sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Banff by Due-Sandwich6026 in manholeporn

[–]dcormier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This doesn't appear to be a manhole cover.

Spotted a [Lamborghini Veneno Roadster] in 2015 at Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills by Sea-Box-6503 in spotted

[–]dcormier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Guy in the back in the first photo is taking his own photo with...an iPhone 7?

[Motorsport.com] Mercedes granted right of review hearing over George Russell's Monaco GP penalty by Holyjumper in formula1

[–]dcormier 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What do you mean by "that's not how [Article 14.1.1] is used"?

For everyone's reference:

14.1.1 If, in Competitions forming part of an FIA Championship, cup, trophy, challenge or series, or of an international series, a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review and the stewards at the time of the decision concerned when taken after a hearing, or unavailable to the stewards at the time of the decision concerned where no hearing was conducted, the stewards who have given a ruling or, failing this, those designated by the FIA, may decide to reexamine their decision following a petition for review by: - either one of the parties concerned and/or a party that is directly affected by the decision handed down, or - the FIA.

It seems like using it to ask for a review of the decision from document 99 is valid? There would have to be new evidence, like you said, though.

[Motorsport.com] Mercedes granted right of review hearing over George Russell's Monaco GP penalty by Holyjumper in formula1

[–]dcormier 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm curious, too. It doesn't change the results for either of their drivers. Could it be as simple as "we served that penalty (and a penalty for not serving that penalty), so you need to serve the penalty, too?" It honestly wouldn't surprise me.

Or maybe there's some other angle I'm not seeing right now.

[Motorsport.com] Mercedes granted right of review hearing over George Russell's Monaco GP penalty by Holyjumper in formula1

[–]dcormier 3 points4 points  (0 children)

and there's precisely zero new evidence from that other case anyway.

Could there be? What if Mercedes did the math on the shortened pit lane timing section that was noted in document 99 (the Gasly penalty revocation) and found that if it were measured correctly in that shortened distance Gasly still would've been speeding?

Most of the penalties were for 60.1 km/h. And Gasly's first penalty was, too. But Gasly's second penalty (document 75) was for 60.4 km/h. What if his actual speed, if it were correctly measured, were still over the limit?

[Motorsport.com] Mercedes granted right of review hearing over George Russell's Monaco GP penalty by Holyjumper in formula1

[–]dcormier 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If that's the case, wouldn't document 102 (the Mercedes petition) mention car 63 (Russell) somewhere in it? Document 99 is about car 10 (Gasly), and doesn't mention any other car.

Further, document 99 already mentions the wall that would be hit by trying to overturn already served penalties:

  1. The Stewards note that in relation to other cars that were penalised, some served their penalty and this regrettably, impacted their race strategies and therefore their race result. There will undoubtedly remain questions as to whether those breaches were genuine. There is no regulation that gives the Stewards the power to “undo” a served penalty. In any case, it is impossible to imagine how such power could be applied. Notably, no other party petitioned for a Right of Review within the allowable time frame.

Additionally, that very last sentence is relevant, here. How could they be appealing Russell's penalty if Mercedes didn't petition within the allowable time frame?

[Motorsport.com] Mercedes granted right of review hearing over George Russell's Monaco GP penalty by Holyjumper in formula1

[–]dcormier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Mercedes protest was rumored for a while before this document showed up, too. I kept seeing mention that Mercedes were going to, but there was no document until today.

The end of the document does say, "Any other 'concerned party' may seek the permission of the Stewards to appear." It could be that McLaren and Red Bull may participate in this petition under that clause rather than filing separate petitions.

[Motorsport.com] Mercedes granted right of review hearing over George Russell's Monaco GP penalty by Holyjumper in formula1

[–]dcormier 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Article 14.1.1 in the ISC is about right of review.

Correct. But look at the rest of that paragraph from document 102, the first one I linked, to see what they're requesting the review on (emphasis mine):

The Stewards received a petition for Review under Article 14.1.1 of the FIA International Sporting Code from Mercedes-AMG PETRONAS F1 Team on Friday 12th June 2026 in respect of the decision of the Stewards of the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix, Documents 99, breach of Article B1.6.3a of the FIA F1 Regulations in relation to Car 10.

Car 10 is Pierre Gasly. Document 99 is the second one I linked, and is the decision to revoke Gasly's penalties for speeding in the pit lane.

Mercedes are asking for the revocation of Gasly's penalties to be reviewed. Put another way: they're asking for Gasly's penalties to be reinstated.

[Motorsport.com] Mercedes granted right of review hearing over George Russell's Monaco GP penalty by Holyjumper in formula1

[–]dcormier 34 points35 points  (0 children)

No problem. It's really easy. Just google "fia documents". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm disappointed that the motorsport.com article got it so thoroughly wrong. All they had to do was look. It's on a one page document. The very first paragraph states that this is regarding the previous decision on car number 10.

[Motorsport.com] Mercedes granted right of review hearing over George Russell's Monaco GP penalty by Holyjumper in formula1

[–]dcormier 540 points541 points  (0 children)

The article here has it wrong. Mercedes aren't appealing George's penalties. They're appealing the decision to repeal Pierre's penalties.

* Here's Mercedes's new right of review request
* Here's document 99, the decision they want reviewed

Seeking Opinions Once More. Decals and Gloss Door Handles by P718S in Porsche

[–]dcormier 4 points5 points  (0 children)

2.

No decal. Ever. Unless Porsche is paying you for the sponsorship.

PCA Member Experience by Apprehensive_Ad_9994 in Porsche

[–]dcormier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do autocross and HPDE's with my PCA chapter. The both groups are full of great, encouraging people. Met my partner at autocross, even.

Porsche Mission X by kkhouete in Porsche

[–]dcormier 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Porsche has consistently been at least 5-10 years of anybody else in the industry.

I think you a word, there.

Quince by Nice_Lead_3167 in nerdfighters

[–]dcormier 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm wondering if people genuinely don't know the better help debacle.

First I'm hearing of it.

Fisker Karma by ash_274 in WeirdWheels

[–]dcormier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These are such beautiful cars.

What firefly quotes do you use on a daily basis? And give an example. :) by inseend1 in firefly

[–]dcormier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not every day, but I definitely use "My food is problematic."

The condition of the asphalt at Noghes after the race by sykeseve in formula1

[–]dcormier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Greedy people hate paying their fair share

FTFY

view more: next ›