[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[NaBUru38]

I'm fed up with 5-second penalties for crashing a rival. it should be a drive through.

[Skam85]

You do have to penalise the action not the outcome though

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Skam85

You do have to penalise the action not the outcome though

Isn't the outcome determined by the action?

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Isn't the outcome determined by the action?

So everyone is deliberately taking each other out?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

So everyone is deliberately taking each other out?

If it's deliberate, that's intent. An adverse outcome isn't necessarily caused by a deliberate action.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Isn't the outcome determined by the action?

Not every dive bomb or contact between drivers ends in a DNF or spin is what I'm saying

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Isn't the outcome determined by the action?

I would say no, not necessarily. It depends on the other driver(s) and what actions they take in response to the action (if any).

For example, take the Hamilton/Verstappen incident at Silverstone last season.

If Verstappen had backed out of the corner, or taken a wider line, there might not have been contact. In this case, the outcome would have been entirely different.

Hamilton's action still should be (IMO) punished with the same severity.

[BTCC frog]

In my opinion, another rule that needs to change is the black flag with the orange disc which instructs drivers (Kevin Magnussen) to come into the pits and change a front wing when it is damaged. I know it is relevant for safety reasons, but it seems so stupid that if the piece comes off naturally the driver gets away with it, but if it is hanging off they are massively penalised. Perhaps the only way to make this fairer would be to give a black and orange flag for any kind of front wing damage. Although I have never seen a driver deliberately get rid of the damage in F1, as Gordon Shedden did in the BTCC in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UADGnoZoPk

[Mike Harte]

That is because, if it hasn't already become detached safely, then there is a real concern that it may detach at racing speed and hit another car or worse a driver. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, and in the 60s in the UK was dealt with by showing a black flag as far as I can recall.

[crmalcolm]

I think the concept of the black and orange flag should be entirely removed from 'fairness' and should remain purely as a safety matter.

It is unfortunate for the recipient - but that is the nature of sport IMO. Sometimes, things just happen out of your control.

[S griffin]

It's always good to look back at the days drivers would drive with wings missing or bits hanging off the car. But these days safety rightly takes a priority, so you can't blame the officials for giving a car a meatball flag. Although I do wonder why they didn't show one to Freddy last weekend?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's always good to look back at the days drivers would drive with wings missing or bits hanging off the car. But these days safety rightly takes a priority, so you can't blame the officials for giving a car a meatball flag. Although I do wonder why they didn't show one to Freddy last weekend?

Because the race director did not consider the car a danger to other competitors, and it wasn't, so what happened after the race should not have happened.

[S griffin]

Thankfully common sense has happened.

[Richard C]

My impression is that Haas is forcing the point to get some clarity on when this should or shouldn't be happening. I suspect Haas would love to see the Alpine penalty reversed so that they can say... OK, clarify things.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My impression is that Haas is forcing the point to get some clarity on when this should or shouldn't be happening. I suspect Haas would love to see the Alpine penalty reversed so that they can say... OK, clarify things.

Richard

And... I just read that it was reversed, but due to a technicality. So no clarification on this.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

And... I just read that it was reversed, but due to a technicality. So no clarification on this.

Richard

It may seem like a technicality, but it is a far more fundamental reason behind Alpine's reasoning than that.
Gunther was annoyed by what seemed like a lack of consistency in the whole race management situation, and I would agree that there is, but it is something the FIA has to address and if it is wise then it will address those issues and remediate them for the future.

All of these issues relate to the FIA doing its job as a regulator properly and with the changes in personal and the loss of the Ecclestone/Whiting influence a lot of the stability and entrenched foundation of running F1 was lost.
People may have been annoyed by Bernie and thought he was past his time. I wouldn't entirely disagree. However, Charlie understood some entrenched things about his job as race director that no one in the present FIA has really grasped and that is why it's very much a mess at the moment.
But then neither Bernie nor Charlie Whiting really laid a foundation for their succession.

And that is why F1 has been in a regulatory time vacuum since we lost Charlie Whiting. No one has really been able to step into his shoes.
There are some fundamental things no one seems to understand about being a regulator.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

It may seem like a technicality, but it is a far more fundamental reason behind Alpine's reasoning than that.

I think my point is that it was reversed for reasons unrelated to the reason Haas brought the issue forward. So the point Haas was trying to make is unresolved. But agree this points a more fundamental issue.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Gunther was annoyed by what seemed like a lack of consistency in the whole race management situation, and I would agree that there is, but it is something the FIA has to address and if it is wise then it will address those issues and remediate them for the future.

All of these issues relate to the FIA doing its job as a regulator properly and with the changes in personal and the loss of the Ecclestone/Whiting influence a lot of the stability and entrenched foundation of running F1 was lost.
People may have been annoyed by Bernie and thought he was past his time. I wouldn't entirely disagree. However, Charlie understood some entrenched things about his job as race director that no one in the present FIA has really grasped and that is why it's very much a mess at the moment.
But then neither Bernie nor Charlie Whiting really laid a foundation for their succession.

