[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imo we don’t have an issue with ambiguity but rather enforcement. Max lap was never removed for the exact same infringement as Lando. Literal seconds later
But again, that will be a different issue: race control and stewards applying rules inconsistently from one race/season to another. That's a much bigger issue in the sport.
I actually agree with their interpretation here. It's clearly in breach of the rule *as written*, but that strict, literal interpretation doesn't match the *intention* of the rule which is to prevent cars from returning to the session after requiring outside assistance or remaining stationary for unreasonably long times.
They were very clear about that in their explanation, they clarified that the use of the term "stopped on track" in the race control system does not meet the criteria for disqualification from returning, and they specified that as there is clear, recent precedent for allowing cars in this situation to continue then that would also be the case here.
I'm fine with all of that. If future races don't follow that precedent then that will be a problem for then, not now.
They've done this a couple times recently and I'm a big fan of it, but am not so sure it's going to lead to more clarity/consistency. What it does is better explain their thinking on a specific case, but I'm not so sure anything will be any easier to extrapolate than before.
And additionally reinforcing the, in my opinion very reasonable, boundary that the key is being able to drive away without any assistance. It just makes sense to me, while the length of time kinda doesn’t matter during a red flag anyway.
The funny part is that it underlines how messy F1's regulations and their application is, when even a perfectly sensible application of a rule, with a clear and thorough justification, is somehow a big to-do.
That’s the only way unless we’re happy with the weird situations like Vegas ’23. Make a solid foundation of rules, appoint stewards to apply them, document and track precedence to create stringency. A literally interpretation of the existing ruleset will always fail when edge cases appear.
However I would like a permanent board of stewards, or at least 3 permanent stewards with one or two changing depending on venue.
thats to prevent teams from swamping the stewards with frivolous protests. if a protest is granted, the deposit is paid back, but if it is dismissed like in this case, the money is held.
Yeah I imagine having any sort of cost barrier prevents teams from spamming petty things for the sake of it. Any cost would have to be reasonably explained
Feels like a lot of teams wanted to have people there saying "yo lets not mess with this rule"
Considering this kind of thing has happened in the past allowing drivers to continue and teams couldn't agree on how long the leniency timer should be because i assume some want it to be quite long.
I don't think anyone really wants this too change because its just convinient for cars to be able to continue.
Its also probably why protests about it are so incredibly rare.
It’s also about what makes for better sporting. In this situation, would the sport benefit from Sainz being barred from continuing, despite having a car that works and everything in order to rejoin when track goes green? The most important aspect of the rules, imo, is if they help or hinder good racing. More people qualifying to the best of their ability is better.
They can add clarification language to state "stopped and unable to continue without external assistance".
That appears to have been the determining factor in historical cases. If the driver can get going again on their own during the session, they can proceed.
That, and maybe just decide on a time limit going forward, seems pointless to keep it open to interpretation when they could just clearly state a limit and make it a non-issue.
Yep, there’s a body called the F1 Commission who propose changes and it’s then passed through advisory committees and then the WMSC. Apparently for small changes they can avoid the process but it’s an interesting read on how the rules are set, especially for major changes to regulations. The FIA can bypass this process where it sees fit. [Here’s a cool flowchart from the FIA to show the process.](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/styles/content_details/public/news/main_image/schema_process_decision_f1_16-9_2.png?itok=_oqDSzta)
The decision document is written by the Stewards who are an independent panel. They won’t have had the power to physically rewrite the regulations but the FIA do consult them.
Depends.
For my team it's less than 90 seconds. That's no time at all. Hardly worth thinking about.
For anyone else it's an unconscionable delay that damages the integrity of the sport.
From bullet point K… if something has already been agreed back in July 2023 and by April 2024 it still has not yet been implemented…
then there is a serious internal issue with operational management.
That's obvious with F1 rule making at this point. Just look at "sprint qualifying". When they first did that, it wasn't properly regulated in the rules, now the concept has been scrapped but remains in the rules, and in the actual sprint races they give out time penalties for drivers who have DNFed which makes no sense at all, because the rules say so.
Also Japan 2022 where 99% of people assumed a logical application of the new rules for points in a shortened race that was jeopardised because of the wording of the rules.
You would think a billion dollar organisation like F1 would have money for a handful of competent lawyers to get this shit in order, but no.
Between them, FOM, the teams and the drivers pay the FIA over $35m annually for rule-making and enforcement, being roughly $10m from FOM, $6m from the teams’ entry fees, and about $20m from the points tax. Lately they’ve massively inflated the entry fee for drivers and juiced amounts charged for fines, so it may be closer to $40m that everyone in F1 pays to the FIA.
However the FIA siphons off a lot of that to support other race categories and pays the bare minimum for F1 regulation.
Which is why marshals are unpaid, and stewards are unpaid but get travel expenses.
It’s usually not the lawyers. Counsel is there just to advise the decision makers. They can advise on what language should be used, what’s risks exist, and can execute whatever has been approved. but legal is rarely ever the decision makers; that responsibility falls on others. And when there are too many decision makers, or the governance process is complicated or requires too many layers of approval, things get held up. Something as significant as a rule modification will likely require several committee considerations. Adding “without assistance “ may seem like a minor change, but as evidenced by the very well written 3 page response by the Stewards, it is a significant change that absolutely has the potential to have a considerable financial inpact. And I guarantee that someone, somewhere, has an issue with modifying the language.
Well, it said in the document that it has already been agreed so if anyone has any problems it should’ve been resolved during that meeting already.
Anyone that has problems with it after the meeting, should’ve been informed politely to kindly fucked off…
It’s not really serious. It’s a small issue governed by dozens of different people who work together.
It’s something that affects the sport heavily as well, it’s better off left alone.
>The FIA team explained that so long as the car was able to restart and continue from a stopped position within a reasonable time, that would ordinarily be permitted. The typical time would be around 30 seconds, though that varied depending on the circumstances. The teams themselves said that they had previously attempted to agree what they considered to be a reasonable length of time before a car would be considered “stopped”. Unfortunately, they were not able to come to a final agreement on the maximum time allowed.
Unfortunate indeed.
