Official 2024 Chinese Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***

[Adrian W]

Eric Mc said:

GlobalRacer said:

Eric Mc said:

Yep - it's usually referred to as "making it up as you go along".

Or following the rules that are clearly in place for the meeting and that everyone competing is aware of.

Rules that are, in effect "no rules".

The fact that you can do certain things and be unclear as to what the punishment will be does not make much sense to me.

Get rid of rules that aren't "rules".

It's all arrant nonsense.

Here we go again, the inconsistency is ridiculous, how many drivers have had lap times deleted wrongly with the stewards saying their decision is final etc, good fir Nando another shambles for Formula one

[andburg]

I’m actually in agreement with it standing. He was slower in sector 1 and 2 than his previous lap.

Just poor for Hamilton to be told to slow off, there was always a risk the lap could have been appealed anyway

[Wills2]

It's a dynamic situation with team decisions being made in real time based upon events, one of those is lap deletions, you run off the track at the corners stated and it gets deleted no ifs no buts, all pretty simple no waffle about whether you gained or lost time.

How they managed to mess that up is anyone's guess, I'm sick of the chuckle brothers style of race direction that we've had over the last few years, it detracts from the sport either Charlie Whiting was a genius or they are doing this on purpose as it has gone down hill ever since his untimely departure. (RIP)

[Hustle_]

I'm really fine with it. Shame for Hamilton of course if he was told not to complete his lap- but that's on Mercedes.

[White-Noise]

Does anyone know what the actual rule states? I had a nose of the sporting regs but couldn't see anything in it

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_f...

I hope its not one of those gentleman agreement rules!

[Blib]

[Mark-C]

andburg said:

I’m actually in agreement with it standing. He was slower in sector 1 and 2 than his previous lap.

Just poor for Hamilton to be told to slow off, there was always a risk the lap could have been appealed anyway

"Play to the whistle" ...

[White-Noise]

Blib said:

Thanks Blib it's a bit tricky to read but this explains it. The rules are tweaked per event but this explains it well.

Do you have a link to the original image please?

[Blib]

White-Noise said:

Thanks Blib it's a bit tricky to read but this explains it. The rules are tweaked per event but this explains it well.

Do you have a link to the original image please?

https://images.app.goo.gl/oniyLe3dwYapNobG6

Any good?

[Sandpit Steve]

From the general link to stewarding documents from the first post:
https://www.fia.com/documents/championships/fia-fo...

Link to RD’s Event Notes for this weekend:
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-d...
Item 13 covers track limits

Also, RD’s Event Notes from Bahrain, where the other form of words is used, that refers to the following lap also being deleted.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-d...
Item 14 covers track limits on this one.

It appears that in today’s case, the actual cause of the confusion was a badly-timed replay, and that the rules in effect did *not* say that the following lap would be deleted, so the RD and stewards were wrong to delete Lando’s lap and correct to reinstate it.

I do wonder if Lewis might have gone faster thinking he was second rather than first though, but that’s just the rub of the green.

[Byker28i]

Another F1 farce... poor again

[Byker28i]

Hamilton again showing he's good in the wet, when the weather levelled the playing field and overcome the cars deficit.

If its dry, verstapen is going to cruise through though.

[White-Noise]

Blib said:

https://images.app.goo.gl/oniyLe3dwYapNobG6

Any good?

All good cheers

[White-Noise]

Sandpit Steve said:

From the general link to stewarding documents from the first post:
https://www.fia.com/documents/championships/fia-fo...

Link to RD’s Event Notes for this weekend:
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-d...
Item 13 covers track limits

Also, RD’s Event Notes from Bahrain, where the other form of words is used, that refers to the following lap also being deleted.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-d...
Item 14 covers track limits on this one.

It appears that in today’s case, the actual cause of the confusion was a badly-timed replay, and that the rules in effect did *not* say that the following lap would be deleted, so the RD and stewards were wrong to delete Lando’s lap and correct to reinstate it.

I do wonder if Lewis might have gone faster thinking he was second rather than first though, but that’s just the rub of the green.

Thanks for the links Steve. I maybe miss things but it's not clear enough what does and doesn't apply, I had assumed this was a consistent rule. Probably applies to other situations as well being changed.

