The FIA are RUINING F1 races by doing this...
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 10. 2022
- The FIA need to stop investigating incidents after a race for many reasons explained in this video... what do you think?
SUBSCRIBE to WTF1 bit.ly/WTF1Subscribe
JOIN Team WTF1 www.wtf1.com/teamwtf1
---- Follow WTF1 ----
On Twitter: / wtf1official
On TikTok: / wtf1official
On Instagram: / wtf1official
On Facebook: / wtf1official
On our website: www.wtf1.com
---- Music provided by ----
Epidemic Sound
www.epidemicsound.com - Sport
This whole situation reminded me of Leclerc vs Verstappen in 2019 at the Austrian GP. Where there was an investigation for 3 hours after the race checking if Verstappen should get a 5 second penalty or not for colliding with Leclerc in the last few laps. This made everyone refresh their phones in the bus leaving the circuit or fake news coming out from all sides of social media and ruining the whole podium ceremony and celebration.
did max got penalty then??!
@@greatrespect1549 no I think he won that one
@@greatrespect1549 Eventually he did not, they called it a racing incident. If Max would've gotten a 5 sec penalty, Leclerc would've won. Which would mean that 3 hours after the podium ceremony there would be a different winner which probably would feel very awkward for fans of both drivers.
@LetsAddSomeSubs yeah how verstappen didn’t get a penalty for that baffles me
they can investigate an incident after a race if it involes 2 drivers who both DNFd.
or if it doesnt affect the standings afterwards. IF a driver deemed guilty of a certain rulebreak, the penalty must not be a time penalty. if a potential time penalty is going to be applied, investigate DURING the race, and make a penalty before the end of the race. preferably shortly after the rulebreak.
I agree with that for the most part but sometimes it’s not possible. Like if the infringement happens in the last couple of laps.
This case though should’ve been clear cut, they had lots of time to investigate it during the race and it’s a very simple question “was he within 10 car lengths or not”. The only other factor that I can see the FIA trying to find out in that situation is whether there was a technical issue with the car and that’s also something they should be able to solve quickly
@@armadillolover99 I was thinking the same thing. Maybe punishments could come in the form of points on the drivers license or a grid/time penalty in the next race.
@@armadillolover99 in that case: investigate before the podium. Everyone gets that a last lap incident can’t be investigated and judged before the race is out, but it should be resolved before the podium ceremony if it involves the front runners.
@@armadillolover99 ofcourse you are 100% correct, if it happends in the last few laps, its understandable that they cannot decide on a penalty before race ends. its the fault of the drivers that they done something near the end. but then have a ''waiting-period'' after the race before ceremonies, so we dont get stuff like verstappen getting pulled of the podium TWICE.
I wouldnt even mind the investigation happening after the race if it were something a bit more unclear where they really need to determine if a rule was broken. But in this case it is something VERY clear cut which can be easily checked by looking at replays
Spanish commentators also complained about this. And they also said, how hard it is to make such an easy decision with all the cameras and perspective they have.
Had it been Max to be judged and penalised, I'm pretty confident there would've been no time delay in issuing 2 or 3 penalties against him, just to emphasise how impartial the FIA actually is.
@@gordonmurray3153 nah it would’ve been the same for anyone that isn’t british
@@gordonmurray3153 some people live in an alternative universe where Max who wasn't punished in Brazil and not disqualified in SA and got a championship gifted to him is always persecuted
@@gordonmurray3153 Max didn't get any penalty for overtaking under safety car, what are you blabbering about?
@@MegaIronica Seriously, what are they talking about? He didn't get any penalty for overtaking under Safety Car.
Felt the same way after the Zandvoort GP, where the FIA said they would announce what would happen to Ferrari for leaving that wheel gun in the middle of the pit lane - after the race. Surely there is a rule about creating a hazard in the pit lane, and it shouldn't take hours upon hours to decide if a team broke that rule.
How are any of you still watching F1? Literally some of the most boring shit to watch. It hasn't been fun since 2009-2012. Literally every single race the same guys win. Watch me predict the next race, either a Red bull, Ferrari or Mercedes will win. Every single time. Literally been considering watching Indycar or WEC because F1 is hypocritical, the cars sound bad and they look just as bad.
@@R9naldo woah one of the top teams will win, you're a prophet mate. also why are you watching wtf1 if you don't like f1 😂
@@jamiesills3233
And Cleanest bowl called FIA hypocrites 🤣.
I may be an asshole but I don't say one thing and then _do/say I do_ the opposite in the same sentence.