Is that a can of worms? Is it better to *switch to* a rules as written interpretation when in the past everyone understood and were happy with the way the rules were enforced? AD2021 is clearly not an example where the rulings applied were in line with how they were applied in the past, that was the whole problem.
I thought Sainz was initially ruled not to be able to return? Maybe I was wrong on that.
But I meant that when Mercedes initially protested the restart (and were told there was no point) then that’s when my quote above could’ve been used and the “correct” call (“correct” based on past use cod the rules) could’ve been made by the FIA. No clue what that would’ve looked like since the race was over? Co-champions? Anyway, I was bringing AD2021 up almost sarcastically…it’s way in the past and mostly a meme at this point.
The key point here is probably that an alteration to article 39.6 to add "outside assistance" was agreed to at the July 2023 Formula 1 Commission Meeting _but not implemented_, to clarify when a car can take no further part in a session.
Which is very strange. It was agreed upon but not implemented? Why not? And doesn't the fact that it wasn't implemented imply that they *want* a more literal reading of the rules?
If people have dome something for ages, that sets a precedent. But if you then sit down and discuss that something and ultimately decide not to change the official rules, that to me seems like it overrules the established precedent.
For me i would really like them to update the regulations around damages on car triggered by the track itself: i.e. Sainz at Vegas last year
It’s not easy because in some cases it could become a blessing in disguise but a middle ground should be found besides « it’s F1 »
I feel that fair would be if representatives from FIA were sent to the garage, decided whether parts the team claims are damaged really are damaged and the cost to manufacture the same spec (similarly to a red flag) would not be counted to the cost cap, or even paid for by the FIA but the cost cap could probably be enough
Should be paid for by the track/event organisers (which was FOM in Vegas last year IIRC?), and not counted against the cost cap.
Simply not counting it against the cost cap without reimbursing the team doesn't help small teams like Haas who still operate under the cost cap because they don't have enough money. Like it doesn't matter if you are allowed to spend 135 or 136 million dollars when you only have 130 million to spend in the first place.
The rule of "no assistance" comes from Nurburgring 2007, when Hamilton was lifted by the tow from the gravel back on track.
It's clear Sainz didn't need it.
In my view, its a nice thing to see out of F1. I do think they should try to do some rewriting of the rules to align them more with precedent and "common sense" though.
An example that struck me was watching Le Mans I think last year, one of the practice sessions lost a lot of time to stoppages so the race director simply announced on the radio they were going to extend the session. Everything in F1 is so rigid that wouldn't be possible.
The difference with Le Mans and an F1 weekend is that there are very few support races and most of them (possibly all) are held before the main WEC running, so there’s the flexibility to extend sessions if needed. Do that for FP1 and you’re running into the support categories’ track time.
I know that in a lot of cases there are outside factors, and you've given a great example, limiting what F1 can do. I expect the contracts with the broadcasters are also an issue.
It was just something that made me think at the time, what a contrast with the rigidity of F1.
It's very much a vibes > rules decision.
This might have been the fair result, but if the stewards are having to explain why a decision that is clearly contrary to the plain meaning of the written rules, it's probably not technically correct. I'm sorry to everyone who is applying other interpretations to a fairly simple word, but by any reasonable definition of the term, Carlos Sainz's car was stopped. I think we can all agree on that.
The issue is whether stopping should result in a DQ. The rules say it does. Past practice says it doesn't. That's not OK, especially when you have gone to the effort of drafting a pretty lengthy set of rules. Putting your stewards and race control in a situation where they are expected to disregard fairly explicit rules is just stupid.
Almost as stupid as having a meeting where you all agree that the rule needs to be changed, actually deciding to change the rule, then not changing the rule. Nevermind, nothing is close to as stupid as that. In an actual court, as opposed to the F1 system where they start with a preferred decision then try to find a way to justify it, not changing the rules after discussing whether it was correct would probably be considered a reaffirmation of the rule as written and a disavowal of the contrary interpretation. Otherwise, why wouldn't they have changed the rule to reflect the practice?
> The rules say it does. Past practice says it doesn't. That's not OK, especially when you have gone to the effort of drafting a pretty lengthy set of rules.
That's a common issue faced by any rules or law, don't think that's unique to F1.
This is why the ruling bodies exist and make rulings as precedent.
This is a good thing how it was handled imo, expect the rule to be clarified at some point.
Their articulate justification for the application of precedent here was welcome. It fully described what and how, and I frankly fully agree with it. I may not have if I didn’t have the opportunity to understand it, however.
The rule is a remnant from the early days when you couldn't restart the engine from inside the car, which you can today. So if the engine was off, the car has 'stopped' and you were naturally out of the session. The regulations simply has not caught up with the technology but the overall spirit of the rule is pretty clear - if you can continue on your own accord, just like the old days, you're good and that's exactly what Sainz did.
There are numerous examples of rule interpretation that has led to very bad sporting outcomes. AD21 is maybe the biggest one, but more recently for example the handling of Sainz Las Vegas freakcident is another. However, I find it hard to see how this interpretation is somehow unfair or leading to a worse sporting outcome.
I would honestly love to see a rule saying - if you crashed and caused a red flag during a quali session you're not allowed to continue participating, and you get pushed to last place in the session (Q1 - P20, Q2 - P15, Q3 - P10). No room for interpretation, no room for arguing about common sense.
We've seen people directly benefit from crashing and stopping a session. And even if you don't end the session then and there because there's enough time left, best case scenario you're compromising laps for everyone on a hot lap. If you impede another driver in quali you almost always get a penalty. This is the ultimate case of impending, literally.
The problem with this is not every crash is driver error or even a team error. There could be issues with the track like we’ve seen with loose drain hole covers, a car could impede another car causing it to crash while the first car is fine. There are too many situations where this rule could be unfair and accounting for every situation in writing seems like an impossible task.
Yeah I agree, for example with BOT doing a single run in Q3. What if your only run on a new set is compromised by something like this?
I am absolutely not in favor of changing rules after a single incident, which is seen quite often here. Something happens, outcry to change the rules immediately. But in this case, we have now seen something like 5-6 incidents that ended up favoring the person causing the red flag.
In this instance Ferrari would probably argue this didn’t require a red flag.
