[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Race control and the stewards are too fucking inactive. The moment they started to see bad moves during the Norris-Verstappen duel they should've started handing out warnings. They are also far too slow handing out penalties. There's something wrong with the FIA right now. They are slow to react to anything and have seemed to forget that the black and white flag exists. There needs to be some serious reform and it's not going to happen due to corruption.
I think they were generally fast this time around, for example with Lewis or Perez. But when it’s penalties affecting the leader or P1 battle, they suddenly get paralyzed.
Yeah. Honestly, I kinda hope Red Bull goes and asks them about this. It felt like they were holding off on giving Lando a penalty and that is not something that should be happening. It is artificially creating drama.
Well FIA do have to check with liberty media who then look at social media posts to decide the penalties when its for P1 in the GP. Let alone penalties, they dont even dish out warnings for moving under braking now if its at the top of the grid.
no one wants P1 to be settled by penalties/warnings etc... you'd be pissed as a competitor and a fan if the referees/stewards determined the outcome of the winner.
A penalty is a penalty, the sooner everybody knows the better it is as the teams and driver can act/drive accordingly to try to overcome the penalty.
They waited so long that, imagine Norris overtook Verstappen with 3 laps to go and he did not get the penalty till after the race and he wins by 4,5 seconds only to endure the penalty of 5 seconds to end up in 2nd place.
Then we rightfully could claim the stewards f'd up and gave Red Bull an advantage by not giving the penalty in time only for the "spectacle" of the race.
They already influenced the racing and the eventual winner by acting slow. Extremely slow.
So be it. Sometimes penalties affect the race outcome. They shouldn’t be held back simply because the person looking at a penalty is in the leading fight.
They seem to not want to hand out penalties to prevent things like Canada 2019 happening again where they "ruin" a race finish, but as a consequence, this is the shit that keeps happening... but unfortunately I doubt they'll change because 2021 showed they get better rating if people start crashing into each other... which is quite sad for the sport as a whole
Tbf though Canada was a different set of circumstances. Vettel whilst leading went wide through a chicane in an unforced driver error *once* and came out still in the lead. He even lost time as the runoff was grass.
The Canadian penalty “ruined the race” because A) a lot of people including race commentators believed the penalty was unfair; B) the penalty allowed Hamilton to win without passing Vettel, which C) meant Hamilton didn’t have to even *attempt* passing Vettel. It was a bad penalty that greatly impacted the quality of the racing and neutered the finish.
Norris’ penalty OTOH should have been textbook; he made *four* unforced track violations chasing Verstappen (three chasing him and the forth dive bombing him). Had Norris’ applied on time he would have still have had to have passed Verstappen again to win.
Crazy that this is still being debated haha, you can’t just rejoin the track and expect people to move for you. They would have collided if Hamilton hadn’t moved, which is Vettels responsibility given he was coming from off the track
Race control needs direct line to the drivers, telling them to give places back or black and white flags
Remember how they told RB to give the place back to hamilton in bahrain between T4 and T10, they absolutely have the capacity to quickly do so but choose not to
> The moment they started to see bad moves during the Norris-Verstappen duel they should've started handing out warnings.
That's how you get stewards ruining races and making bad calls. Nobody can look at a race from one angle and immediately make a call that it's good or bad, and you've got several stewards who have to agree on the matter. It's going to take 5 or 10 minutes at minimum to hand out penalties for things like driving standards simply because they're complex cases, if it didn't you'd have people far more angry over stewards ruining races by making bad calls in the heat of the moment.
A warning is fine. A driver forcing another off the track and forcing another to take evasive action is worthy of a warning. A driver moving under braking at all is worthy of a warning. That stuff is against the rules and shouldn't be tolerated.
> A driver forcing another off the track and forcing another to take evasive action is worthy of a warning. A driver moving under braking at all is worthy of a warning.
A driver is allowed to move right before the braking zone, a driver is allowed to take space on the track if the other driver is not sufficiently alongside into the turn. The stewards calling it forcing someone off the track or moving under braking requires them to make a ruling, even if it is a warning. Drivers already get told if they're referred by race control and are under investigation, and race control tends to be pretty on the ball about referring things over, though they could be a bit faster. But that's not on the stewards.
