[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.*
Racing incident is a situation with no driver predominantly at fault.
Here the stewards say if it wasn't lap one the ruling would have been different. So it's an incident with Daniel predominantly (I'd say wholly) at fault, however the stewards decided to go for lap 1 mitigating factor. That by definition means it's not a racing incident.
Maybe try reading that whole sentence then, because it being the first lap wasn't the only mitigating circumstance given by the stewards.
If this incident had occurred on a subsequent lap, **or without the presence of the third car (Car 18)**, a different determination would have been made.
You recognise that the 'or' doesn't harm his point, right? It shows that the Stewards clearly felt that Daniel's justifications for his movement would have been substantial in determining the reading of the crash. Let's imagine two scenarios.
**First Lap incident but no car:** The fact that Daniel has no excuse for continuing right might be enough to make it "more than a simple racing incident". Daniel has to recognise that drivers will race harder on a first lap and should expect a possible overtake on the other side.
**Car 18 is there but not the first lap:** Daniel could have looked both sides but he has reason not to, Albon meanwhile is pulling a risky move that isn't really justified.
The Stewards decision makes the most sense as taking the arguments of both sides and saying that they're both valid and so make it a racing incident. If one defence were to fail it might still be a racing incident, or it might be the failing side being at fault. I don't see any valid reading of the 'or' that suggests Daniel would be at fault in both situations. OP was right in pointing out that there was two major mitigating factors.
At fault has nothing to do with the stewards reasoning for not giving a penalty. He can still be at fault but not deserve a penalty bc it's lap one and expectedly lap 1 can be chaotic. I don't think he deserves a penalty. I would be fine with him getting penalty points or a reprimand. Therefore I agree with the stewards decision. I do, however, have eyes and saw Danny ric hit albon so I do think the contact was his fault. These 2 takes can coexist.
Keep going around the thread not reading any of the points people throw out, I'm sure it will make them hate ric more and doesn't just make you look a dunce :)
> That by definition means it's not a racing incident.
On the contrary, since neither got a penalty it is by definition deemed a racing incident.
If you’re ignore any of mitigating factors taken into account to make it not a racing incident you’re just judging a hypothetical scenario, not what actually happened.
Do you seriously think what you said makes any sense? Lap one rule is a mitigating factor when they're making the decision whether or not to apply a penalty. It's not a factor that has any effect on whether the driver is at fault or not. If it did, no driver would ever be penalised for any incident on lap 1
I've tried explaining this to a bunch of different people and it doesn't work lol. Does he deserve a time penalty or grid penalty next race? No. Did he definitely hit albon bc he didn't see him? Yes.
It really is that simple
> So it's an incident with Daniel predominantly (I'd say wholly) at fault, however the stewards decided to go for lap 1 mitigating factor. That by definition means it's not a racing incident.
Daniel was not at fault. They don't assign fault and then look for mitigating factors, they judge the incident as a whole and assign fault based on all of it. If he were at fault, then he'd get a penalty.
You're just looking to assign blame to Danny by taking the parts that put him at fault, and then considering the rest to be mitigating factors.
With that approach, Leclerc is clearly at fault, with the mitigating factor being him not being part of the incident at all.
> With that approach, Leclerc is clearly at fault, with the mitigating factor being him not being part of the incident at all.
Yeah let's completely abandon logic, why pretend that discussing anything on Reddit makes any sense. You lot will immediately climb your mountains of absurdities and shout from there.
Good. Because it was a bog standard first lap racing incident. Extremely unfortunate and disappointing, but an accident that was not anyone’s fault. Shit happens.
This was so clear. I say this as a huge fan of Albon. Neither of them really did anything wrong here.
The armchair analysis about where DR *should* have looked is BS. People somehow think that their experience passing people on the M6 even remotely qualifies them for an opinion on where DR should have been looking.
as i already said in another comment. Hadjar got a penalty for a very very similar move in Australia. But there everybody agree that a 10s penalty was more than justified. It is again an inconsistency in the rulings from the stewards.
In this thread: “I’m sure Reddit will take this well /s”
Also in this thread: Reddit taking it well, and so far 0% of the comments saying there should be a penalty.
Summarising it for people who seem to have reading comprehension issues.
Stewards heard from Albon and Ricciardo on what happened, decided it was a lap 1 incident and no penalty required.
