• jorge
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We 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.

    • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.