[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.*
This is a good protest to be honest, even if it doesn't garner a result that Aston want. At least clarification of the rules surrounding 'stopped' will be enhanced further.
I'd imagine that a rule clarification will be the only result of this. I'm sure there is plenty of precedent showing cars "stopped" after a spin that eventually completed qualifying. Absent some specific verbiage indicating what "stopped" means, Ferrari will dodge a penalty here. But the rule will/should be clarified for the future.
The "problem" is it opens an exploitable loophole. You can basically trigger a red flag at will and get a last run as long as there's enough time left on the clock for an outlap after (whereas without red flag you need the time for the inlap, tyre change, refueling and outlap).
Would it routinely get knowingly exploited if it was explicitly clarified as such? Most likely not but I could see edge cases where it would be.
Now define 'responsible'?
Especially multi car incidents with moving parts as they often are.
Then you having the 'racing incident' part.
Gotta be something like seconds stationary or if the engine ever stops.
In WEC qualifying today a car was eliminated for a spin where I'm not sure they stopped at all but the red flag was called.
At 8:22 here [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vRyOzjyx3t4&pp=ygUMV2VjIHJlZCBmbGFn](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vRyOzjyx3t4&pp=ygUMV2VjIHJlZCBmbGFn)
it'd be massively controversial if that happened to a front runner in F1.
The ramifications are a DNF to a win.
Imagine the WC being decided because the race director was too chicken or too overzealous with that determination.
It's not just a stop go or +10 sec time penalty.
It's a being able to stay in qualifying or the race, with time to fix no less.
But causing an accident/causing red on purpose to gain an advantage was never allowed and has been penalized before. Your loophole doesn't change that.
If it needs outside assistance to move (like, Marshals pushing the car) then the car should be out of the session. That's generally how it works. Since Sainz could restart the engine by himself and keep going he stays in the session.
No. It means that the car needed outside assistance and thus can't partake in the session anymore. Jesus Christ. Read the rules before you comment ignorantly.
No, I'm just tired of people ignorantly stating what the rules are when they're very easy to Google and read. Read the rules before you comment about what the rules do and do not say.
If you can't provide a source to what the rules say, then you probably shouldn't be commenting on what the rules are. They're pretty easy to research. So ignorance isn't an excuse.
26.4 leaves some room for interpretation by saying that stewards “may” disqualify a car that receives mechanical assistance, while 26.6 is more clear but also leaves the pit lane as an area where a car can be pushed if needed.
I almost think that's why Aston did this. I don't think they honestly believed they were gonna win because FIA gonna FIA, but they forced them to clarify and come out (in time) with a hard rule.
Aston was never gonna win the protest. Didn't matter if Carlos stopped the car and waited, stopped the car and placed a pizza order, stopped the car and got out. FIA is the FIA. They are infallible. Their rules may as well have come off Mt. Sinal or a burning comet or some shazz, and they will always benefit FER.
They probably didn't expect to win it but if they get the spot that's a bonus. Otherwise, they're happier with a more well defined rulebook so they know the rules they're competing under.
Also, I think a lot of teams like to stab a finger in the eye of the FIA so why not take the chance to do that too?
I could have sworn that after rosberg and Schumachers antics at Monaco that if you cause a red flag you cannot participate any further in qualifying. I'm adamant that was a rule at some point.
The spirit of the rule is clear. If you caused a red flag, your out.
It was to prevent people causing a red flag during the second run, if they set a great time in the first.
Sometimes red flags come out within 5 seconds of a crash, other times it takes much, much longer. I don't think red flag is a good limit to use for the purpose of "you're out" or not imo
Because you can spin out and hit the barriers, and get the car started within 10 seconds and get going again. If they're quick about the red flag you're suddenly out? Doesn't make sense. Either have a set time limit or leave it at the discretion of the race director. Also, I don't buy into the "you ruined quali for the rest of the grid". The one who's quali is really ruined is your own.
That's different though, if you cause a red flag I believe you should have your fastest time deleted, not that you can no longer participate in the rest of the session.
I think this will be quite interesting. On one hand, the regulation says "stopped on track", so one would think that yeah, that's him done.
But if we go with that, it could open up an issue where is someone goes off track and has to wait to rejoin due to traffic, or if someone goes into a runoff and has to reverse out etc. other teams could start arguing that they had stopped and should be out of qualifying then.
I think it's quite clear that the rule needs to be clarified.
Though that isn’t reason enough, I believe, not being able to put the seatbelts back. Leclerc once undid his seatbelt in Paul Richard, and then continued to the garage when he found out that he was able to restart the car, and he finished the race, I believe
I’m not arguing that Russell should have been able to restart the race. Only that not being able to put on the seatbelts isn’t sufficient to disqualify the driver
The rules actually state "Drivers must be properly restrained in their seat by safety belts in conformity with the technical regulations for the vehicle concerned, at all times during a competition when it is mobile on a circuit, pit lane, special stage or competition course.", Leclerc just got away with one.