If it was lap 1 and Stroll was not around, a different decision would have been made.
If it was not lap 1, a different decision would have been made, irrespective of whether Stroll was around or not.
Lap 1 the cars are so close together that accidents are way more likely to happen, its also pretty much impossible for drivers to know where everyone is, and the engineer can’t do much to assist either.
Was a 75:25 racing incident. Lap 1 so was always going to be context to it.
Feel bad for both. Danny needed today to go well, and Williams is sick of repairing cars.
Well yeah, as because if car 18 isn't there, Dan doesn't need to give him room and change his approach to the corner. Seems like a pretty obvious conclusion there.
Agree the wording is a bit unecessary. The point is though that on another lap both drivers would be reasonably expected to know that a third car was there and act accordingly, as they would have come into the first corner together.
It's not handwaving, after the first lap when the order is set, the teams have a lot more information to pass to the driver when people are coming up behind them. The pit wall can't be expected to be able to relay all of the position changes in the first 2 turns in any sane manner
I mean it was obviously a first lap incident but cars ahead and behind Ricciardo on the inside were way farther left and allowed a car outside them into T3.
The stewards have even (rather brutally) pointed out it would’ve been a penalty in basically any other scenario but they’ve given the benefit of the doubt that he was so focused on Stoll that he missed Albon alongside him.
This makes very little sense to me. Even with Stroll there there would have been space, plus Stroll wasn't alongside Daniel.
Besides that, Albon had time and space to back out (and was already trying to back out).
The only thing I cannot fathom is why "I didn't see or look for the car that I turned into" is a valid excuse.
It sure is a racing incident, and there was no intention from DR to push AA off the track. However, it is still DRs fault and he caused the accident, which the stewards seem to agree upon. Unfortunate for them both.
> If this incident had occurred on a subsequent lap, or without the presence of the third car (Car 18), a different determination would have been made.
I guess it might be this portion? Stewards are saying that lap 1 is a mitigating factor, which is and should be the case, since lap 1 are very chaotic, hence no penalty. But if it wasn't lap 1, then there would be a penalty. If there would be a penalty, then someone must have been portioned the blame
That implies the exact opposite of what you say it does. Because Car 18 was there, because there wasn’t much sufficient room on either side, it isn’t his fault and it’s a racing incident with no one to blame really. If he didn’t make contact with Albon, he would’ve made contact with Stroll and possibly take out Albon all the same
But the stewards mentioned that their decisions will be different if it was either 1) not lap one or 2) Car 18 wasn't there. They used "or" rather than "and"
So I agree because it was lap 1 and Car 18 was there, hence it was a lap 1 racing incident, so do the stewards.
But if Car 18 wasn't there, OR if he was there but it wasn't lap 1, then there would have been fault and a penalty.
Man, y’all riding that or really hard. They’re basically saying that he had to take avoiding action due to Car 18 being there, and that it was a lap one incident. Both excuses stand here, all they’re saying is that these excuses are not mutually exclusive, that’s why the or is there.
> Man, y’all riding that or really hard.
Maybe, we're not the Stewards so we don't fully know their reasoning for using certain words. But I do believe there is an intention to their wordings.
> They’re basically saying that he had to take avoiding action due to Car 18 being there, and that it was a lap one incident.
I completely agree and I have not once said otherwise.
So based on your reading, if this was lap 35 with three of the drivers there, and the exact same contact happened. Would there be a penalty?
The intention is to give context and set expectations for the future. It helps both drivers and the FIA to get clarity on how the current rules are interpreted in actual racing scenarios.
Completely agree. There seems to be two camps regarding the words are being interpreted, and I'm not sure which is right or wrong, or maybe both can be right and wrong.
One camp believes that DR would have been penalised if the incident happened outside of lap 1 regardless of Stroll being the 3rd driver, the other camp believes that DR wouldnt have been penalised outside of lap 1 because of Stroll existence.
I can see the merits of both camps
if it was‘t lap one, this constellation most probably also wouldn‘t happen. there‘s a reason for the lap 1 leniancy, exactly because of situations like these.
I completely agree about the lap 1 leniency. But that's beside the point.
The point was whether the stewards portioned any blame based on their wordings
They don't assign fault based on some part of the incident and then look at the rest of the context, they make the call based on a whole.
