2024 United States Grand Prix - COTA, Oct 18-20

[jknights]

The only correct answer to the Max vs Norris incident, is that both of them should have been given a penalty.

You can't defend by just flying into the corner, not making it but making sure the person trying to overtake has to run off track so they don't crash.

I have to agree, but a solution is to add armco at all corners. If you are unwilling because it makes it unsafe for MotoGP then I am sure some other 'car damaging' solution can be found!

[F1NAC]

Just add fake gravel at T12 and problem solved.

[Rikhart]

Just add fake gravel at T12 and problem solved.

Just add gravel or grass everywhere, all of these issues would go away like magic.

[CjC]

Just add fake gravel at T12 and problem solved.

Just add gravel or grass everywhere, all of these issues would go away like magic.

600mm of grass on the out side of all of the corners for me

[dialtone]

Reducing the quality of racing isn’t a fix for the problem.

[dialtone]

Here’s an interesting reddit post with all the rule changes instigated by Max’s behavior:

https://reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/ ... rstappens/

I will point out the driving off track from the 2021 brazil incident that clearly wasn’t applied here but is spot on applicable but stewards forgot it exists.

[MYsee]

Norris should have gotten a 10-second penalty, Max a 5-second penalty and Piastri should have finished third.

[Zynerji]

Simply losing interest in watching "fūck you" race maneuvers. Inducing Lift-or-Die situations should be black flagged and get a 10 race ban.

I'd just let the crash happen in these situations until they are forced to stop by their teams or the FIA.

I'm not even sure I will finish watching 2024... The finesse is the appeal. This is NASCAR lite.

[FW17]

Here’s an interesting reddit post with all the rule changes instigated by Max’s behavior:

https://reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/ ... rstappens/

I will point out the driving off track from the 2021 brazil incident that clearly wasn’t applied here but is spot on applicable but stewards forgot it exists.

Pls understand FIA and drivers lobbying for rules that have a bias for defending driver. This is the DRS era when the defending driver is helpless, in most cases it is a blow past. If that does not happen and it gets stretched to the braking zone, I totally understand the current rules favoring defending driver both when they are on the inside or outside.

Rules are understandable when the overtaking driver already such a huge advantage.

[dialtone]

Pls understand FIA and drivers lobbying for rules that have a bias for defending driver. This is the DRS era when the defending driver is helpless, in most cases it is a blow past. If that does not happen and it gets stretched to the braking zone, I totally understand the current rules favoring defending driver both when they are on the inside or outside.

Rules are understandable when the overtaking driver already such a huge advantage.

This is not how FIA/FOM reason. They introduced this new formula with the explicit intent to make it easier to follow closely and still kept DRS. They want more overtakes and more battles. If the car overtaken is fast, when they will get DRS post passing they can pass back again. Making it easier to pass is the whole point of these rules.

[FW17]

Pls understand FIA and drivers lobbying for rules that have a bias for defending driver. This is the DRS era when the defending driver is helpless, in most cases it is a blow past. If that does not happen and it gets stretched to the braking zone, I totally understand the current rules favoring defending driver both when they are on the inside or outside.

Rules are understandable when the overtaking driver already such a huge advantage.

This is not how FIA/FOM reason. They introduced this new formula with the explicit intent to make it easier to follow closely and still kept DRS. They want more overtakes and more battles. If the car overtaken is fast, when they will get DRS post passing they can pass back again. Making it easier to pass is the whole point of these rules.

Intent statements are pc statement, wordings are the actual intent.

[dialtone]

Intent statements are pc statement, wordings are the actual intent.

You think making the cars is not enough?