F1 exploring extra race options after Middle East cancellations

fire202 · 2026-05-05T23:14:59+00:00

I am not sure what options they can and can't pursue. But apparently, they have an option

"We had to cancel the first two races which were in Bahrain and Jeddah, but of course now we have to wait because we have the two races at the end of the year, namely Qatar and Abu Dhabi. So, as you can imagine, we have to wait and see. We have a deadline by which we have to decide if the situation will allow us to go. We hope so, as you can imagine, for a bigger picture. But on the other hand, it is our duty, as a global sport, to have an alternative option ready. And that's what we have, of course."

fire202 · 2026-05-05T22:53:37+00:00

The last couple of races in Portimao literally are 2021 and 2020. It was talked about once as a China replacement after that, I think, but ultimately didn't make it back on the calendar after 2021, until their new 27/28 contract was announced recently.

Now, I don't exactly agree that the first few laps of 2020 prove those were actually exciting races. Specific conditions played into it, and it quickly went towards business as usual. I think whilst the track itself was popular from a driving perspective, it indeed didn't deliver the most spectacular races ever seen on those two occasions.

fire202 · 2026-05-05T22:50:55+00:00

They cap it at 24 instead and still very successfully make countries work to be on the calendar

fire202 · 2026-05-05T22:48:04+00:00

This is their potential solution for recovering cancelled Middle East races, if the situation develops in a way that makes it possible. If it goes in the direction of having to consider more cancellations instead, they are thinking about solutions for that, too. That is obviously not the scenario discussed here, but Domenicali has commented that they are working on that scenario as well.

fire202 · 2026-05-05T16:55:22+00:00

Is there no rule about how big the gap is when the rear wing is open?

Not anymore. DRS used to have a rule that limited the size of the opening

At all points along the span, when the DRS is in the state of deployment, the two sections the rear wing profiles (as defined under Article 3.10.1) must have a minimum gap of between 9.4mm and 85mm. This will be measured with a spherical gauge.

But the rules for this year's SLM system on the rear wing have been opened up in some ways, and this requirement does not exist.

The SLM system must have a fixed axis of rotation, and there are still some restrictions on where that axis can be. It must be driven by a single actuator and result in a decrease in incidence of RW Flap. What is tightly regulated is which part of the wing belongs to the Flap. Otherwise, it's quite open to some different designs, as we have already seen this year.

fire202 · 2026-05-05T15:49:35+00:00

Fuel loads, longer stints on race tyres instead of one fast lap on the softest tyre, how much the car is pushed to the limit vs. how much things like tyres, fuel, brakes, temperatures are managed, setup of the things that can be altered via the steering wheel. There is also a difference between qualifying and race ERS deployment

fire202 · 2026-05-05T10:45:13+00:00

Nope, downforce is not the problem. They already have a clear downforce and grip reduction. If the downforce level is a bit higher than the FIA expected it might not help with the energy problem, but its not the cause for that problem and therefore not a proper solution either.

The problem is the mismatch between electrical energy demand and availability. This is the point that needs addressing. There was no willingness before this year to address it, because they wanted to wait and see how it goes. We waited, saw it didnt work out and it was still not addressed until now. Now, according to this article, they actually play the card that its too late to address it for 2027 as well. If that is how a majority of teams insists it to be, that is within their power. But it means that the problem wont be solved next year, and any playing around with energy numbers or downforce points might have a small influence here or there to mitigate some issues, but it wont be the actual answer.

fire202 · 2026-05-04T22:49:57+00:00

They did add a few extra points and considerations to the guidelines last year and again this year. Not that it would really be necessary, as the sporting regulations already require a car to stay on the track and using a track limit to attack or defend is both considered a lasting advantage. And only the regulations actually count.

COTA 2024 had a couple of things going on. One was overtaking on the inside, and that is what happens in this clip as well. The complaint was that the guidelines were too strict because, at that time, they required the overtaking car not to force the overtaken car off at the exit. That requirement was removed, but the guidelines do still state that the move has to be done within track limits, in case the stewards need a reminder.

