2023 Japanese Grand Prix Heroes and Zeroes

[Jericoke]

Heroes:

Max/Newey:  2nd straight Constructor's championship.  Red Bull has built a 'rocket' and found the perfect pilot for it.  They've put in a tremendous amount of work to make the weekend look like a breeze.

McLaren/Norris/Piastri.  What a great weekend, they've put in a great effort to improve the car.  Hopefully they can build on this and put on a championship effort in 2024.  Norris drivers like a future champion, but Piastri is just as good, if not better!

Ferrari.  Like McLaren, they've really gotten things working consistently well.  There's still room for the team to grow, but the days of catastrophic mistakes seem to be behind them.

Alonso.  Race in and race out, he demonstrates how much a difference the driver can make.

Zeroes

Mercedes/Hamilton/Russell.   A solid race result, and I'm not sure they could've done any better than they did.  AND YET, I feel like the team isn't functioning as a team, at all.  Russell and Hamilton are both fantastic racers, and while I'm a Lewis fan through and through, I would accept arguments that the drivers are equal, and that George is the 'future' of the team.  HOWEVER... I feel like Russell is a bad fit with Mercedes.  When he lets the team pick strategy, it doesn't work out, when the team lets him pick strategy... it doesn't work out.  They were never going to hold off Sainz in the closing stages of the race, but in trying to do so, they gave up a slim hope of catching LeClerc.  Would Hamilton have passed Charles?  I doubt it, but it would have been far more interesting than what we got, and show a team willing to fight to get ahead rather than struggle to not fall behind.

Red Bull/Perez.  Perez had a bad day, and Red Bull pulling him from the race was a good call.  And then they randomly send him out for a single lap?  Why?  If it's to serve a penalty, then the penalty system is dangerously broken, and Red Bull should be punished for creating risk, even if that's not in the rules.  There is no way that RBR was following 'the spirit' of the rules, and the FIA is well within their rights to mix things up when someone finds a dangerous loophole.

My race coverage seems to have run commercials at bad times.  I have no idea why Albon and Stroll quit the race.  I know that Albon had had some bad luck and probably just had an undriveable car, but I don't remember anything happening with Stroll.

Haas.  Just a bad day

I'm also a little curious what happened with Sargent's pre race penalty.  I understand that there are rules about what teams can/can't do during parc ferme, but... aren't they allowed to rebuild a crashed car?  I didn't get an explanation.  Did they miss a scheduled cut off time?  Did they not use 'like for like' parts?  Did the FIA just figure starting in the pit lane isn't penalty enough?

[Alianora La Canta]

I'm also a little curious what happened with Sargent's pre race penalty.  I understand that there are rules about what teams can/can't do during parc ferme, but... aren't they allowed to rebuild a crashed car?  I didn't get an explanation.  Did they miss a scheduled cut off time?  Did they not use 'like for like' parts?  Did the FIA just figure starting in the pit lane isn't penalty enough?

Logan Sargeant had 4 infractions relating to his car's rebuild:

1) Broke curfew - the relevant number of curfew days has been taken from Williams' allocation for the car Logan drives. Since Williams was within allowance, no sporting penalty was issued.
2) Requiring a new chassis after qualifying started - start from the pits.
3) Started replacing the parts too early - chassis can't be replaced until the end of a day's proceedings, and apparently this chassis change began before Q3 was over. We don't know what the regular penalty for this would be because it was overshadowed by...
4) ...Replacing parts without checking with the scrutineers first - 10-second stop-go penalty. It would have been an automatic pit lane start, but Logan was already starting from the pits. Something else had to be done to prevent Williams and Logan from getting no penalty for the action, so the stewards set a precedent that a 10-second stop/go was sufficiently commensurate with a pit lane start that there was still a point to Logan taking the start. After all, one safety car and he could start climbing the field again. In theory.