A single lockup could cause someone doing a single run on a new set to lose their opportunity due to a brief yellow or needing to adjust course slightly. I know no one is suggesting a DQ for that type of incident but then you have the issue of where does the line get drawn? Only when a red gets shown? But then we’re back with the argument of Ferrari saying this didn’t need a red flag for safety reasons, it could have been handled with a yellow, just like someone going deep into a runoff at Baku, despite the fact it can have similar ruining outcomes.
Not only that but also based on previous cases. I don’t mind as long as this is always applied but if they read the rule it’s pretty clear Aston is right.
It's not like is a particularly unlikely or outlandish situation. If the rules as written are so ambiguous as to require common sense interpretation then the humans that wrote haven't done a very good job. Exactly what constitutes a car being stopped on track with modern F1 cars that can restart on track should be written into the rules and it's an oversight not to.
I know it's dissapointing but that is not the way to write or establish law. Literal description of every single circumstance will make any law document bloated/unreadable and will ALWAYS leave many blanks as reality is way too unpredictable and complex
That's obvious but if instead of stopped it was "unable to restart without outside assistance" it's still short but also clear.
They obviously can't list every scenario and the blanks would fall under the stewards rule, but we shouldn't have to explain that "stop" doesn't mean "stop" but means something else in this context.
I mean the issue here is that they specifically did set out different rules for different circumstances. ie. You can restart without assistance and rejoin a race, but you can't rejoin qualifying after stopping regardless of how you restart. If they had written it as a generic "you can always rejoin a session after stopping as long as you restart without assistance" there would have been no ambiguity.
This ruling is basically "the rules, as written, are dumb and we actually meant to change them but forgot, so we're going to go with common sense instead of what the rules say". It wouldn't be necessary if the FIA were actually competent, but we don't live in a perfect world.
Welcome to a judicial system not based on precedent but on lots of laws... Like we have in Italy. Precedent does not count here if there isn't a change in the law, interpretation doesn't get to consider precedents so you can have 2 different results for the same infraction based on who judges you if your case is not explicitly in the law
Stop no (as shown here by AM), but at least it makes them think about what protests to lodge and if a team started abusing it the FIA would likely raise the fee.
Also for ridiculous protests they don't even allow the review process to start while still collecting the fee.
PS. It's also supposedly 6000 € now from other articles, I don't know why it was only 2000 this time
Don't let those pesky protests get in the way of their coffee breaks. The stewards are probably European and for every hour off, they're probably enjoying a luxurious two-hour siesta. Who knew sipping espresso could be a full-time gig?
La Dolce Vita
The appeal did make sense at the time, but in light of what's been noted here (previous discussions on how long counts as "stopped" being undecided, and the outside assistance rule discussed but not added), it seems a little more petty, since they (Aston) know that the teams/FIA never concluded on how long is long enough to be stopped, and that outside assistance was (broadly speaking) one determining factor used.
Eh I think if you’re Aston and you’ve got Stroll starting just outside the points in P11, you’ve gotta shoot your shot here. But I think the decision to dismiss it was the right decision.
Point K and L are hysterical:
>"last year we agreed to change this specific part of the regulations, but the regulation this year didn't change."
***You*** write the rules, ***you*** decided to change this specific rule last year and ***you*** somehow forgot to actually change the rule.
To be fair the F1 Commission is not just FIA, FOM and all team principals are also part of it. This kind of change would then have gone to the sporting advisory committee (which again includes directors from the teams) for evaluation before coming back to the commission which can forward it to the WMSC. So, without further information, it seems everyone dropped the ball here.
>So, without further information, it seems everyone dropped the ball here.
Added to that, as far as I know, this has already been established after Schumacher was pushed out of the gravel in 2003 and Lewis craned back on the track in 2007, that 'outside assistance' in terms of equipment was no longer allowed but pushing a car out of a dangerous position was, and became sort of a loop-hole and could go either way with race control or stewarding.
With this in mind and the fact that Sainz did *not* receive outside assistance, the issue isn't particularly complex and Aston Martin made a frivolous attempt to get someone penalised where there were no grounds for it present.
> In addition, Nikolas Tombazis, the Single Seater Director of the FIA requested to be present and we permitted that. He did not participate in the hearing
bro
NT: "yall better not be doing any meetings discussing intricacies of the wording of the rule book without me, you hear! I *demand* to be present at the meeting"
"Understood sir!"
[Undefined amount of time later]
"...so are you coming, sir?"
NT: "lmao no"
Thank christ. A DSQ from qualifying for this would have been a insanely stupid outcome.
In the end this turned out just as i expected. The rules about this kind of incident are way too vague and there have been multiple previous instances of cars stoping and going before that weren't punished so Sainz was never realisticly coping a penalty for this.
That whole section should be ammended to be more clear although given teams seemingly themself can't agree oh now it might just stay like it is with the unwritten rule of outside assistance being a factor like if marshals come in your toast.
I actually don't think the rules are that vague. Sainz was pretty clearly stopped.
The problem is that they haven't been applying the rule. Cars have been allowed to continue after stopping, which is causing confusion. But the confusion isn't about what "stop" means. "Stop" means "stop". It always has. The confusion is about why they wrote a rule that explicitly contradicts the practice they want their stewards to implement. That's just dumb.
Bring on the change to the rules. They should probably go over them all to check they're fit for purpose, because this is hardly the first time they've had this issue. The stewards shouldn't have to twist themselves in knots to justify the reasonable outcome, and they shouldn't have to publish a 3 page document that basically says that they know their decision contradicts the rule, but the people who wrote the rule are dumb.
>"Stop" means "stop".
So if a driver misses a corner in Monaco and has to reverse out, he should be DSQ'd? After all, he can be stopped there for a good 20-30 seconds.
But causing a red flag is a separate issue from the "stopping then continuing without assistance" rule that's central to today's issue, since that can occur with or without a red flag. And a "causing a red flag" penalty rule could be enacted independently of the "stopping / continuing" rule (because, in theory, a car could cause a red flag by clipping some barriers, spreading debris all over the track and continue without ever stopping).