@@jamiesills3233 yep F1 is so predictable and every race ends the same. Cant imagine watching the same guy win every week. No wonder F1 TV viewership rates are falling, people are moving on to other things. F1 doesn't have excitement, doesn't have variety, doesn't have regular competition, a fan cannot experience what its like driving F1 in real life, F1 isn't unpredictable, doesn't have diversity and isn't a global sport
I totally agree with this, they should stop investigating after the race
The only incidents which should be investigated after the race are incidents where the driver(s) involved didn't finish the race
It's a nice idea in theory but you have to accept that incidents that occur in the last five laps or so can't be properly looked at at the time.
The only reason they decided to investigate after the race was because they wanted to let it play out so they might have the opportunity to hand out a penalty that wouldn't effect the results. Then the FIA doesn't look like the "bad guy" for taking Perez's win away.
Though, like most viewers, I'd rather have the penalty applied right away. Seems far more fair.
Exactly this. They took wayyy too long to decide a penalty. I imagine there were a lot of sweating for the directors before Checo pulled the gap. Nobody wants to take that heat.
I immediately thought the same thing. A mistake following the safety car is a clear thing. There was nothing to be investigated. 10 car lengths yes or no. And then he did it multiple times so multiple penalties should be the outcome. Instantly. Same with double yellows or speed in pitlane, they hand out penalties for speeding in pit instantly same with every other thing.
Now that you say it, I remember Leclerc saying when he fell 5 sec behind perez he stopped pushing. So if the penalty was applied in a timely fashion it would have affected what leclerc was doing and potentially the race result. This is something he should have known while he was still in the car. What they did is unfair to everyone involved.
Didn't you hear. Next week in Japan there are gonna investigate track limits after qualifying...
We need Masi back! At he was brave enough to make a decision. The current race directors wouldn't recognize a clue if they tripped over it...
The flip side of this argument is that they might end up handing out a penalty that changes the result of the race after they wrong person has already celebrated and the true winner is denied a well deserved victory celebration. Then when they hand out the penalty, they actually would be deciding the race by deciding the penalty instead of issuing the penalty and letting it play out.
I was really happy that Will, Sam and Jolyon were all highly critical of the decisions to both investigate a totally nonsense infraction (that has HUNDREDS of examples of the same thing for not being punished in previous years) as well as the decision to investigate after the race... One guy said it best when describing the 22' Singapore Grand Prix: the most boring most chaotic race of the year.
I had the exact Same Thought why are they Investigating Multiple Hours after
Great use of capital letters
Because they want the drivers perspective and the teams perspective
@@thelittleowl1
0:50
@@SirMsuni I’ve watched the video and my point still stands.
@@SirMsuni Matt is oversimplifying big time. Of course RedBull would never say "oh give him a penalty" but depending on the driver's justification the stewards can review the decision and either believe his point or ignore it completely.
The biggest issue is even when they investigate after a session, they take forever! Literally every guest had left the grand stands, paddock, paddock club before a final decision was made!
I was recording the race and ended up finishing it about an hour after it actually ended. Given that they'd had that long to do the investigation I figured I'd be able to immediately hop online and see what the decision was. Nope. And I'd waited for a couple more hours even after that.
Totally agree - completely stupid to potentially change the result of the race after the viewers have stopped watching.
Imagine going to a football match - watching your team win, only to find out they lost the next day - no one would stand for it.
Look at Ocon's win and how big it was. His first win, Alpine's first win, crazy race. And the celebration for him must have felt amazing. Now consider if Vettel overtook him and won that race. Occon would feel happy but a bit disappointed knowing this could've been his win. And then if Vettel was found to have not enough fuel and would be disqualified, and Ocon would be considered the winner. And Ocon and Alpine would be happy and would celebrate but it wouldn't be as good a felling as them actually wining.
So penalties should be given during the race instead of afterward.
Am I the only one shocked to see Russell not getting a penalty for his crash with Mick?
And to see that no one is talking about it.
Traditions 😐
Russel has to follow up the golden child at Merc he doesn't get the same treatment as the rest of the grid. Just look at his two previous brain farts when he basically drove Perez of the track on 2 different weekends.
@@samwlloyd yeh he reminds of lewis
No one need to talk about Russell.
Mick was at fault simply. Russell is in F1 to win. Other drivers are here to make Russell win. It is as simple as that.
I was shocked the first time he did something like that and didn't get slapped with a penalty. Now, it is almost expected.
But when a commentator, after watching half of a replay, says on live TV, "You drove right into him, George," in response to a radio call from Russel whinging about his role in the incident--it makes the expected outcome from the FIA seemingly obvious. That only makes it worse when it is just "noted."
I think there are some situations that need extra scrutiny after the race. In this case they had a lot of time to deliberate a decision. If it were the last 2-3 laps and if it were borderline, then maybe a post race review might make sense.
