2024 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal, June 07 - 09

[FW17]

Canada should should get rid of turns 8 and 9 just like Australian GP (turn 9 and 10).

The best overtaking spot of the race is the final chicane which has no grandstand.

It will greatly benefit the people who buy tickets to the grand stands (6 inches of aluminium) at the hair pin and have to suffer the quality seating at a track with notoriously poor spectator amenities.

[ringo]

He wouldnt be on the track. He would be at the barriers. No one would argue with a stoppage there. And it would in fact be the normal and right thing to do.

The issue here is that one hopes that Verstappen would have lost the race, and Red Bull's quick thinking is perceived to have prevented one's favored outcome.

Paranoia and speculation on your part.

The team have stated they wanted to avoid a safety car. That's a fact. It's not me or "Max haters" speculating.
That's the focus of my argument. If a team can say that, then it becomes a dirty tactic that can be used in the future.

[AR3-GP]

He wouldnt be on the track. He would be at the barriers. No one would argue with a stoppage there. And it would in fact be the normal and right thing to do.

The issue here is that one hopes that Verstappen would have lost the race, and Red Bull's quick thinking is perceived to have prevented one's favored outcome.

Paranoia and speculation on your part.

The team have stated they wanted to avoid a safety car. That's a fact. It's not me or "Max haters" speculating.
That's the focus of my argument. If a team can say that, then it becomes a dirty tactic that can be used in the future.

There is no rule that prevents a team from managing their cars in a way that prevents a safety car especially when the car was driveable and the extent of soiling of the track is subjective considering what we have seen numerous drivers get away with in the past, showering the circuit with debris on their way back to the pits.

There are however rules against deliberately bringing out a safety car, especially after Singapore 2008.

His car had full power and was drivable. He was 1 corner away from the pitlane when they told him to continue. Perez going to the pitlane is not a "dirty tactic". This is only a perception that arises from other origins.

One can perform a simple thought experiment to understand that this is the crux of the matter. How would one feel if Perez left the accident site, fully capable with engine and 4 wheels, and then Red Bull instructed him to stop, leading to a SC intervention that caused Hamilton or Leclerc to lose, and Verstappen to win. If Red Bull is now guilty in one's mind for "telling him to stop and causing a safety car", then the car damage was never the issue here.

The only point the stewards have with Red Bull is the argument that the car was in a dangerous condition, which is subjective, and not surprising to see the team and the FIA in a disagreement on this.

[Just_a_fan]

The issue here is that one hopes that Verstappen would have lost the race, and Red Bull's quick thinking is perceived to have prevented one's favored outcome.

Paranoia and speculation on your part.

The team have stated they wanted to avoid a safety car. That's a fact. It's not me or "Max haters" speculating.
That's the focus of my argument. If a team can say that, then it becomes a dirty tactic that can be used in the future.

There is no rule that prevents a team from managing their cars in a way that prevents a safety car especially when the car was driveable and the extent of soiling of the track is subjective considering what we have seen numerous drivers get away with in the past, showering the circuit with debris on their way back to the pits.

There are however rules against deliberately bringing out a safety car, especially after Singapore 2008.

His car had full power and was drivable. He was 1 corner away from the pitlane when they told him to continue. Perez going to the pitlane is not a "dirty tactic". This is only a perception that arises from other origins.

One can perform a simple thought experiment to understand that this is the crux of the matter. How would one feel if Perez left the accident site, fully capable with engine and 4 wheels, and then Red Bull instructed him to stop, leading to a SC intervention that caused Hamilton or Leclerc to lose, and Verstappen to win. If Red Bull is now guilty in one's mind for "telling him to stop and causing a safety car", then the car damage was never the issue here.

The only point the stewards have with Red Bull is the argument that the car was in a dangerous condition, which is subjective, and not surprising to see the team and the FIA in a disagreement on this.

There is the general rule:

33.4 At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which
could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.

Of course, the "could be deemed" makes it subjective but, ultimately the stewards decide whether it is deemed to be potentially dangerous. In this case, as they have issued a penalty, it would seem that doing what Red Bull did is contrary to this rule. Whether this results in a precedent is, of course, where the fun begins.

[basti313]

A rear wing cannot be replaced at a pit stop.

It actually can. You're allowed to park your car in the garage under a pit stop. There's just no point in racing because it takes too long.

If the race had been Red Flagged in the Albon/Sainz crash, there's absolutely a possibility they could have replaced the rear wing, if they have one of similar spec available.

They could have even mounted any spec as the race was started. So no parc ferme.
Was it Hungary 21 when a rear wing was repaired under red flag? I think I remember something there...
Generally the discussion on repairable or not is nonsense as no one can judge it. We saw many instances with broken suspensions...in every case it was fine to bring the car back. I would even say that usually a broken front wing that can go under the car is much more dangerous than what we saw here.

It's not me or "Max haters" speculating.
That's the focus of my argument.

You know, that you do not need the "or" in the first sentence, right?