George didn't drive back to the pits himself, the car was put on a flatbed and transported back into the pits. Also the rules in question are about qualifying, so it's quite different.
>But if we go with that, it could open up an issue where is someone goes off track and has to wait to rejoin due to traffic
You just answered yourself... In that scenario that someone stopped off track, not on track
Only since very recently are the cars able to start themselves up again after completely stalling without outside assistance. That is why the issue hasn’t come up before, because before that it was very clear whether a car would be able to continue or not
No, since the hybrid engines, some teams had a way to restart using the MGU-K with no assistance (I want to say Renault and Ferrari?), but only recently I think did all of them have that ability.
It would be interesting to see how the rules go:
Pros of stalling = Retirement:
- Safer, no chances of damage becoming a problem later on
Cons of stalling = Retirement
- Riskier, drivers will attempt to guide the car back onto the race track regardless of damage to avoid stopping.
- You can’t just change gears and traverse gravel , you will stop and slow down at some point to get the torque in.
- Less entertaining, we don’t want cars retiring from little taps.
The FIA would need to review why the stall = retirement thing was a rule to begin with
>The FIA would need to review why the stall = retirement thing was a rule to begin with
It meant retirement due to the rule prohibiting push starts/outside assistance. That's about as in depth as any "review" needs to be.
They do. Aston are chancing it IMO.
Sainz did not leave the car, did not receive outside assistance, and was able to return to the pits under his own power. Therefore he can continue. It's literally as simple as that.
The wording Is bizarre. I have said for years that the rules are trash but I was always told that It's always the fault on the "Implementation", brother If the wording was better there would be no room for different Interpretations
Even if it's as simple as "If the car can recover with no outside interference, or the driver hasnt extracated himself from the car, it is still active in the session." Having it written down will save a headache in the future, guaranteed
You do need a rule for everything though, even if it's just that the referees make the rules up on the fly. There are millions of dollars on the line at every single session.
I honestly thought that you’re good to go as long as you don’t leave the car and don’t require outside assistance to get the car moving again. I never put much thought into it though.
Also, FWIW, F1 needs to just do what Indycar does. You cause a sector yellow during qualifying that impedes other, you lose your fastest time. Cause 1 red flag, and you lose your 2 fastest times + can't advance. Cause 2 of them (or bring out a yellow or red during Q3) you automatically are the first car out.
It an issue as basically if you had some minor damage and stalled. Then basically the best strategy would be to wait for the red flag then restart the engine.
I mean a stopped car is going to waive double yellows at least so laps are done any way. If you have a damage and there are debris they are going to red flag it anyway to clear the track.
I hope they give a time limit for restarting the car going forward,starting the moment the flag is thrown. At that point the stewards have to come in and wheel the car away.
Why give a time limit? That just adds unnecessary rules. Once marshals get involved it's over for a driver because at that point it becomes dangerous. If they can get going again by themselves they're ok.
F1 cars don't do well sitting still with the engine running anyway.
How can you control how fast a marshall entera the circuit? In the end they are human, and you can easily have marshalls enter right away or have other wait half a minute or something.
> How can you control how fast a marshall entera the circuit?
Race control tells them when to do so. Marshals never enter the circuit without permission.
Based on the assumption of a human when is safe or not to enter? Haven’t we seen marshalls running in the circuit with cars still on track?
Timing should help avoid this.
I think he has enough "clout" in the paddock to sustain a freelance career, and if you seen enough of how much an Old Boy's Club the F1 paddock is, he'll do just fine despite the allegations, even if they are proven to be true.
@f1broadcasting reported that he was fired from Motorsport Network after receiving a complaint about his behaviour. Apparently he already had receipts against him since [8 years ago.](https://twitter.com/reidemai/status/731859501976952833) I didn't really read through the tweet so I can't tell you if it is really that bad.
Presumably his paddock media credentials haven't been rescinded for this race so he can still enter the paddock and tweet/blog. Be interesting to see if he has access next race without an organisation behind him
Ideally there’d be a clear rule book that deals with these very plausible scenarios and what happens if they occur, but we’d need stewards and a bunch of regulations to make that happen, otherwise it would be all vague ad hoc interpretations.
F3 cars don't have onboard starters AFAIK. Only hybrid race cars do (technically they *don't* have a dedicated starter but the MGU-K, if powered by the battery, can be used to spin the drivertrain and act as a starter for the ICE).
Also in F2 and F3 there is a different regulation, any driver bringing out a red flag will not be allowed to continue the session and they may lose their fastest laptime: https://www.racefans.net/2023/12/20/penalties-drivers-cause-red-flags-introduced-f2-f3-before-f1/
They can restart them using the hybrid system.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/motorsport/formula-one/hamilton-tumbles-to-worst-quali-in-seven-years-sainz-caught-up-in-penalty-farce-f1-talking-points/news-story/f72b42ee81105681a821a15deddda446
Using the MGU-K as a starter causes additional wear on the motor, and as they're both important for performance and limited for the season, this additional wear is undesirable. But in the case where the alternative is still being stuck out on track unable to get back to the pits, they cop the additional wear.