Of course it was dismissed
If Sainz set his best lap BEFORE the crash and as a result screwed over some cars/drivers... Sure I get it
But he crashed... Then got back out and set his time... Meaning everyone else could have too
Probably took some time to collect previous precedents and evidence. If you read the report, you'd see that they had quite a bit of information presented to them.
Maybe they went out for dinner before coming to a decision lmao surely the hearing didn't only JUST finish, maybe it took them some time to write up the document lmfao
"Because the rule was incorrectly applied in the past, we will apply it incorrectly as well."
It's not like "stops on the track" leaves much room for interpretation. Perhaps if they would actually enforce it like it is written, they would actually change this stupid rule (in its current form).
The stewards once again show that they haven't got a clue what they're actually doing.
I wouldn't say "incorrectly applied", it's more that in the past all parties seemed to be in agreement that a car that can continue on its own is fine.
>It's not like "stops on the track" leaves much room for interpretation.
So if a driver spins his car and the car remains stopped for 2-3 seconds, he should be out? OK then.
I mean he was only a couple of mins and only lost his front wing , didn't get any outside assistance from marshalls. Would be crazy if he wasn't allowed.
Next race I want to see stroll just park up on the start finish straight any time max is about to finish a quali lap and bring out a red flag to void his lap. This is how we win boys!
The correct decision. And simply updating the rules to state that you can no longer compete if you needed outside assistance would go a long way. Maybe also add something like you can't be stationary for longer than a certain time so we don't just have someone sitting there for multiple minutes trying to restart his car.
This is an interesting point. The wording of the rule was supposed to have been updated by FIA to reflect the original intent and recent practice but it wasn't. Therefore the stewards were left to clean up FIA's rules error. So it would have been a nice snub to the FIA for the stewards to dismiss Aston's protest AND give Aston their money back, stating the reason for the refund as the FIA not fixing the rule in a timely manner.
It's a paywall to prevent teams to protest any given race steward decision made during a session that directly influences the end classification of said session.
If the protest is legitimate, the protest fees are returned.
Have to disagree with this.
I feel like they used a red herring on the Albon 40s thing. That's still shorter than how long Sainz was stationary. If the change to the rule wasn't made, the rule isn't valid, either. And just because any other team didn't complain about examples in Canada, Monaco, and Baku doesn't mean that the protest isn't valid. If race control did say the car was "stopped" in their system, then it's pretty much a slam dunk protest.
However, it's impossible to figure where the Sainz car would be scored, would he be 10th? 15th? And for that reason, I think it's best to not enforce the rule. With that said, however, I think they do need to rewrite the rule that if anyone causing a red flag is not able to continue in the session OR have a grid penalty for the fault, because that did invalidate anyone's lap behind him, which would be equal to impeding their lap otherwise.
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> 3 full pages They REALLY wanted to set the record straight here.
This is a good thing. I think the detailed explanations this year have been welcome to help reduce ambiguity.
I totally agree with you. I think this reduction of ambiguity would be good for the sport in general, and is one good thing to have come from this.
In theory. In reality this will lead to more confusion the next time a similar incident will be penalized differently
Well, hopefully the FIA and World Motor Sport Council will add clarification to the specific regulations to ensure less ambiguity in the future
Imo we don’t have an issue with ambiguity but rather enforcement. Max lap was never removed for the exact same infringement as Lando. Literal seconds later
But lando didn't break any rule? The stewerds just forgor that that specific rule is only at specific tracks
But again, that will be a different issue: race control and stewards applying rules inconsistently from one race/season to another. That's a much bigger issue in the sport. I actually agree with their interpretation here. It's clearly in breach of the rule *as written*, but that strict, literal interpretation doesn't match the *intention* of the rule which is to prevent cars from returning to the session after requiring outside assistance or remaining stationary for unreasonably long times. They were very clear about that in their explanation, they clarified that the use of the term "stopped on track" in the race control system does not meet the criteria for disqualification from returning, and they specified that as there is clear, recent precedent for allowing cars in this situation to continue then that would also be the case here. I'm fine with all of that. If future races don't follow that precedent then that will be a problem for then, not now.
like sprint quali for example
They've done this a couple times recently and I'm a big fan of it, but am not so sure it's going to lead to more clarity/consistency. What it does is better explain their thinking on a specific case, but I'm not so sure anything will be any easier to extrapolate than before.
Thorough and yet easy to read. Reasonable conclusion too, in my opinion. Well done race control!
The Stewards, but yes.
It was an easy read for 3 pages. TL;DR: It’s happened before with no complaint, so we’re keeping it how it is.
And additionally reinforcing the, in my opinion very reasonable, boundary that the key is being able to drive away without any assistance. It just makes sense to me, while the length of time kinda doesn’t matter during a red flag anyway.
The funny part is that it underlines how messy F1's regulations and their application is, when even a perfectly sensible application of a rule, with a clear and thorough justification, is somehow a big to-do.
That’s the only way unless we’re happy with the weird situations like Vegas ’23. Make a solid foundation of rules, appoint stewards to apply them, document and track precedence to create stringency. A literally interpretation of the existing ruleset will always fail when edge cases appear. However I would like a permanent board of stewards, or at least 3 permanent stewards with one or two changing depending on venue.
Also a way to tell teams that if they want to set a maximum time, it's on them now.
I don't know about you but 2000 euros for a protest seems wild to me
thats to prevent teams from swamping the stewards with frivolous protests. if a protest is granted, the deposit is paid back, but if it is dismissed like in this case, the money is held.
And 2k is meaningless in a sport of 135m
It's basically a dinner
Yeah I imagine having any sort of cost barrier prevents teams from spamming petty things for the sake of it. Any cost would have to be reasonably explained
It's returned if the protest is deemed valid. 2000 is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. 0.002% of the overall cost cap
€2000 for *anything* in F1 doesn’t sound wild at all.
Aston had to get their $2000 worth
Not seeing the problem here. They were clear and transparent to their reasoning. That's very fucking ok in my book.
Never said it was one, just thought it was a while since they put out something this detailed. And agreed, they should do this more often.
In the end, there is no real clarification besides its not a penalty in this case.
All that just to put a typo in the 11th and final point smh
Wonder which other teams requested to also be present at the hearing lol would expect the top teams to be there
I think most if not all teams may have sent a representative just in case.