I think it makes a difference in what the penalty is for, if its for a collision I could see it taking longer, but it was a safety car infringement, so it's not like there was anything to deliberate, he got too close to the safety car multiple times, which results in a penalty, but instead they took their sweet time on something that should have been decided by one question, "Did he get too close to the safety car?"
@@nordvestgaming1238 The infringement was not staying close enough. In this case, because of the track conditions, they wanted to talk to Checo about what happened. They can't do that during the race.
A simple rule needs to be added that states that once the winners trophy has been given, it cannot be retracted. That way, they might have to delay the trophy ceremony for few minutes if there is a potential penalty in the last few minutes of a race, but a decision would have to be made before the event was over.
Even Polish comentators when they get information about Perez possible penalty AFTER the race, one on then said: Nooo, we again gonna wait to know the winner.
Depending how severe the outcome may be and how important the feedback from the driver and teams involved is with 5 laps remaining of the race... then I'm fine with "Will be investigated after the race". But if there are 20+ laps left, come on...
Especially for a penalty that is pretty cut and clear, he got too close to the safety car, which results in a penalty. Its not like it was a collision or anything that might take some more time to decide.
@@nordvestgaming1238 it wasn’t for being to close
@@nordvestgaming1238
Actually, you are wrong.
The penalty was because he was more tha 10 car lengths behind de pace car.
He got close to tell them to go faster, he was the lead and tires getting colder so it can make the cars more difficult to control.
Don't get angry because you driver did not win.
Except if the FIA have gave him penalties in the moment he would has received two 5 second penalties and lost the race and we'd be complaining about it.
They gave him the option to defend himself. I mean, I know the FIA also did it to play with a possible different outcome but anyway, fans will never be completely happy.
@@AlejandroLZuvic yeah different fans different opinions, but I’m glad he kept the Win 😅
I thought the race had long lingering tension, not a dull period like Verstappen or any other dominant driver winning by miles. I think the race was better than WTF1 makes it seem
Yeah WTF1 seems to come up with some weird takes lately. Absolutely agree with the main premise of the video though.
@@twandepan Its because all these videos are based off personal opinions lol
Overall race was good and exciting but the thing everybody complains is if thers an explanation needed(couldnt find the words) how can teams in race can make a decision. For example they coudlve said psuh more close the gap leclerc oe save your tyre etc. I was a redbull fan but still. It seemed like fia tried to not upset redbull as taking their win
Matt definitely prefers explodey superhero movies over psychological thrillers
Agreed, there was always a feeling that something was about to happen. Checo never looked like he was going to run away with it and I always felt the slick tyre switches would liven things up, as indeed they did.
Your line "whether it's the first time or 100th time" would have been a great example. Can you imagine if it wasn't Sergio but another driver that would have "tried" to celebrate his first victory? It would have been even more disastrous!
100% agreed - especially for what happened this weekend. That 10 car rule is violated by at least one person in the line at EVERY SINGLE SC....
The 10 car length rule is there but it's not punishable immediately if you go beyond 10 car lengths. there is a time where you can pull back the distance and be ok with it. just like sc and vsc delta, you get some time so slow down , similarly you get some time to pick up the pace and get under 10 car lengths again
My theory: The FIA wanted a regular finish, see where anybody ended up, and give a penalty which is theoretically a penalty, but does not affect the end result at all. I think there would have been some other "agreement" if Pérez was less than five seconds ahead of Leclerc.
Maybe that was the lesson the FIA learned during Canada 2019.
EDIT: Just saw that "The New Mechanic" came up with the same theory.
Here's what they need: They should have 5-8 people watching every single section of the track live. If something happens, they flag the time and location. Then another 1 or 2 investigators review replays. If there's something there, they elevate it to the Stewards for final review and decision. They should have every car camera and TV camera and more cameras available for them at any time. They know the common issues and the angles they need, so have them ready.
The thing is they have all of this already. Multiple stewards all around the track and a group of people in a room with every camera including onboards available to them. yet they still struggle
Actually they have someone to watch the track at track side, they are called observer. Usually one person per marshal post. They watch and report any incident occur on track to race control.
@@elcactusdelamuerte506 I think it’s more about making the right decisions that fans are satisfied with. Masi made the wrong call = lost his job. I remembered when fans wanted fia to make better decisions after Abu Dhabi. But better decisions = more cautious = more time taken up. Now fans aren’t happy when Fia is more cautious in their decision making. Eitherway, Perez was gonna win even if he got 5 second penalty. It’s not like fia does the after race discussion thing all the time.
I agree. I feel like if there is a time limit to how long a grand prix can go for, there should be a time limit on when an incident decision should be made. Critically, the two time frames should be the same
No. The drivers opinion is so important in certain decisions. They want to know what the driver was doing behind the wheel. Also yall are making the race seem a lot more boring then it was. It was a superb race. Singapore delivers again!
