Pants and nose rings and driver safety

[Red9zero]

mw88 said:

thegreenhell said:

But what makes a wedding ring safer than any other ring? There is no logical argument for it, so it's simple discrimination in that case.

What makes it safer? Nothing.

But the logical argument is that there's a long history of both religious and cultural significance surrounding a wedding rings that goes back a few thousand years. It's a pretty standard exemption.

There's no logical reason for Christmas Day to be different to any other day, other than someone's imaginary friend did something thousands of years ago.

Not everything is a conspiracy against Lewis.

My Father in law lost a finger when he caught his wedding ring on the door handle of his truck when jumping down from the cab. Definately not safer !

[911r]

Red9zero said:

mw88 said:

thegreenhell said:

But what makes a wedding ring safer than any other ring? There is no logical argument for it, so it's simple discrimination in that case.

What makes it safer? Nothing.

But the logical argument is that there's a long history of both religious and cultural significance surrounding a wedding rings that goes back a few thousand years. It's a pretty standard exemption.

There's no logical reason for Christmas Day to be different to any other day, other than someone's imaginary friend did something thousands of years ago.

Not everything is a conspiracy against Lewis.

My Father in law lost a finger when he caught his wedding ring on the door handle of his truck when jumping down from the cab. Definately not safer !

Imaginary friend LOL

[Red Firecracker]

This is the exact wording of Article 5, Appendix L to the FIA International Sporting Code:

5. Wearing of jewellery
The wearing of jewellery in the form of body
piercing or metal neck chains is prohibited during
the competition and may therefore be checked
before the start.

Wedding rings, or watches, are not specifically mentioned so there is no 'exemption' for wedding rings, but categories are free to implement additions to Article 5 as they see fit, such as the recent clarification in the Race Directors notes that watches are now considered to be jewellery. Expect a full update to Appendix L soon, I'd imagine.

These are rules for all drivers in all FIA motorsport. It is not a case of Driver X or Driver Y in F1 being targetted by an unfair new rule, it is a rule that all drivers should be following, all through the categories and has been in existence for some years. It could be argued that those at the very top should be the gold standard for every other driver to follow.

[Hungrymc]

Siao said:

Bloody hell, this is so amusing. First the FIA are idiots that they didn't enforce their own rules last year. Now they are idiots that they are enforcing their own rules.

Can't freaking win...

Maybe that’s the point.

They deliberately broke their own rules in order to liven up / change the outcome of the WDC. They had previously always applied these rules correctly. They didn’t correct this and left the results as were. They then were forced reluctantly to improve how the races are directed but the results were not adjusted… a few months after the damaged wing and 0.2mm.

Now, a few months later, they want to enforce the fine detail of a rule that has never actually been applied and has never been an issue, and only (potentially) affects the individual, and one individual it effects says he’s happy to own the consequences. I wouldn’t suggest we go into the purpose of the rule and the MRI point and the materials involved.

You see double standards from Lewis, I’d say that pales into insignificance compared to the double standards from the FIA so I can understand why it’s being challenged. I don’t really care either way, and I’m sure the rule will be enforced soon, but I do think there is a very different perspective to the one you shared that is equally valid.

[Tyre Smoke]

It isn't just one individual. It applies to everyone racing under FIA rules.

It isn't about Lewis Hamilton.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Tyre Smoke said:

It isn't just one individual. It applies to everyone racing under FIA rules.

It isn't about Lewis Hamilton.

Oh come on.

And clarifying the rule about not getting alongside another car during a rolling restart wasn't about Verstappen either, right?

[Mr Pointy]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Tyre Smoke said:

It isn't just one individual. It applies to everyone racing under FIA rules.

It isn't about Lewis Hamilton.

Oh come on.

And clarifying the rule about not getting alongside another car during a rolling restart wasn't about Verstappen either, right?

How many other drivers were doing what Verstappen did?

[mw88]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Oh come on.

And clarifying the rule about not getting alongside another car during a rolling restart wasn't about Verstappen either, right?

What about Leclerc? Pretty sure he had rings under his gloves last year. Don't see anyone saying the FIA are out to get Charles.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Mr Pointy said:

How many other drivers were doing what Verstappen did?

And that's my point. The rules were clarified and applied to all drivers, so by the same logic they weren't targetting Verstappen.

[Siao]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Mr Pointy said:

How many other drivers were doing what Verstappen did?

And that's my point. The rules were clarified and applied to all drivers, so by the same logic they weren't targetting Verstappen.

So, the FIA targeted Hamilton (because, aliens?) and resurrected a 20 year old rule to get him?

What's next, will they re-instate prima nocta to go after him?

[Tyre Smoke]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Tyre Smoke said:

It isn't just one individual. It applies to everyone racing under FIA rules.

It isn't about Lewis Hamilton.

Oh come on.

And clarifying the rule about not getting alongside another car during a rolling restart wasn't about Verstappen either, right?

Whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant. It's applied to everyone.

[Siao]

Tyre Smoke said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Tyre Smoke said:

It isn't just one individual. It applies to everyone racing under FIA rules.