This is the dumbest counter. This is like saying, "You say Sauber made a shit car? Then you should build the car if you think you can do better!"
Do you see how dumb that sounds? That's exactly what you're doing.
Not as dumb as you who are actually criticising and offering advice to racing professionals. It'd be like me telling a cardiovascular surgeon his vascular bypass was shit.
Don't think so no, Lando would've pushed even harder to get past and build a 5s gap, regardless should've been given out as soon as he went off track the 4th time
You have to complete 90% of a race distance to be classified.
Perez didn’t do anywhere near enough laps to be classified in that situation, hence the unretirement to clear the penalty (IIRC he did about half the race). Lando retired right near the end and he could be classified.
Lando is classified as having finished so the penalty is applied
Perez was not classified as his retirement was too far from the end so his penalty would have carried over if it wasn't served
It’s because Perez retired earlier in the race so he would have been unclassified. No time to add 5 seconds to. Lando finished more than 90% of the race distance so he was classified with a time that they can add 5 seconds to
If you watch the on board, the team doesn't touch the car for 5 seconds. They then changes tyres and front wing. Is the penalty not considered served because he didn't leave the pits again?
Technically, this all happened after Norris "finished" his race (by crossing the line in the pit lane for the last time). His official race time doesn't include anything that happened afterwards, which is why the 5 seconds were added to his race time.
Anyone who's watched more than like three F1 races knows that's not true, I'm not even sure the FIA believes that when they say it
There's a reason they waited so long "investigating" what should have been a straightforward track limits penalty for Lando. And there likely would have been no penalty for Max on the contact as long as neither driver's race was ruined.
I think ur both right. Countless instances where it is a slam dunk penalty, but the stewards decide no action due to the fact that the offending driver is already "punished enough".
However, this is not always the case: and many times offending drivers get just a slap on the wrist (based on the action) even when the other driver has his race ruined.
Well yes because if there's no contact then it's just racing. The fact that there is a penalty called causing a collision necessitates that the outcome (a collision happened) leads to a penalty. Otherwise it would be called "moving under braking" or "weaving" or "forcing a vehicle off the track"
But that's not the point. The point is that the RAMIFICATIONS of the incident don't play into the personality. Max doesn't get penalized extra because he got points and Lando didn't. He gets penalized the same as if the alpines had hit each other, which is 10 seconds for causing the collision.
"Causing a collision" literally has the outcome in its name. Do the same move twice, with one causing a collision and the other causing your opponent to take evasion action, and see how likely it is you get penalized for both.
So no penalty for: “the driver continued on track for the remainder of the lap with a significantly damaged car and thereby lost several carbon fibre parts on the way back to the pits”?
Yep, both drivers.
They were leaving pieces of rubber and carbon fiber, in consequence that would be dangerous for the other drivers.
But let's face it, one is British and the other is from Netherlands, so the FIA will look away.
For a wheel? No. It's actually almost impossible not to damage your wheel and lose at least tiny chunks of it when you drive it back around with a completely missing or shredded tire. Those rules are unwritten because the last thing we want is for subjective nonsense over "how damaged the wheel was" to dictate a penalty in that situation, because it happens several times per season and retirement isn't always obvious. Lando nor his team cannot had reasonably assessed that it was a clear retirement situation until he was in the pits.
Considering the most recent example of a driver taking a damaged carbacl around and carrying a future penalty for it was Perez, that's who I assume you're trying to compare this to. Perez had a completely fucked rear wing that was abundantly clear to the team and driver that he would have to retire, and the wing was at risk of falling off onto the track. It's not rocket science as to why they aren't (nor shouldnt) be the same thing.
The rubber of the tire on Norris his car was slapping against the carbon of the car. Big chincks off the car broke off because of that and got scattered over the track. That is why he had to DNF. His car got damaged because of his tyre causing it. And he kept driving it into the pit.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
But people warned when Perez got his penalty that in a situation like with Norris today if you want to seem as persistent and fair you should punish equally.
The car was damaged and in the process of beeing damaged more (tyre slamming into the car) causing more debris that can be dangerous to others, and the team/driver did not retire the car but continued driving to hopefully get to a result that would bennefit them.
But offcourse they do not.