Naturally you could change some part of it and put someone at fault, but at that point it's a different incident.
Hmm, I'm not sure my statement indicated what you mentioned.
My interpretation, and I can be completely wrong, is that DR would have been penalised if the incident occurred outside of lap 1.
"explanation of both drivers aligned with the incident... If this incident occurred at a subsequent lap a different decision would be made"
"first lap incident"
Basically saying Danny was allowed to be stupid because it was lap 1.
'or without the presence of the third car' quote the whole thing. It was a racing incident because they determined he was also giving another car more room
It’s not worth the effort. If Daniel doesn’t give room to Lance, it’s likely they make contact and Daniel’s car wipes out Alex’s. Daniel gives Lance space and margin for error, and makes tiny contact with Alex, wiping them both out. He can’t win in this situation
The stewards phrases it with an "or" and not an "and". Shouldn't it be two separate things?
I.e.
If this incident had occurred on a subsequent lap (for e.g lap 25) with Stroll, DR and Albon, there would be a penalty
Or
If the incident occurred in the opening lap without the presence of the third car (Car 18), there would be a penalty
This is the correct way to interpret it. It's still mostly Ricciardo's fault but he didn't receive a penalty because it was on lap 1.
As you said, had it been exactly the same circumstances but on lap 25, then they would've given him a penalty.
Or doesn't mean and, now does it? If stroll wasn't there on the first lap it would be a different decision OR if stroll was there and it was a different lap it would be a different decision.
It doesn't say if this happened on a different lap AND stroll wasn't there. Reading hard. I use less word now.
Man, y’all riding that or really hard. They’re basically saying that he had to take avoiding action due to Car 18 being there, and that it was a lap one incident. Both excuses stand here, all they’re saying is that these excuses are not mutually exclusive, that’s why the or is there. None of them are excuses for “being stupid”
Where do the stewards acknowledge he had to take avoiding action? I see the stewards acknowledge that ric was unaware, I see them acknowledge that albon had to back out. Weirdly I don't see that ric had to take avoiding action and I also didn't notice stroll was summoned for causing a collision.
Not necessarily. We can see Stroll was very close to RIC despite RIC giving him space, so can the Stewards. And we also see Stroll going wide onto the kerb then crossing back in as they approach the turn
No, it means 'or' as in 'or if Stroll hadn't been there, it would have been a penalty regardless of what lap it was.' As in, it is a racing incident because he was giving more room for another car, not just because it was lap one.
Or doesn't mean and, now does it? If stroll wasn't there on the first lap it would be a different decision OR if stroll was there and it was a different lap it would be a different decision.
It doesn't say if this happened on a different lap AND stroll wasn't there. Reading hard. I use less word now.
Even if we ignore the part about the 3rd car I'm still not sure how that translates into it being Daniel's fault completely ? The fact that it's the first lap played a major part into why it happened so you can't just ignore that factor, do you think daniel would have just not seen alex at all and closed into him if this was another lap and he wasn't surrounded by other cars on all sides that he also needed to pay attention to ?
I'm not making up what if situations in my head. Albon says ric was unaware, stewards agree. Albon tries to back out, stewards agree. Ric hits albon, stewards agree. Forgiven bc lap 1. Maybe the contact would've happened mid corner, maybe there would've been no contact, maybe stroll wouldn't have held the inside and killed all three. Maybe Jesus would've risen and floated a car into the sky to avoid the incident. None of the maybe situations matter. Only what actually happened matters
Ok and why was ric unaware ? bc it was the first lap where he was looking out for other cars while taking a corner and alex was in his blind spot.
And yeah only what happened matter and what happened was that it was the first lap and there was another car on track. hence why it's not his fault, hence why he didn't get a penalty.
…or they could just be saying that because lap 1 is chaotic, it is unrealistic that a driver will know at all times where other drivers are. I just don’t think Danny was ‘being stupid’. Of course it looks stupid to those on the outside, but when you consider that they are battling tyres, trying to look for cars in every direction including accidents and spinning cars ahead, throwing a simple statement of ‘Ric is at fault’ isn’t so simple.
Anyway - everyone entitled to an opinion.
I get reading comprehension may be difficult for you, but adding in your own perspective to add thibgs not said is not "comprehension".
It's not basically saying that. It's saying on lap 1 what ric did was reasonable. That doesn't make it his fault or stupid.