And that is why F1 has been in a regulatory time vacuum since we lost Charlie Whiting. No one has really been able to step into his shoes.
There are some fundamental things no one seems to understand about being a regulator.

I don't know the internals of the race direction staff, but I can believe what you are saying. And it seems to be a constant story of how the sport is missing Charlie. Not him personally (I am sure many do), but him in his role.

This really is an organization problem in that they had very poor "succession planning". Be it Bernie or Charlie. When people talk about Bernie running F1 out of his appartment or whatever. To me that also is a recipe for disaster because once those who "have it all in the head" and are not "actively training the next generation", they are putting the entire thing at risk of failure once they are gone.

If you are the King, you don't let your son go around being a playboy 100% of the time and just think "oh, he will figure it out once I die". Instead you give him increasingly more and more responsibilities and mentor him, so that when the time comes, he just steps into the roll in as seamless way as possible. Ideally, at the end, he is doing all the work before you step away.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think my point is that it was reversed for reasons unrelated to the reason Haas brought the issue forward. So the point Haas was trying to make is unresolved. But agree this points a more fundamental issue.


I don't know the internals of the race direction staff, but I can believe what you are saying. And it seems to be a constant story of how the sport is missing Charlie. Not him personally (I am sure many do), but him in his role.

This really is an organization problem in that they had very poor "succession planning". Be it Bernie or Charlie. When people talk about Bernie running F1 out of his appartment or whatever. To me that also is a recipe for disaster because once those who "have it all in the head" and are not "actively training the next generation", they are putting the entire thing at risk of failure once they are gone.

If you are the King, you don't let your son go around being a playboy 100% of the time and just think "oh, he will figure it out once I die". Instead you give him increasingly more and more responsibilities and mentor him, so that when the time comes, he just steps into the roll in as seamless way as possible. Ideally, at the end, he is doing all the work before you step away.

Richard

I'll just explain why I don't believe the Alonso penalty reverse was on a technicality and that may help you understand what I mean and also why things haven't gone well since we lost Charlie.

Any regulatory body has its authority enthroned in its rules and regulations.
That applies to sporting bodies, civic authorities and governments, and to courts which are subject to their own procedural rules and the laws of the home nation.

What we had at COTA was a car that had been involved in an accident not of its own making but later had a mirror in a precarious position and ultimately it fell off.
This was contentious as the technical delegate and stewards both expressed the opinion that the car was in a dangerous condition and should be given the technical flag.
But the race director, for whatever reason, did not follow this up and the driver lost the mirror and subsequently finished and was awarded points.

One team principal wanted to protest the decision and ultimately was able to do so.
Then the stewards convened to hear the protest and awarded to offending car with a 30 second penalty, severe in the circumstances, as though the driver had ignored the flag or been negligent.

On an appeal, not against the decision, but against the evidence, the penalty was overturned.

This was not on a technicality.
The hearing that instituted the penalty was actually illegal because the protest was outside the time allowed for a protest. There should never have been a hearing.
As I said above all regulatory bodies have their authority enthroned in their regulations and rules.
Any other opinion is out of place. The stewards had no authority to act outside the rules.
The race director made his decision and to try to overturn his actions by accepting a protest out of time and having a hearing outside the rules to overturn his decision is disrespectful to the race director.

Exceeding the limits of their authority and stepping outside the rules is stepping outside their authority.

And this is the area where there appears to be a problem in the running of F1.
They do not appear to be a cohesive united body of officials.
This is something the FIA needs to address going forward.

It was a problem in 2021 during the latter half of the season when various disparate voices began to question some of the race management.
That all lead to the departure by the race director in the governance of the regulations regarding a safety car procedure.

You only have legitimate authority if your decisions and declarations are in unity with your rules and regulations, and that authority is limited by those regulations. You do not have authority to step outside them and your authority to make binding decisions once you have stepped outside the rules is nullified.

When Jonathan Wheatley made a suggestion to Masi to make decisions in Abu Dhabi that moved the procedure away from the regulations and Masi began operating on his own cognizance he was outside the limits of his authority.

I've dealt with similar situations myself in dealing with out of time protest and advice to competitors regarding protests and hearings, but it should always be run according to the rules and regulations of a governing body.
If you depart from them there is no legitimate authority.

In our racing community enthusiasts are more frequently now being asked for their opinion about a controversial matter in surveys and voting polls.
It may be an indicator that public opinion is different from the decision the officials made but they must be conformed to the rules and regulations.

The official's authority is prescribed by the rules, and they only have authority if they remain within the provisions of those rules.
They cannot be a law unto themselves.