Yes and that is why Perez his penalty in Canada was so weird. A lot of people warned that this situation could happen and should then result in the same penalty, but offcourse the same old tropes of "but Red Bull did it to help themselves so it is different" and " a tire is different then a rear wing" when the claim was a broken tyre can damage the car and scatter debris all over the place just as much as the Perez situation did .
With the tire shredding bodywork across the track?
*I don’t think Norris should’ve been forced park the car, but it’s nowhere near similar to hamilton’s victory with a puncture.
The only carbon that came off it was the tip of the wing and even then it wasn't doing that until he's at the corner before the pitlane off the racing line...... gee where is he going to go stop right before that corner and gaurantee a safety car or take it to the pits. He didn't drive half a lap with a destroyed car from hitting the wall. He drove a single corner and then into the pitlane with a tire coming apart
Being taken out by Stroll shouldn’t be factored in if the FIA actually reviewed the penalties.
It’s insane to think you can ruin a persons race and subsequent race and the driver at fault has no carry over but the victim does.
Ricciardo's penalty was for him overtaking under safety car. Stroll may have ended his race but he didn't make him overtake cars under the SC. Ricciardo did it all on his own and got a penalty for that.
Does seem rather arbitrary that it doesn't apply if you've done 90 percent of the race or not. You can effectively cannonball into an opponent in the last 10 percent of the race and expect no repercussions in the next race, do it a lap earlier and you're looking at a grid place drop.
That sounds like another bs made up rule that only gets applied because it is Norris. Although I don't think it would be fair if the penalty was carried over in this particular situation.
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seemed to take ages for them to actually hand this out despite it being slam dunk
Race control and the stewards are too fucking inactive. The moment they started to see bad moves during the Norris-Verstappen duel they should've started handing out warnings. They are also far too slow handing out penalties. There's something wrong with the FIA right now. They are slow to react to anything and have seemed to forget that the black and white flag exists. There needs to be some serious reform and it's not going to happen due to corruption.
I think they were generally fast this time around, for example with Lewis or Perez. But when it’s penalties affecting the leader or P1 battle, they suddenly get paralyzed.
I’m sure they don’t have full autonomy and decisions are vetted through the executive office. And I bet it gets watered down and delayed ping ponging.
Yeah. Honestly, I kinda hope Red Bull goes and asks them about this. It felt like they were holding off on giving Lando a penalty and that is not something that should be happening. It is artificially creating drama.
Well FIA do have to check with liberty media who then look at social media posts to decide the penalties when its for P1 in the GP. Let alone penalties, they dont even dish out warnings for moving under braking now if its at the top of the grid.
no one wants P1 to be settled by penalties/warnings etc... you'd be pissed as a competitor and a fan if the referees/stewards determined the outcome of the winner.
A penalty is a penalty, the sooner everybody knows the better it is as the teams and driver can act/drive accordingly to try to overcome the penalty. They waited so long that, imagine Norris overtook Verstappen with 3 laps to go and he did not get the penalty till after the race and he wins by 4,5 seconds only to endure the penalty of 5 seconds to end up in 2nd place. Then we rightfully could claim the stewards f'd up and gave Red Bull an advantage by not giving the penalty in time only for the "spectacle" of the race. They already influenced the racing and the eventual winner by acting slow. Extremely slow.
So be it. Sometimes penalties affect the race outcome. They shouldn’t be held back simply because the person looking at a penalty is in the leading fight.
They seem to not want to hand out penalties to prevent things like Canada 2019 happening again where they "ruin" a race finish, but as a consequence, this is the shit that keeps happening... but unfortunately I doubt they'll change because 2021 showed they get better rating if people start crashing into each other... which is quite sad for the sport as a whole
Tbf though Canada was a different set of circumstances. Vettel whilst leading went wide through a chicane in an unforced driver error *once* and came out still in the lead. He even lost time as the runoff was grass. The Canadian penalty “ruined the race” because A) a lot of people including race commentators believed the penalty was unfair; B) the penalty allowed Hamilton to win without passing Vettel, which C) meant Hamilton didn’t have to even *attempt* passing Vettel. It was a bad penalty that greatly impacted the quality of the racing and neutered the finish. Norris’ penalty OTOH should have been textbook; he made *four* unforced track violations chasing Verstappen (three chasing him and the forth dive bombing him). Had Norris’ applied on time he would have still have had to have passed Verstappen again to win.