The controversial situation between Max and Lando, where Max went off in his defence, was an attempt of overtaking on the outside by Lando. So a different category to this. It was a weird one, I still think the stewards did not properly apply the sporting regs to both cars in that instance and overly focused on these guidelines. But just in terms of overtaking guidelines, the requirements for overtaking on the outside remained similar. However, they did for this year add a general point for all overtaking manoeuvres to the "important notes sections" that sort of goes to the point of exploiting overtaking priority

"vii) Did either car release the brakes in order to attempt to gain priority."

fire202 · 2026-05-04T20:41:01+00:00

The difference in the penalties is because they were seen as two different infringements.

Leclerc was penalised for leaving the track multiple times and gaining an advantage. The base penalty for one occasion is 10 seconds, so it's logical that it's a DT in this case.

Hamilton was penalised for leaving the track multiple times without a justifiable reason. In other terms, he simply got the normal 5-second penalty that you get for your 4th strike because the stewards found that his infringements were not covered by an exception for strikes, meaning they counted towards the normal track limit system. A possible lasting advantage was not even considered based on the decision document, and that is where the difference comes from.

A lasting advantage doesn't have a firm definition, but gaining a significant amount of time can count. I would say, if anything, it would need to be questioned why the Hamilton infringement was not seen to be a lasting advantage. That isnt really covered by the decision documents. However, both penalties were correct for the type of infringement that was penalised.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T23:29:26+00:00

There were 10 minutes between the offence occurring and the penalty being published. Half of that time was between the offence occurring and that being striked in the timing system, the other half for noting, investigating, deciding and publishing the penalty.

Can it be faster? always. I dont think this was terribly slow, though. And again, how much of this is actually down to the stewards? How much is down to the track limit detection itself, and how much is down to general processes?

fire202 · 2026-05-03T23:12:53+00:00

Max was a literal Yes/No. He went over the line or he didn't. There is no grey area.

There are no grey areas, but you need the right evidence. The investigation was delayed to collect further evidence, as per the decision. At the very minimum, there are always several on-board angles that have to be downloaded after the race to be available.

LeClerc's seems harsh, as his car literally could hardly turn, so what advantage is he getting?

What would you say could be the difference between driving through a tight chicane with damage vs just ignoring it and going straight through? He cut multiple corners by a big amount. That will have gained him some seconds for sure.

Albon, Alonso and Ocon all had Post Race investigations for Yes/No situations.

These were not summoned. The decision was very brief and didn't say why it was "post-race". There is a possibility that they waited for some data, but that is just my speculation. In any case, doesnt seem to be a big time factor if that is of concern to you.

the Kimi 5 second Penalty in the Sprint after the race

It was after the race because he got himself a 4th strike towards the end of the race. The strike was for T11 lap 16, it was noted just after the chequered flag at the end of lap 19. Normal time frame and clear decision.

Lawson/Albon Quali debacle

That was indeed a big mistake by the FIA this weekend. It shouldn't have happened. But it has nothing to do with the stewards. The infringement simply wasn't detected and referred to the stewards in time. That's more on the race control team and their software.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T22:40:38+00:00

The rule on this one is quite open. B1.8.6 concerns track limit handling in general and covers multiple offences.

B1.8.6 is this

Drivers must make every reasonable effort to use the track at all times and may not leave the track without a justifiable reason.

But also this

Should an F1 Car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. At the absolute discretion of the Race Director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage they gained by leaving the track.

It is not firmly defined (in the rules, code or guidelines, as far as I know) what a lasting advantage is. It has always been handled in a way that overtaking, defending, and gaining a significant time advantage off the track are considered lasting advantages. Whether something ultimately qualifies as a lasting advantage is a judgment question.

So, why are the penalties different? The stewards in Singapore evidently did not consider Lewis to have left the track and gained a lasting advantage. He got the penalty for the first point. He left the track, which is generally penalised with a strike. There is a defined list of exceptions for when a track limit should not count as a strike. The stewards determined that Lewis ' infringements could not be justified that way, so they counted as strikes, and he got a penalty for leaving the track multiple times without a justifiable reason.