Once you have people doing whatever they think about something or according to their opinion you start to lose order. There is no basis for their action. It is just their opinion. Nothing more.
A man named James once said this:
'Wherever you have jealousy and selfish ambition there is disorder and every evil practice.... meaning jealousy, strife, disorder and just about everything that is not good.

F1 is intensely competitive but the competition is only meaningful if it is conducted within the rules.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

And this is the area where there appears to be a problem in the running of F1.
They do not appear to be a cohesive united body of officials.
This is something the FIA needs to address going forward.

What you say about a cohesive united body of officials, is central to the running of F1. One of the major criticisms leveled at F1 is the inconsistency in which penalties are given and a lack of cohesion amongst the officials has lead to this inconsistency.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I'll just explain why I don't believe the Alonso penalty reverse was on a technicality and that may help you understand what I mean and also why things haven't gone well since we lost Charlie.

First, nice post. Second, I think we agree. Maybe any perceived disagreement are semantics? See below.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

On an appeal, not against the decision, but against the evidence, the penalty was overturned.

This was not on a technicality.

This is exactly what I am saying is a technicality. It was overturned not on the merits of the issue at hand, but around how the entire thing was handled incorrectly from a process/procedure perspective. And to your point the FIA made errors.

My theory is that Haas was trying to force the issue to clarify when and where there should be penalties with respect to lose bodywork. The simple example being Haas has been penalized for loose front wing endplates, while Alpine was not due to a loose mirror. I think that issue remains unresolved. I also agree that the root cause is the larger point you are making.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

And this is the area where there appears to be a problem in the running of F1.
They do not appear to be a cohesive united body of officials.
This is something the FIA needs to address going forward.

So I think many may agree with you. That the root cause is for a lack of a better term "competency". As you say, those currently running things are making mistakes. Probably not out of malice, but lack of experience. Charlie had large shoes to fill.

I think the situation "is what it is". I think we can even zero in on how we got here (you and I pointing out poor succession planning with respect to Charlie and having the next generation primed and ready to go). The question is "What do they do now?" They already have decided to move from a rotation of two directors to one. I think even if they do the right things "organizationally", they will continue to have issues until those running things get that needed experience.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

First, nice post. Second, I think we agree. Maybe any perceived disagreement are semantics? See below.



I think the situation "is what it is". I think we can even zero in on how we got here (you and I pointing out poor succession planning with respect to Charlie and having the next generation primed and ready to go). The question is "What do they do now?" They already have decided to move from a rotation of two directors to one. I think even if they do the right things "organizationally", they will continue to have issues until those running things get that needed experience.

Richard

We basically agree on everything Richard.
Charlie had a great understanding of how the sport evolved being in the business for a long time since he worked for Bernie at Brabham.

That knowledge included 'how we got to here' so there is a lot of intrinsic stuff, but also a close rapport with Bernie.
Everybody has weaknesses.
But the current issue may also spring from a cultural understanding about sporting ethics and fairness that varies from culture to culture.
Whether we like it or not, having someone from a background that embodies some of that sense of ethical fairness and justice may be what is needed before we get some sense of peace and order returning to operations, or the FIA finds someone who can do the job.
They then create a culture in which a group of people are trained to become that person's successors. Not just one individual.

The sport is also way too over-regulated but that is another issue which will need to work itself out.

[Tourer]

Surely Ross Brawn can't be serious - can he?
Easily one of the most ridiculous things I've seen / heard about future rules. Maybe he's taking a leaf out of Bernie's book and flying a kite with outrageous ideas that won't happen - just to gauge reaction?

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Surely Ross Brawn can't be serious - can he?
Easily one of the most ridiculous things I've seen / heard about future rules. Maybe he's taking a leaf out of Bernie's book and flying a kite with outrageous ideas that won't happen - just to gauge reaction?

Maybe one of those things where you threaten something, everyone complains and then you go with something still bad but not as bad so people are relieved it wasn’t the first option.

Active aero could be a good way of eliminating the dirty air effect and scrapping DRS, but it sounds more like it will be used just as more gimmicks, and the idea suggested is truly horrendous. Liberty Media are on the path of destroying Formula 1 if they introduce nonsense like this and they certainly look like they are going to.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Surely Ross Brawn can't be serious - can he?
Easily one of the most ridiculous things I've seen / heard about future rules. Maybe he's taking a leaf out of Bernie's book and flying a kite with outrageous ideas that won't happen - just to gauge reaction?

As I've said before, if F1 can find a way to over complicate things, they will.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Surely Ross Brawn can't be serious - can he?
Easily one of the most ridiculous things I've seen / heard about future rules. Maybe he's taking a leaf out of Bernie's book and flying a kite with outrageous ideas that won't happen - just to gauge reaction?

Ross is retiring....
He can say that but won't around for it
2026 is still a long way off but by then Formula One may be Formula Once Upon A Time....