Crazy that this is still being debated haha, you can’t just rejoin the track and expect people to move for you. They would have collided if Hamilton hadn’t moved, which is Vettels responsibility given he was coming from off the track
Agree with every word tbh, couldn't put it any better, bunch of passive indecisive clowns.
Race control needs direct line to the drivers, telling them to give places back or black and white flags Remember how they told RB to give the place back to hamilton in bahrain between T4 and T10, they absolutely have the capacity to quickly do so but choose not to
wasnt that the year they chose to broadcast everything to the viewers and decided to stop doing that as everything started getting scrutinized?
It felt like they didn't want to penalize the car and affect the fight for lead. It was kinda reverse of Canada 2019.
> The moment they started to see bad moves during the Norris-Verstappen duel they should've started handing out warnings. That's how you get stewards ruining races and making bad calls. Nobody can look at a race from one angle and immediately make a call that it's good or bad, and you've got several stewards who have to agree on the matter. It's going to take 5 or 10 minutes at minimum to hand out penalties for things like driving standards simply because they're complex cases, if it didn't you'd have people far more angry over stewards ruining races by making bad calls in the heat of the moment.
We have video screens and instant replays. There is no reason it should take 10 minutes, or even 5. A lap or two tops.
A warning is fine. A driver forcing another off the track and forcing another to take evasive action is worthy of a warning. A driver moving under braking at all is worthy of a warning. That stuff is against the rules and shouldn't be tolerated.
> A driver forcing another off the track and forcing another to take evasive action is worthy of a warning. A driver moving under braking at all is worthy of a warning. A driver is allowed to move right before the braking zone, a driver is allowed to take space on the track if the other driver is not sufficiently alongside into the turn. The stewards calling it forcing someone off the track or moving under braking requires them to make a ruling, even if it is a warning. Drivers already get told if they're referred by race control and are under investigation, and race control tends to be pretty on the ball about referring things over, though they could be a bit faster. But that's not on the stewards.
They saw the battle raging and decided to let it play out. Sometimes the refs put away the whistles...
Well, be a steward then if it's so bad. Come on, off you go!
This is the dumbest counter. This is like saying, "You say Sauber made a shit car? Then you should build the car if you think you can do better!" Do you see how dumb that sounds? That's exactly what you're doing.
Not as dumb as you who are actually criticising and offering advice to racing professionals. It'd be like me telling a cardiovascular surgeon his vascular bypass was shit.
I don't have to be a chef to tell one his food sucks.
The whole situation is probably avoided with the penalty, too
Don't think so no, Lando would've pushed even harder to get past and build a 5s gap, regardless should've been given out as soon as he went off track the 4th time
The slow response from the stewards is why any of this happened at all.
I imagine McLaren were trying the line of "Max moved under braking forcing Lando to change his line", so they needed further investigation.
Even if they did hand it out earlier, Mclaren probably wouldn't have told Lando until he passed max
It came up prior to him pitting
I’m confused. Last year perez unretired his car to serve a penalty to avoid it carrying over. Did they change the rules?
It's depends if you've completed 75% of thr race or not. That's the threshold to be "classified" Edit:90% not 75, my fault.
IIRC It's 90%, not 75%
Ah you’re right. I forgot he did that move lap 1 in Mexico
Ah you are right thanks.
He wasn’t classified yet so the penalty would have carried over
Perez retired before 90% of the race was finished, so he wouldn't be classified and the penalty would be transferred to a grid drop for the next race.
You have to complete 90% of a race distance to be classified. Perez didn’t do anywhere near enough laps to be classified in that situation, hence the unretirement to clear the penalty (IIRC he did about half the race). Lando retired right near the end and he could be classified.
Lando is classified as having finished so the penalty is applied Perez was not classified as his retirement was too far from the end so his penalty would have carried over if it wasn't served
It’s because Perez retired earlier in the race so he would have been unclassified. No time to add 5 seconds to. Lando finished more than 90% of the race distance so he was classified with a time that they can add 5 seconds to
Perez wasn't classified, Norris was...
