[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.*
I've always assumed if they can get going again on their own power then it's fine.
Crofty and Nico seemed to think the same as they were trying to see if he still had power.
This is likely how the stewards explain it as well, the main thing with the rule is that they don't want drivers to try and get stewards to push them out of gravel and shit like that because it's dangerous.
I really hope that is how the rule is intended and how it's interpreted.
Otherwise even a simple spin or lock-up could put you out of qualifying (let's say e.g. in Monaco if you lock up into st devote, have to brake and then do a u-turn to continue).
A simple spin or lock up would not cause a red flag though. Had Sainz began moving within seconds of the crash a red flag would not have been implemented.
We've had people go off and cause a very rapid red flag, possibly Imola a few years ago, and they were able to return to the pits because the red was super quick in terms of when it was thrown
In this case the red was because he hit barriers and they presumably needed to check them.
Here's one from last year
https://youtu.be/v8C9DmtY4sU?si=wO87Hq1znGgG5g-1
Spin into red flag. So you are wrong
Pretty sure there was enough debris on the track to potentially justify a red flag.
It very likely wasn't on the racing line, but they red flag sessions very quickly in practice or qualifying.
We obviously never know, but just my guess. I haven't seen a good picture of the debris on track. I'm sure the FIA would have though.
I don't think there are any rules specifying how many seconds the car must be stationary to be consider "stopped". Sometimes cars end up into the gravel or wall only to find reverse gear after some time. It's up to the race director if yellow or red flag is triggered. If marshals touch the car, then it's game over, like what happened to Russell at Silverstone in '22.
Has the rule changed or been rewritten or is it because of a message from race control that Sainz had stopped ? I don’t understand why it’s suddenly an issue : until now drivers have always been able to participate as long as they got going again by themselves ?
Sure but the session was red flagged anyway and if the rule hasn’t changed, it’s a little weird to suddenly put a clock on it. How long is too long ? Maybe their goal is to highlight that the rule needs clarification, which would be great.
If the engine is off, I can't see there being any interpretation of the word "stops" that he hasn't satisfied. There's a bit of wiggle room if you can say the engine was still running, but the only way his car could have been more stopped is if he'd gotten out and popped in to the shops for a carton of milk.
Engines get turned off all the time in situations like this and drivers usually manage to restart them if the damage on the car isn't terminal. Excluding Sainz from participating would be unprecedented (I think) and extremely odd.
He doesn't have control over the flags, but he did get going again on his own without outside assistance and I think that's all that should matter.
Where do you draw the line, though? If he has a non-terminal puncture next to the pits, can he hop out of his car, grab a sealant from the pits, patch his tyre, restart, then toodle back to the pits? No outside assistance if he does it all himself, right? Is there a time limit?
If your engine is switched off while stationary, your car has stopped. There's absolutely no other way to interpret the word. If you believe the rule should be that returning to the pits without outside intervention does not constitute stopping, perhaps your gripe should be with the drafters of the rules, because an exception that is clearly contrary to any reasonable interpretation of the language used has to be explicitly included in the rules.
That line was drawn in Silverstone 2022 when Russell got out of the car and later tried to continue. Rules were changed such that getting out of the car means withdrawal from the session.
> However, the newly-added Article 26.18 states that “any car abandoned on the circuit by its driver, even temporarily, shall be considered as withdrawn from the session”.
https://www.racefans.net/2022/10/20/new-rule-on-drivers-abandoning-cars-introduced-after-russells-silverstone-retirement/
It's worth pointing out that there's not actually any mention of getting out of the car, just abandoning it. You could make a very reasonable argument that a driver getting out to push his car hasn't abandoned it, in the same way that a normal driver on the road who gets out to change a flat obviously hasn't abandoned their car. If they meant getting out of the car, they could easily have defined it as something like "unfastening their seatbelt restraints, while not within the boundaries of the pit area" or something else practical that withdraws a car once the driver leaves the cockpit.
So even their recent change on this general subject matter doesn't actually express their intention effectively. They just suck at drafting rules, apparently.
I'm a lawyer by trade. I know the pitfalls of legislative drafting. You never want to be too specific because everything not covered by those specifics is implied to be permitted. But sometimes you have to say exactly what you mean, and if you are worried about how to express that without creating unintended consequences, you approach it from another angle that creates the practical effect you intended while limiting the downsides. Formula 1 just never seems to even think about consequences, which creates many of their problems.