It was 100% a set of Williams errors; had the team checked with the scrutineer before starting,  this would have been permitted the moment Q3 ended*. I am sure Williams could have waited 30 minutes or less to start the replacement without getting further curfew consequences (they're counted by people-nights, so having 2 people work late on the chassis is 2 curfew nights against allowance while only 1 person is 1 curfew night). Logan would thus have been able to have "just" his pit lane start (inevitable given the damage to the chassis required its replacement).

* - This delay, in turn, is because the scrutineers have other jobs while sessions are in progress and having out-of-session approvals happening at the same time would probably require more scrutineers in the pit lane than are already there. During live sessions, this has safety implications.

[lkjohnson1950]

On the F1 broadcast they repeated a message to Alonso from the team that said Stroll's rear wing failed. Fernando was advised to stay off the curbs.

[Andy B]

Albon was launched into the air on the start when Perez moved over on Bottas who also moved over and Albon had nowhere to go.

Stroll was very fortunate that the rear wing didn't fail somewhere at high speed!

I quite agree that sending Perez out for a lap to serve his penalty was not in the spirit of F1 but then that's Red Bull for you.

I wonder if Sargent and Perez are not going to appear in 2024 Williams cannot afford all the replacements and Perez is not helping with points besides costing lots of $'s
Maybe Lawson will be on the grid anyway and he deserves to be!

[Alianora La Canta]

Put it this way: if Lawson is not on the grid in 2024, we will know Perez's lawyers have once again proven to be among the best F1 has to offer.

Checo even admitted to getting and working with a psychologist concerning the summer's performances this week, which is not something someone at Red Bull would do if they were trying to stay in Helmut Marko's good graces.

[Jericoke]

Put it this way: if Lawson is not on the grid in 2024, we will know Perez's lawyers have once again proven to be among the best F1 has to offer.

Checo even admitted to getting and working with a psychologist concerning the summer's performances this week, which is not something someone at Red Bull would do if they were trying to stay in Helmut Marko's good graces.

I'd be surprised if any current F1 driver WASN'T working with a psychologist.  Anything for an edge.  And with such a high strung, high stress career, it wouldn't hurt to have some help with that too.

I'd be repeating myself if I mentioned having the ability to be on the team you want to be on is just as important a skill for a driver as their driving skill.  Perez seems like one of the all time greats on that count!

[Willy]

I was confused by the RBR decision to send Perez back out to serve a penalty after they retired the car.
It was retired so should not be allowed back on track for any reason.

The FIA (Stewards) have shown once again they are woefully inadequate when it comes immediate decision making.  They should have not allowed the car back on track and forced RBR to hold it in the garage.
The penalty could be added to the final result or held over until next race.

[Andy B]

I was confused by the RBR decision to send Perez back out to serve a penalty after they retired the car.
It was retired so should not be allowed back on track for any reason.

The FIA (Stewards) have shown once again they are woefully inadequate when it comes immediate decision making.  They should have not allowed the car back on track and forced RBR to hold it in the garage.
The penalty could be added to the final result or held over until next race.

I quite agree Willy yet another failing by the Stewards they have also said they are not going to plug that hole.

[Alianora La Canta]

Put it this way: if Lawson is not on the grid in 2024, we will know Perez's lawyers have once again proven to be among the best F1 has to offer.

Checo even admitted to getting and working with a psychologist concerning the summer's performances this week, which is not something someone at Red Bull would do if they were trying to stay in Helmut Marko's good graces.

I'd be surprised if any current F1 driver WASN'T working with a psychologist.  Anything for an edge.  And with such a high strung, high stress career, it wouldn't hurt to have some help with that too.

I'd be repeating myself if I mentioned having the ability to be on the team you want to be on is just as important a skill for a driver as their driving skill.  Perez seems like one of the all time greats on that count!

