The likely impact of F1’s coming clampdown on ultra-quick pit stops

2021 Styrian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

FIA president Jean Todt mentioned during last weekend’s French Grand Prix that he would “prefer less controversy in our sport”.

That seems unlikely to happen, as showed by the furious reaction to yesterday’s revelation that the FIA will introduce new restrictions on Formula 1 teams’ pit stop practices from the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Clearly, many consider it an attempt to clip Red Bull’s wings and even up the championship fight between them and Mercedes. But is that the case and, if so, is it likely to have much effect?

There is no doubt that Red Bull consistently excels at pit stops compared to its championship rival. Mercedes has performed the fastest tyre change of a race once this year, at Imola, which was the first time they had done so since the 2018 United States Grand Prix.

Report: Mercedes “don’t fully understand” reason for pit call which cost Hamilton win
Over the same period, Red Bull has performed the fastest pit stop in 30 of the 69 races. Already this year they’ve pulled off three sub-two-second stops, and have often enjoyed a gap of one to two tenths of a second over the next best.

Nor can a case be made that Mercedes have sacrificed outright speed in favour of consistency when it comes to their pit stops. Valtteri Bottas has had some miserable experiences in the pit lane this year: The disastrous stop which ended his Monaco Grand Prix was the most obvious example, and he lost a significant amount of time with a slow tyre change in Bahrain as well.

So it’s clear Red Bull hold the upper hand in the pits. But how much of a difference are we going to see once the new rules come into force in August?

The changes include ensuring mechanics’ reaction teams cannot be below the limit of what is considered possible for a human being. As with similar rules on drivers’ reaction times when the lights extinguish to signal the start of a race, this is to ensure the mechanics are reacting to a job being completed, and not anticipating its completion to save time.

The new regulations are expected to add up to three-tenths of a second to pit stop times. But it remains to be seen which teams stand to lose the most, and if Red Bull will be affected at all.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

F1 drivers typically make one pit stop per race, occasionally two, so that 0.3 second loss will happen once per a 90-minute race. Compare that, for example, to the potential impact of tougher tests on rear wings aimed at preventing them flexing, introduced at the last race.

Lewis Hamilton estimated Red Bull’s previous rear wing was worth six-tenths of a second per lap at Baku City Circuit. Perhaps he was exaggerating, but even if it was only half that, this would still be a gain of three tenths of a second every lap, rather than once in an entire race. A different scale entirely.

Red Bull have set the standard for Formula 1 pit stops
Or consider another example which has arguably worked in Red Bull’s favour. Hamilton claimed the changes made to cars’ floors this year were aimed at cutting Mercedes’ superiority. They were 0.68% quicker than Red Bull on average over the course of last year, but over the season to date that figure has fallen to just 0.016%. Over a 90-second lap, that’s a loss of nearly six-tenths of a second per lap. Again, it could be half that, and would still be far more consequential than the pit stop change.

As Sunday’s French Grand Prix showed, a few tenths of a second at the right time can make a lot of difference. Overtaking is so difficult in Formula 1 that the opportunity to gain a place through pit stops is highly prized, which is why teams go to such extremes to perform their dramatically quick tyre changes.

But it isn’t the case that Red Bull are routinely winning races by nicking a couple of tenths of a second off Mercedes in their pit stops. When Max Verstappen jumped ahead of Hamilton in Baku, that was a consequence of the Mercedes driver being held in his pit box because another car was passing by. Nor have Red Bull had things all their own way: Mercedes took a win off them in Bahrain by jumping Hamilton ahead of Verstappen in the pits at a track where, as at Paul Ricard, the lap time advantage of being the first driver onto new tyres was high.

Since in-race refuelling was outlawed at the end of 2009, teams have known races can be won or lost on how quickly they can swap a set of tyres. Following a spate of incidents where wheels were flung from cars which had been released too hastily from their pit boxes, the FIA clamped down, issuing swingeing fines and requiring teams to change the design of their wheel nuts to reduce the chance of repeats.