[LM240]

Blib said:

Not watched the session.. forgot with the sprint format. However seen the fallout from the decision.

If it was the case he went over the lines before his actual pole lap, I don’t really see the issue. If no specific rule as stated like in Austria, then fine.

The issue is there shouldn’t have been a notification to say the lap was deleted… as in the decision makers knew the rules of the event.

[Byker28i]

https://www.fia.com/documents/championships/fia-fo...

Cant see anything about excluding then allowing Nandos time

[paulw123]

Mark-C said:

andburg said:

I’m actually in agreement with it standing. He was slower in sector 1 and 2 than his previous lap.

Just poor for Hamilton to be told to slow off, there was always a risk the lap could have been appealed anyway

"Play to the whistle" ...

They did, the stewards blew the whistle when Lando's lap deleted time came up.

An attacking striker doesn't keep on going the rest of the way up the pitch to score after the refs whistle blows, just incase the ref later decides actually he didn't mean to blow the whistle.

[Sandpit Steve]

White-Noise said:

Sandpit Steve said:

From the general link to stewarding documents from the first post:
https://www.fia.com/documents/championships/fia-fo...

Link to RD’s Event Notes for this weekend:
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-d...
Item 13 covers track limits

Also, RD’s Event Notes from Bahrain, where the other form of words is used, that refers to the following lap also being deleted.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-d...
Item 14 covers track limits on this one.

It appears that in today’s case, the actual cause of the confusion was a badly-timed replay, and that the rules in effect did *not* say that the following lap would be deleted, so the RD and stewards were wrong to delete Lando’s lap and correct to reinstate it.

I do wonder if Lewis might have gone faster thinking he was second rather than first though, but that’s just the rub of the green.

Thanks for the links Steve. I maybe miss things but it's not clear enough what does and doesn't apply, I had assumed this was a consistent rule. Probably applies to other situations as well being changed.

I usually read through the Event Notes on a Friday morning, at least when not getting up in the middle of the night, and hadn’t really clocked that this rule was inconsistent on a permanent circuit. I understand why it’s not there at a street circuit, where track limits are not usually much of an issue. Perhaps the addition of the gravel trap made the RD happy that no lasting advantage could be obtained by going wide at the last corner, that would transfer to the following lap.

Definitely one to look out for in the future though - and while we might have been confused by a replay, those actually making the decision should have a bit more on the ball! I suspect that the official that struck off the time was corrected by the RD, possibly after the team complained.

I’m sure McLaren’s team manager had read the notes carefully beforehand, because it’s their job to know all the rules!! Probably this guy, Randeep Singh, who has the job title “Racing Director” https://uk.linkedin.com/in/singhrandeep

[CT05 Nose Cone]

paulw123 said:

Mark-C said:

andburg said:

I’m actually in agreement with it standing. He was slower in sector 1 and 2 than his previous lap.

Just poor for Hamilton to be told to slow off, there was always a risk the lap could have been appealed anyway

"Play to the whistle" ...

They did, the stewards blew the whistle when Lando's lap deleted time came up.

An attacking striker doesn't keep on going the rest of the way up the pitch to score after the refs whistle blows, just incase the ref later decides actually he didn't mean to blow the whistle.

Can't compare the two though, when the whistle has blown play has stopped so you cannot score a goal or gain a further advantage.

[Hondashark]

Sandpit Steve said:

I usually read through the Event Notes on a Friday morning, at least when not getting up in the middle of the night, and hadn’t really clocked that this rule was inconsistent on a permanent circuit. I understand why it’s not there at a street circuit, where track limits are not usually much of an issue. Perhaps the addition of the gravel trap made the RD happy that no lasting advantage could be obtained by going wide at the last corner, that would transfer to the following lap.

Definitely one to look out for in the future though - and while we might have been confused by a replay, those actually making the decision should have a bit more on the ball! I suspect that the official that struck off the time was corrected by the RD, possibly after the team complained.

I’m sure McLaren’s team manager had read the notes carefully beforehand, because it’s their job to know all the rules!! Probably this guy, Randeep Singh, who has the job title “Racing Director” https://uk.linkedin.com/in/singhrandeep

I think he was interviewed and said he didn't contact them. But who knows.