this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
52 points (98.1% liked)

Formula 1

9056 readers
51 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
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 21-23 Nov
πŸ‡ΆπŸ‡¦ Qatar 29 Nov-01 Dec
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ͺ Abu Dhabi 06-08 Dec

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jalda@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

β€œWe note that there are contrary requirements on drivers in that they must respect the minimum [sic] time, they are attempting to create manageable gaps to cars in front, yet they are also required to avoid unnecessarily stopping at the pit exit or driving unnecessarily slowly. It was also particularly noted that the race director accepted that these contrary requirements exist.”

This is such a load of bullshit. Respecting the maximum lap time is a requirement set by the director's race notes. Avoiding stopping and/or driving unnecessarily slowly at the pit exit is a requirement set by the rulebook. Creating a manageable gap to cars in front is NOT a requirement. It is a competitive advantage. And as such, drivers and teams are free to pursue an advantage as long as they are within the requirements. There aren't contrary requirements. You either set a lap earlier than everybody else when the track is not in optimal conditions, or you wait till the last moment and take the risk of traffic.

If I were Leclerc or Hamilton, I would use this ruling to challenge last week's DSQ. After all, there are two contrary requirements if we follow the stewards' logic: the requirement of the wear of the planck and the requirement of running low to maximize ground effect.

The Blue Flag/Three marshall post rule is set in a similar manner.

This isn't new, and suggesting that it has any bearing on the last race is just wrong.

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

The requirement for running low isn't a rule tho, is it? Teams want to run as low as they can for the ground effect to be effective, but nothing's forcing them.

[–] BearJCC@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

Same with creating manageable gaps to cars in front. That's their point.

[–] Tvkan@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Read the comment again.

[–] DV8@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Let's hope they'll get some explicit rules soon.

That is dumb as hell but ok