The latest technical directive represents a further tightening up of those regulations. While it’s true we haven’t seen a wheel come off an F1 car recently, if the FIA has a concern it might happen they aren’t going to wait and see if one does before acting.

Mid-season changes in technical and sporting rules are always controversial because of their potential to disrupt the championship fight and the inevitable perception they are punishing someone for their superiority. Coming immediately after a race Mercedes lost chiefly due to a tactical masterstroke by Red Bull, the reaction the news has provoked is no surprise. But it’s probably not the game-changer some think it is.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 Styrian Grand Prix

Browse all 2021 Styrian Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

63 comments on “The likely impact of F1’s coming clampdown on ultra-quick pit stops”

  1. Barry Bens (@barryfromdownunder)
    25th June 2021, 8:35

    While it’s true we haven’t seen a wheel come off an F1 car recently, if the FIA has a concern it might happen they aren’t going to wait and see if one does before acting.

    But that’s the exact problem right there. If it wa a guinine feeling of ‘oh oh, it’s a problem waiting to happen’, for instance when the pitstop time drops below 1.5 second, then yeah, sure. If it had happened the first time a sub 2-second pitstop was performed, again, I could’ve understood it. But now? Why now? Why is this all of a sudden a ‘safety issue’? Because it ‘might happen’? It’s also possible for a meteorite to fall onto the paddock, yet I don’t see teams having to palce shielding against those.

    The problem is that teams who are also terrible at pitstops (Mercedes for instance) don’t have to change their ways at all. If someone does a pitstop in 3 seconds (as Mercedes often does), nobody will be able to claim they didn’t spend enough ‘human time’ checking. When Red Bull performs a fast stop, even with double-checking, the claim will be made. And then what: the stewards are going to time 0.15 seconds on their stopwatch by watching it frame by frame? And then conclude: ‘this human is too fast therefor it wasnt safe and here’s a timepenalty’?

    I’m careful with saying: ‘cant wait for the next FIA-president because Todt is just throwing it in the bin at this point’, but you never know how bad it could get. Then again: this is getting pretty bad.

    1. Why now?
      Why not now? Why wait until somebody else gets hurt – a la Nurburging 2013?

      The opposition to this is just crazy. It applies equally to everyone.
      I’m totally willing to bet that – other than potentially a slightly (really slightly) higher number on the stopwatch – there will be no noticeable effect at all.

      1. Barry Bens (@barryfromdownunder)
        25th June 2021, 9:02

        The opposition to this is just crazy. It applies equally to everyone.

        It doesn’t and if you actually read my post and what it referred to, you would know. But natrually someone who sips the Wolff-fanta misses the point. Wouldn’t want your team to seem like a bunch of sore not-winners now would we!

        1. Two points, @barryfromdownunder.
          First – I read it. I disagree with it.
          Second – I am no fan of Toto Wolff, Mercedes or anything related to them. I want their domination to end at least as much as anyone.

          It absolutely applies equally to everyone. Each team, individually, determines how fast they make a pit stop, and there’s nothing to stop them from practising more, improving their equipment and becoming the fastest of all.
          This isn’t like other aspects where money can make the difference – this is human effort at work.

        2. Wow Barry.. you’re REALLY mad, aren’t you! Self control dear boy,self control.

      2. @S

        “Why now?
        Why not now? Why wait until somebody else gets hurt – a la Nurburging 2013?”

        And here lies the answer; If this was trully a safety concern for the FIA they would have implemented these rules after the Nurnburgring 2013, or after the Haas debacle in Australia a couple of years ago.

        But now it is clear to anyone with half a brain this has nothing to do with safety but everything to do with Mercedes making bodged pitstops (Sahkir 2020, Bahrain 2021, Monaco 2021) under pressure and Toto running to the FIA with another bag of cash, courtesy of the company that scammed millions of their customers.

