FIA Thread

[NathanOlder]

I tend to agree.
But whatever the rules are there will be circumstances in which someone loses out. If Latifi had crashed a lap or two later the race would have had to finish behind the pace car, or even be red flagged and a result declared. If he'd crashed a couple of laps earlier the lapped cars would have all been allowed past and there would still have been 2 or 3 laps left to race, in which case Verstappen would certainly have passed Hamilton.
So it's all just the luck of the draw at times. People seem to forget this.

it is a luck of the draw, but not in this way when not everyone is racing under the same rules. If Latifi crashed two laps earlier, they would have pitted Hamilton, no questions asked, because it would have been clear that there would be enough time to continue racing, then, if both Hamilton and Verstappen would have pitted, they stayed in the order as before. If Verstappen took the option to have track position, he would have been on worn tires and Hamilton on new ones. If for some reason Hamilton would have been unlucky and they both would be on new tires but Verstappen in front, it would be a fair fight to the finish.

I disagree, and think your using hindsight. I think Merc didn't pit Ham because they didn't know how much racing was going to be left and just didn't want to give up track position.
But we're both guessing. I fully respect your view, I just disagree with it. That's all.

If Latifi had crashed a few laps earlier, they would have definitely pitted Lewis for new Tyres. Then it would have been interesting to see what RedBull would have done. I guess they would have done the same, although Max would have been tempted to take track position and defend as aggressive as he did in Brazil and hope to get away with murder like he did in brazil.

[Big Tea]

it is a luck of the draw, but not in this way when not everyone is racing under the same rules. If Latifi crashed two laps earlier, they would have pitted Hamilton, no questions asked, because it would have been clear that there would be enough time to continue racing, then, if both Hamilton and Verstappen would have pitted, they stayed in the order as before. If Verstappen took the option to have track position, he would have been on worn tires and Hamilton on new ones. If for some reason Hamilton would have been unlucky and they both would be on new tires but Verstappen in front, it would be a fair fight to the finish.

I disagree, and think your using hindsight. I think Merc didn't pit Ham because they didn't know how much racing was going to be left and just didn't want to give up track position.
But we're both guessing. I fully respect your view, I just disagree with it. That's all.

If Latifi had crashed a few laps earlier, they would have definitely pitted Lewis for new Tyres. Then it would have been interesting to see what RedBull would have done. I guess they would have done the same, although Max would have been tempted to take track position and defend as aggressive as he did in Brazil and hope to get away with murder like he did in brazil.

They may well have kept Max out and hoped for another stoppage to maintain his position. I don't think they would be confident of winning a head to head with both on new tyres. It was an easy second place even with a later tyre stop if needed.

[adrianjordan]

I disagree, and think your using hindsight. I think Merc didn't pit Ham because they didn't know how much racing was going to be left and just didn't want to give up track position.
But we're both guessing. I fully respect your view, I just disagree with it. That's all.

If Latifi had crashed a few laps earlier, they would have definitely pitted Lewis for new Tyres. Then it would have been interesting to see what RedBull would have done. I guess they would have done the same, although Max would have been tempted to take track position and defend as aggressive as he did in Brazil and hope to get away with murder like he did in brazil.

They may well have kept Max out and hoped for another stoppage to maintain his position. I don't think they would be confident of winning a head to head with both on new tyres. It was an easy second place even with a later tyre stop if needed.

At least Briatorri doesn't work for RBR, or they'd have surely had a Torro Rosso "break down" in an unfortunate place if Max happened to end up with track position

[Red Rock Mutley]

I still cant understand why they dont have 1 panel of stewards across the whole season.
...
Allowing different teams of stewards or RD's only opens up the goal posts for differing interpretations of the rulings and/or stewards making different decisions between the different panels...

It's cyclical, having the same stewards led to complaints about bias, to which the answer was to rotate the stewards, which led to complaints about inconsistencies

I suspect the answer lies in changing the way the judicial system works, as it's highly unusual at this level to have the same people working as both prosecutor and judge. And to have so few. The old argument was manpower and shipping people around the world. However, the balance of that argument has changed now the FIA have moved towards some remote working

There's good reason to separate the role of determining which rules may have been broken and the prevailing precedents. It's a team-based activity and largely factual, which leaves the on-venue Stewards free to judge the merits of the case

[Big Tea]

I still cant understand why they dont have 1 panel of stewards across the whole season.
...
Allowing different teams of stewards or RD's only opens up the goal posts for differing interpretations of the rulings and/or stewards making different decisions between the different panels...

