2025 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, July 04 - 06

[ENGINE TUNER]

The problem has always been pirelli, in 2016 it was revealed by pirelli themselves that the 2010 Bridgestone inters displaced more water than the 2016 pirelli FULL WETS. Pirelli full.wets are just complete garbage and are unraceable. They aquaplane far too much.

I'm not excusing Pirelli here but this is just utter nonsense. The problem is not the wet tyres. We have had some brilliant wet races in the Pirelli era. The problem is that the race direction has consistently been developing rabies with their aversion for water.

The issue is the amount of spray these cars produce in wet conditions, multiple drivers were complaining they couldnt see a car that was right infront of them, hadjar went right into the back of Kimi and caused him to retire because he couldnt see him until he was like 10 feet away. i think the race director made the right call to bring out the SC

If the problem was just the spray as they claim, then all they would have to do is have a lap or two of yellow flag running without the safety car, so the gaps can naturally occur and visibility can improve, but the real problem is the pirelli full wets and the spray is just an excuse made to protect pirelli. The real problem is aquaplaning since the tires became wider in 2017. The aversion to racing on full wets came about BEFORE 2022, before the current ground effect era, the problem is clearly the pirelli trash.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/what ... /10735569/

[DDopey]

"When the clerk of the course had declared that the safety car was coming in that lap and the lights were extinguished, Car 81 suddenly braked hard (59.2 psi of brake pressure) and reduced speed in the middle of the straight between T14 and T15, from 218 kph to 52 kph, resulting in Car 1 having to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
This momentarily resulted in Car 1 unavoidably overtaking Car 81, a position which he gave back immediately.
Article 55.15 of the FIA Sporting Regulations required Car 81 to proceed at a pace which involved no erratic braking nor any other manoeuvre which is likely to endanger other drivers from the point at which the lights on the safety car are turned off.
What Car 81 did was clearly a breach of that article. In accordance with the penalty guidelines, we imposed a 10 second time penalty to Car 81."

Seems to me a reasonable explanation.

[Hoffman900]

The problem has always been pirelli, in 2016 it was revealed by pirelli themselves that the 2010 Bridgestone inters displaced more water than the 2016 pirelli FULL WETS. Pirelli full.wets are just complete garbage and are unraceable. They aquaplane far too much.

I'm not excusing Pirelli here but this is just utter nonsense. The problem is not the wet tyres. We have had some brilliant wet races in the Pirelli era. The problem is that the race direction has consistently been developing rabies with their aversion for water.

The issue is the amount of spray these cars produce in wet conditions, multiple drivers were complaining they couldnt see a car that was right infront of them, hadjar went right into the back of Kimi and caused him to retire because he couldnt see him until he was like 10 feet away. i think the race director made the right call to bring out the SC

So why take 17 cars spread out on a track near 6km long, bunch then up under a pace car, and then be shocked when no one can see?

It’s foolish.

[basti313]

If Oscar did nothing wrong then Max should be penalised for overtaking under safety car conditions.

No. That is not a penalty, read the peanalty guidelines.

No, the point is that if Max was in second (cf canada) the penalty never would've been applied

Maybe...in the end it was a different animal:
- I think the drivers are doing something stupid. In the past they accelerated strongly and then pushed the brake, so that there is no danger, the driver behind knew what was coming and did the same. Here and in Canada they pushed the brake just rolling. I am not sure if this is "normal" now or if this is exceptional, need to check more incidents...but they had to stop this for the future.
- They not even investigated or noted Russel. Still a strange thing, but this would really have been the different animal with Toto smashing some headphones and hell breaking loose for putting the "winner" 10sec back. I do not even want to mix the press into this as enough said...but here, noone cares, just Pia sitting there with a stupid face.
- That the SC switched off the lights was a good catch. The different ruling, for something that was not different, suddenly on the table. And again, no one cares and this was clear. If you look into what is alowed or not, it is actually no difference.

[Luscion]

I'm not excusing Pirelli here but this is just utter nonsense. The problem is not the wet tyres. We have had some brilliant wet races in the Pirelli era. The problem is that the race direction has consistently been developing rabies with their aversion for water.

The issue is the amount of spray these cars produce in wet conditions, multiple drivers were complaining they couldnt see a car that was right infront of them, hadjar went right into the back of Kimi and caused him to retire because he couldnt see him until he was like 10 feet away. i think the race director made the right call to bring out the SC

So why take 17 cars spread out on a track near 6km long, bunch then up under a pace car, and then be shocked when no one can see?

It’s foolish.

Because the drivers were complaining about visibility before the sc, a crash happened because of it, just letting them continue when nobody could see anything and the rain was coming down heavier made no sense

[Hoffman900]

The issue is the amount of spray these cars produce in wet conditions, multiple drivers were complaining they couldnt see a car that was right infront of them, hadjar went right into the back of Kimi and caused him to retire because he couldnt see him until he was like 10 feet away. i think the race director made the right call to bring out the SC

So why take 17 cars spread out on a track near 6km long, bunch then up under a pace car, and then be shocked when no one can see?

It’s foolish.

Because the drivers were complaining about visibility before the sc, a crash happened because of it, just letting them continue when nobody could see anything and the rain was coming down heavier made no sense

No one crashed. Leclerc went offroad. That was it.