        This year it’s becoming increasingly clear how far the FIA is willing to go to accommodate Mercedes (refusal to police oil burn, token system, tailor made tyres, front wing change, floor change (which ironacally is costing them instead of gaining them time), flexi wing, tyre pressure) had and it is really putting a dark shroud over all the titles they have “won” since 2014.

        1. After the Haas stuff the FIA did make a change though Niki101, they mandated wheel nuts that would stay on.

        2. Yes, it’s all a conspiracy. Obviously.
          No rule change has ever negatively affected Mercedes. Except accidentally.

          What is up with the comments on this site?
          I assume the FIA doesn’t have a time machine, so they can’t go back – they can only implement changes going forward. You’ll also note that they haven’t implemented them immediately…

    2. I actually think that while being wrong there (I think you picked the wrong angle to look at this actually) at the same time hit the issue with this @barryfromdownunder

      The problem is that teams who are also terrible at pitstops (Mercedes for instance) don’t have to change their ways at all. If someone does a pitstop in 3 seconds (as Mercedes often does), nobody will be able to claim they didn’t spend enough ‘human time’ checking.

      I think it might well be that it DOES affect especially teams like Mercedes, or Ferrari, Williams, Haas etc. who are trying to push their pitstops to get as good as Red Bull can consistently manage. Why? Because surely in the effort to go faster, inevitably they will have team members trying to get quicker by anticipating the move.

      What if part of the input for this change was the Mercedes analyses of what went wrong in Monaco (say, the fact the mechanic started applying the wheel gun before the car was completely stopped, and before it was close enough to the wheel nut)? Wouldn’t that be exactly the sign the FIA needs to recognize that teams are trying to push boundaries too much for most to be able to cope with? A sign that would need this reaction?

      I doubt it will have much effect on Red Bull, who are by now so well trained (and possibly managed to find a crew that has exceptional reaction times) that they have the confidence to be able to wait exactly long enough that they do NOT start doing things a tad too early. It will affect those who are trying too hard, anticipate. And then have to redo that same thing again after the “cooldown”.

    3. Let’s go back to basics. Make every pitstop a mandatory minimum of 5 seconds, and save all teams hours and hours of expensive training and practice. While we’re at it, take an idea from other series, and have a standardised (much less expensive) wheelgun for every team. I want to see races won or lost through car performance and driver ability, out on the track. This would also save many thousands for the cash strapped (apparently) teams under the new financial limitations. Valtteri Bottas sitting stranded in the pitlane at Monaco was very sad to see, and possibly only because Mercedes were striving to match Red Bull in the pits! F1 should never be a competition in pit stop times.

  2. The FIA has overcomplicated things and is punishing success.
    The better approach would be to punish unsafe pit stops.
    If the car was unsafely released for the next race team has a minimal pit stop time of 5 seconds.
    For second offense – 2 races
    For third offense – 4 races…

    Reply moderated
  3. I’m all for throwing in some safeguards (e.g. against unsafe releases) but don’t understand why FIA needs to introduce these margins.
    To me a false start is a start before the lights go out; not before a certain time has passed since the lights go out.
    To me a track limit is a visible white line (as per the rules) rather than some other point defined differently for each corner at any moment.

    No need to include assumed reaction times; if the sequence is important, then 0s should be enough.

    What’s next? if after a 10s time penalty the mechanic starts working on a car exactly after 10s it’s deemed too fast?
    I’d call it ‘spot on’.

    1. To me a false start is a start before the lights go out; not before a certain time has passed since the lights go out.

      That’s exactly what it is, if you react too quickly to the lights then you get penalised, ala Bottas. Same as athletics, if you move after the gun but within 0.1 seconds then it’s a false start.

      1. Yes, but that’s not really comparable to this, is it? You can’t make a false start with a pit stop. I’ve never seen a team changing the tyres before the car was there, have you?

