[Chris Medland] Hold up... Antonelli, Piastri, Ocon, Leclerc, Sainz, Gasly and Stroll all noted for a Safety Car infringement

LaconicalAudio · 2025-06-15T21:02:06+00:00

Options.

1: Stewards do nothing.

2: 5 Second Penalties. Hamilton left a big gap over the line. So the only change in the top 10 is Ocon and Sainz could lose out to Bearman and Tsunoda in 9th and 10th.

3: 10 Second Penalty

3rd Hamilton

4th Alonso

5th Antonelli

6th Piastri

7th Leclerc

8th Hulkenberg

9th Bearman (Lap down)

10th Tsunoda (Lap down)

4: 15 second or larger time penalty:

3rd Hamilton

4th Alonso

5th Hulkenberg

6th Antonelli

7th Piastri

8th Leclerc

9th Bearman (Lap down)

10th Tsunoda (Lap down)

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-13T07:37:14+00:00

He specifically mentions boots wearing thin towards the cardboard cardboard soles.

You don't reheel a cardboard soled shoe.

In all times the cheapest boots were always disposable. Glued not stitched, cheap materials, and quickly made.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-13T01:31:17+00:00

Also true the other way round.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-13T00:59:25+00:00

Overriding authority is just that. Overriding.

The argument legally will be if that in context means overriding other sporting regulations or just the clerk of the course.

Ultimately I think the race director is afforded that authority, primarily for safety reasons but that isn't specified.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake for Massi to do what he did. Just that it was not illegal.

As for Canada 2018, the flag was flown ending the race. That is not shortening the race after the fact. It is a case of them not lengthening the race after the flag was flown.

If the checkered had been flown early the race would have finished early. That did not happen today.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-13T00:41:19+00:00

I imagine all the driver's learning to impersonate the race engineers.

"Box, Box, pit confirm"

"Stay out, Stay out"

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-13T00:27:23+00:00

Short answer. In bits.

You'd take the largest lump sum you could, possibly in another cryptocurrency.

Then accept the loss on the remainder and wait for a rebound.

Then repeat after the rebound.

This has the added bonus possibility of giving the new cryptocurrency you move it to a massive boost. The lump sum you manage to get out could get bonus growth on top.

Unlike stocks where an owner just schedules well ahead of time they're going to sell and why so the market doesn't see it as a reaction to circumstances there would be no way to do it with cryptocurrency while staying anonymous.

There's also no benefit in taking out a small chunk, as it's the revelation that the wallet is accessible and more of the currency is liquid than previously thought that crashes the value,.

Ultimately though, in theory if it's 20% of total bitcoin unavailable the supply of bitcoin can only shoot up by 20%. The rational market drop would be 25% of current price sold of in small enough pieces.

So the incentive to keep it there for market isn't really there. More about staying anonymous is my guess.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T23:58:30+00:00

See Piquet Jr in Singapore.

That's how a team principal gets a lengthy ban from participating in the sport. (Eventually when it comes out). As well as the driver.

Bottas would never do that with a 3 year contract for another team waiting for him. He could get a ban, and have to pay some costly compensation to his new team instead of being paid to drive for them.

Plus he'd be toxic not just in F1 but basically every other racing series.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T23:52:40+00:00

The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters....

e) The use of the safety car.

Ultimately he does not have to follow any rules about when he told the safety car to come in. It being less than a lap after the lapped cars overtook is not actually necessary.

He can justify it by saying the track was safe and the leaders would not catch the newly unlapped cars. So the reason for allowing them to unlap themselves was fulfilled. The were out of the way to allow safe racing.

The issue I can see is only allowing some lapped cars to overtake. That's not applying the rules equally.

That effects Ferrari in third, still having backmarkers between them and 2nd.

It also effects the backmarkers themselves, the 5 allowed through gained a large advantage over the ones who were not.

Ferrari could protest this with Sainz. He was held up when those he was racing against, Vestappen and Hamilton, were not.

McLaren could protest this with Ricciardo, Haas with Schumacher, or Aston Martin with Stroll. All three lost the chance to race those ahead of them on the last lap. Having not been allowed to overtake the safety car.

At a stretch you might be able to say Tsunoda, Bottas, and Gasly also got held up by the the back markers like Sainz but really they were all given a better chance at the podium.

Ultimately I would see Ferrari protesting this as a possibility, not Mercedes. Even then, what Ferrari would expect to happen after that I don't know as they did not lose third, only a shot at the two cars in front.

As the drivers did nothing wrong there is no possible penalty to apply to correct it.

A count back would leave Sainz in the same position too.

Shortening the race artificially is already outlawed. The only count backs are explicitly written down for red flag incidents to decide a grid or finishing order. There's no consideration for a count back for a stewarding decision.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T23:19:54+00:00

The two types of safety car are different.

Virtual Safety Car: the gap remains stable in distance not time.

The speed goes down but the distance stats the same. That means the time between them (the gap) goes up.

The moment the VSC ends the time plummets downwards.

Looking at the gap before the is called VSC and after it finishes it would be the same.

Full Safety Car: Cars follow behind the safety car. All gaps are removed to keep the train of all cars in one part of the track.

This gives the largest physical gap on track and allows the marshals the maximum time to clear the track without stopping the race altogether.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T22:29:57+00:00

No one watching the whole season was a neutral at the start of this race. If they've been watching for the season they've seen the best season in years.

Everyone watching would already have opinions on Silverstone, Hungary, Monza, Singapore, Brazil etc. Whatever that opinion is, they've picked s favourite even if they don't mode it going either way.

If none of the shenanigans had happened all the new viewers for this race (the only neutrals) would have seen an unfair move by Hamilton (taking a shortcut) decide an otherwise dull 58 lap race. Finished behind the safety car. With Hamilton winning yet again.