It's cyclical, having the same stewards led to complaints about bias, to which the answer was to rotate the stewards, which led to complaints about inconsistencies

I suspect the answer lies in changing the way the judicial system works, as it's highly unusual at this level to have the same people working as both prosecutor and judge. And to have so few. The old argument was manpower and shipping people around the world. However, the balance of that argument has changed now the FIA have moved towards some remote working

There's good reason to separate the role of determining which rules may have been broken and the prevailing precedents. It's a team-based activity and largely factual, which leaves the on-venue Stewards free to judge the merits of the case

Maybe a 'video ref' the driver can appeal to after a decision if they disagree?

[chrisc90]

I really cant see how a video ref will help? How long are they going to spend pondering over different video, telemetry etc etc before they come to a decision. 1mins 30 (average - I guess) lap time per track overall and drivers could be 5-10 laps after the offence before a decision is even made to refer it to the stewards. Not like you can stop the race like they do it football, then add laps on at the end.

I still cant understand why they dont have 1 panel of stewards across the whole season.
...
Allowing different teams of stewards or RD's only opens up the goal posts for differing interpretations of the rulings and/or stewards making different decisions between the different panels...

It's cyclical, having the same stewards led to complaints about bias, to which the answer was to rotate the stewards, which led to complaints about inconsistencies

I suspect the answer lies in changing the way the judicial system works, as it's highly unusual at this level to have the same people working as both prosecutor and judge. And to have so few. The old argument was manpower and shipping people around the world. However, the balance of that argument has changed now the FIA have moved towards some remote working

There's good reason to separate the role of determining which rules may have been broken and the prevailing precedents. It's a team-based activity and largely factual, which leaves the on-venue Stewards free to judge the merits of the case

It sounds like a 6 and two 3's and a game of catch 21. I mean there was talk about bias in the stewarding panel last season . How do you come up with a panel that is consistent, yet non-bias.

Maybe they could remove any team name from telemetry or blur out sponsorships or distinctive parts and present that to stewards (maybe done by the video ref as more time) which would leave them a choice between car A or car B with no way of who committed the offence etc.

[dans79]

It sounds like a 6 and two 3's and a game of catch 21. I mean there was talk about bias in the stewarding panel last season . How do you come up with a panel that is consistent, yet non-bias.

Imo, The primary issue, is that the promoters Liberty, and Bernie before them have far to much pull over the regularity part of formula 1 and they spend to much time pandering to the farewather fans.

[Big Tea]

I really cant see how a video ref will help? How long are they going to spend pondering over different video, telemetry etc etc before they come to a decision. 1mins 30 (average - I guess) lap time per track overall and drivers could be 5-10 laps after the offence before a decision is even made to refer it to the stewards. Not like you can stop the race like they do it football, then add laps on at the end.

I still cant understand why they dont have 1 panel of stewards across the whole season.
...
Allowing different teams of stewards or RD's only opens up the goal posts for differing interpretations of the rulings and/or stewards making different decisions between the different panels...

It's cyclical, having the same stewards led to complaints about bias, to which the answer was to rotate the stewards, which led to complaints about inconsistencies

I suspect the answer lies in changing the way the judicial system works, as it's highly unusual at this level to have the same people working as both prosecutor and judge. And to have so few. The old argument was manpower and shipping people around the world. However, the balance of that argument has changed now the FIA have moved towards some remote working

There's good reason to separate the role of determining which rules may have been broken and the prevailing precedents. It's a team-based activity and largely factual, which leaves the on-venue Stewards free to judge the merits of the case

It sounds like a 6 and two 3's and a game of catch 21. I mean there was talk about bias in the stewarding panel last season . How do you come up with a panel that is consistent, yet non-bias.

Maybe they could remove any team name from telemetry or blur out sponsorships or distinctive parts and present that to stewards (maybe done by the video ref as more time) which would leave them a choice between car A or car B with no way of who committed the offence etc.

Yes, it would be little use in real time, but more so between sessions and after race if the driver feels a penalty was harsh.