      2. That’s exactly what it is, if you react too quickly to the lights then you get penalised

        No, that is NOT what it is.
        To me a false start is if your start BEFORE the lights go out.
        The rules (and you) say: if you react TOO QUICKLY (humanly possible) when the lights go out.

        I don’t care if a superhuman can do it in under 0.1s, or if (s)he is just lucky; they do it after the lights go out/gun off.

  4. Mercedes loses out in the pits – FIA makes slower stops mandatory. There hasn’t been an incident to make this issue relevant now, and it has been like this for a number of years now. You don’t have to be a tinfoil hat nutcase to think that the timing is strange…

    1. In recent times Mercedes have been accused of ‘controlling’ the FIA, GPDA, F1, Liberty, Massi, Stewards, Williams, Aston Martin, McLaren……so I do think it does help if you are a part of the tinfoil hat nutcase gang.
      Or you think 30s-40s is in the same ball park of .2 or .3 of a second when discussing pit stops.

      Reply moderated
  5. If at first you don’t succeed, cry, cry and cry again…

    If they really cared about safety they’d have done something after Kimi sent a guy to hospital. More meddling with the rules mid-season isn’t the way to go about thing.

    1. Yeah, they should only make safety improvements at the end of the season, after the (avoidable) damage has been done… repeatedly.

      There’s a reason that safety alterations don’t require a waiting time or unanimous approval, and I really don’t think that requires much explanation.

      1. But it is not about ‘safety’ (only to make some people believe it is safety and stop others from complaining).
        Things don’t become safe 0.15s after a light pops up.
        Either it IS safe when the light pops up, or it is NOT safe and will not change even if you wait 0.15s or 15s.

        They try to change the behaviour of the mechanics, but even that is not guaranteed.
        Safety would be including a sensor and making sure that the pit lights don’t change to green until all sensors are ‘green’ (without waiting another 0.15s).

        1. It’s not about 0.15s – it’s about human reaction time. The actual time may be the roughly the same, but there is a big difference between the two.
          They are merely saying that if something isn’t right, there should be sufficient time to recognise the problem before it’s too late.

          1. You are 100% incorrect here, S.
            1) The 0.15s IS to reflect the human reaction time, or as mentioned “to prevent mechanics anticipating the completion of different stages of the pit stop process”
            2) Please enlighten yourself what potential problem a human can ‘recognise’ in 0.15s.

          2. @jff
            1 – Right, it’s not an arbitrary number. It’s based entirely on human reaction time – which happens to be… About 0.15 seconds! Wow, that’s a coincidence. It’s almost like I said that already.
            They can’t accurately account for each individual person’s reaction time in that moment, so they had to chose a solid and consistent (if somewhat conservative) number.
            It seems we agree. Reaction time – not just ‘time.’
            2 – Thank you for being needlessly (and incorrectly) condescending.
            When focused and primed on adrenaline, 0.15 seconds is plenty to recognise incoming information from certain sources (be they touch, visual or auditory) but some take longer than others. Feel free to do some self-educating.

          3. Coventry Climax
            25th June 2021, 18:34

            If that were the case, @S, then why aren’t all circuits with blind corners changed? Drivers know the corner will be there, they are anticipating it. Mechanics know the wheel hub will be there, they are anticipating it. What’s the problem? If it isn’t there, or not exactly, the stop will be slow anyway, as was proven by Mercedes.

          4. 2 – Thank you for being needlessly (and incorrectly) condescending.

            you’re welcome, S.
            But what’s the fun of being condescending when communicating with the stubbornly ignorant.

            PS how’s your social life? Or are your acquaintances moving on after 0.15s primed by touch, visual or auditory repugnance?

          5. @coventry climax
            Blind corners generally have marshalls nearby to warn drivers of any danger ahead – in addition to team radios and so on.
            It’s not so much about the team members knowing where a wheel will be, it’s more about dropping the car and releasing it.
            The idea being that the car controller should be reacting to all the wheels being on, not just anticipating it.