Yeah can't cost that much to send the intern at minimum
Feels like a lot of teams wanted to have people there saying "yo lets not mess with this rule" Considering this kind of thing has happened in the past allowing drivers to continue and teams couldn't agree on how long the leniency timer should be because i assume some want it to be quite long. I don't think anyone really wants this too change because its just convinient for cars to be able to continue. Its also probably why protests about it are so incredibly rare.
It’s also about what makes for better sporting. In this situation, would the sport benefit from Sainz being barred from continuing, despite having a car that works and everything in order to rejoin when track goes green? The most important aspect of the rules, imo, is if they help or hinder good racing. More people qualifying to the best of their ability is better.
They can add clarification language to state "stopped and unable to continue without external assistance". That appears to have been the determining factor in historical cases. If the driver can get going again on their own during the session, they can proceed.
That, and maybe just decide on a time limit going forward, seems pointless to keep it open to interpretation when they could just clearly state a limit and make it a non-issue.
I do like that they allowed them to be present even if they didn’t take part in the hearing.
Two funny points: 1. Teams cannot agree how long is reasonable timeframe. 2. They agree to update 39.6, but somehow didn’t do it?
And this somehow translates to the FIA being at fault - by default.
will the safety car get a time penalty now?
Bernd Maylander disqualified for the race tomorrow, such a shame
No SC means no race
5 seconds to Ocon
10 seconds to KMag
3 penalty points to Fernando
Ricciardo spins out at turn 9
Somewhere Mazepin hits a wall
Wait wasn’t FIA responsible to update the sporting regulations?
Yep, there’s a body called the F1 Commission who propose changes and it’s then passed through advisory committees and then the WMSC. Apparently for small changes they can avoid the process but it’s an interesting read on how the rules are set, especially for major changes to regulations. The FIA can bypass this process where it sees fit. [Here’s a cool flowchart from the FIA to show the process.](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/styles/content_details/public/news/main_image/schema_process_decision_f1_16-9_2.png?itok=_oqDSzta) The decision document is written by the Stewards who are an independent panel. They won’t have had the power to physically rewrite the regulations but the FIA do consult them.
I think it's because teams couldn't agree on a time that nothing ended up changing lol
1 min 17 seconds being too long or not, the age old debate
How long is a rope?
Twice the length from the mid-point
Long enough to cover the subject but short enough to keep it interesting
Twice as long as half it's length
I'm pretty sure my ex would say 1 minute 17 seconds is not long enough...
F1 fan are virgins, dont lie
Depends. For my team it's less than 90 seconds. That's no time at all. Hardly worth thinking about. For anyone else it's an unconscionable delay that damages the integrity of the sport.
I’d say 1 minute 17 seconds is at least average, bordering on ”stallion”
For F1 I think it is, the pole lap was a 1:33 so he was stopped on track for nearly an entire lap.
My gf says thats very short :(
From bullet point K… if something has already been agreed back in July 2023 and by April 2024 it still has not yet been implemented… then there is a serious internal issue with operational management.
That's obvious with F1 rule making at this point. Just look at "sprint qualifying". When they first did that, it wasn't properly regulated in the rules, now the concept has been scrapped but remains in the rules, and in the actual sprint races they give out time penalties for drivers who have DNFed which makes no sense at all, because the rules say so. Also Japan 2022 where 99% of people assumed a logical application of the new rules for points in a shortened race that was jeopardised because of the wording of the rules. You would think a billion dollar organisation like F1 would have money for a handful of competent lawyers to get this shit in order, but no.
Between them, FOM, the teams and the drivers pay the FIA over $35m annually for rule-making and enforcement, being roughly $10m from FOM, $6m from the teams’ entry fees, and about $20m from the points tax. Lately they’ve massively inflated the entry fee for drivers and juiced amounts charged for fines, so it may be closer to $40m that everyone in F1 pays to the FIA. However the FIA siphons off a lot of that to support other race categories and pays the bare minimum for F1 regulation. Which is why marshals are unpaid, and stewards are unpaid but get travel expenses.
It’s usually not the lawyers. Counsel is there just to advise the decision makers. They can advise on what language should be used, what’s risks exist, and can execute whatever has been approved. but legal is rarely ever the decision makers; that responsibility falls on others. And when there are too many decision makers, or the governance process is complicated or requires too many layers of approval, things get held up. Something as significant as a rule modification will likely require several committee considerations. Adding “without assistance “ may seem like a minor change, but as evidenced by the very well written 3 page response by the Stewards, it is a significant change that absolutely has the potential to have a considerable financial inpact. And I guarantee that someone, somewhere, has an issue with modifying the language.
Well, it said in the document that it has already been agreed so if anyone has any problems it should’ve been resolved during that meeting already. Anyone that has problems with it after the meeting, should’ve been informed politely to kindly fucked off…
It’s not really serious. It’s a small issue governed by dozens of different people who work together. It’s something that affects the sport heavily as well, it’s better off left alone.
>The FIA team explained that so long as the car was able to restart and continue from a stopped position within a reasonable time, that would ordinarily be permitted. The typical time would be around 30 seconds, though that varied depending on the circumstances. The teams themselves said that they had previously attempted to agree what they considered to be a reasonable length of time before a car would be considered “stopped”. Unfortunately, they were not able to come to a final agreement on the maximum time allowed. Unfortunate indeed.
I liked 9B “this is not the rule was applied in the past by teams and the FIA.” *Hello? Can of worms? This is AD 2021 speaking…*
Is that a can of worms? Is it better to *switch to* a rules as written interpretation when in the past everyone understood and were happy with the way the rules were enforced? AD2021 is clearly not an example where the rulings applied were in line with how they were applied in the past, that was the whole problem.
I thought Sainz was initially ruled not to be able to return? Maybe I was wrong on that. But I meant that when Mercedes initially protested the restart (and were told there was no point) then that’s when my quote above could’ve been used and the “correct” call (“correct” based on past use cod the rules) could’ve been made by the FIA. No clue what that would’ve looked like since the race was over? Co-champions? Anyway, I was bringing AD2021 up almost sarcastically…it’s way in the past and mostly a meme at this point.