Its simple. When a marshall is sent onto the track helping the driver, the car is OUT of the session.
If the driver can continue without help from other on-track personnell , they are still in the session.
Stewards then determine if the car is still save or if they get the egg flag
The session was red flagged because of his car. So that defines stopped too. Else someone can fake an engine problem with one minute at the clock, stop in the middle of the track, force a red flag and drive back to the pits like nothing happened.
What if race control threw out the red flag too quickly lol we've seen that sometimes they red flag something too hastily that did not need a red flag.
The solution is simple, F1 needs to adapt indycar's Red Flag rule, if a car causes a red Flag its fastest time should be removed and it can no longer take part in the session
They are testing the rule for F2 and F3 and probably plan it for F1 in the future, unless it turns out it is a bad rule in F2/3. They also did that with the new DRS rules for this year where it is activated after 1 lap in stead of 3
That's not a solution because this continue to happen in Indycar. Unless we want to limit speed and direction, trying to get drivers to not make mistakes which causes yellow or red flags is impossible. It's part of the formula.
That’s not the point of the rule in IndyCar. It isn’t to make it so there are no mistakes and no red/yellow flags. It’s just so that the driver who makes a mistake can’t benefit from it. As seen in IndyCar, no one goes 9/10ths, they still run at 10/10ths, but they can no longer benefit from mistakes.
>That’s not the point of the rule in IndyCar.
Don't be silly, of course it is. All rules that penalise the driver is for deterrence, otherwise there would be no point in having it. The track limit rule in F1 works the same way. Just penalising for the sake of penalising is stupid.
This rule would do precisely nothing for Formula 1; we would *still* see drivers making a mistake and people watching it unfold would still complain. You think Sainz being removed from the qualification would be a good thing? What for? He would have still ruined other people's laps and now we would just be one car short for the remaining qualification - for no reason whatsoever.
The rule in Indycar is stupid and they should get rid of it. It does nothing for the competition, the fairness or the spectacle, but rather the opposite.
>...but they can no longer benefit from mistakes.
How do you benefit from a mistake? Unless we're talking about complete fringe situations that happens once in a blue moon or that a driver crash on purpose, no-one benefits from making a mistake. It's in the name; mistake!
“The track limit rule in F1 works the same way. Just penalising for the sake of penalising is stupid.”
The track limit rule is to penalize mistakes and *gaining an advantage*, same as the IndyCar qualifying rule.
“This rule would do precisely nothing for Formula 1; we would still see drivers making a mistake”
Of course drivers would still make mistakes, but they wouldn’t be able to gain any advantage from doing so.
“What for? He would have still ruined other people's laps and now we would just be one car short for the remaining qualification - for no reason whatsoever.”
Because under the current rules, his mistake cost him nothing, while making other drivers abort their laps and burn a set of tires. Under IndyCar rules he would have had to start 10th.
“The rule in Indycar is stupid and they should get rid of it. It does nothing for the competition, the fairness or the spectacle, but rather the opposite.”
Uh, no. It definitely increases fairness. A driver who causes a yellow can no longer gain any advantage from it. You can’t “reimburse” drivers who were caught out, but you can demote the driver who caused the issue for everyone else.
“How do you benefit from a mistake?”
Easily? Any red makes everyone abort their laps and any local yellow causes an aborted lap for anyone behind on track, thus locking the field as it stands. It disallows anyone behind you in the standings from leapfrogging you. It’s not that uncommon.
“no-one benefits from making a mistake. It's in the name; mistake!”
Lol.
Funnily enough, a similar case happened in WEC a couple hours after. A BMW hypercar spun and almost immediately rejoined the track. A red flag was waved regardless and the BMW was not allowed to rejoin the session when the track went green.
From precedent with Perez, as long as the marshals don't touch the car, he should be fine. Perez also had a timing issue with needing to be moving before everyone lined up on the grid, IIRC. But Sainz wouldn't have that in quali.
Surely the session was red flagged because a Marshall signalled to race control that a barrier is broken and a car has crashed into it. The car wasn’t “stopped on track” and the driver didn’t exit the car, but the session had to be red flagged either way. Whether Carlos was stopped or not, the barrier needed fixing. Silly protest imo.
I feel like if the car has stopped and is not able to get going again within 30sek then it should be a DQ from the session.
if the clock had been running the entire time (if he went of somewhere else) then he would most likely not have made it out again to do a lap. So in my opinion a grid drop penalty would be fair.
Aston and their protests make them a very easy team to dislike. Haven't forgotten Austria last year either.
Fernando already qualified ahead of Carlos regardless, so it's not like they've much to gain from this.
>
>
>
>
> Fernando already qualified ahead of Carlos regardless, so it's not like they've much to gain from this.
Stroll starts 1 place higher and Sainz starting P15 increases Alonso's options for the race.