      2. Is it really about safety though?

        If so, why is this only happening now? We’ve had tyres come off numerous times and nothing done, so clearly they’ve decided it’s not that pressing of an issue up to now.

        1. Got a time machine?

          How many would go back and change the wall that Grosjean hit? Or the nature of the fuel tank/coupling that broke and created the fireball?
          How many have argued about the SC/VSC when cars need to be recovered, in the hope of never repeating the Bianchi incident?
          How many people were injured (or worse) due to having no/insufficient seatbelts and weak and poorly positioned fuel cells in the past? Avoidable?
          How many would agree that the Halo and the HANS device (equivalent) would have saved many lives, and should have been implemented sooner?

          Nothing’s a safety issue until it’s a safety issue, all too often. Unfortunately, that’s often too late.

  6. Tried to put together a comment, but my blood pressure is rising too much, so just gonna chill. Breathe

    1. Always wait 0.15s before posting something :P

      1. But don’t wait about reacting immediately when a very dangerous non-track icident happens!

  7. Barry Bens (@barryfromdownunder)
    25th June 2021, 9:24

    But it’s probably not the game-changer some think it is.

    The problem is that the 0.15 seconds is just the placeholder the FIA slapped onto it. You cannot possibly time that little of time and add it to something. Take a 5-second timepenalty for instance. You’re not allowed to work on the car for 5 seconds, yet those pitstops are always 5.3 seconds AT LEAST. You’re telling me they can properly add 0.15 (half that) to a normal pitstop for the human eye to check something? Go fish…

    On the grounds of ‘safety’, the 0.15 seconds get added, when in reality it’s either going to be at least double that (when properly checking) or it’s a fake nose. Teams will just add ‘some’ time pretending to spend it looking whether the nut is attached properly even though the system has already given the all-clear. And even then, I bet it’s going to take more than 0.15 seconds. It’s not going to get even more safe by looking at the asphalt for a slimmer of a second.

    Look at it this way: drivers know what they can gain and/or lose at the start of the race the moment the lights go off. Yet every.single.race there are drivers who react over a full second slower than others. People who train and have been trained for this for years and years. Yet the FIA think you can time 0.15 seconds on top of something within a few weeks/months?

    The 0.15 is just a number slapped onto it so they can say ‘but it’s only 1.5 tenths, what are you complaining about?’, when in reality it will always be much more. And as we’ve seen in many cases: 3 or 4 tenths can make a HUGE difference in a pitstop.

    1. That is not true

      The problem is that the 0.15 seconds is just the placeholder the FIA slapped onto it

      .

      There actually IS well founded evidence to suggest a limit to our reaction as human beings. And it is not hard to put in a time limit for reaction times within the software in a wheel gun or traffic light system. Some probably already have one (to eliminate double activation from a finger lingering on a button, i.e. “sticky fingers”)

  8. So if they’re so concerned with safety, why did they hand out the DHL Fastest Pit Stop Award al these years?

    1. To please Toto. To advantage Mercedes and disadvantage Red Bull.

      1. They handed out the Fastest Pit Stop Award to Red Bull all these years to please Toto? I’m confused.

  9. What kind of dumb ‘insert choice words’ is this? What Red Bull mechanics are to good?

    I dont buy for one second what they are trying to peddle.

    If pitstop is unsafe teams get a penalty, wheel comes off is usually a DNF, now thry will mandate how fast a mechanic can get the job done?

    What is next? Mandate maximum speed at various dangerous parts of the track?

    Motorsport is dangerous.

    I know many people who fail to be impressed by cars driving in circles, but everyone is impressed by an F1 team doing a 20 minute job in 2s flat.

    F1 pitstop is magnificent and unique. Lets perserve it.

    1. Not everyone is impressed with 2 second pit stops.

      1. “Not everyone is impressed with 2 second pit stops.”

        And even less people are impressed with titles handed out to the highest bidder……

        1. Now THAT I can agree with.
          But this is F1 – up until now (and including now, with extended development cycles), that’s just been part of it.