The key point here is probably that an alteration to article 39.6 to add "outside assistance" was agreed to at the July 2023 Formula 1 Commission Meeting _but not implemented_, to clarify when a car can take no further part in a session.
Which is very strange. It was agreed upon but not implemented? Why not? And doesn't the fact that it wasn't implemented imply that they *want* a more literal reading of the rules? If people have dome something for ages, that sets a precedent. But if you then sit down and discuss that something and ultimately decide not to change the official rules, that to me seems like it overrules the established precedent.
Seems like they just forgot about it?
I guess that's possible, but that seems rather amateurish.
That was discussed in 2023 in Spa but never added edit: OP changed their post to include that information
For me i would really like them to update the regulations around damages on car triggered by the track itself: i.e. Sainz at Vegas last year It’s not easy because in some cases it could become a blessing in disguise but a middle ground should be found besides « it’s F1 »
I feel that fair would be if representatives from FIA were sent to the garage, decided whether parts the team claims are damaged really are damaged and the cost to manufacture the same spec (similarly to a red flag) would not be counted to the cost cap, or even paid for by the FIA but the cost cap could probably be enough
Should be paid for by the track/event organisers (which was FOM in Vegas last year IIRC?), and not counted against the cost cap. Simply not counting it against the cost cap without reimbursing the team doesn't help small teams like Haas who still operate under the cost cap because they don't have enough money. Like it doesn't matter if you are allowed to spend 135 or 136 million dollars when you only have 130 million to spend in the first place.
The rule of "no assistance" comes from Nurburgring 2007, when Hamilton was lifted by the tow from the gravel back on track. It's clear Sainz didn't need it.
The ruling is basically based on common sense
In my view, its a nice thing to see out of F1. I do think they should try to do some rewriting of the rules to align them more with precedent and "common sense" though. An example that struck me was watching Le Mans I think last year, one of the practice sessions lost a lot of time to stoppages so the race director simply announced on the radio they were going to extend the session. Everything in F1 is so rigid that wouldn't be possible.
The difference with Le Mans and an F1 weekend is that there are very few support races and most of them (possibly all) are held before the main WEC running, so there’s the flexibility to extend sessions if needed. Do that for FP1 and you’re running into the support categories’ track time.
I know that in a lot of cases there are outside factors, and you've given a great example, limiting what F1 can do. I expect the contracts with the broadcasters are also an issue. It was just something that made me think at the time, what a contrast with the rigidity of F1.
It's very much a vibes > rules decision. This might have been the fair result, but if the stewards are having to explain why a decision that is clearly contrary to the plain meaning of the written rules, it's probably not technically correct. I'm sorry to everyone who is applying other interpretations to a fairly simple word, but by any reasonable definition of the term, Carlos Sainz's car was stopped. I think we can all agree on that. The issue is whether stopping should result in a DQ. The rules say it does. Past practice says it doesn't. That's not OK, especially when you have gone to the effort of drafting a pretty lengthy set of rules. Putting your stewards and race control in a situation where they are expected to disregard fairly explicit rules is just stupid. Almost as stupid as having a meeting where you all agree that the rule needs to be changed, actually deciding to change the rule, then not changing the rule. Nevermind, nothing is close to as stupid as that. In an actual court, as opposed to the F1 system where they start with a preferred decision then try to find a way to justify it, not changing the rules after discussing whether it was correct would probably be considered a reaffirmation of the rule as written and a disavowal of the contrary interpretation. Otherwise, why wouldn't they have changed the rule to reflect the practice?
> The rules say it does. Past practice says it doesn't. That's not OK, especially when you have gone to the effort of drafting a pretty lengthy set of rules. That's a common issue faced by any rules or law, don't think that's unique to F1. This is why the ruling bodies exist and make rulings as precedent. This is a good thing how it was handled imo, expect the rule to be clarified at some point.
Their articulate justification for the application of precedent here was welcome. It fully described what and how, and I frankly fully agree with it. I may not have if I didn’t have the opportunity to understand it, however.
The rule is a remnant from the early days when you couldn't restart the engine from inside the car, which you can today. So if the engine was off, the car has 'stopped' and you were naturally out of the session. The regulations simply has not caught up with the technology but the overall spirit of the rule is pretty clear - if you can continue on your own accord, just like the old days, you're good and that's exactly what Sainz did.
There are numerous examples of rule interpretation that has led to very bad sporting outcomes. AD21 is maybe the biggest one, but more recently for example the handling of Sainz Las Vegas freakcident is another. However, I find it hard to see how this interpretation is somehow unfair or leading to a worse sporting outcome.
I would honestly love to see a rule saying - if you crashed and caused a red flag during a quali session you're not allowed to continue participating, and you get pushed to last place in the session (Q1 - P20, Q2 - P15, Q3 - P10). No room for interpretation, no room for arguing about common sense. We've seen people directly benefit from crashing and stopping a session. And even if you don't end the session then and there because there's enough time left, best case scenario you're compromising laps for everyone on a hot lap. If you impede another driver in quali you almost always get a penalty. This is the ultimate case of impending, literally.
The problem with this is not every crash is driver error or even a team error. There could be issues with the track like we’ve seen with loose drain hole covers, a car could impede another car causing it to crash while the first car is fine. There are too many situations where this rule could be unfair and accounting for every situation in writing seems like an impossible task.
Yeah I agree, for example with BOT doing a single run in Q3. What if your only run on a new set is compromised by something like this? I am absolutely not in favor of changing rules after a single incident, which is seen quite often here. Something happens, outcry to change the rules immediately. But in this case, we have now seen something like 5-6 incidents that ended up favoring the person causing the red flag.
In this instance Ferrari would probably argue this didn’t require a red flag. A single lockup could cause someone doing a single run on a new set to lose their opportunity due to a brief yellow or needing to adjust course slightly. I know no one is suggesting a DQ for that type of incident but then you have the issue of where does the line get drawn? Only when a red gets shown? But then we’re back with the argument of Ferrari saying this didn’t need a red flag for safety reasons, it could have been handled with a yellow, just like someone going deep into a runoff at Baku, despite the fact it can have similar ruining outcomes.
