live timing.

Russel on the other hand opened it on a wrong spot when he used the manual switch.

The corner was the DRS zone?




Russell was as a consequence of transponder failure too.
Which then went through Article 22.1 protocol of requesting manual override.

Additional: With the transponder issue affecting a host of cars, delved into the supplier but it's only listed as part that is "supplied by the official timekeeper appointed by the FIA".
Again this issue is not one where it should degrade into a FIA assisting Ferrari etc etc as I reiterate, I don't believe that to be the case.

What is an issue is how that transponder is to my opinion, the cause for all this. To the point of Russell needing to manually reset his steering wheel as the display went fully dead, and then led to the investigation. Consequently for Leclerc too, but without the investigation.

[Seanspeed]

You seemed to take his not greatly well argued post and simply made an opposing viewpoint that was arguably even more unreasonable.

Ultimately both drivers went unpunished for basically the same reason. But Russell was also the only one where the infraction could potentially have benefited him...

I'm trying to find the bit where using DRS outside the predefined activation zones requires "potential benefit" as a qualifier for starting an investigation

You're not new to F1, and probably not sports in general. So you'll know that in literally all sports, there are certain rules where leeway is given because it would be too ridiculous to enforce them with the utmost, uncompromising strictness. It's nothing new. The point of rules isn't inherently the strictness part itself, it's to create a fair and reasonable system of competition. Giving leeway in certain cases is more than understandable, it's necessary. If sports penalized every infraction that could technically be called, things would become ridiculous and unwatchable.

Russell was likely investigated because his DRS activated on a straight, where laptime can be gained. The investigation ultimately found that Russell overcorrected for the malfunction and actually lost more time overall, hence no penalty. Whereas with Leclerc the malfunction happened in a corner where there was never any potential for gain in the first place.

The whole situation was handled 100% reasonably. We dont always see that in F1, so we should commend them when things go right, not criticize them.

[Quantum]

The point of rules isn't inherently the strictness part itself, it's to create a fair and reasonable system of competition. Giving leeway in certain cases is more than understandable, it's necessary. If sports penalized every infraction that could technically be called, things would become ridiculous and unwatchable.

Russell was likely investigated because his DRS activated on a straight, where laptime can be gained. The investigation ultimately found that Russell overcorrected for the malfunction and actually lost more time overall, hence no penalty. Whereas with Leclerc the malfunction happened in a corner where there was never any potential for gain in the first place.

The point of the rules is that all competitors get order and and established set of parameters that promotes fairness.
It isn't observing an article being broken in 2 separate occasions and investigating one and not another. That is the antithesis to the point of rules right?
For example: Without the live timing both flouted article 22.1, that is simply factual.
Leclerc defence submissions predicated that Leclerc got no penalty because he didn't gain anything as proven by live timings, surely that then extends to Russell too right? He gave the time back in the very next corner with interest.
But that didnt happen.

Anyway not gonna harp on about it, I will submit that investigations need to align with the rules, and the same set of extenuating evidence (ie timing data) be used equally among competitors. That didn't happen in this instance.
Sure it worked out fine for them both, but the routes taken to get to the verdict were not the same.

Peace out yo