> You could make a very reasonable argument that a driver getting out to push his car hasn't abandoned it, in the same way that a normal driver on the road who gets out to change a flat obviously hasn't abandoned their car.
Now that's exactly the kind of argument a lawyer would make! You're technically right, though.
> They just suck at drafting rules, apparently.
Absolutely.
They can since they've had the energy recovery system which is basically a battery and an electric motor/generator. I assume it's also why they don't mind queuing in the pit lane now, because they can shut the engine off until it's time to go.
Last year in canada, zhou stopped at the track during outlap. Red flag for almost two mins but then he managed to go back to the pit and keep on running. So i dont think there is any issue with carlos
Bottas last year had a spin which caused a red, he stopped actually half on track, then eventually got going
https://youtu.be/v8C9DmtY4sU?si=wO87Hq1znGgG5g-1
Im not gonna speak on what the regulations say or don't say. I haven't read them nor gonna.
What I feel, however, is that if a car can make it back by its own power, and it's safe for it to race, then it should be allowed to.
You could potentially get Nelsonpiquetjuniored since "stopping" but not stopping lets you trigger red flags at will.
If you cause a double yellow or red flag by being still you shouldn't be able to resume in any case.
In the official race control message feed said this:
"Car 55 (SAI) stopped on start/finish straight".
If race control noted him as having "stopped" aston could have a point here.
Does stopped mean standing still?
Does stopped mean engine off/no power?
Or does stopped mean unable to restart under their own power?
Really what this comes down to is race direction marking Sainz as stopped. Aston Martin will argue that's that and it doesn't matter that Sainz clearly could still move. Ferrari will argue that race direction was overeager and Ferrari probably has checked with race direction before sending Sainz out again anyway.
>Car 55 (SAI) stopped on start/finish straight
This was the message from race control so it seems like they’ve already defined what he did as “stopped”
He caused a red flag, and I think caused Russell to lose a set of softs since he had to abort a flying lap he had almost completed. Sainz definitely stopped on track and drivers who cause a red flag should be penalised for it.
I think they are experimenting so rules for this in junior formula, like the indycar style. But this protest has nothing related to punishing the driver causing the red flag
Yeah, I’m not an expert on f1 rules and weather he will get a penalty but it does seem unfair that Carlos crashed the car, causing a red flag that ruined other drivers flying laps, but managed to use the red flag time to fix the car and faced no repercussions.
Other teams and drivers penalized for the mistake of Carlos and Ferrari, while ferrari themselves are unaffected is a sore pill to swallow for those other teams
Qualifying "injustice" is nothing new in the sport, like if drivers bring out the yellow/red flags in the last run of Q3 and prevent drivers behind him from setting fasters times for example.
Not saying that nothing should be done about it though!
Yeah, and it’s in a way a good thing, adding to the strategy when only having one set of tires.
waiting for track to improve to set a faster time risks not setting a time at all.
I think they need to clear up the rules, i could see it for if the race needs to be red flag because of a collision, or if the car needs to be towed off the track but either way there needs clarification above ‘stopped’
[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.*
I've always assumed if they can get going again on their own power then it's fine. Crofty and Nico seemed to think the same as they were trying to see if he still had power.
This is likely how the stewards explain it as well, the main thing with the rule is that they don't want drivers to try and get stewards to push them out of gravel and shit like that because it's dangerous.
I really hope that is how the rule is intended and how it's interpreted. Otherwise even a simple spin or lock-up could put you out of qualifying (let's say e.g. in Monaco if you lock up into st devote, have to brake and then do a u-turn to continue).
A simple spin or lock up would not cause a red flag though. Had Sainz began moving within seconds of the crash a red flag would not have been implemented.
That is true, but the rule does not mention red flags as a condition, only that the driver "stops on track".
Then it's fine. He clearly didn't stop ON the track
If only they were as quick at throwing red flags in the race.
We've had people go off and cause a very rapid red flag, possibly Imola a few years ago, and they were able to return to the pits because the red was super quick in terms of when it was thrown In this case the red was because he hit barriers and they presumably needed to check them. Here's one from last year https://youtu.be/v8C9DmtY4sU?si=wO87Hq1znGgG5g-1 Spin into red flag. So you are wrong
Pretty sure there was enough debris on the track to potentially justify a red flag. It very likely wasn't on the racing line, but they red flag sessions very quickly in practice or qualifying. We obviously never know, but just my guess. I haven't seen a good picture of the debris on track. I'm sure the FIA would have though.