I can't wait to hear them call it a "Snoozah" for 2 hours on their race review. 😄
@@8thlvlMage XD
it could be worse. In the 1981 Indianapolis 500 (held on May 24th of that year), Bobby Unser took the checkered flag first. Then USAC (the sanctioning body for the race at the time) ruled that he passed cars illegally when exiting the pits under a yellow flag. He was penalized one position, which left Mario Andretti as the winner. After all the appeals and protests, Unser was given first place back on October 9th, over four months later.
The problem is though is that if there’s a genuine reason a driver broke a rule, just slapping them with a penalty might not always be fair, in certain scenarios it makes sense to let the drivers defend their actions to the stewards
In Jan 2020, a FIA steward gave a presentation at a convention I was at (SCCA). What he said (and it makes sense), is calls have to be perfect and people aren't perfect. Millions of dollars are at stake (sponsorship); making a wrong call may have severe consequences. Unless glaringly obvious, multiple stewards need to be in agreement of what happened. Stewards are looking at events at several different angles to ensure that they all understand what exactly happened. Reviewing multiple camera angles, frame by frame, takes time. As a fan, and even as a team, post-race investigation ruins the victory celebration. At the same time, when a call can cost millions of dollars and careers - "Oops, my bad" doesn't cut it.
Fia is not to be bothered with sponsorships or millions lost. That is happening all the time.
Sorry toto, we went back to car racing
It was pretty obvious that the F1 stewards did not want to change the result, so basically delayed the result to see if they can tread lightly. If the gap to 2nd was less than 5 seconds, that would have been their worst case scenario. If the gap to 2nd was between 5-10 seconds, they would have given a 5 second penalty. If the gap to 2nd was more than 10 seconds, they would have given a 10 second penalty. If Leclerc had passed Perez, they would have given a 5 or 10 second penalty as long as Perez would have stayed 2nd. This was gamed so as not to affect the race.
The idea that the stewards will change the penalty according to the race result just shows that it is not being fairly applied. The penalty should be decided quickly and be predetermined, none of this .. "well, we'll wait and see what this penalty will do to the outcome" ... that just leaves the door open for corruption!
The FIA since last year (Abu Dhabi) included have been consistently protecting Redbull, I’d say it states somewhere towards the End of Ferrari’s dominance! Then they did it With Mercedes and Lewis and now with Max! I bet you they won’t find any problems with the Redbull cost cap saga! Zandvoort with the Alpha Tauri , Silverstone when Perez forced Charles wide. This season had so much potential. Now I don’t think I’m gonna watch any of it this year! 😊
It's not crazy, since they literally change the rules on the fly to help out a popular team and "the show", that the FIA never wants to give a penalty to a popular driver, for the show, but are happy to hand them out like crazy to Tsonoda or KMag or anyone who isn't super popular with fans. There are lots of examples. I was a big fan of that Hamilton win where he drove most of a lap of Silverstone on 3 wheels but then KMag gets flagged twice in one season for a loose end-plate on his front wing. Exploded wheel is good for the show when it's a fan favourite but a loose bit of wing is not ok if you drive for Haas. Going to go look at George driving into Mick again.
Yeah, if a clear-cut incident was caught during the race and there's ample time to apply a penalty, there is no reason for waiting. I understand delayed penalties if it was confusing/required team info (like Max's brake-check, where it wasn't clear what actually happened before looking at car telemetry), or couldn't be caught/applied during the race. But 10 car-lengths was caught 3 times in the race.
I know they're trying to avoid Masi's propensity for making bad decisions that can't be recalled...but for goodness sake, if they know a penalty will come, just hit send.
I agree with the premise in general. But in particular with the distance behind the safety car, I think it comes down to such a weird implementation of the spirit of the rule. Why car lengths, instead of something more consistent such as a time difference?
Consistency in two ways: first, there are rules in place that force drivers to follow a time delta (virtual safety car, for instance), and also they're used to work with time differences between them and the drivers surrounding them. But also consistency in the distance itself, because thanks to the new graphics, we now have a (kinda useless) graphic of live distance between drivers, and how it changes according to where in the circuit they're fighting: if there's a corner, the distance shrinks, and then it grows again as the car ahead accelerates while the car behind is still taking the corner.
We now know the distance of 10 car lengths is not consistent throughout the lap, so that's why I think changing it to a time difference (let's say, two or three seconds) would be not only more consistent with the rest of the rules, but also more easy to check from their timing system and from cameras.
Actually in this case they needed to hear from the driver because it was too wet in some places and tires were too cold to keep pace with the safety car.
They do need to improve their communication protocols.