Most of them do - the only one outside Red Bull who I know currently doesn't is Lewis Hamilton, and that's because he used to have one and decided he was able to integrate the psychological skills that were still useful to him within other members of his team (also a reasonable approach). However, Red Bull is pretty negative on the concept (largely because Helmut Marko still thinks getting a psychologist is an unacceptable sign of weakness, and admitting there is one an even bigger sign of weakness). Max Verstappen does not have one and the Alpha Tauri drivers haven't openly said whether they use a psychologist yet.

[John S]

I was confused by the RBR decision to send Perez back out to serve a penalty after they retired the car.
It was retired so should not be allowed back on track for any reason.

The FIA (Stewards) have shown once again they are woefully inadequate when it comes immediate decision making.  They should have not allowed the car back on track and forced RBR to hold it in the garage.
The penalty could be added to the final result or held over until next race.

I too was confused for a while until it was explained that RBR were defending against a future penalty. Usually unserved penalties in races, due to a DNF, are not carried over to next race.

However, it looks like when Red Bull checked the stewards were carrying Perez penalty over to next race - all within the rules - so Red Bull sent Perez out into race again so he could serve his penalty - all within the rules too it appears.

Not even sure there is an official 'retired car' status, Willy.
Rather think DNFs are only declared at end of race, & often non-finishers can be classified in the points.

Since I've followed F1 patched up cars have been allowed to rejoin races, and only pulled off by RDs if mechanically unsound or losing bodywork. Just because it rarely happens now doesn't make it wrong, so long as the car is mechanically sound.

Also what's this 'Spirit of the rules' thingummy? over the many years I've followed F1 teams and drivers constantly exploit any gap or advantage in written rules they can. Hell, we wouldn't have a lot of the innovations and winning cars if someone hadn't pushed the envelope of the rules to the max.

I say well done RBR for knowing about the possible carry over and nullifying it. Seems Williams could take homework lessons from the Bulls about rules and procedures. It can be the difference between winning, progressing, or just stalling.     

[Alianora La Canta]

I was confused by the RBR decision to send Perez back out to serve a penalty after they retired the car.
It was retired so should not be allowed back on track for any reason.

The FIA (Stewards) have shown once again they are woefully inadequate when it comes immediate decision making.  They should have not allowed the car back on track and forced RBR to hold it in the garage.
The penalty could be added to the final result or held over until next race.

Not even sure there is an official 'retired car' status, Willy.
Rather think DNFs are only declared at end of race, & often non-finishers can be classified in the points.

At the moment, the only ways to stop a car from going back on track are:

- the black-and-orange/meatball flag, which had not been waved prior to the retirement and therefore could not be used until the car passed the start/finish line after exiting the pits even if the car had been dangerous

- the black flag, which can only be used for severe infractions (nothing Red Bull did was against the regulations, except for the crashes that had already been assessed as not worthy of a black flag)

- evidence of medical unfitness on the driver's part, which the stewards did not appear to believe was a factor in this instance (had it been, the driver would have been black-flagged and sent to the medical centre, or simply radioed and ordered to the medical centre, depending on how big a hint was believed necessary. There's no way to overrule the medical warning light as it is designed to only come on for big crashes, but had it lit, that would also allow the FIA to prevent the car exiting the pits)

However, there is a potentially-useful concept that might help here, with a little tweaking: "not classified". Currently, this is awarded at the end if the car saw the chequered flag but did less than 90% of the distance.

A possible modification would be to say that if a car is in the pits when it would already be "not classified" had the full race been run, then that status becomes fixed and the car cannot leave the pits. Note that the timing screen already describes a driver as "out" in that situation. That gives 4-7 laps for cars to be repaired (4 for Belgium, 7 for places like Monaco) and potentially score a point if lots of other people retire or encounter similar problems later. It also means nobody has to worry about dodging people who are on track purely for the sake of a test session with a car that is likely to break at any moment - or indeed dodge someone driving slowly because they're going to retire again and were always planning to do so. Acronym could be NCR (not classified, retired), to complement the current NC (not classified).