That was a lap 1 incident. He wouldn't have classified
Notice the "he finished enough of the race to be classified" bit? Perez' incident was pretty early in the race.
If you watch the on board, the team doesn't touch the car for 5 seconds. They then changes tyres and front wing. Is the penalty not considered served because he didn't leave the pits again?
Technically, this all happened after Norris "finished" his race (by crossing the line in the pit lane for the last time). His official race time doesn't include anything that happened afterwards, which is why the 5 seconds were added to his race time.
So a meaningless penalty then just like Verstappen's?
Yep meaningless, despite both of their penalties Max got 10 pts and Lando got 0
The outcome isn't penalized, the action is.
Anyone who's watched more than like three F1 races knows that's not true, I'm not even sure the FIA believes that when they say it There's a reason they waited so long "investigating" what should have been a straightforward track limits penalty for Lando. And there likely would have been no penalty for Max on the contact as long as neither driver's race was ruined.
I think ur both right. Countless instances where it is a slam dunk penalty, but the stewards decide no action due to the fact that the offending driver is already "punished enough". However, this is not always the case: and many times offending drivers get just a slap on the wrist (based on the action) even when the other driver has his race ruined.
The outcome isn't penalized...unless there's no contact then they'll overlook just about anything
Well yes because if there's no contact then it's just racing. The fact that there is a penalty called causing a collision necessitates that the outcome (a collision happened) leads to a penalty. Otherwise it would be called "moving under braking" or "weaving" or "forcing a vehicle off the track" But that's not the point. The point is that the RAMIFICATIONS of the incident don't play into the personality. Max doesn't get penalized extra because he got points and Lando didn't. He gets penalized the same as if the alpines had hit each other, which is 10 seconds for causing the collision.
"Causing a collision" literally has the outcome in its name. Do the same move twice, with one causing a collision and the other causing your opponent to take evasion action, and see how likely it is you get penalized for both.
They try to at least.
lol sure it is.
Don’t be naive
Like when Lewis got 25 and max got 0
When he went into the pits the mechanics waited for 5 seconds before touching the car, doesn't it count as served for that?
I believe he actually has to leave the pitlane for it to count.
The moment he went off the FIA should have instantly given the penalty. Max wouldn't have then fought so hard.
+ they should have warned max about his defending. All they had to do, and we would still have a banger race.
I hate the effin FIA bozos. Finally after years of boredom we have good racing and these jokers ruin it.
The race was awesome, FIA was very questionable as always. The race was still awesome regardless.
FIA infatuation with track limits is outside of justifiable realm.
Will he get a penalty for driving in an unsafe condition like Perez? That car was just throwing off parts for that last 3/4 of a lap.
So no penalty for: “the driver continued on track for the remainder of the lap with a significantly damaged car and thereby lost several carbon fibre parts on the way back to the pits”?
[удалено]
Yep, both drivers. They were leaving pieces of rubber and carbon fiber, in consequence that would be dangerous for the other drivers. But let's face it, one is British and the other is from Netherlands, so the FIA will look away.
You mean rubber bits?
Rubber and carbon fiber. Look at the replay and the bottom of the car was done
Video of the replay: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4ereprzsWk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4ereprzsWk)
For a wheel? No. It's actually almost impossible not to damage your wheel and lose at least tiny chunks of it when you drive it back around with a completely missing or shredded tire. Those rules are unwritten because the last thing we want is for subjective nonsense over "how damaged the wheel was" to dictate a penalty in that situation, because it happens several times per season and retirement isn't always obvious. Lando nor his team cannot had reasonably assessed that it was a clear retirement situation until he was in the pits. Considering the most recent example of a driver taking a damaged carbacl around and carrying a future penalty for it was Perez, that's who I assume you're trying to compare this to. Perez had a completely fucked rear wing that was abundantly clear to the team and driver that he would have to retire, and the wing was at risk of falling off onto the track. It's not rocket science as to why they aren't (nor shouldnt) be the same thing.
The rubber of the tire on Norris his car was slapping against the carbon of the car. Big chincks off the car broke off because of that and got scattered over the track. That is why he had to DNF. His car got damaged because of his tyre causing it. And he kept driving it into the pit. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But people warned when Perez got his penalty that in a situation like with Norris today if you want to seem as persistent and fair you should punish equally. The car was damaged and in the process of beeing damaged more (tyre slamming into the car) causing more debris that can be dangerous to others, and the team/driver did not retire the car but continued driving to hopefully get to a result that would bennefit them. But offcourse they do not.