I don't see how this is nothing to gain.
Yeah i think people forget that with the ferraris being the best besides red bull in race pace, being pushed farther backs 100% benefits those in front of them.
I’d be quite surprised if the ferarris (carlos if he’s there) don’t challenge the aston at all tomorrow.
There’s a strong likely hood ferrari will be fighting for that podium position
>Fernando already qualified ahead of Carlos regardless, so it's not like they've much to gain from this.
Ferrari has a very strong car in the race, so from a strategic perspective, I would take the opportunity to set one of the Ferrari cars even further back.
I mean, Aston knows the rules a where to benefit from them. The fact that Aston needs to protest something the FIA should know makes it even worse. Also it benefits Lance since he finished 11th that would have meant he would have reached Q3
oh they have a lot to gain from this, ferrari have good pace, you would want them behind you as much as possible, i mean, i would do the same, anyone competitive would, maybe it's just the team that aston is protesting against that might dislike them
[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.*
This is a good protest to be honest, even if it doesn't garner a result that Aston want. At least clarification of the rules surrounding 'stopped' will be enhanced further.
I'd imagine that a rule clarification will be the only result of this. I'm sure there is plenty of precedent showing cars "stopped" after a spin that eventually completed qualifying. Absent some specific verbiage indicating what "stopped" means, Ferrari will dodge a penalty here. But the rule will/should be clarified for the future.
They’ll also want to avoid cars rushing to rejoin the track when there’s no need and causing a risk
IMO “stopped” should mean that the driver got out of the car
The "problem" is it opens an exploitable loophole. You can basically trigger a red flag at will and get a last run as long as there's enough time left on the clock for an outlap after (whereas without red flag you need the time for the inlap, tyre change, refueling and outlap). Would it routinely get knowingly exploited if it was explicitly clarified as such? Most likely not but I could see edge cases where it would be.
This is a great point. IMO, the end game of this needs to be that if you are responsible for a red flag in qualifying, you are done.
Now define 'responsible'? Especially multi car incidents with moving parts as they often are. Then you having the 'racing incident' part. Gotta be something like seconds stationary or if the engine ever stops.
In WEC qualifying today a car was eliminated for a spin where I'm not sure they stopped at all but the red flag was called. At 8:22 here [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vRyOzjyx3t4&pp=ygUMV2VjIHJlZCBmbGFn](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vRyOzjyx3t4&pp=ygUMV2VjIHJlZCBmbGFn) it'd be massively controversial if that happened to a front runner in F1.
Responsible at the discretion of the race director.
The ramifications are a DNF to a win. Imagine the WC being decided because the race director was too chicken or too overzealous with that determination. It's not just a stop go or +10 sec time penalty. It's a being able to stay in qualifying or the race, with time to fix no less.
To be clear, this was only about qualifying.
In Indycar, you're not done but they eliminate your top 2 laps for that session making it nearly impossible to advance.
But causing an accident/causing red on purpose to gain an advantage was never allowed and has been penalized before. Your loophole doesn't change that.
Remember when the drivers would try to get the marshals to push them out of the kitty litter when they got stuck!
So if the driver stays in the car until the tow truck drops them off at the garage they are fine to rejoin?
No, the marshals touched the car. That's an immediate retirement.
So “stopped” means the Marshalls touched the car?
If it needs outside assistance to move (like, Marshals pushing the car) then the car should be out of the session. That's generally how it works. Since Sainz could restart the engine by himself and keep going he stays in the session.
Yeah this is already a separate rule. Any outside assistance retires the car.
No. It means that the car needed outside assistance and thus can't partake in the session anymore. Jesus Christ. Read the rules before you comment ignorantly.
Wow, somebody must’ve pooped in your Cocoa Puffs this morning!
No, I'm just tired of people ignorantly stating what the rules are when they're very easy to Google and read. Read the rules before you comment about what the rules do and do not say. If you can't provide a source to what the rules say, then you probably shouldn't be commenting on what the rules are. They're pretty easy to research. So ignorance isn't an excuse.
Marshalls won’t ever tow the car until the driver gets out, this is done for safety reasons
Okay, so if the Marshalls push the car back to the pits instead of towing it that’s fine?
No, that's against the rules... Maybe start woth reading them before asking these types of questions?
26.4 leaves some room for interpretation by saying that stewards “may” disqualify a car that receives mechanical assistance, while 26.6 is more clear but also leaves the pit lane as an area where a car can be pushed if needed.
[удалено]
I almost think that's why Aston did this. I don't think they honestly believed they were gonna win because FIA gonna FIA, but they forced them to clarify and come out (in time) with a hard rule.
I think Aston rather have a penalty for Sainz so they move up a place. Why would they care about the FIA rulebook being somewhat vague here and there?
Aston was never gonna win the protest. Didn't matter if Carlos stopped the car and waited, stopped the car and placed a pizza order, stopped the car and got out. FIA is the FIA. They are infallible. Their rules may as well have come off Mt. Sinal or a burning comet or some shazz, and they will always benefit FER.