They hype these people up as the “pinnacle” yet club and pro motorcycle racers ride in worst… on 2 wheels. It’s a farce of a series.

[FittingMechanics]

The issue is the amount of spray these cars produce in wet conditions, multiple drivers were complaining they couldnt see a car that was right infront of them, hadjar went right into the back of Kimi and caused him to retire because he couldnt see him until he was like 10 feet away. i think the race director made the right call to bring out the SC

So why take 17 cars spread out on a track near 6km long, bunch then up under a pace car, and then be shocked when no one can see?

It’s foolish.

Because the drivers were complaining about visibility before the sc, a crash happened because of it, just letting them continue when nobody could see anything and the rain was coming down heavier made no sense

They could have used VSC? The drivers would stay spread out, the race would be neutralized and chances of crashes would be minimized.

If I was calling it I would let them race until there is real need to stop (a crash) but if they wanted to reduce risk, just put a boring VSC.

[erudite450]

So why take 17 cars spread out on a track near 6km long, bunch then up under a pace car, and then be shocked when no one can see?

It’s foolish.

Because the drivers were complaining about visibility before the sc, a crash happened because of it, just letting them continue when nobody could see anything and the rain was coming down heavier made no sense

No one crashed. Leclerc went offroad. That was it.

They hype these people up as the “pinnacle” yet club and pro motorcycle racers ride in worst… on 2 wheels. It’s a farce of a series.

I couldn't agree more! We shouldn't be going in this direction. It's the tradition of F1 to race in the wet.

[Seerix]

So why take 17 cars spread out on a track near 6km long, bunch then up under a pace car, and then be shocked when no one can see?

It’s foolish.

Because the drivers were complaining about visibility before the sc, a crash happened because of it, just letting them continue when nobody could see anything and the rain was coming down heavier made no sense

They could have used VSC? The drivers would stay spread out, the race would be neutralized and chances of crashes would be minimized.

If I was calling it I would let them race until there is real need to stop (a crash) but if they wanted to reduce risk, just put a boring VSC.

VSC actually sounds like a great idea, I wonder why don't they use it in such conditions.
Might be because drivers can play with the delta and go full beans occasionally (for a turn or two) even with VSC on.

[basti313]

Yep, wasn't this the error in Brazil?

[ENGINE TUNER]

So why take 17 cars spread out on a track near 6km long, bunch then up under a pace car, and then be shocked when no one can see?

It’s foolish.

Because the drivers were complaining about visibility before the sc, a crash happened because of it, just letting them continue when nobody could see anything and the rain was coming down heavier made no sense

They could have used VSC? The drivers would stay spread out, the race would be neutralized and chances of crashes would be minimized.

If I was calling it I would let them race until there is real need to stop (a crash) but if they wanted to reduce risk, just put a boring VSC.

Exactly

[CMSMJ1]

The AD21 Nonsense is deleted

Leave it out

[Mr5in1]

Just going to ignore all the above rubbish being written.

Cracking race Silverstone always produces the goods, amazing to see Hulk on the podium, great strategy and performance.

Lots to unpick from every team and driver but just want to point out that a proper race track means proper racing!

[AngusF1]

"When the clerk of the course had declared that the safety car was coming in that lap and the lights were extinguished, Car 81 suddenly braked hard (59.2 psi of brake pressure) and reduced speed in the middle of the straight between T14 and T15, from 218 kph to 52 kph, resulting in Car 1 having to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
This momentarily resulted in Car 1 unavoidably overtaking Car 81, a position which he gave back immediately.
Article 55.15 of the FIA Sporting Regulations required Car 81 to proceed at a pace which involved no erratic braking nor any other manoeuvre which is likely to endanger other drivers from the point at which the lights on the safety car are turned off.
What Car 81 did was clearly a breach of that article. In accordance with the penalty guidelines, we imposed a 10 second time penalty to Car 81."

Seems to me a reasonable explanation.

The steward’s ruling is both very interesting and wrong, because it contains a false assertion. It asserts, without evidence, that car 1 “unavoidably” overtook car 81.

This is just plain false. Car 1 overtook car 81 because its driver was caught napping and not paying attention.

Car 1 could have avoided overtaking car 81 if its driver was looking at the road instead of whatever else he was doing, which was probably fiddling with knobs on the steering wheel or chatting with his race engineer.

The truth is that neither driver should have been penalised, because no harm occurred and both continued on with their race.

But if either car was to be penalised it should have been car 1, for nearly causing a collision by failing to pay attention.

As an expert racer the driver of car 1 should know that it is the prerogative of the lead driver, on safety car release, to warm his brakes and tires and control the pace of the release to his advantage.

In fact given that the driver of car 81 stated that he drove the same way four laps in a row, it is not inconceivable that the driver of car 1 manufactured the incident by deliberately overshooting then complaining about it on the radio. He knows the FIA are desperate to keep him in the series and might feel pressured to act on his complaints.

To see such a blatant false assertion in the stewards’ report to justify their manipulation of the race is highly disappointing, and their failure to consider the alternative scenario seems a peculiar omission.

[Matt-A]

The steward’s ruling is both very interesting and wrong, because it contains a false assertion. It asserts, without evidence, that car 1 “unavoidably” overtook car 81.

Is it not entirely plausible that Red Bull gave evidence to the stewards (in the form of testimony from the driver of car 1) that car 1 was unable to avoid overtaking car 81?