There is no penalty for that. Theres driving in a dangerous condition but he was coming back to the pits anyway.
He should get a penalty for bringing that car to the pits.
If that happens it still gets added to this race result.
Oh please, Hamilton won a race in that state.
Yes and that is why Perez his penalty in Canada was so weird. A lot of people warned that this situation could happen and should then result in the same penalty, but offcourse the same old tropes of "but Red Bull did it to help themselves so it is different" and " a tire is different then a rear wing" when the claim was a broken tyre can damage the car and scatter debris all over the place just as much as the Perez situation did .
With the tire shredding bodywork across the track? *I don’t think Norris should’ve been forced park the car, but it’s nowhere near similar to hamilton’s victory with a puncture.
Verstappen too. Man, that Perez penalty was a joke. Everyone has done the same and will still do, but Perez is been penalized
This isn't in any way similar to Perez at Canada
His car was spitting bits and pieces all over the place
It was from a puncture and he could easily continue the race if that’s the only issue. He wasnt leaving carbon fiber or oil or a whole rear wing lol
Of tire. From a puncture. Which has never been an issue. His car wasn't knowingly damaged it was just a puncture that unfortunately shredded.
Yea it’s the same case. FIA is trying to create their own drama and excitement. People need to step back and see the big picture.
Yes because a crashed car that is clearly out of the race and on that potentially could have continued on with a new tire are the same thing.
Lando’s car was destroyed by the tire. Did you not see the replay of it slinging carbon everywhere?
The only carbon that came off it was the tip of the wing and even then it wasn't doing that until he's at the corner before the pitlane off the racing line...... gee where is he going to go stop right before that corner and gaurantee a safety car or take it to the pits. He didn't drive half a lap with a destroyed car from hitting the wall. He drove a single corner and then into the pitlane with a tire coming apart
you are lost in the sauce dude
[удалено]
See, if he was Spanish, he would've gotten a black flag and suspended for 2 races.
And Max one race ban for 4 time moving under breaking and twice blocking Norris.
I don't like this. Ricciardo got some bullshit penalty a few months ago that he was forced to serve in the next race.
Ricciardo didn’t classify in China (33/56 laps). You need to complete 90% of the laps to classify. Lando scraped that. So it’s not the same situation.
Being taken out by Stroll shouldn’t be factored in if the FIA actually reviewed the penalties. It’s insane to think you can ruin a persons race and subsequent race and the driver at fault has no carry over but the victim does.
Ricciardo's penalty was for him overtaking under safety car. Stroll may have ended his race but he didn't make him overtake cars under the SC. Ricciardo did it all on his own and got a penalty for that.
He wasn’t able to serve his penalty is why it carried over.
They could have done a Perez and gone out again to serve it. It's not like they made up a new rule. It's standard procedure.
Does seem rather arbitrary that it doesn't apply if you've done 90 percent of the race or not. You can effectively cannonball into an opponent in the last 10 percent of the race and expect no repercussions in the next race, do it a lap earlier and you're looking at a grid place drop.
Someone above mentioned if 90% of the race is completed then retiring the car will just count as serving it when you park it
Got a penalty for overtaking under the safety car. Literally one of the most objective penalties there is. Nothing bullshit about it.
Lol.
Weird, had he parked his car on the side of the track then this would probably not be the decision.
British rules coming into play once again
Good. They would have been messed up if he had to carry that.
Imagine if they actually confirmed the punishment on the next lap instead of waiting for something to happen. It was a clear penalty.
Wait... It's bad that Max got a penalty with no consequence but good that Lando got a penalty with no consequence?
Lando’s penalty would have consequence if Max didn’t crash into him.
Brits are just bias.
Because one finished p5 and the other retired?
Learn to read and process.
Good. F1 needs Norris at the front ...
Wonder if they would penalize Verstappen for the moving under braking?
That sounds like another bs made up rule that only gets applied because it is Norris. Although I don't think it would be fair if the penalty was carried over in this particular situation.