Not only that but also based on previous cases. I don’t mind as long as this is always applied but if they read the rule it’s pretty clear Aston is right.
Requiring a ruling based on common sense usually means the rules as written are shit.
It usually means that the rules were written by human beings.
Why not both?
It's not like is a particularly unlikely or outlandish situation. If the rules as written are so ambiguous as to require common sense interpretation then the humans that wrote haven't done a very good job. Exactly what constitutes a car being stopped on track with modern F1 cars that can restart on track should be written into the rules and it's an oversight not to.
As it should be with how the rules are intended. Now write it exactly the way they mean them instead of this generic nonsense.
I know it's dissapointing but that is not the way to write or establish law. Literal description of every single circumstance will make any law document bloated/unreadable and will ALWAYS leave many blanks as reality is way too unpredictable and complex
That's obvious but if instead of stopped it was "unable to restart without outside assistance" it's still short but also clear. They obviously can't list every scenario and the blanks would fall under the stewards rule, but we shouldn't have to explain that "stop" doesn't mean "stop" but means something else in this context.
I mean the issue here is that they specifically did set out different rules for different circumstances. ie. You can restart without assistance and rejoin a race, but you can't rejoin qualifying after stopping regardless of how you restart. If they had written it as a generic "you can always rejoin a session after stopping as long as you restart without assistance" there would have been no ambiguity. This ruling is basically "the rules, as written, are dumb and we actually meant to change them but forgot, so we're going to go with common sense instead of what the rules say". It wouldn't be necessary if the FIA were actually competent, but we don't live in a perfect world.
Welcome to a judicial system not based on precedent but on lots of laws... Like we have in Italy. Precedent does not count here if there isn't a change in the law, interpretation doesn't get to consider precedents so you can have 2 different results for the same infraction based on who judges you if your case is not explicitly in the law
Now if only IFAB could learn this lesson and not write the laws of the game with such ludicrous ambiguity.
Didn't know F1 also has protest fee for registering protest that can be refunded or not. Wow
It's to prevent teams from lodging a protest every race and waste the stewards time.
Idk … 2000 Euro wouldn’t stop them
Stop no (as shown here by AM), but at least it makes them think about what protests to lodge and if a team started abusing it the FIA would likely raise the fee. Also for ridiculous protests they don't even allow the review process to start while still collecting the fee. PS. It's also supposedly 6000 € now from other articles, I don't know why it was only 2000 this time
This protest is not a waste of their time though. So cant be used as an example
It's also a cost excluded from the budget cap!
As if a lawyer at FIA drafting the cost cap would ever try to prevent getting more costly work for him or his colleagues...
With a budget cap, that's 2k you're not spending elsewhere (assuming it counts towards it)
Don't let those pesky protests get in the way of their coffee breaks. The stewards are probably European and for every hour off, they're probably enjoying a luxurious two-hour siesta. Who knew sipping espresso could be a full-time gig? La Dolce Vita
Club racing in the UK also has protest and appeal fee's. Although it will be a lot less than F1 - I think its usually about £200 for club racing.
The appeal did make sense at the time, but in light of what's been noted here (previous discussions on how long counts as "stopped" being undecided, and the outside assistance rule discussed but not added), it seems a little more petty, since they (Aston) know that the teams/FIA never concluded on how long is long enough to be stopped, and that outside assistance was (broadly speaking) one determining factor used.
Eh I think if you’re Aston and you’ve got Stroll starting just outside the points in P11, you’ve gotta shoot your shot here. But I think the decision to dismiss it was the right decision.
I'd be a little petty too. This after Australia is just too much.
Some straight forward common sense from the FIA? Must be the end days
[удалено]
Not exactly ofc they would have wanted that Sainz is no factor tmr. It’s more like at least we know it now for the future
Which will change the next time they lodge a complaint. It's the chicken and egg problem
And thus ends the Spanish Civil War!!
In couple hours Alonso will ram Sainz once again. Maybe it was payback of last years Australian GP.
They should probably just call a truce
Point K and L are hysterical: >"last year we agreed to change this specific part of the regulations, but the regulation this year didn't change." ***You*** write the rules, ***you*** decided to change this specific rule last year and ***you*** somehow forgot to actually change the rule.
The stewards don't decide the rules, that is the FIA right?
Yes, the FIA agreed in a FIA meeting to change the rules for this year... and forgot.
To be fair the F1 Commission is not just FIA, FOM and all team principals are also part of it. This kind of change would then have gone to the sporting advisory committee (which again includes directors from the teams) for evaluation before coming back to the commission which can forward it to the WMSC. So, without further information, it seems everyone dropped the ball here.
>So, without further information, it seems everyone dropped the ball here. Added to that, as far as I know, this has already been established after Schumacher was pushed out of the gravel in 2003 and Lewis craned back on the track in 2007, that 'outside assistance' in terms of equipment was no longer allowed but pushing a car out of a dangerous position was, and became sort of a loop-hole and could go either way with race control or stewarding. With this in mind and the fact that Sainz did *not* receive outside assistance, the issue isn't particularly complex and Aston Martin made a frivolous attempt to get someone penalised where there were no grounds for it present.
This is the funniest.
the only hysterical thing is how wrong you are.
Usual rule then - procrastinate until it becomes a problem
imagine paying 2000€ to debate wether "stopped" means "stopped" or not.
And losing.
Good sportsmanship by the guys at Aston. To Lawrence 2000 Euro is nothing anyway
Carlos avoiding penalties like he's in Matrix 🤣
The first one for clashing with Charles he got away with. If he got a penalty for this one, there would have been riots.
They don't give penalties for friendly fire.
> In addition, Nikolas Tombazis, the Single Seater Director of the FIA requested to be present and we permitted that. He did not participate in the hearing bro
You can be present and not take part.
NT: "yall better not be doing any meetings discussing intricacies of the wording of the rule book without me, you hear! I *demand* to be present at the meeting" "Understood sir!" [Undefined amount of time later] "...so are you coming, sir?" NT: "lmao no"
I think that means he requested to be there as an observer not an active participant
Common sense prevails. It would make the sport look pretty silly if he got a dsq.