[Stu]

I really cant see how a video ref will help? How long are they going to spend pondering over different video, telemetry etc etc before they come to a decision. 1mins 30 (average - I guess) lap time per track overall and drivers could be 5-10 laps after the offence before a decision is even made to refer it to the stewards. Not like you can stop the race like they do it football, then add laps on at the end.

I still cant understand why they dont have 1 panel of stewards across the whole season.
...
Allowing different teams of stewards or RD's only opens up the goal posts for differing interpretations of the rulings and/or stewards making different decisions between the different panels...

It's cyclical, having the same stewards led to complaints about bias, to which the answer was to rotate the stewards, which led to complaints about inconsistencies

I suspect the answer lies in changing the way the judicial system works, as it's highly unusual at this level to have the same people working as both prosecutor and judge. And to have so few. The old argument was manpower and shipping people around the world. However, the balance of that argument has changed now the FIA have moved towards some remote working

There's good reason to separate the role of determining which rules may have been broken and the prevailing precedents. It's a team-based activity and largely factual, which leaves the on-venue Stewards free to judge the merits of the case

It sounds like a 6 and two 3's and a game of catch 21. I mean there was talk about bias in the stewarding panel last season . How do you come up with a panel that is consistent, yet non-bias.

Maybe they could remove any team name from telemetry or blur out sponsorships or distinctive parts and present that to stewards (maybe done by the video ref as more time) which would leave them a choice between car A or car B with no way of who committed the offence etc.

I was going to suggest that they could make this forum the VAR judges, but that would be ridiculous; we’ve been arguing about AbuDhabi for months now and still can’t agree

[Big Tea]

I really cant see how a video ref will help? How long are they going to spend pondering over different video, telemetry etc etc before they come to a decision. 1mins 30 (average - I guess) lap time per track overall and drivers could be 5-10 laps after the offence before a decision is even made to refer it to the stewards. Not like you can stop the race like they do it football, then add laps on at the end.

It's cyclical, having the same stewards led to complaints about bias, to which the answer was to rotate the stewards, which led to complaints about inconsistencies

I suspect the answer lies in changing the way the judicial system works, as it's highly unusual at this level to have the same people working as both prosecutor and judge. And to have so few. The old argument was manpower and shipping people around the world. However, the balance of that argument has changed now the FIA have moved towards some remote working

There's good reason to separate the role of determining which rules may have been broken and the prevailing precedents. It's a team-based activity and largely factual, which leaves the on-venue Stewards free to judge the merits of the case

It sounds like a 6 and two 3's and a game of catch 21. I mean there was talk about bias in the stewarding panel last season . How do you come up with a panel that is consistent, yet non-bias.

Maybe they could remove any team name from telemetry or blur out sponsorships or distinctive parts and present that to stewards (maybe done by the video ref as more time) which would leave them a choice between car A or car B with no way of who committed the offence etc.

I was going to suggest that they could make this forum the VAR judges, but that would be ridiculous; we’ve been arguing about AbuDhabi for months now and still can’t agree

Yes we can.

[Stu]

I really cant see how a video ref will help? How long are they going to spend pondering over different video, telemetry etc etc before they come to a decision. 1mins 30 (average - I guess) lap time per track overall and drivers could be 5-10 laps after the offence before a decision is even made to refer it to the stewards. Not like you can stop the race like they do it football, then add laps on at the end.



It sounds like a 6 and two 3's and a game of catch 21. I mean there was talk about bias in the stewarding panel last season . How do you come up with a panel that is consistent, yet non-bias.

Maybe they could remove any team name from telemetry or blur out sponsorships or distinctive parts and present that to stewards (maybe done by the video ref as more time) which would leave them a choice between car A or car B with no way of who committed the offence etc.

I was going to suggest that they could make this forum the VAR judges, but that would be ridiculous; we’ve been arguing about AbuDhabi for months now and still can’t agree

Yes we can.

No we can’t

[Big Tea]

I was going to suggest that they could make this forum the VAR judges, but that would be ridiculous; we’ve been arguing about AbuDhabi for months now and still can’t agree

Yes we can.

No we can’t

You see!! its people like you should be reported to the mods

[Stu]

Yes we can.

No we can’t

You see!! its people like you should be reported to the mods

[NathanOlder]

Are we not in agreement that Masi Fooked up big time in AD ?

[Just_a_fan]

Are we not in agreement that Masi Fooked up big time in AD ?

If we were in agreement regarding that, this thread and the AD would have died months ago.