I agree, however, this particular time, talking to the driver was actually critical. There were two incidents at stake. The first, Sergio successfully defended himself as he pointed out that his brakes were cold and that the track was still very wet (this was an earlier event than the one everyone was looking at). For the second incident, the one where Checo closed to complain that the safety car was driving really slow (remember, it's not just brake and tire temperatures, but because of the F1 cars high RPMs, drivers also need to focus and work hard to not let the cars stall when driving slowly), he openly admitted. Thus he was given only a single five-second penalty, rather than the two five-seconds Ferrari desperately wanted because they had no faith in Charles keeping within five seconds of Sergio. Ironically, this came back to bite them in the ass, since they were so certain there would be two penalties, Charles stopped pushing as hard in the final lap or two and Sergio's lead suddenly jumped from around 4 seconds to 7.5.
It's is an impossibility with the current way they apply time penalties. If an offense happens in the last couple laps it is unlikely they have a decision before the end of the race. I know that is not exactly what happens here but what is the alternative? Apply penalties differently at the end of a race? A wily driver or team can exploit that easily.
Well, actually, I don't mind, when decisions are made after the race - it's not great, but better than panicking and making a wrong decision under pressure by overlooking something. ONE wrrong decision is much, much worse than a delayed one. HOWEVER: Do it IMMEDIATELY after the race! Delay the (mostly) pointless interviews while there are still cqrs on track, delay the press conference - and most important: Delay THE PODIUM to make sure, the RIGHT DRIVER gets it. THAT triggers me most.
Honestly, I completely agree. It's just stupid not knowing whether certain drivers has, or has not a penalty.
Whether the driver is first or last, it's still nice to know
I agree to an extent, but imagine what would happen if they make a wrong decision. Then everyone would shout "investigate this after the race!".
When Oliver Bearman didn't respect 10 cars lenght turn 12-14 at Zaandvoort, Bearman take a Drive Throught PENALTY (20sec). Perez did it 3 times. Lap 10 and 2 times lap 36...
All well and good but what about the infringements like an unweight car or not enough fuel ? Those penalties can only be added after a race. So the outcome of a race is never going to be 100% sure until all cars and drivers are checked.
They needed to investigate the first incident immediately after it happened. I think the stewards had enough time between the first and second incident to make a decision, and communicate the results to RedBull.
The 1st incident wasn't even noted until the second incident happened.
@@anameyoucantremember Document 57 issued by the FIA after the race reads as follows: As this was the second breach of Article 55.10 by PER during the race and followed an express warning from the Race Director, we determined to impose a 5 second time penalty on PER.
The Stewards noted the first incident and issued a warning. Even Hamilton on the team radio was talking about the big gap on lap 10 by the end of the first safety car. So you know Mercedes was talking to the Stewards about it.
I think it is pretty much unrealistic that everything can be investigated during the race. During a football match the referee can check back with the video assistant while the game is paused, but this is not really an option for a race. You can't freeze everybody on the track until a decision was made. Especially when something is happening in the last laps of a race, how is this ever going to work?
It makes sense if something happens real close to the end of the race, but with so much of the race left it felt like they just didn't want to check it out right then
I wouldnt mind something being investigated after the race if it were something more unclear. But in a case like this, the rule in question was something VERY clear cut which can be checked in seconds by looking at cameras or timing.
I have no problem of after race investigators as long as:
1) there is no time/ability to investigate during the race; and
2) the podium ceremony does not take place until after the investigation.
Once the podium ceremony takes place, then the result should be considered final and unchangeable.
To avoid any unnecessary delays, like a race, there must be a time limit for the podium ceremony to take place: if an I investigation is incomplete after that time, the podium ceremony must take place and the result stands as it was at that time.
I’m convinced they experiment with this sort of thing. If fans react badly to waiting until after the race, they’ll avoid it but if the fans think it adds suspense then they’ll keep doing it.
You can’t say they HAVE to investigate during the race because.. If the infringement needs more reviewing than normal and the time frame doesn’t allow for it to be given during the race then give it after sure.. remember the difference between f1 and football outs that football can be paused while the referee makes his decision…but f1 cannot just to check if something is a racing incident or not
What I don’t like is that if after the fact the stewards in fact imply penalties and it changes the finishing order. You end up robbing the opportunity of the winning driver to properly celebrate the win on the podium.
It happened to Carlos twice (not a win, but still not celebrating a podium finish properly sucks)
My idea is this if the VAR isn't working out maybe due to some logistical reasons. They should increase the team of stewards from 3 to 6 or 9 . When an incident occurs a small team of 2 or 3 stewards can then go on and review it in detail while the rest observe the race and if another incident happens they form another smaller team . Once the small team conclude their findings they share it with the other stewards and finish the investigation that way they can tackle the problem quickly and efficiently.