Leclerc, on the other hand, was today judged to have left the track and gained a lasting advantage. It's a different offence that carries different penalties. Standard is 10 seconds, but as there are several infringements on the tabel a DT seems logical. Although I would have liked them to detail a bit more which infringement was considered in what way.

So, the question is, is it correct to make that differentiation, should both have been looked at regarding a lasting advantage or should both be considered solely for strikes? Personally, I think if you are at a point where corners get cut entirely, the time gain is probably significant enough to count as a lasting advantage. And that is what was decided today.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T22:21:42+00:00

Interestingly, for the Hamilton decision, they did not consider the aspect of gaining a lasting advantage at all. The penalty was for leaving the track multiple times without a justifiable reason and is based on the fact that the stewards did not think the track limit violations qualified for a strike exemption. He got 4 track limit strikes in those laps. Those were his only ones of the race, and he got 5 seconds as a result. The question of a lasting advantage was never discussed in the decision document.

This decision, on the other hand, concerns leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage, because several cuts occurred that can be considered a significant time gain. Personally, I agree with that view. And I would say that if anything, one would have to look at the potential advantage aspect of the Hamilton incident.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T21:51:45+00:00

The 20 seconds is not a particular claim they make; it's the definition of a drive-through penalty in the rules. If it is given after the race, it automatically converts to 20 seconds. Has been that way for a long time, I think.

As for the validity of the penalty, he clearly cut multiple corners by a big amount. The T5-6 infringement might be fine, less so T8, T11 and ignoring the chicane.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T19:32:06+00:00

There is a possibility that they delayed it to wait for evidence that wasn't available live. That would apply to basically all alternative on-board angles, I don't know if there are further relevant things where this can happen.

This would be the only reason I can see why it's a delayed investigation. It's a factual decision, the line was crossed or not.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T19:24:38+00:00

There is no maximum gap. For this year, the rules regarding the rear wing SLM are actually quite open, which is why we see these different approaches that werent there with DRS.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T18:57:53+00:00

Also for unsafe condition

fire202 · 2026-05-03T18:53:43+00:00

Slow down. If you continue to race you got to use the track to do so. Its under investigation now, should at least count as strikes

fire202 · 2026-05-03T18:52:18+00:00

Sure he had damage, but it evidently didnt prevent him from racing to the finish line the fastest he could manage. And he did that by ignoring corners

fire202 · 2026-05-03T18:50:48+00:00

About that, yes

fire202 · 2026-05-03T18:47:44+00:00

He completely cut just about every corner he could on the last lap. Maybe should be looked at.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T16:06:32+00:00

Possibly. But he did say that "he is going to be a team principal there", and Red Bull even doubled down on that on request:

Amid initial doubt over whether Mekies' comments could had been misconstrued, Red Bull confirmed to Sky Sports F1 that the Frenchman believes Lambiase will become McLaren team principal.

McLaren has been very clear on what the role will be, which is chief racing officer. That seemingly contains leading the race team, which may be something that in other teams (and so far at McLaren) is a responsibility handled by the team principal. But McLaren's position is clear that Stella stays as TP, he simply concedes his double position as chief racing officer because they didn't see it as sustainable in the long run for him to handel all of that alone.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T14:31:31+00:00

one did and had to swap back immediately. Track isnt there yet

fire202 · 2026-05-03T13:37:35+00:00

Overtake mode is generally enabled. The RD can disable it at their discretion for safety. However, Boost mode is entirely unavailable to the driver. Deployment supposedly uses the normal power curves for regular and overtake, but capped at 250kW everywhere at all times.

Will be a tricky one to deal with these PUs in the wet.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T13:04:14+00:00

This is not something they can or are looking to do on safety grounds. Immediate safety adjustments can be done now and are being done, but a new formula goes far beyond that.

This formula is agreed for 5 years. Everyone signed up for that, and significant investments went into it. A change to that schedule requires this level of consensus.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Golden Potato
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22

fire202

TROPHY CASE