There is no rule that prevents a team from managing their cars in a way that prevents a safety car especially when the car was driveable and the extent of soiling of the track is subjective considering what we have seen numerous drivers get away with in the past, showering the circuit with debris on their way back to the pits.
.....
This is only a perception that arises from other origins.

Do you really want to feed it like this? Why discuss this nonsense?

The only point the stewards have with Red Bull is the argument that the car was in a dangerous condition, which is subjective, and not surprising to see the team and the FIA in a disagreement on this.

Well, on one side I think the penalty is a disaster. I would actually vote for a rule that gives everyone that causes an avoidable safety car one or two penalty points by default. So if Perez, Sainz or Sargeant can not keep it on the track...two points. If someone stops the car with a mechanical fault at a bad spot instead of at least trying to reach the next exit...one point (see the Monza discussion last year on this).
It does not hurt anyone if drivers that crash and change race outcomes with it give young drivers like Bearman a chance. Still I do not understand the grid pen here, this is a slam dunk penalty points situation.

As much as I want drivers to think about putting the car into save positions where they do not cause a SC, I see the point here. Perez lost a major part of the right endplate on the track and was close to loose even more on the next bump. I think that was too much, there they should have instructed him to go into the safe runoff at turn 10, which would not have caused a SC. I think they were sleeping at this moment, which is somehow ok to penalize. They also took nonsense and high risk. If Perez would have lost the rest of the wing on the straight, that would have been the SC...with Perez limping into the RedBull pit and Verstappen behind it would have been awesome...

[RonMexico]

A rear wing cannot be replaced at a pit stop.

It actually can. You're allowed to park your car in the garage under a pit stop. There's just no point in racing because it takes too long.

If the race had been Red Flagged in the Albon/Sainz crash, there's absolutely a possibility they could have replaced the rear wing, if they have one of similar spec available.

They could have even mounted any spec as the race was started. So no parc ferme.
Was it Hungary 21 when a rear wing was repaired under red flag? I think I remember something there...
Generally the discussion on repairable or not is nonsense as no one can judge it. We saw many instances with broken suspensions...in every case it was fine to bring the car back. I would even say that usually a broken front wing that can go under the car is much more dangerous than what we saw here.

It's not me or "Max haters" speculating.
That's the focus of my argument.

You know, that you do not need the "or" in the first sentence, right?

There is no rule that prevents a team from managing their cars in a way that prevents a safety car especially when the car was driveable and the extent of soiling of the track is subjective considering what we have seen numerous drivers get away with in the past, showering the circuit with debris on their way back to the pits.
.....
This is only a perception that arises from other origins.

Do you really want to feed it like this? Why discuss this nonsense?

The only point the stewards have with Red Bull is the argument that the car was in a dangerous condition, which is subjective, and not surprising to see the team and the FIA in a disagreement on this.

Well, on one side I think the penalty is a disaster. I would actually vote for a rule that gives everyone that causes an avoidable safety car one or two penalty points by default. So if Perez, Sainz or Sargeant can not keep it on the track...two points. If someone stops the car with a mechanical fault at a bad spot instead of at least trying to reach the next exit...one point (see the Monza discussion last year on this).
It does not hurt anyone if drivers that crash and change race outcomes with it give young drivers like Bearman a chance. Still I do not understand the grid pen here, this is a slam dunk penalty points situation.

As much as I want drivers to think about putting the car into save positions where they do not cause a SC, I see the point here. Perez lost a major part of the right endplate on the track and was close to loose even more on the next bump. I think that was too much, there they should have instructed him to go into the safe runoff at turn 10, which would not have caused a SC. I think they were sleeping at this moment, which is somehow ok to penalize. They also took nonsense and high risk. If Perez would have lost the rest of the wing on the straight, that would have been the SC...with Perez limping into the RedBull pit and Verstappen behind it would have been awesome...

Riccardo at Spa in 2018 had his rear wing repaired and he continued some laps down. The repair took 10-15 minutes.

[AR3-GP]

2020 Styrian (Austria) GP. Leclerc crashed into Vettel in T3 and damaged Vettel's rear wing. Ferrari told Vettel to come back to the pits. Vettel drove back to the pits with a damaged rear wing. No penalty.












Perez's penalty is unprecedented. The reason that Leclerc got his penalty in Suzuka '19 was for driving around for multiple laps with his car in a dangerous condition. Perez went 4 corners to the pits. The penalty is nonsense.

[Sieper]

Or, if it not nonsense, now the precedent is that everyone who catches some damage, the team HAS to somehow judge that remotely and instruct them to park the car straight away.

This has a big danger in it for race manipulation. Driver can no longer try to get home. He is now MANDATED to cause a (v)sc.

I don’t think this is a good decision.

[Waz]

Paranoia and speculation on your part.

The team have stated they wanted to avoid a safety car. That's a fact. It's not me or "Max haters" speculating.
That's the focus of my argument. If a team can say that, then it becomes a dirty tactic that can be used in the future.

