this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
20 points (91.7% liked)

Formula 1

9059 readers
20 users here now

Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series

Rules

  1. Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
  2. No gambling, crypto or NFTs
  3. Spoilers are allowed
  4. Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
  5. Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
  6. Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
  7. Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.

Up next

F1 Calendar

2024 Calendar

Location Date
🇺🇸 United States 21-23 Nov
🇶🇦 Qatar 29 Nov-01 Dec
🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi 06-08 Dec

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Photographer@lemmy.world
wes@lemmy.world
bwoah@lemmy.world
20
How would F1 write a rule to prevent teams from pulling a Perez again? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by skipmorrow@lemmy.world to c/formula1@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Question coming from a F1 newbie as of this year (thanks DTS)

Interesting race yesterday. Clever loophole exploitation on RB to put Perez back out to erase the time penalty. Supposedly F1 powers-that-be want to plug that hole so teams can't do it again?

I guess the bigger question is should the loophole be fixed?

So how would such a rule be written? Say "if a car is out of a race under green for more than five minutes, the team must retire the car (which is defined as not permitted to race again in that race)". But that doesn't seem fair to a team in a race where less than ten cars are remaining (does this ever happen?) and it takes a while to get the car fixed.

Anyway, I am curious to see what becomes of this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Should they? It was kinda fun tbh, gives an interesting twist

[–] PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they fix something on Checo's car before sending him out again?

My understanding is that you need a valid reason to retire a car; you can't just park it if you're out of the points in order to preserve your engine, for example

So, if they decided to park him, there must have been a safety reason. Putting him back out without addressing that would mean they either retired him without a reason, or put him in danger by going back out again

[–] wyrmroot@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

I thought this would be the reason he would have to stay out after he returned to the race. If you’re saying that the car is now safe to drive, aren’t you not allowed to retire it 2 laps later without a reason? I was hoping that rule is what would have punished RB for this sneaky move.

[–] skipmorrow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought it gave an interesting twist too. I guess I would feel different if I wasn't a RB fan. Hard to say.

One other possibility comes to mind. What if there are no rule changes, but instead if the stewards think a team might try to take advantage of this, they decide at race time to hold their ruling disclosure until after the race?

[–] toma@lemmy.omat.nl 2 points 1 year ago

Well, I personally don't like stuff happening after the race. I rather have it during the race. But in your spirit of keeping it simple: if the stewards think a team has done something to evade punishment, they can consider the punishment not correctly served.