Any event that happens in the last 2-5 laps of the race can be decided after the race, anything that happens before the last 2-5 laps must be decided by the end of the race...that simple.
Nah it's normal if sometimes they need to speak to the drivers before giving them penalties...
Still remember when Sainz didn’t celebrate his first podium in P3 with McLaren because, even in that race, FIA slept and have the penalty after the race robbing him from a precious moment
I totally agree! It ruined the ending and quite possibly the whole grand prix experience for me.
Lisa Simpson: "Poor predictable Matt, always choosing Abu Dhabi 2021."
Matt: "Good ol' Abu Dhabi 2021, nothing beats that!"
I think VAR role might be more on the issues like track limits. A sensor sends a message "Car 18 wide at turn 10", then VAR checks if it really was the case.
It should at least be resolved at the bare minimum before the podium if it happens very close to the end of the race. I used to compete in sailboat racing and if someone didnt follow a rule or anything similar. You could protest them personally after the race. If it involved people on the podium or points for standing if it was a multiple race event, the protests needed to be resolved before the points were distributed.
It seems the stewards/FIA don’t have their own video feed/VAR but just watch the live broadcast like us fans. I feel there are many times Crofty/Martin notice something before the FIA. Like Tsunoda’s broken rear wing in Baku where he went a few laps with them saying it’s broken and should get the black and orange flag to repair it but the FIA didn’t give him the flag until they kept showing footage and replays during the broadcast
Causes me unnecessary stress for my Fantasy Team too when this happens lol
I don't think it's correct to throw the whole system out and start fresh.
I certainly approve of penalties being handed out exclusively during the race but I would also err on the side of caution when it comes to handing out those penalties.
It is preferable to me to let an incident go, rather than have given out an incorrect penalty that cannot be taken back after the race.
It's something to be aware of because that will hurt the sport more than the system in place.
exactly right. the 2017 supercars finale, for example, shows this. The stewards had a lap and a half to give scott McLaughlin a penalty for taking out craig lowndes. They gave him the penalty as he crossed the line and lost THE CHAMPIONSHIP because of it. Scenes... imagine this in F1.
The FIA have flaws, but they aren't stupid Matt (FIA not Masi). In tricky conditions like Singapore they need to ask the driver why he was slow... According to Checo, he couldn't keep up with the safety car because he was on new slicks and Bert Mylander(Safety car) wasn't driving fast enough on the straights to warm up the tyres so he couldn't turn the car quickly where the track was still wet. In decisions like this you need driver's perspective to assess the penalty and give a fair decision. I think what they did here was absolutely right.
So ... you're telling me that a Mercedes road legal car is faster then a FORMULA 1 car?
You can even argue that Bert Mylander knew what he was doing and the conditions of the track, his actions are questionable and he should also give an explanation since he can be a factor to alter someone's race.
@@TheAhille On wet street track corners where the F1 cars are on cold slicks? Yes I am
@@TheAhille watch turkey 2021. Vettel came on mediums while the track was wet, look what happened.
This is my problem with all these youtubers who try to show the FIA how must be done.
The FIA is far far from perfect, they make mistakes. But they have been referring motorsport competitions for more than half a century, they sure know more than a dude running a CZcams channel. If anything, the FIA is reacting and over-compensating in a very twitchy manner to all these CZcams/DTS fans/newcomers complains.
I think the FIA should take their decisions on their own without hearing the opinion of the drivers/teams.
( Like in soccer games the referee takes his decisions on his own. He doesn't go to the player and asks him "why did you rise up your arm to make a handfoul?")
But i know that soccer is not quite the same as F1, so the teams/drivers should have the opportunity to defend themselves and prove the wrong. In this case they should take some points on risk that can be subtracted if they couldn't change the mind of the FIA.
For example in this case if the FIA gives the 5 seconds penalty during the race and Leclerc didn't try to overtake Perez but stayed behind him within the 5 seconds and won the race. RedBull could go to the FIA with some evidences and say that they are on fault. If the FIA then says that the RedBull is right the 5 seconds penalty will be taken away but if the RedBull is wrong or couldn't change their mind they will have a penalty of let's say 50 points for wasting the time of the FIA.
There are a few cases where investigation would need to occur after the race. A last lap or last corner incident would leave the stewards with no time to investigate. If a team alleges a car in the race now has an illegal part, you need to wait till the race ends to investigate. Sure you can black flag them in the race to have a look but if it isn't and illegal part you've just pulled that car out of the race for 10 laps while the Scrutineer takes the car apart to check.its better to leave them running in that instance.