It isn't about Lewis Hamilton.

Oh come on.

And clarifying the rule about not getting alongside another car during a rolling restart wasn't about Verstappen either, right?

Whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant. It's applied to everyone.

I think Clockwork Cupcake is kind of contradicting himself. The rule about Verstappen can be seen that it targeted Verstappen, since he was the only one doing it.

Hamilton is not the only driver with piercings or rings, so why are we to assume that he is the one being targeted?

[MarkwG]

Tyre Smoke said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Tyre Smoke said:

It isn't just one individual. It applies to everyone racing under FIA rules.

It isn't about Lewis Hamilton.

Oh come on.

And clarifying the rule about not getting alongside another car during a rolling restart wasn't about Verstappen either, right?

Whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant. It's applied to everyone.

It's not targeting Hamilton, Gasly or Vettel, or any other driver. It is tightening up the rules that have been allowed to slide over the years, which is a result of the travesty of last season. Unfortunately the contrast between applying the jewellery rule, & not applying the safety car rules doesn't sit well, when we consider the risks between the two scenarios, & also who ends up most disadvantaged by both.

[angrymoby]

Tyre Smoke said:

I agree, but the wedding ring has always been something that has been 'exempted' in industry. Fir example, when I was in the meat processing industry, no jewellery. Except plain band wedding rings. So it isn't just the FIA. It's some sort of universal thing.

& in the food prep/ culinary industry both nose & ear rings are also allowed ...only watches, superfluous rings & bracelets are prohibited (for obvious reasons)

& those rules aren't in place to protect the wearer either

[TypeRTim]

jm doc said:

TypeRTim said:

GCH said:

Anticipating the next FIA directive introducing grammar school rules regarding hair having to be neat & tidy, of a 'normal' style, no longer than collar length, and that drivers must be clean shaven at all times, plus a new directive that tattoo ink is highly flammable.
The directive after that will be that being black makes it harder to see a driver in the smoke for rescue and extraction if the car is on fire, so all drivers of colour have to whiteface up a little. Because safety.

Edited by GCH on Tuesday 10th May 02:56

Yes because they are 100% doing this to only target Hamilton...grow up!

Who else is being targetted?

No one is being 'targetted' - the rules that have existed for 20 years are now being more strictly enforced. Yes, it affects Hamilton, but that's because he decided to disregard the rules in the first place and get the piercing(s) anyway. Most of the other drivers aren't affected because they.....followed the rules....

[MarkwG]

angrymoby said:

Tyre Smoke said:

I agree, but the wedding ring has always been something that has been 'exempted' in industry. Fir example, when I was in the meat processing industry, no jewellery. Except plain band wedding rings. So it isn't just the FIA. It's some sort of universal thing.

& in the food prep/ culinary industry both nose & ear rings are also allowed ...only watches, superfluous rings & bracelets are prohibited (for obvious reasons)

& those rules aren't in place to protect the wearer either

I suspect there is a case for revisiting rules which were probably written way back when the wearing of (predominantly male) jewellery was relatively rare & simple. The rules haven't kept pace with either the proliferation of body art in recent years, or the more nuanced ways of protecting the wearer & those in close contact in the event of an incident. Whether that revisit will be triggered by the current debate, or kicked into the long grass, time will tell.

[PhilAsia]

I don't know how anyone can know categorically whether anyone is being targeted or not. If you can, please explain as I will be rivetted...

[angrymoby]

MarkwG said:

I suspect there is a case for revisiting rules which were probably written way back when the wearing of (predominantly male) jewellery was relatively rare & simple. The rules haven't kept pace with either the proliferation of body art in recent years, or the more nuanced ways of protecting the wearer & those in close contact in the event of an incident. Whether that revisit will be triggered by the current debate, or kicked into the long grass, time will tell.

Indeed ...& it's my understanding is that the clarification about wedding rings was introduced after Wittichs initial reminder, because a few drivers asked the question

[Red9zero]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Tyre Smoke said:

It isn't just one individual. It applies to everyone racing under FIA rules.

It isn't about Lewis Hamilton.

Oh come on.

And clarifying the rule about not getting alongside another car during a rolling restart wasn't about Verstappen either, right?

Hamilton is the only one who has visible facial piercings, so is easier to single out. Others may have ear rings, but Hamilton has diamonds in his, which tend to stand out. That and the necklaces and bracelets which again are very visible. For all we know, the race of the grid has pierced nipples, scrotums, cocks etc, but Hamiltons are out on show, so easier to police. Maybe we need an F1 edition of Naked Attraction just see who actually has what pierced. Although if Crofty is on it, I'm out.

[MarkwG]

PhilAsia said:

I don't know how anyone can know categorically whether anyone is being targeted or not. If you can, please explain as I will be rivetted...

If a driver was being targeted, the FIA would have referenced them specifically & they'd have failed scrutineering immediately. Hamilton has been given a two race exemption for his nose metalwork, Vettel had to change his pants straight away...so if anyone was targeted, it was Vettel...