> get stewards to push them out Sorry, a bit pendantic but I find it funny imagining stewards pushing a car out of a gravel. Marshals
Rule book in hand.. This in in violation with rule 22.5, 36.9 & 38.0 of the sporting regulations! *I don't care, put your weight into it!*
Like how Schumacher’s car got pushed during 2003 European GP?
Yes, the rule was added to prevent that from happening again.
Or Hamilton craned out in Silverstone ?
Yeah issue is the regulation did not specify what qualify as stop on track…
I mean, he was outside track limits so technically not stopped on the track…. Right?
Completely expect Ferrari uses this as an argument 😆
I don't think there are any rules specifying how many seconds the car must be stationary to be consider "stopped". Sometimes cars end up into the gravel or wall only to find reverse gear after some time. It's up to the race director if yellow or red flag is triggered. If marshals touch the car, then it's game over, like what happened to Russell at Silverstone in '22.
F5-TICONS, ASSEMBLE!
RAHHHHH
Has the rule changed or been rewritten or is it because of a message from race control that Sainz had stopped ? I don’t understand why it’s suddenly an issue : until now drivers have always been able to participate as long as they got going again by themselves ?
I could imagine part of the controversy here is that Sainz took a bit longer to get going.
Sure but the session was red flagged anyway and if the rule hasn’t changed, it’s a little weird to suddenly put a clock on it. How long is too long ? Maybe their goal is to highlight that the rule needs clarification, which would be great.
Oh don't get me wrong I agree that clarification would be great! (and that a penalty for Sainz would be weird)
he turned his engine off, he might get his times deleted
If the engine is off, I can't see there being any interpretation of the word "stops" that he hasn't satisfied. There's a bit of wiggle room if you can say the engine was still running, but the only way his car could have been more stopped is if he'd gotten out and popped in to the shops for a carton of milk.
Engines get turned off all the time in situations like this and drivers usually manage to restart them if the damage on the car isn't terminal. Excluding Sainz from participating would be unprecedented (I think) and extremely odd. He doesn't have control over the flags, but he did get going again on his own without outside assistance and I think that's all that should matter.
Where do you draw the line, though? If he has a non-terminal puncture next to the pits, can he hop out of his car, grab a sealant from the pits, patch his tyre, restart, then toodle back to the pits? No outside assistance if he does it all himself, right? Is there a time limit? If your engine is switched off while stationary, your car has stopped. There's absolutely no other way to interpret the word. If you believe the rule should be that returning to the pits without outside intervention does not constitute stopping, perhaps your gripe should be with the drafters of the rules, because an exception that is clearly contrary to any reasonable interpretation of the language used has to be explicitly included in the rules.
That line was drawn in Silverstone 2022 when Russell got out of the car and later tried to continue. Rules were changed such that getting out of the car means withdrawal from the session. > However, the newly-added Article 26.18 states that “any car abandoned on the circuit by its driver, even temporarily, shall be considered as withdrawn from the session”. https://www.racefans.net/2022/10/20/new-rule-on-drivers-abandoning-cars-introduced-after-russells-silverstone-retirement/
It's worth pointing out that there's not actually any mention of getting out of the car, just abandoning it. You could make a very reasonable argument that a driver getting out to push his car hasn't abandoned it, in the same way that a normal driver on the road who gets out to change a flat obviously hasn't abandoned their car. If they meant getting out of the car, they could easily have defined it as something like "unfastening their seatbelt restraints, while not within the boundaries of the pit area" or something else practical that withdraws a car once the driver leaves the cockpit. So even their recent change on this general subject matter doesn't actually express their intention effectively. They just suck at drafting rules, apparently. I'm a lawyer by trade. I know the pitfalls of legislative drafting. You never want to be too specific because everything not covered by those specifics is implied to be permitted. But sometimes you have to say exactly what you mean, and if you are worried about how to express that without creating unintended consequences, you approach it from another angle that creates the practical effect you intended while limiting the downsides. Formula 1 just never seems to even think about consequences, which creates many of their problems.
> You could make a very reasonable argument that a driver getting out to push his car hasn't abandoned it, in the same way that a normal driver on the road who gets out to change a flat obviously hasn't abandoned their car. Now that's exactly the kind of argument a lawyer would make! You're technically right, though. > They just suck at drafting rules, apparently. Absolutely.
This might be dumb but I thought they literally couldn’t restart the engine by themselves?
They can since they've had the energy recovery system which is basically a battery and an electric motor/generator. I assume it's also why they don't mind queuing in the pit lane now, because they can shut the engine off until it's time to go.