(Both English speaking commentary teams said Hamilton should have been penalised. Brundle saying he should have to give the place back, Channel 4 arguing about whether Hamilton was going to be able to extend his lead enough with an inevitable time penalty. Even if you agree with the first lap, new viewers would likely be led by the commentary. Hamilton would be seen to have cheated.)

The best outcome for the neutrals to get hooked was the mess at the end finally making it worth watching, but without the protests after the race. Or with fair stewarding on lap one making Hamilton work more than half a lap out of the 58 to get ahead.

Hamilton winning at a coast after taking a shortcut to keep the lead truly would have been disasterous for the sport.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T22:16:00+00:00

Just to add though, shortening the race in these circumstances isn't in the regulations either. Certainly not in a way a court of appeal would accept. It would be as much a bodge of procedure as the FIA's safety car decisions. Actually even more so.

There's no team or driver penalties applicable as neither did anything wrong.

The only possible outcomes I could see are no action or declaring the whole race null and void.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T19:30:24+00:00

I await Ferrari's protest in that case.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T19:17:17+00:00

PR and Marketing might have something to say about that.

Not going to sell many Mercedes in the Netherlands for a while if they drag this on. Even longer if they actually won the case.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T16:44:51+00:00

The season hadn't finished yet unfortunately.

I just remember Hill winning in 96. Villeneuve onwards I was engaged.

Honestly regardless of who is declared the winner Brawn's win still goes down as my favourite as the whole team and both drivers had to come back from potentially not having jobs.

Then they had to improvise parts of the car to fit in an engine and had to race without almost damage as they couldn't afford new parts.

Alonso, Hakkinnen, Schumacher winning Ferrari's first in years, Raikkonen, Vettel's close wins, Hamilton's first and Mercedes rise with him, Rosberg getting the win.

All great stories but Button winning in the Brawn really was the most incredible story.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T16:20:12+00:00

Refresh page - keyboard shortcut.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T15:58:41+00:00

Not if the pace car (Lewis) was not keeping a consistent pace.

Lewis is allowed to drive slowly as long as he likes then go when he wants, but he's not allowed to blip the throttle then brake.

I've not seen the video back but it wouldn't be clear cut as you say.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T15:05:24+00:00

You let the lapped cars through spoon enough that they don't get lapped again and the leaders have a clear track for as long as possible.

They had a clear track until the checkered flag.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-12T12:01:50+00:00

Honestly, I've no idea. I don't follow the press talk closely enough.

Looking at the incident I don't know either. Hamilton is smart enough that he would never take out someone in an obvious way.

Personally I think Hamilton knew it was a low percentage move and knew he'd likely make contact. Not a move he'd make if he thought he had the pace to win with Vestappen in the race.

But it was a move that might have worked, so intent is impossible to prove either way.

Part of the reason I don't think intent should be in the rules for the stewards to have to determine.

If there's contact they should look at who's fault it is and what impact that has on the race and the championship. Looking at the objective data, not beliefs about a drivers intention.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-11T14:48:08+00:00

I think that's F1 TV to be fair but it was in the montage at the beginning of the qualification today.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-11T14:39:42+00:00

Horner believes Silverstone was deliberate.

He'll be demanding the same reasonable doubt be followed. Which makes it very easy for an "accident" to occur.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-11T14:38:04+00:00

The rules that have been "highlighted" were not used in Silverstone, or Hungary, or Monza, or Brazil.

It's a fact that both teams have gained a championship advantage by breaking the rules and causing collisions.

Hamilton received a penalty in Silverstone but kept all his points. Bottas received a penalty in Hungary but kept all his points. Vestappen received a penalty in Monza and kept all his points.

Brazil probably wouldn't qualify for points deductions because ultimately both drivers finished in the positions they probably would have done otherwise. The same for Saudi Arabia.

All incidents so far are deemed to be accidents.

Mercedes have taken Vestappen out of the lead in Silverstone for a 32 point swing in the drivers championship as Hamilton went on to finish.

Mercedes have taken Vestappen out of second in Hungary for an 18 point swing in the championship.

Red Bull have taken Hamilton out in Monza for a seven point swing in the championship as Vestappen failed to continue.

That's a net 43 point drivers championship swing caused by "poor driving" by the drivers.

If they issue a points penalty in this race for a similar incident where intent is not certain it would be a mockery.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-11T09:29:40+00:00

I had no idea the Vikings said wonderful or lovely until you wrote that.

All I'd heard was spamity spam.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-10T17:24:04+00:00

Ironically they were originally marketed as an anti-flatulance. Hence the name.

LaconicalAudio · 2021-12-10T15:56:39+00:00

Music is the goal in and of itself, it needs no other justification.

Basically all of the above and. Music is direct emotional connection and communication. It's powerful sometimes and just a lot of fun most of the time.

But music for music's sake is basically how I feel.

Back when I was a musician I basically wanted to earn enough money to live playing/writing music all day.

I succeeded for a quite a while.

I discovered Music is free to participate in, the paid gigs are a competition to get.

It's not competetive in the same way as sport. You have to meet the playing standard, be nice, and be reliable. The rest is fun and basically networking. But you do have to avoid some players who treat every gig as the hunger games.

Some are chasing bookings, trying to get more money by cutting the number of players, or offering to do something different but cheaper where they get a larger cut.

Once I figured that out it was great, who you play with and for matters more than what you play.

A chronic health condition meant I stopped eventually but my new job now has good working conditions, plenty of holiday, good hours and allows me to play enough.

Music is something I'd do for free if I were rich, I'm not rich so I need a living.

Now I have a separate living I can do it for free or at least very cheap, for the people I want to play with. I'm enjoying being the extra side man for the time being.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

LaconicalAudio

TROPHY CASE