2023 United States Grand Prix - COTA, Oct 20 - 22

[Wouter]

[chrisc90]

You can only go back 14 days though.

Seriously expect nothing to come of it.

[organic]

Result stands, Haas protest rejected

[chrisc90]

No surprise there.

Although it’s new evidence. Not the fact the stewards missed things.

[TFSA]

Interesting thing to note regarding the dismissal, which is something that i argued with a few people upon on Reddit, is whether onboards (either the cars own, but specifically a car following another car) would suffice as evidence for track limit violations.

This dismissal makes it very clear that the Stewards will pretty much only accept fixed CCTV-footage in regards to determining track limit violations (which was also my argument).

From the decision (note that the "underlines" are in the decision itself, and is not something I've added to emphasize my point):

In relation to 21d, the footage is not relevant. As already noted in the ALB Decision (one of the
subjects of this review request) after the race, the evidence available to the Stewards (both
then and now) was not sufficient to accurately and consistently (meaning for every car in every
lap) penalize any [track limit] breaches occurring at the apex of Turn 6. Track limit
infringements are almost universally enforced based on principal video evidence from a fixed
CCTV camera of adequate resolution positioned to clearly see a car’s position in relation to the
track limit boundary. The CCTV camera for Turn 6 did not meet that standard as it did not
cover the apex of the corner. Because onboard cameras are only useful for verifying a breach
when viewing a car in front of the camera car and not the camera car itself, the Stewards
believed they could not accurately and consistently conclude whether a breach occurred for
every car on every lap. Anecdotal usage of trailing car video, which may or may not be
available for any given car’s potential breach at any given time does not meet that accurate
and consistent evidence standard.

[chrisc90]

Ermm....Havent the stewards used onboards to call out track limits before? Unless thats just F1/TV replay analysis.

[TFSA]

Ermm....Havent the stewards used onboards to call out track limits before? Unless thats just F1/TV replay analysis.

Who knows. They always say that they "reviewed video footage", not which footage.

But it seems like part of the argument is that the footage isn't always available. If Car A is being followed by Car B, and the car B onboard shows that Car A went off the track, they won't use that against Car A, because Car C - who is further behind, and not being followed by anyone - can't be checked like Car A can.

That's what they mean when they say the evidence have to be consistent: it has to be available for all cars at all times.

[mzso]

As usual the FIA makes an even bigger joke of themselves.

[Juzh]

They just making things up as they go.

[TFSA]

As usual the FIA makes an even bigger joke of themselves.

Exactly what part of this decision is a joke?

First of all, the Stewards are independent of the FIA. That's why they, both in this rejection, but also in the post-track limit penalty document from Austria, have recommended that a more permanent solution is found. So this is not a decision from the FIA, but from the Stewards, and the Stewards are actually critisizing the FIA here in a way.

You can argue that the FIA are a joke besides this, but not in relation to this decision.

I personally don't find Stewards decision unreasonable here. If they don't have camera footage of all cars that live up to the requirements they've set (which is that the footage must be accurate and consistent), then it doesn't make sense for them to throw 10+ penalties at one car that just happened to have another car following it with a camera, while another car who was racing on its own got away with it.

I mean, imagine if Leclerc got 10 penalties in a race for track limits filmed by a car following him, while Verstappen, who is usually out front and quite a bit of time ahead of everyone else, escaped the same 10 penalties because no car was behind him to film him going off track. This would cause a big scandal. The Stewards are really just taking a fair approach here.

Finally, the teams and drivers were informed before the race that the FIA would be unable to police that corner. So everyone had the same opportunity to push the limits here.

They just making things up as they go.

Nothing here is made up as they go. We know before the race that the Stewards wouldn't be able to police the corner, and the requirements they've put out that the footage must be CCTV with a clear picture isn't unreasonable at all.

[ValeVida46]

I mean, imagine if Leclerc got 10 penalties in a race for track limits filmed by a car following him, while Verstappen, who is usually out front and quite a bit of time ahead of everyone else, escaped the same 10 penalties because no car was behind him to film him going off track. This would cause a big scandal. The Stewards are really just taking a fair approach here.

So you want consistency for all drivers and teams regardless of suspicion.

I mean, it would "cause a big scandal" if only some drivers were subject to Steward scrutiny, right?

[TFSA]

So you want consistency for all drivers and teams regardless of suspicion.

I mean, it would "cause a big scandal" if only some drivers were subject to Steward scrutiny, right?

No, because that's random at least. It can't be gamed. Anyone can be scrutinized at any point during a race weekend, and for any reason, it the FIA feels like it. That's a big difference.

However, if a driver knows that the only way to be done for track limits at Turn X is to have another car follow him and film it, he can plan around that. Pit into clean air and cut the track. Pull a gap. And then just start start cutting the corner at will.

So in short: it can be gamed.

Again, at least the rules were the same for everyone here. Teams and drivers were told beforehand that turn 6 didn't have camera coverage.

[ValeVida46]

No, because that's random at least. It can't be gamed. Anyone can be scrutinized at any point during a race weekend, and for any reason, it the FIA feels like it. That's a big difference.

However, if a driver knows that the only way to be done for track limits at Turn X is to have another car follow him and film it, he can plan around that. Pit into clean air and cut the track. Pull a gap. And then just start start cutting the corner at will.

So in short: it can be gamed.

Again, at least the rules were the same for everyone here. Teams and drivers were told beforehand that turn 6 didn't have camera coverage.

Interesting perspective given that we have evidence it was gamed, and it wasn't equally implemented.
Some drivers got penalised and others didn't.
We'll check some but not others. Random penalty for some, random let off for others.

It's pure farce how this can be.

[TFSA]

Interesting perspective given that we have evidence it was gamed, and it wasn't equally implemented.
Some drivers got penalised and others didn't.

Albon was penalized, but we don't know for which corner. He was the only driver penalized for track limits over the entire weekend. Two drivers were penalized in the sprint for overtaking off track and gaining a lasting advantage, but that was for turn 15.

Albon was cleared for turn 6 based on the evidence being insufficient.



In the Sprint Shooutout and the normal Qualification, nobody had lap times deleted for turn 6.

Edit: I initially indicated that nobody received penalties for Track Limits at the US GP, but that was incorrect. Albon did, as stated above, but it doesn't say it was for turn 6. So i apologize for that.

[ValeVida46]

Interesting perspective given that we have evidence it was gamed, and it wasn't equally implemented.
Some drivers got penalised and others didn't.

Incorrect. Nobody received a penalty for Track Limits at the US GP (two cars received penalties in the sprint for overtaking off the track, but both was for turn 15), and nobody had lap times deleted in the Sprint Shootout or the Quali at turn 6.

Albon was investigated for turn 6, but the result was "No further action", based on the exact arguments that the evidence wasn't sufficient without CCTV.

https://i.imgur.com/MLXro9t.png

It was noted that one or more cars in the race had lap times deleted for turn 6 infringement in the race itself, but it doesn't say which cars, and we can't know which TV footage was used. Maybe the FIA did have some CCTV-footage that was useable depending on where and how the car went off-track.

If you're gonna argue it's a farce, at least get the facts strait.

*Straight

35 lap times got deleted for track limit infringements.
https://www.racefans.net/2023/10/27/fru ... %20corner.

Giving excuses and derailment to narrow criteria doesn't change the facts.
It's that bad even the Stewards are ridiculing the FIA for their farcical governance.
But hey, what would they know.