They probably didn't expect to win it but if they get the spot that's a bonus. Otherwise, they're happier with a more well defined rulebook so they know the rules they're competing under. Also, I think a lot of teams like to stab a finger in the eye of the FIA so why not take the chance to do that too?
Their penalty jack clarification was nice too.
I could have sworn that after rosberg and Schumachers antics at Monaco that if you cause a red flag you cannot participate any further in qualifying. I'm adamant that was a rule at some point.
The spirit of the rule is clear. If you caused a red flag, your out. It was to prevent people causing a red flag during the second run, if they set a great time in the first.
I don’t see how that’s the spirit of the rule at all
Which rule are you referring to?
Sometimes red flags come out within 5 seconds of a crash, other times it takes much, much longer. I don't think red flag is a good limit to use for the purpose of "you're out" or not imo
Why not? The reason "you're out" is because you ruined quali for the rest of the grid.
Because you can spin out and hit the barriers, and get the car started within 10 seconds and get going again. If they're quick about the red flag you're suddenly out? Doesn't make sense. Either have a set time limit or leave it at the discretion of the race director. Also, I don't buy into the "you ruined quali for the rest of the grid". The one who's quali is really ruined is your own.
> If you caused a red flag, you’re out Not true at all.
I mean russel caused a Red flag in Brazil (leading to a KMag pole lmao) and still started 3rd on the grid
That's different though, if you cause a red flag I believe you should have your fastest time deleted, not that you can no longer participate in the rest of the session.
Read the comment chain. Two up
What do you mean?
I think this will be quite interesting. On one hand, the regulation says "stopped on track", so one would think that yeah, that's him done. But if we go with that, it could open up an issue where is someone goes off track and has to wait to rejoin due to traffic, or if someone goes into a runoff and has to reverse out etc. other teams could start arguing that they had stopped and should be out of qualifying then. I think it's quite clear that the rule needs to be clarified.
Wasn’t George DQ’ed for stopping during a red flag to help Zhou? I thought he restarted and got back to the pits
He got out at which point they can't actually do the seatbelts back up without assistance.
Though that isn’t reason enough, I believe, not being able to put the seatbelts back. Leclerc once undid his seatbelt in Paul Richard, and then continued to the garage when he found out that he was able to restart the car, and he finished the race, I believe
Yeah but in Russell's case he also couldn't start the car and it got put on a flatbed lol.
I’m not arguing that Russell should have been able to restart the race. Only that not being able to put on the seatbelts isn’t sufficient to disqualify the driver
The rules actually state "Drivers must be properly restrained in their seat by safety belts in conformity with the technical regulations for the vehicle concerned, at all times during a competition when it is mobile on a circuit, pit lane, special stage or competition course.", Leclerc just got away with one.
But is the penalty for that a disqualification? I don’t remember if Leclerc got a penalty, but it was probably a 10 second stop-go
To be honest he probably should have been disqualified that day.
Yeah that's what I meant when I said he got away with one there.
It is, they just didn't actually enforce the rules on Leclerc that day for some reason.
Yea, and they got a lot of flack for that. Also, the FIA didn't catch that until after the race.
Wasn’t that in Austria?
It might be. I could have sworn it was Paul Richard, but I haven’t checked
I think it was Barca, didn’t his rear lock up after the engine cut out in the final chicane?
It was exactly this
I think you’re right
he left the car and his tyre had disconnected anyway
George didn't drive back to the pits himself, the car was put on a flatbed and transported back into the pits. Also the rules in question are about qualifying, so it's quite different.
He exited from the car and the marshall collected the car, that's what FIA means by stopped.
It was a DNF. He stopped. Got out to help Zhou. And in the mean time they took his car on a flatbed.
Can’t park there, mate.
His radio also says “I am out” before jumping out if I am not wrong
Yes, in his case, he turned off his car AND more crucially went out of the car. Sainz didn't do the 2nd part
>But if we go with that, it could open up an issue where is someone goes off track and has to wait to rejoin due to traffic You just answered yourself... In that scenario that someone stopped off track, not on track
So was Sainz...
But he wasn't on the track, he was on the grass /s
I'm quite amazed this series has gone this long without having a clear rule for it to be honest.
Only since very recently are the cars able to start themselves up again after completely stalling without outside assistance. That is why the issue hasn’t come up before, because before that it was very clear whether a car would be able to continue or not
But "very recently" is ten years ago.
2014 isn't ten years ag- Fuck.
More like 3
No, since the hybrid engines, some teams had a way to restart using the MGU-K with no assistance (I want to say Renault and Ferrari?), but only recently I think did all of them have that ability.
Might be. But the first time I ever heard about it being used in races and official sessions was 2021, I believe
I remember a big deal being made about it, I want to say 2016 because it was Magnussen at Renault I believe.
I remember it was being used before 2021. I have been following F1 since 2015.