For a lot of F1 incidents where it's investigated after the race. I think it would have been better to apply a time penalty immediately, time penalties can be removed if an appeal after the race is successful. It may be more entertaining to give constant drive through and stop/go penalties, but they're harder to undo
It's basically deciding who is the winner after te race. You cant do that as FIA, or you'll be blamed for interfering even more.
I bet the FIA was overjoyed that Perez had two "sort of" penalties, so they could only penalize one of them to put in an appearance of enforcing the rules and then not change the outcome--while not penalizing the other incident.
Also can you make a video regarding the RB spending cap breach?
Cannot agree too much with this. Watched the race live, went to the Green Day gig after the race, walked back to the hotel and went to sleep, and didn’t know if Checo had actually won until I woke up for breakfast the next day.
To be honest I don’t like FIA investigate all drivers give them penalty points in during race or after the race
I think it's acceptable to have incidents investigated after the race if all drivers involved are out of the race. The incident with Latifi and Zhou is fine to decide after the race. Both drivers out, the result of this race is not going to be impacted, keep it until after.
Another exception is something that happened shortly before the end of the race, a few laps before the checkered flag incidents can happen and it takes time to look at the footage. That's just a time restraint. It sucks when there are podium finishers involved and we don't have a clear answer, but things happen. It cannot always be avoided.
All other situations should be resolved before the flag falls. We may disagree with the penalty, but at least we know what's what.
I completely agree with this! And I'll make myself available to be a "rules enforcement official" who will actually enforce the rules during the race, if they need someone to be the official "bad guy".
The investigation does need to happen in real time. It was pretty clear on TV that Perez had lagged too far behind the safety car, but they have sensors and telemetry to be certain about it, and there's NO way they can't retrieve that data within 5 minutes of it being requested, unless their timing and scoring staff is literally asleep in a different trailer.
First, the lag in submitting the alleged infraction for review should happen within one lap of it happening. The investigation needs to be handled by a team of people who are sticklers for the rules and don't believe in wiggle room. This was a cut and dry ruling, or should have been.
Then there's the penalties. Red Bull was so certain they knew which penalty was going to be applied they implemented a response strategy before the investigation was formally announced, which really says that the 5 second penalty is actually not enough of a penalty.
You want less infractions? Have harsher penalties and be consistent about applying them with no leeway.
But considering they treated the Russell Schumacher collision as a racing incident when every replay shows Russell turning into Schumacher when he didn't need to, Expecting them to be able to quickly tell if a car was 10 or 11 lengths behind the safety car is probably too much to ask.
Id rather see them investigate after the race instead of deciding DURING THE RACE. If you don't want Abu Dhabi 2021 to happen again then Investigating after the race is the perfect solution.
This whole thing does not mean that we need Masi back. It means that more people need to leave FIA as well.
If an incident happened and it resulted in both involved cars DNFs just like latifi and zhou, then you can conclude it after the race. But if not then it needs to be sorted out during the race as quick as possible. Make the best decision based on info available at the moment.
"We may well criticize a decision that has to be made in the heat of the moment from time to time but in my opinion that has to be the way forward." You mean like in Abu Dhabi last year? ;-)
Any action on or of track that cannot or wil not be investigated during the race and is set to be investigated after the race and thus not directly punishable by a time or stop and go penalty , should only result in a financial or points deduction penalty for team or driver, or grid penalty for the next race , if an when a warning wil not do.
Penalties for technical infringements, that might occur after the race should not be held against the driver, and race results for drivers should not be taken upon such infringement.
As an American, this reminds me of all the missteps NASCAR took after they became "big" in the early/mid aughts. They weren't hardwired to deal with that level of scrutiny. F1 has been insular for so many decades -- nearly a hundred years, actually -- that they don't have experience dealing with ''the whole world watching''. So, we get cock-ups like the season finale last year.
To Redbull's credit they anticipated the penalty and told Checo to build the gap above 5 seconds. I don't know if Ferrari was on the Radio to Leclerc with the message Norris got in 2020.
Leclerc was made aware about the penalty and was told to be within 5 seconds of Perez.
“Unclear” or late decision infringements should be penalised for the following race, ie starting at the back of the grid, or starting from the pit lane 10 seconds after the main start etc etc. Also, If a driver clearly gains a place during a race by infringement then he should have to give the position back immediately, as done already in some cases, but should include things like excessive weaving and pushing other cars off track….
In this particular example, the FIA should have made the decision mid race. Especially if it was a technical breach, like this one.
In the event of a collision in the last few laps, it may require it to be investigated after the race but it must be dealt with as a high priority (20 minutes post chequered flag).
I get it if they have to due to like 3 or 4 laps left but it is unfair to the driver behind thinking is he or won't he or push or hold back under 5 sec this need to be sorted out not just for the drivers/teams but the fans too.
Its a bit tough applying this to all situations since sometimes the evidence is only available well after the race.