There is no rule that prevents a team from managing their cars in a way that prevents a safety car especially when the car was driveable and the extent of soiling of the track is subjective considering what we have seen numerous drivers get away with in the past, showering the circuit with debris on their way back to the pits.

There are however rules against deliberately bringing out a safety car, especially after Singapore 2008.

His car had full power and was drivable. He was 1 corner away from the pitlane when they told him to continue. Perez going to the pitlane is not a "dirty tactic". This is only a perception that arises from other origins.

One can perform a simple thought experiment to understand that this is the crux of the matter. How would one feel if Perez left the accident site, fully capable with engine and 4 wheels, and then Red Bull instructed him to stop, leading to a SC intervention that caused Hamilton or Leclerc to lose, and Verstappen to win. If Red Bull is now guilty in one's mind for "telling him to stop and causing a safety car", then the car damage was never the issue here.

The only point the stewards have with Red Bull is the argument that the car was in a dangerous condition, which is subjective, and not surprising to see the team and the FIA in a disagreement on this.

There is the general rule:

33.4 At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which
could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.

Of course, the "could be deemed" makes it subjective but, ultimately the stewards decide whether it is deemed to be potentially dangerous. In this case, as they have issued a penalty, it would seem that doing what Red Bull did is contrary to this rule. Whether this results in a precedent is, of course, where the fun begins.

You focused on the "could be deemed" part, while the important word is "unnecessarily". That would only apply to a non-damaged car, as it's easily deemed necessary to drive a damaged car slowly to the pits for any number of reasons, including driver safety. Driver safety in this case can be as simple as avoiding a further collision by driving too fast with a damaged car.

[Waz]

Canada should should get rid of turns 8 and 9 just like Australian GP (turn 9 and 10).

The best overtaking spot of the race is the final chicane which has no grandstand.

It will greatly benefit the people who buy tickets to the grand stands (6 inches of aluminium) at the hair pin and have to suffer the quality seating at a track with notoriously poor spectator amenities.

https://dayattheraces.weebly.com/upload ... 758533.jpg

Before DRS, the best overtaking spots were the hairpin and turn 1

[Just_a_fan]

There is no rule that prevents a team from managing their cars in a way that prevents a safety car especially when the car was driveable and the extent of soiling of the track is subjective considering what we have seen numerous drivers get away with in the past, showering the circuit with debris on their way back to the pits.

There are however rules against deliberately bringing out a safety car, especially after Singapore 2008.

His car had full power and was drivable. He was 1 corner away from the pitlane when they told him to continue. Perez going to the pitlane is not a "dirty tactic". This is only a perception that arises from other origins.





The only point the stewards have with Red Bull is the argument that the car was in a dangerous condition, which is subjective, and not surprising to see the team and the FIA in a disagreement on this.

There is the general rule:

33.4 At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which
could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.

Of course, the "could be deemed" makes it subjective but, ultimately the stewards decide whether it is deemed to be potentially dangerous. In this case, as they have issued a penalty, it would seem that doing what Red Bull did is contrary to this rule. Whether this results in a precedent is, of course, where the fun begins.

You focused on the "could be deemed" part, while the important word is "unnecessarily". That would only apply to a non-damaged car, as it's easily deemed necessary to drive a damaged car slowly to the pits for any number of reasons, including driver safety. Driver safety in this case can be as simple as avoiding a further collision by driving too fast with a damaged car.

Actually, "or in a manner" is important too as that could include a damaged car.

See, there's more than one way to cut it.

[Polite]

2020 Styrian (Austria) GP. Leclerc crashed into Vettel in T3 and damaged Vettel's rear wing. Ferrari told Vettel to come back to the pits. Vettel drove back to the pits with a damaged rear wing. No penalty.



https://i.postimg.cc/nhS917MB/image.png

https://i.postimg.cc/DzWJpZbD/image.png

https://i.postimg.cc/T1xKPJHM/image.png

https://i.postimg.cc/sxJvGGtB/image.png


Perez's penalty is unprecedented. The reason that Leclerc got his penalty in Suzuka '19 was for driving around for multiple laps with his car in a dangerous condition. Perez went 4 corners to the pits. The penalty is nonsense.

that was the first lap.. so there was no risky situation for the drivers cause noone would cross Vettel before he pitted.

This time Perez was told to not park there only to avoid SC..bad faith behavior and a lot of cars met Perez on the track

Like Nelson Piquet J...

[Sieper]

He wasn’t told not to park the car there. He immediately got going again without any radio interaction. When he radioed in he was trying to get back (when already almost there) the team confirmed they agreed.

[SiLo]

The penalty is a load of rubbish basically. Nobody else has gotten one like this before, at least not that I can remember. The car was fine to drive back.

[chrisc90]

Honestly surprised that red bull haven’t protested it to be honest.


Even people on here have come up with examples of others.

If a front wing is knocked off, but hasn’t detached, the driver must surely have to park up now