  10. Remove the pit stop race by setting mandatory stop time of not less than 10 seconds to carry out the work. Everyone equal so no impact on race unless problems cause longer stop time.

  11. Ummm despite all the hyperbole, doesn’t anyone consider that this change has probably been under consideration/discussion for many months and isn’t any sort of knee-jerk reaction to the last race?

    1. That said, the timing is odd. I’m all for safety related changes but I don’t necessarily agree with mid-season change…

  12. Just more of the FIA’s over regulation.

  13. The fast pit stops are amazing to watch and something everyone can appreciate the skill of. This is going to take away another bit of entertainment.

    There seems to be no correlation between speed the fastest pit stops and mistakes. Adding this rule is just another thing for the mechanics to worry about. This isn’t going to improve safety.

    It’s going to be very hard to enforce and timing everyone is going to rely on justifying a point they’re reacting to. It’s just going to cause unfair penalties and more unwanted controversy.

    It’s an arbitrary number, randomly bought in, that’s going to be more stress for everyone involved.

    I don’t think it’s a good idea…

    1. Adding () just another thing for the mechanics to worry about. This isn’t going to improve safety.

      That’s an excellent point.

  14. Can you even measure 0.15s accurately without applying a +/-0.1s leniency?
    This is only gonna cause headaches and further confusion with the viewers when seemingly random penalties get handed out.

  15. I think the response to this is largely a reaction to Mercedes fans shouting about how unfair it was that the FIA were trying to slow them down. This year, we’ve seen the opposite with a new regulation coming out at every other race designed to slow Red Bull down. If it’s unfair one way, it’s unfair the other way.

    Regulations shouldn’t be changed mid-season unless there is a major safety issue. Suddenly deciding pit stops are dangerous when you’ve been previously been handing out an award for “fastest pit stop” and with no recent issues coming from teams doing pit stops too fast isn’t one of them.

  16. I dislike this change mid-season the same as most and can’t see a need for it, however I’m trying to figure out how this will work in practice. Surely the extra 0.15s will be added as a delay into the computer programme controlling the green light, so all the talk of more time being taken is superfluous. Hence it will effect all teams in the same way, unless teams choose to put the time in the hands of the individual members of the pit crew – which seems really crazy.

    Reply moderated
    1. @f1johns I do agree with you. As long as that 0.15s is digitally coded into the pit sensors, as I expect it will, it won’t really make a difference. If Mercedes have a bad pitstop, they will still also have to wait that extra 0.15s just as Red Bull doing it in 2 seconds would.

  17. I really can’t see this is designed to pull back Red Bull. The time gained is slight and there’s no reason that the end result still won’t be a well-drilled team like Red Bull being quicker (though I think Mercedes actually switched Hamilton’s tyres quicker at the first stop in France). The reaction time rule is sound. It makes sure mechanics are processing information and acting in response to signals, not second-guessing. That’s not too much to ask. And it remains the case that a driver missing their mark is far more likely to add time, significant time, seconds, than these changes. A difference of a few tenths basically still has to be fought over on track.

    1. Thankyou @david-br, someone who’s actually talking sense about this change.

      It’s a non-issue. The timing is odd but none of us know what’s happened behind the scenes to bring this up now. Ultimately there’s no reason RB won’t still be delivering the fastest stops.

      What I haven’t seen is what the penalty for a breach would be.

    2. I’d say the reaction time rule has been upended by reality. It seems Red Bull mechanics are faster than possible, but they can get it done without unsafe releases since 2010. The only thing I would think fair to have regulation on is if some teams were manipulating the wheel guns or something.

  18. This is ridiculous.
    OK so now if a driver reacts too quickly to an incident mid race and manages to avoid a serious accident… I assume that the FIA will impose a penalty on said driver because there is no way he should have been able to react in under .15 of a second. He will immediately receive a 5 second penalty and 2 points on his license.

    Unless it is a Mercedes of course… preferably Lewis.