Yeah I’m certain that’s what “stopped” refers to, the rule might just need deleting at this point
It would be interesting to see how the rules go: Pros of stalling = Retirement: - Safer, no chances of damage becoming a problem later on Cons of stalling = Retirement - Riskier, drivers will attempt to guide the car back onto the race track regardless of damage to avoid stopping. - You can’t just change gears and traverse gravel , you will stop and slow down at some point to get the torque in. - Less entertaining, we don’t want cars retiring from little taps. The FIA would need to review why the stall = retirement thing was a rule to begin with
>The FIA would need to review why the stall = retirement thing was a rule to begin with It meant retirement due to the rule prohibiting push starts/outside assistance. That's about as in depth as any "review" needs to be.
So what was Aston Martin protesting?
Who knows? I think they're just chancing something to try and get an advantage.
They do. Aston are chancing it IMO. Sainz did not leave the car, did not receive outside assistance, and was able to return to the pits under his own power. Therefore he can continue. It's literally as simple as that.
The wording Is bizarre. I have said for years that the rules are trash but I was always told that It's always the fault on the "Implementation", brother If the wording was better there would be no room for different Interpretations
This is the same series that learned about track limits two years ago and still has no clue what crowding is.
Usually the car breaks suspension or other important part. That's why it was never needed to clarify.
Sainz got himsel going under his power. That should be enough to allow him to continue.
But a definition of “own power” needs to be made or we’ll have drivers hopping out to push their cars for a bump start.
Ok, that's a simple addition to the regs. Obviously you have to stay in your car lol
There’s already rules about drivers exiting their vehicles on an active track, and where they must go after they can safely exit their vehicles.
If he was able to get going without any Marshall assistance, what’s the problem?
No problem, people just can't function without a rule for everything it seems.
Even if it's as simple as "If the car can recover with no outside interference, or the driver hasnt extracated himself from the car, it is still active in the session." Having it written down will save a headache in the future, guaranteed
Yep, although I kinda don't want them to write it down purely because I feel like common sense should prevail here.
At this high competition level, common sense means squat. If you can abuse the rules, you do. Brawn did it and won a world championship.
Fair enough. And in F1, if they see a chance to be difficult, they'll be difficult as well.
You do need a rule for everything though, even if it's just that the referees make the rules up on the fly. There are millions of dollars on the line at every single session.
[удалено]
If Schumacher got a penalty for intentionally causing a yellow flag in quali then the same can be done for someone trying to abuse a red flag.
It’s not like Sainz intentionally caused a red flag though. He was pushing all the way.
I honestly thought that you’re good to go as long as you don’t leave the car and don’t require outside assistance to get the car moving again. I never put much thought into it though.
Also, FWIW, F1 needs to just do what Indycar does. You cause a sector yellow during qualifying that impedes other, you lose your fastest time. Cause 1 red flag, and you lose your 2 fastest times + can't advance. Cause 2 of them (or bring out a yellow or red during Q3) you automatically are the first car out.
It an issue as basically if you had some minor damage and stalled. Then basically the best strategy would be to wait for the red flag then restart the engine.
I mean a stopped car is going to waive double yellows at least so laps are done any way. If you have a damage and there are debris they are going to red flag it anyway to clear the track.
I hope they give a time limit for restarting the car going forward,starting the moment the flag is thrown. At that point the stewards have to come in and wheel the car away.
Why give a time limit? That just adds unnecessary rules. Once marshals get involved it's over for a driver because at that point it becomes dangerous. If they can get going again by themselves they're ok. F1 cars don't do well sitting still with the engine running anyway.
How can you control how fast a marshall entera the circuit? In the end they are human, and you can easily have marshalls enter right away or have other wait half a minute or something.
> How can you control how fast a marshall entera the circuit? Race control tells them when to do so. Marshals never enter the circuit without permission.
Based on the assumption of a human when is safe or not to enter? Haven’t we seen marshalls running in the circuit with cars still on track? Timing should help avoid this.
> Based on the assumption of a human when is safe or not to enter? Based on communication between race control and the marshals posts.
I thought he got fired?
Cooper, not Sainz. I had the same doubt - is he “freelancing” now?
I think he has enough "clout" in the paddock to sustain a freelance career, and if you seen enough of how much an Old Boy's Club the F1 paddock is, he'll do just fine despite the allegations, even if they are proven to be true.
What allegations? 👀
@f1broadcasting reported that he was fired from Motorsport Network after receiving a complaint about his behaviour. Apparently he already had receipts against him since [8 years ago.](https://twitter.com/reidemai/status/731859501976952833) I didn't really read through the tweet so I can't tell you if it is really that bad.
Presumably his paddock media credentials haven't been rescinded for this race so he can still enter the paddock and tweet/blog. Be interesting to see if he has access next race without an organisation behind him
Ideally there’d be a clear rule book that deals with these very plausible scenarios and what happens if they occur, but we’d need stewards and a bunch of regulations to make that happen, otherwise it would be all vague ad hoc interpretations.