I can accept a period of say 10 minutes after the race itself concludes, where the FIA can delay the podium and the rest until they have talked among themselves about a possible penalty, as some penalties can come rather late in the race, but if they don't reach an agreement within the 10 minutes, the result should benefit the driver being investigated, and they don't get a penalty.
Just like a court have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of a crime in order to convict! And if other teams have a problem with the result, they can petition to have the rules looked over for following races, but they can NOT protest the result of the individual incidents...
I could almost understand it if the incident happened in the last lap or two… but damn they had plenty of time to decide. Even if a late race incident happened it shouldn’t have taken hours
At this point the rules are basically being controlled by the fans
Incidents where the investigation can have a material influence on the final result should have their investigation ready before the podium ceremony, at the latest. Perhaps a maximum time after the incident is in order for the stewards to review? I am less concerned with cases where both parties involved are out of the race (after the race is ok), and I am less concerned the lower on the grid the incident happens, so that may be used to prioritize if there is too much to investigate. The podium should be final.
If they're going to review incidents that affect the podium standings after the race, there shouldn't be a podium celebration/ceremony until the incident is fully reviewed and the results are finalized. It makes no sense to celebrate a "win" that could get taken away from you and I don't think any other sport works like that. There should also be a time limit to review incidents after the race so it doesn't drag on for hours. I'd think there's only so much you can discuss
Agree and car stopped/crashed, VSC instand no delay and then maybe safety car
In my opinion it depends on the type of investigation, for example Latifi crashed into Zhou and both retired.
Any outcome from that investigation won't change the outcome of this particular race in this moment. So feel free to skip past it and only investigate post gp.
And if it CANNOT possibly be fairly investigated in the moment (doubt that's the case here), it's also fine.
Well I think the main issue is a right of reply. I guess that right got taken too far last year and we got EVEN more post race politics - but if a team is totally unable to have their say in an incident, is that something that should happen?
On the fence. Maybe drivers and teams shouldn’t break the rules in the first place? And at the end of the day, all incidents should be investigated without the interference of outside voices or context.
The only reason why they should ever investigate after the race is if it’s in the last couple laps. But even then there’s enough time before the podium that they should be able to make judgement before the ceremony
Do what if a team can’t get a driver
I believe the VAR thing is in use, as in Zandvoort we had a perfect shot of Max overtaking Hamilton on the straight after the SC
I don't really think there will be a perfect solution... if they rush out a penalty that there is a reasonable technical explanation from the team.. they just penalized someone when it was unnecessary and ruined the race. The odds of this happening today are slim but possible... so I would focus more on making the best call vs the best call at the time. Either way it will affect the race. LeClerk was told Perez had a likely 10 second so he backed off... too far. If he had the knowledge it was a 5 second instead of 10 then he could have stayed within the 5 gap and won by penalty... this way it looks like the FIA gave him a lesser penalty so as to not change the results... which changed the results...
I don't agree, the sport comes first the viewer experience is after. If the believed it would be more fair for Perez to hear him out before deciding then that's how they should do. The show should never matter when making decisions about the sport.
They needed to hear Checo's side of the story. The same is with Lewis' nosering penalty.
I can't believe even Matt is forgetting this. They'd be screaming unfair penalty if the FIA have gave him two immediate penalties and made him lose the race.
FIA are a bit slow at many things: sending in the AA to pick up a broken car at Monza; post race penalties; deciding if teams are in budget for LAST year.
But then in 2021 they were too hasty on other decisions such as a certain Mr Masi.
Think they are now too scared to rock the boat in real time that they are coming across as indecisive.
Thinking back to Vettel and Hamilton in Canada where the penalty during the race caused controversy
Totally agree with your assessment. F1 loses more credibility each time such stuff happens. It seems the ghosts of Abu Dhabi 2021 are still so active and FIA have not learnt their lessons.
The races now look biased towards certain team(s) and viewers will look towards other sporting spectacles which don't lack clarity in rules.
I think it's fine to investigate after the race if it's late in the race, but then it should be grid penalties for the next race, not the one that was just finished
Agreed, after the fiasco of Abu Dhabi, I remembered when fans including Matt wanted fia to make better decisions. But those take up more time to discuss. By then, the race might have been over. These types of fans are only ever satisfied, when the fia makes a right decision that they are happy with.
Especially for CLEAR rules, decisions should be IMMEDIATE. The team can decide to discuss after the race, BUT if found wrong anyway, they should get like 4 times the penalty. It discourages appeals.
As you said in a Soccer/Football game, not knowing the winner at the end of the race is not a fun fan experience. If it's an on track incident I think it should be decided on track. If it's an off track incident it can be decided before or after the race. Just my opinion anyway.