  19. Why does this article say ‘perhaps he was exaggerating’ in reference to Hamilton claiming that Red Bull’s wing was worth 6 tenths?

    It’s blatantly obvious from France that the wing was worth nowhere near as much as that and that he was exaggerating. This number was plucked from thin air in order to get action to be taken and is total fantasy.
    I have an issue with using this figure without a clear statement that it is false.

    1. This site’s authors will never question Hamilton or his opinions.

    2. Let’s not confuse an exaggeration and an outright lie

  20. Yes, it’s ridiculous and I hate the basic concept behind it.
    Will it slow down the “perfectly choreographed sub 2 second stop, not likely. But if there is a hic-up in the process, the penalty will be severe.
    What I gleaned from the new “Directive” was that if someone performing one task, anticipates the completion of another task, performed by another team member without getting the proper hard-wired signal, then there will be a mandated STOP and they must repeat that task. Effectively you can’t pull the lever on the jack till you get the hard-wired signal that the wheel gun has been released from the nut. Plus a tenth of a sec or so.
    The effective penalty is that there will have to be a repeat of the sequence with a suitable time delay. This is the catch that no one is bleating about.
    If you were running the Pit-Stop Squad, time to practice the “Penalty Feature” and anticipate the consequences, plus a tenth or two.
    As for the Time Machine, can’t find it nor my invisibility cloak. Where did I put it.? Need it for Predictions and soon.

  21. I think what this article misses is not that the technical directive will probably not result in that much difference in stop times because of the difference in 0.15s, but that this has the potential to cause mental pauses and second-guessing that last even longer than that by the pit stop team members who want to stay within the regulations. Those internal thoughts of “am I reacting to what has happened or am I anticipating what is about to happen” will probably distract the pit crew for longer than 0.15s.

    But my bigger concern is that this also opens up new grounds for potential circumenting of rules and ensuing protests. “That team was too quick on their pit stop. They must have developed some way to bypass the FIA sensors recording reaction time! You need to look into their equipment.” And if you think it is far fetched, just look at Ferarri who were bypassing FIA fuel flow sensors in order to gain an advantage. Any regulation that is tied to technology can also be overcome by technology if given enough resources and desire. If the teams feel like the advantage they can gain in the pits is significant enough they will find a way to get around the testing system. And that will set off new rounds of protests and controversy, the very thing Todt said he wants less of.

  22. Quite sweet how it’s not compared to other things like flexing wings or changes to the floor, it’s compared to what Hamilton has said about them, bless. I guess what the heart is full of, the mouth spills over with..

  23. Coventry Climax
    25th June 2021, 18:45

    Your article, @KeithCollantine, leans heavily on ‘Lewis Hamilton estimated that..’ and then saying it might be exaggerated, and then claiming it’s probably half true.
    But what if it isn’t true at all, so value of zero truth? To my opinion, Hamilton is just backing up mr. Wolff’s claims, with one, single objective in mind: trying to hamper his championship rivals as much as possible, in as many area’s as possible on as many alleged grounds as possible.
    They all do that, so that’s not the problem. The problem is it’s taken, and some would even say selectively, as the truth.
    If Todt wants less controversy, he’s the only one to do it. But it appears he says ‘A’, then does ‘B’.

  24. (f)actual changes should not be compared with Lewis views on his gains or losses (in which he always is fastest and competitors most often seem to win because of cheating).

    Second, the fia directive does not make sense:
    If rbr is trespassing rules (because of software and/or engineers acting upon expected procedure completion) proof it and penalize/fine them.

    or

    When playing the safety card, one can never blame a team for relying more on software and machinery as opposed tohuman factors. Human factors are always the weakest link: less-reliable, unpredicitive and thus less safe.

    Not to speak about todays Mercs/bottas’ pitlane experiment (in order to try and gain time during pitstop procedures!!! during fp2), which could have seriously injured mclaren mechanics, or worse

    Reply moderated

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.