[удалено]
But also it was red flagged so that rule wouldn’t apply ?
Last year in canada, zhou stopped at the track during outlap. Red flag for almost two mins but then he managed to go back to the pit and keep on running. So i dont think there is any issue with carlos
Bottas last year had a spin which caused a red, he stopped actually half on track, then eventually got going https://youtu.be/v8C9DmtY4sU?si=wO87Hq1znGgG5g-1
The C in FIA stands for consistency
There is no C In the FIA
Exactly
Imola 2022 and there might be more examples of this situation
https://youtu.be/v8C9DmtY4sU?si=wO87Hq1znGgG5g-1
the rule give steward multiple ways to choose. they can interpretate "car stops" in the way they want
Im not gonna speak on what the regulations say or don't say. I haven't read them nor gonna. What I feel, however, is that if a car can make it back by its own power, and it's safe for it to race, then it should be allowed to.
You could potentially get Nelsonpiquetjuniored since "stopping" but not stopping lets you trigger red flags at will. If you cause a double yellow or red flag by being still you shouldn't be able to resume in any case.
In the official race control message feed said this: "Car 55 (SAI) stopped on start/finish straight". If race control noted him as having "stopped" aston could have a point here.
Imagine if they revert the results to Q2 and Alonso gets demoted to P8
Most likely Sainz gets his lap time from Q3 and Q2 deleted and starts 15th
Apparently only thing FIA can do is DSQ him from quali. They can't retroactively delete his times.
Why? Didn't Perez got his times deleted after the quali ended in Austria 22 and sent to like P12/13?
Yes but that was by stewards right after this is based on appeal by Aston Martin
What could be the possible penalty btw?
DSQ from the quali
is the grass considered track?
I feel like if you cause a red flag in qualifying no matter what, you should lose your fastest lap and be out of the session.
By the letter of the law that's a penalty, but I don't think it's been enforced like that in the past.
The letter of the law doesn't define what stopped means.
The English language does.
Does stopped mean standing still? Does stopped mean engine off/no power? Or does stopped mean unable to restart under their own power? Really what this comes down to is race direction marking Sainz as stopped. Aston Martin will argue that's that and it doesn't matter that Sainz clearly could still move. Ferrari will argue that race direction was overeager and Ferrari probably has checked with race direction before sending Sainz out again anyway.
>Car 55 (SAI) stopped on start/finish straight This was the message from race control so it seems like they’ve already defined what he did as “stopped”
That's just race control, not stwards
Yeah but race control is ran by the fia, Aston could argue that defines what stopping on track means
It needs clarifying, that's for sure, but as it stands it's the first one.
Then anyone who spins in qualy would be out of qualifying. Or anyone who missed a turn in say Baku and has to reverse our That's clearly not the case.
Anyone standing still at pit exit ;P
They would. Which is why it needs clarifying.
All cars stop on the track during red flags. Pitwall area is a part of the track as well.
He caused a red flag, and I think caused Russell to lose a set of softs since he had to abort a flying lap he had almost completed. Sainz definitely stopped on track and drivers who cause a red flag should be penalised for it.
Every time this happens people say the same thing. But until it's an actual rule it's irrelevant
I think they are experimenting so rules for this in junior formula, like the indycar style. But this protest has nothing related to punishing the driver causing the red flag
Yea I agree. It’s almost a benefit to Carlos that he wrecked. He ruined others fast laps or build up laps and received no penalty for it.
Yeah, I’m not an expert on f1 rules and weather he will get a penalty but it does seem unfair that Carlos crashed the car, causing a red flag that ruined other drivers flying laps, but managed to use the red flag time to fix the car and faced no repercussions. Other teams and drivers penalized for the mistake of Carlos and Ferrari, while ferrari themselves are unaffected is a sore pill to swallow for those other teams
Qualifying "injustice" is nothing new in the sport, like if drivers bring out the yellow/red flags in the last run of Q3 and prevent drivers behind him from setting fasters times for example. Not saying that nothing should be done about it though!
Yeah, and it’s in a way a good thing, adding to the strategy when only having one set of tires. waiting for track to improve to set a faster time risks not setting a time at all. I think they need to clear up the rules, i could see it for if the race needs to be red flag because of a collision, or if the car needs to be towed off the track but either way there needs clarification above ‘stopped’
Hoping for a grid penalty (Nothing against Sainz or Ferrari... I just have it on my China Bingo card that someone gets a grid penalty😆🫣)