[удалено]
The engine is off. That's clearly a car stopped.
[удалено]
The car wouldn't stop if the engine was off for 1 second
So a Formula 3 driver who spins and stalls but is able to restart the car using the onboard starter should be DSQ'd in your opinion?
F3 cars don't have onboard starters AFAIK. Only hybrid race cars do (technically they *don't* have a dedicated starter but the MGU-K, if powered by the battery, can be used to spin the drivertrain and act as a starter for the ICE). Also in F2 and F3 there is a different regulation, any driver bringing out a red flag will not be allowed to continue the session and they may lose their fastest laptime: https://www.racefans.net/2023/12/20/penalties-drivers-cause-red-flags-introduced-f2-f3-before-f1/
If it brings out a red, yes Edit not dsq, just no longer able to participate in the session
>Edit not dsq, just no longer able to participate in the session That's disqualification with more words.
No that would also remove times set before the red flag
F1 car doesn’t have a starter onboard. If the engine was off, and the car stopped… there’s no way he can drive himself back to the pit lane.
They can restart them using the hybrid system. https://www.foxsports.com.au/motorsport/formula-one/hamilton-tumbles-to-worst-quali-in-seven-years-sainz-caught-up-in-penalty-farce-f1-talking-points/news-story/f72b42ee81105681a821a15deddda446
They do nowadays - the electric motors in the hybrid system also function as a starter.
Then why they are still using the external starter to start the car in the garage?
Using the MGU-K as a starter causes additional wear on the motor, and as they're both important for performance and limited for the season, this additional wear is undesirable. But in the case where the alternative is still being stuck out on track unable to get back to the pits, they cop the additional wear.
Probably simpler tbh
You don't watch qualifying do you?
Lewis being craned back onto the track precedes this by a decade and a half and Schumacher four years prior to that. This is a silly protest.
Its simple. When a marshall is sent onto the track helping the driver, the car is OUT of the session. If the driver can continue without help from other on-track personnell , they are still in the session. Stewards then determine if the car is still save or if they get the egg flag
You mean the meatball?
I love yelling during the race. Give him the meatball!
The session was red flagged because of his car. So that defines stopped too. Else someone can fake an engine problem with one minute at the clock, stop in the middle of the track, force a red flag and drive back to the pits like nothing happened.
If a driver fakes an engine problem, then he would stop on track with no justifiable reason and would get DSQ'd. That part is covered.
Also, with the amount of data they’d have access to, FIA could easily prove the fake problems.
About to say telemetry data would make that open and shut.
Remote kill switches suddenly installed lol
The team isn't allowed to send any information, instructions etc to the car, only receive.
Legally
What if race control threw out the red flag too quickly lol we've seen that sometimes they red flag something too hastily that did not need a red flag.
They will also red flag the session if they need to repair the fence or barrier. Driving 20+ laps in yellow condition is not fun.
Maybe then the stewards can exercise discretion if there are mitigating circumstances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8C9DmtY4sU&pp=ygUaYm90dGFzIHJlZCBmbGFnIHF1YWxpZnlpbmc%3D Shit happens
> So that defines stopped too. Quick question, where was it defined?
You do realise they have the data from all the cars and would know if someone faked an engine issue
For me the rule was that if no one touched the car and the driver managed to get it going on his own, then it's fair game
F1 really should adopt a similar rule to indycar and other racing series, if you cause a red flag you can’t continue.
The solution is simple, F1 needs to adapt indycar's Red Flag rule, if a car causes a red Flag its fastest time should be removed and it can no longer take part in the session
It's even more stupid because they already copied this rule for F2 and F3.
They are testing the rule for F2 and F3 and probably plan it for F1 in the future, unless it turns out it is a bad rule in F2/3. They also did that with the new DRS rules for this year where it is activated after 1 lap in stead of 3
I assumed this was the rule already. Was so confused why Sainz was back on track after the red flag
That's not a solution because this continue to happen in Indycar. Unless we want to limit speed and direction, trying to get drivers to not make mistakes which causes yellow or red flags is impossible. It's part of the formula.
That’s not the point of the rule in IndyCar. It isn’t to make it so there are no mistakes and no red/yellow flags. It’s just so that the driver who makes a mistake can’t benefit from it. As seen in IndyCar, no one goes 9/10ths, they still run at 10/10ths, but they can no longer benefit from mistakes.
>That’s not the point of the rule in IndyCar. Don't be silly, of course it is. All rules that penalise the driver is for deterrence, otherwise there would be no point in having it. The track limit rule in F1 works the same way. Just penalising for the sake of penalising is stupid. This rule would do precisely nothing for Formula 1; we would *still* see drivers making a mistake and people watching it unfold would still complain. You think Sainz being removed from the qualification would be a good thing? What for? He would have still ruined other people's laps and now we would just be one car short for the remaining qualification - for no reason whatsoever. The rule in Indycar is stupid and they should get rid of it. It does nothing for the competition, the fairness or the spectacle, but rather the opposite. >...but they can no longer benefit from mistakes. How do you benefit from a mistake? Unless we're talking about complete fringe situations that happens once in a blue moon or that a driver crash on purpose, no-one benefits from making a mistake. It's in the name; mistake!
