2024 São Paulo Grand Prix - Interlagos, Nov 01 - 03

[dialtone]

this sport...

[bananapeel23]

reprimand and 5k for lando for the aborted start.

The document has the lamest reasoning ive ever read. Not one mention to safety of the marshalls or recovery vehicles on track.

Ridiculous. Verstappen knew the rules and called it out immediately. It wasn't some obscure rule that was broken. A penalty was well deserved.

[Cs98]

Seems weak to me with zero incentive not to do it again, or anyone else for that matter. For the benefits it could bring €5000 for the privilege is probably worth it.

It's a silly technicality. Adjusting the pressure pre-race with the tyre on or off the car has zero sporting impact so long as the pressure is within the stipulated levels.

Take the rule out then. Rules are there to deal with certain procedures, we're even talking about water in tires and we violate procedure and fine 5000... This is just a clownshow.

Rules are never 100% adapted for every scenario, hence we have stewards. They obviously decided there were mitigating circumstances here. Personally IDC about the ruling because the infringement carries zero sporting benefit, it's a pure pre-race technicality, unlike the example you brought up with the endurance race.

[chrisc90]

reprimand and 5k for lando for the aborted start.

The document has the lamest reasoning ive ever read. Not one mention to safety of the marshalls or recovery vehicles on track.

Ridiculous

It is, now it leaves others open to go round a potentially dangerous track at formation lap speed, shortening the race distance, endangering marshal safety, potential for medical/recovery vehicles on track....and you can have a F1 car decide to do a extra formation lap.

Utterly ridiculous.

[Sergej]

lol the document about Norris start infringement is an absolute joke, they didn't even bother to justify the "penalty"

[Gothrek]

Herbert is part of the stewards this weekend - what do you expect

[Cs98]

reprimand and 5k for lando for the aborted start.

The document has the lamest reasoning ive ever read. Not one mention to safety of the marshalls or recovery vehicles on track.

There is no reasoning in the document, it just states what he did and says it's a fine and a reprimand, there's no attempt at explaining why that action was taken. I thought it was a more serious infringement since it carries obvious safety concerns for marshalls as well as messing up the entire start procedure.

[dialtone]

It's a silly technicality. Adjusting the pressure pre-race with the tyre on or off the car has zero sporting impact so long as the pressure is within the stipulated levels.

Take the rule out then. Rules are there to deal with certain procedures, we're even talking about water in tires and we violate procedure and fine 5000... This is just a clownshow.

Rules are never 100% adapted for every scenario, hence we have stewards. They obviously decided there were mitigating circumstances here. Personally IDC about the ruling because the infringement carries zero sporting benefit, it's a pure pre-race technicality, unlike the example you brought up with the endurance race.

There is no real way of knowing this. You are saying it's a technicality, then when we judge what goes in a tire it's all "impossible only FIA staff from a dry room 40 floors underground can inflate tires", but really is: "oh but if you're in a hurry you can just do it 2 minutes before the start and if you're really fast maybe people don't see you except for sensor data that is off".

Especially when it comes to tire warm-up, something that Ferrari has clear issues with, other teams looking at the rules may have judged not to change tire pressure because they had no time for example. Regardless of this 5000 fine is a total joke that is lower than swearwords in press conferences where each person in there uses them at least a few hundreds times a day.

[Rikhart]

Anyone else perplexed how they showed Stroll in the gravel, but they never showed how he got there, even during red flags, safety cars, etc? That was just bizarre.

I've seen the video from people in the stands, it's like he did on purpose.

https://www.reddit.com/r/formuladank/s/2TkHT8kTvS

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever witnessed in F1. It's right up there with Hamilton crashing into someone who was stopped on the end of the pitlane, on red light.

[Cs98]

Take the rule out then. Rules are there to deal with certain procedures, we're even talking about water in tires and we violate procedure and fine 5000... This is just a clownshow.

Rules are never 100% adapted for every scenario, hence we have stewards. They obviously decided there were mitigating circumstances here. Personally IDC about the ruling because the infringement carries zero sporting benefit, it's a pure pre-race technicality, unlike the example you brought up with the endurance race.

There is no real way of knowing this. You are saying it's a technicality, then when we judge what goes in a tire it's all "impossible only FIA staff from a dry room 40 floors underground can inflate tires", but really is: "oh but if you're in a hurry you can just do it 2 minutes before the start and if you're really fast maybe people don't see you except for sensor data that is off".

Especially when it comes to tire warm-up, something that Ferrari has clear issues with, other teams looking at the rules may have judged not to change tire pressure because they had no time for example. Regardless of this 5000 fine is a total joke that is lower than swearwords in press conferences where each person in there uses them at least a few hundreds times a day.

I disagree, it's a technicality that the stewards decided was not relevant in this special scenario. It carried no sporting benefit and no safety risk. A fine seems appropriate.

[Sergej]

reprimand and 5k for lando for the aborted start.

The document has the lamest reasoning ive ever read. Not one mention to safety of the marshalls or recovery vehicles on track.

There is no reasoning in the document, it just states what he did and says it's a fine and a reprimand, there's no attempt at explaining why that action was taken. I thought it was a more serious infringement since it carries obvious safety concerns for marshalls as well as messing up the entire start procedure.

yeah it's scandalous

so you can do infringements about tyre pressure and start procedure and get away with same "penalty" as if you say the F word during a press conference: clearly they have lost the plot penalty wise.

[chrisc90]

]
I disagree, it's a technicality that the stewards decided was not relevant in this special scenario. It carried no sporting benefit and no safety risk. A fine seems appropriate.

Tell me if I’m wrong here. But no safety risk? On a neutralised track with potential for medical or recovery vehicles and marshalls out on track at formation lap speeds.

There was nothing special about an aborted start, they are normal and happen relatively often.

[Cs98]

]
I disagree, it's a technicality that the stewards decided was not relevant in this special scenario. It carried no sporting benefit and no safety risk. A fine seems appropriate.

Tell me if I’m wrong here. But no safety risk? On a neutralised track with potential for medical or recovery vehicles and marshalls out on track at formation lap speeds.

There was nothing special about an aborted start, they are normal and happen relatively often.

My comment was in reference to the Merc tyre pressure ruling, not the aborted start.

[chrisc90]

]
I disagree, it's a technicality that the stewards decided was not relevant in this special scenario. It carried no sporting benefit and no safety risk. A fine seems appropriate.

Tell me if I’m wrong here. But no safety risk? On a neutralised track with potential for medical or recovery vehicles and marshalls out on track at formation lap speeds.

There was nothing special about an aborted start, they are normal and happen relatively often.

My comment was in reference to the Merc tyre pressure ruling, not the aborted start.

Ah, my confusion. Thanks

[dialtone]

Tell me if I’m wrong here. But no safety risk? On a neutralised track with potential for medical or recovery vehicles and marshalls out on track at formation lap speeds.

There was nothing special about an aborted start, they are normal and happen relatively often.

My comment was in reference to the Merc tyre pressure ruling, not the aborted start.

Ah, my confusion. Thanks

Confusion but the reasoning works the same.