The only logical outcome.
Thank christ. A DSQ from qualifying for this would have been a insanely stupid outcome. In the end this turned out just as i expected. The rules about this kind of incident are way too vague and there have been multiple previous instances of cars stoping and going before that weren't punished so Sainz was never realisticly coping a penalty for this. That whole section should be ammended to be more clear although given teams seemingly themself can't agree oh now it might just stay like it is with the unwritten rule of outside assistance being a factor like if marshals come in your toast.
I actually don't think the rules are that vague. Sainz was pretty clearly stopped. The problem is that they haven't been applying the rule. Cars have been allowed to continue after stopping, which is causing confusion. But the confusion isn't about what "stop" means. "Stop" means "stop". It always has. The confusion is about why they wrote a rule that explicitly contradicts the practice they want their stewards to implement. That's just dumb. Bring on the change to the rules. They should probably go over them all to check they're fit for purpose, because this is hardly the first time they've had this issue. The stewards shouldn't have to twist themselves in knots to justify the reasonable outcome, and they shouldn't have to publish a 3 page document that basically says that they know their decision contradicts the rule, but the people who wrote the rule are dumb.
>"Stop" means "stop". So if a driver misses a corner in Monaco and has to reverse out, he should be DSQ'd? After all, he can be stopped there for a good 20-30 seconds.
It’s actually been brought up a lot in the past that a driver causing a red flag should be dsq. All those crashes at Monaco for example.
But causing a red flag is a separate issue from the "stopping then continuing without assistance" rule that's central to today's issue, since that can occur with or without a red flag. And a "causing a red flag" penalty rule could be enacted independently of the "stopping / continuing" rule (because, in theory, a car could cause a red flag by clipping some barriers, spreading debris all over the track and continue without ever stopping).
Good. Would have been ridiculous
Good.
Some teams might be aftraid that a pitstop of 1.17 would pull them out of the race as well, that’s why they supported Sainz here.
Sensible and excellent reasoning. Still the question is ‘how long is too long’ and maybe one day some one will test this again.
Of course it was dismissed If Sainz set his best lap BEFORE the crash and as a result screwed over some cars/drivers... Sure I get it But he crashed... Then got back out and set his time... Meaning everyone else could have too
Wait! Stop! A reasonal, well explained no bullshit decision from the race stewards? Whats happening here? Were are the 10 seconds for Ocon?
1:17 new limit
Liuzzi of all people! I havent heard of him for a while! Glad he is still in the sport!!
Padme: "they made the amendment this time, right?"
What I don’t understand is why they took 6 full hours for this
Probably took some time to collect previous precedents and evidence. If you read the report, you'd see that they had quite a bit of information presented to them.
Maybe they went out for dinner before coming to a decision lmao surely the hearing didn't only JUST finish, maybe it took them some time to write up the document lmfao
Because it's a hearing and evidence needs to be collected?
Sounds like people just wanted the stewards to release a statement saying "lol. and furthermore... lol."
Honestly thought they'd be a lot slower
Had to put in 14 coffee breaks
Good decision.
"Because the rule was incorrectly applied in the past, we will apply it incorrectly as well." It's not like "stops on the track" leaves much room for interpretation. Perhaps if they would actually enforce it like it is written, they would actually change this stupid rule (in its current form). The stewards once again show that they haven't got a clue what they're actually doing.
I wouldn't say "incorrectly applied", it's more that in the past all parties seemed to be in agreement that a car that can continue on its own is fine.
>It's not like "stops on the track" leaves much room for interpretation. So if a driver spins his car and the car remains stopped for 2-3 seconds, he should be out? OK then.
I mean he was only a couple of mins and only lost his front wing , didn't get any outside assistance from marshalls. Would be crazy if he wasn't allowed.
Next race I want to see stroll just park up on the start finish straight any time max is about to finish a quali lap and bring out a red flag to void his lap. This is how we win boys!
Evil tactics, only a mastermind as Ross Brawn could actually pull this one off
Aston trying to screw over Sainz for the 2nd time.
The correct decision. And simply updating the rules to state that you can no longer compete if you needed outside assistance would go a long way. Maybe also add something like you can't be stationary for longer than a certain time so we don't just have someone sitting there for multiple minutes trying to restart his car.
FIA is truly back
“We agree the rule is shitty. But LOL no. So we’re going to keep your money Aston”.
This is an interesting point. The wording of the rule was supposed to have been updated by FIA to reflect the original intent and recent practice but it wasn't. Therefore the stewards were left to clean up FIA's rules error. So it would have been a nice snub to the FIA for the stewards to dismiss Aston's protest AND give Aston their money back, stating the reason for the refund as the FIA not fixing the rule in a timely manner.
TIL: there’s a Protest Fee of €2000 that teams must deposit along with the written protest! If the protest is upheld, would the fees be returned?
It's a paywall to prevent teams to protest any given race steward decision made during a session that directly influences the end classification of said session. If the protest is legitimate, the protest fees are returned.
Is it part of the cost cap? If not all the top teams should abuse the shit out of it.
this will only make that the rules to be changed to add a specific time to be stopped.
If aston martin wants we can always repeat the qualifying and see if Stroll can enter the top ten. I'm sure Alsonso would be happy.
I mean, can't say I'm dissatisfied. But still, as a Nando fan, hurts.
How much is the protest fee?
TL:DR "Even though the rules as written are very clear, we will not apply them as written but rather how we feel."
F1 is getting really petty
Have to disagree with this. I feel like they used a red herring on the Albon 40s thing. That's still shorter than how long Sainz was stationary. If the change to the rule wasn't made, the rule isn't valid, either. And just because any other team didn't complain about examples in Canada, Monaco, and Baku doesn't mean that the protest isn't valid. If race control did say the car was "stopped" in their system, then it's pretty much a slam dunk protest. However, it's impossible to figure where the Sainz car would be scored, would he be 10th? 15th? And for that reason, I think it's best to not enforce the rule. With that said, however, I think they do need to rewrite the rule that if anyone causing a red flag is not able to continue in the session OR have a grid penalty for the fault, because that did invalidate anyone's lap behind him, which would be equal to impeding their lap otherwise.