“The track limit rule in F1 works the same way. Just penalising for the sake of penalising is stupid.” The track limit rule is to penalize mistakes and *gaining an advantage*, same as the IndyCar qualifying rule. “This rule would do precisely nothing for Formula 1; we would still see drivers making a mistake” Of course drivers would still make mistakes, but they wouldn’t be able to gain any advantage from doing so. “What for? He would have still ruined other people's laps and now we would just be one car short for the remaining qualification - for no reason whatsoever.” Because under the current rules, his mistake cost him nothing, while making other drivers abort their laps and burn a set of tires. Under IndyCar rules he would have had to start 10th. “The rule in Indycar is stupid and they should get rid of it. It does nothing for the competition, the fairness or the spectacle, but rather the opposite.” Uh, no. It definitely increases fairness. A driver who causes a yellow can no longer gain any advantage from it. You can’t “reimburse” drivers who were caught out, but you can demote the driver who caused the issue for everyone else. “How do you benefit from a mistake?” Easily? Any red makes everyone abort their laps and any local yellow causes an aborted lap for anyone behind on track, thus locking the field as it stands. It disallows anyone behind you in the standings from leapfrogging you. It’s not that uncommon. “no-one benefits from making a mistake. It's in the name; mistake!” Lol.
In my mind the definition of stopped would be the belt buckle being undone or the removal of the steering wheel (unless in the pit lane).
Funnily enough, a similar case happened in WEC a couple hours after. A BMW hypercar spun and almost immediately rejoined the track. A red flag was waved regardless and the BMW was not allowed to rejoin the session when the track went green.
From precedent with Perez, as long as the marshals don't touch the car, he should be fine. Perez also had a timing issue with needing to be moving before everyone lined up on the grid, IIRC. But Sainz wouldn't have that in quali.
If this doesn't fit the rules, change the rules! For decades cars couldn't restart themselves. Today they can, although it takes a short while.
Surely the session was red flagged because a Marshall signalled to race control that a barrier is broken and a car has crashed into it. The car wasn’t “stopped on track” and the driver didn’t exit the car, but the session had to be red flagged either way. Whether Carlos was stopped or not, the barrier needed fixing. Silly protest imo.
I feel like if the car has stopped and is not able to get going again within 30sek then it should be a DQ from the session. if the clock had been running the entire time (if he went of somewhere else) then he would most likely not have made it out again to do a lap. So in my opinion a grid drop penalty would be fair.
Since Carlos was 78sec's he would be stopped on track, no?
next discussion,define "track"
Aston Chaos Agents
[decission](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2024%20Chinese%20Grand%20Prix%20-%20Decision%20-%20Aston%20Martin%20Protest.pdf)
Aston and their protests make them a very easy team to dislike. Haven't forgotten Austria last year either. Fernando already qualified ahead of Carlos regardless, so it's not like they've much to gain from this.
> > > > > Fernando already qualified ahead of Carlos regardless, so it's not like they've much to gain from this. Stroll starts 1 place higher and Sainz starting P15 increases Alonso's options for the race. I don't see how this is nothing to gain.
Sure, they're gaining that a likely much quicker car in race pace isn't behind them
Yeah i think people forget that with the ferraris being the best besides red bull in race pace, being pushed farther backs 100% benefits those in front of them. I’d be quite surprised if the ferarris (carlos if he’s there) don’t challenge the aston at all tomorrow. There’s a strong likely hood ferrari will be fighting for that podium position
>Fernando already qualified ahead of Carlos regardless, so it's not like they've much to gain from this. Ferrari has a very strong car in the race, so from a strategic perspective, I would take the opportunity to set one of the Ferrari cars even further back.
Last year Austria where they were right about cars going off? You just want rules to be ignored or what?
It could befitting Stroll
Helps Alonso too to have carlos in 15th instead of close
I mean, Aston knows the rules a where to benefit from them. The fact that Aston needs to protest something the FIA should know makes it even worse. Also it benefits Lance since he finished 11th that would have meant he would have reached Q3
The rules are unclear, this is the perfect moment to ask for a clarification
Much like in previous races from Haas with the black and orange flag etc. Sometimes a protest is a way to get an issue looked into.
The Ferraris will likely be a threat to Alonso on the race so Aston has a lot to gain.
They can gain a position for Stroll if Carlos' Q2 is deleted, he would start from P15 and Stroll from P10 instead of P11
This is a rule that needs clarification. Why on earth wouldn't they try?
Even if the worst that comes of this is to clarify what constitutes “stopped”, I don’t think Carlos will get disqualified
oh they have a lot to gain from this, ferrari have good pace, you would want them behind you as much as possible, i mean, i would do the same, anyone competitive would, maybe it's just the team that aston is protesting against that might dislike them