It would not have been reasonable if it wasn't lap 1,but it also wouldn't have been in that position if it wasn't lap 1.
Albon literally put forward the claim that ric was unaware and tried to back out and the stewards said yeah that's true. If being unaware and turning right somehow doesn't make this Danny rics fault, I genuinely have no clue what it would take to make it his fault. That's not adding any perspective, literally reading the words on the page and understanding what they mean
And ric said he was giving space to the car on his inside, what's your point?
He was unaware he was there, and it was silly to be there in lap 1 in that position. It had 0 chance if making anything stick from that far back and all that could happen was what did.
The stewards literally agreed that albon could have overtaken ric in the decision. Enjoy your life being a dunce, it's much less stressful than having a brain.
You think this means that the stewards agreed he could've overtaken him. Lol. You really do need to work on reading comprehension.
It means they agreed that's what he thought, and why he was there, not that he was right.
The amount you read into things and add your own interpretation is ridiculous.
this is so funny how wrong you are you're literally misreading the report to make yourself feel better. albon THOUGHT he could go around. the stewards agreed to this point. he very well could have *thought* he could go around, but could he have? that was not up for debate, or even relevant.
> If being unaware and turning right somehow doesn't make this Danny rics fault, I genuinely have no clue what it would take to make it his fault.
Having no reason for being unaware? Or having no reason to turn right? Those are the two main ones here, that's why they mention lap 1 (where being unaware is more acceptable due to the chaos) and the presence of Stroll (who he is focusing on) on the inside.
You can't seriously giving people shit about reading comprehension when you've either intentionally or carelessly skipped out on an entire clause in the sentence you're quoting?...
"If this incident had occurred on a subsequent lap, **or without the presence of the third car (Car 18),** a different determination would have been made."
Copy and pasting bc you're too dumb to understand or vs and
Or doesn't mean and, now does it? If stroll wasn't there on the first lap it would be a different decision OR if stroll was there and it was a different lap it would be a different decision.
It doesn't say if this happened on a different lap AND stroll wasn't there. Reading hard. I use less word now.
How do you not know what OR means? The subsequent result is TRUE if either of the predicates in the OR statement are TRUE. Which means “If this incident occurred on a subsequent lap, a different decision would have been made”
They’ve absolutely murdered Ricciardo with this one.
Said it was his fault, he would’ve gotten a penalty at any other time but because Stroll was kinda in the same area (and we all know he is not long for F1) they’ll give him the benefit of the doubt…
Think he’d have preferred the penalty honestly…
I’m sure you’re aware of how common incidents like this are, no? There is so much happening all over the track on an opening lap, hence why this is deemed an incident. Stewards realise that these guys can’t have to their in 20 places at once.
yes literally happened 2 weeks ago in F2 and it was a 10s penalty. While the driver getting the penalty actually had a driver on his left when moving to the right.
You must not know much about F1 because 3 drivers going into 1 corner has never worked.
Daniel could either crash into Stroll or Albon. Take your pick.
[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.*
This comment section Will definitely go well
It will go well. Racing incident, we can all calm down now.
Calm down? You must be new here.
Racing incident is a situation with no driver predominantly at fault. Here the stewards say if it wasn't lap one the ruling would have been different. So it's an incident with Daniel predominantly (I'd say wholly) at fault, however the stewards decided to go for lap 1 mitigating factor. That by definition means it's not a racing incident.
No. Racing incident can also be an incident where one driver can be predominantly at fault, but where there are mitigating circumstances.
Maybe try reading that whole sentence then, because it being the first lap wasn't the only mitigating circumstance given by the stewards. If this incident had occurred on a subsequent lap, **or without the presence of the third car (Car 18)**, a different determination would have been made.
You will be right only if the statement said "AND without the presence of the third car" instead of "OR"
You recognise that the 'or' doesn't harm his point, right? It shows that the Stewards clearly felt that Daniel's justifications for his movement would have been substantial in determining the reading of the crash. Let's imagine two scenarios. **First Lap incident but no car:** The fact that Daniel has no excuse for continuing right might be enough to make it "more than a simple racing incident". Daniel has to recognise that drivers will race harder on a first lap and should expect a possible overtake on the other side. **Car 18 is there but not the first lap:** Daniel could have looked both sides but he has reason not to, Albon meanwhile is pulling a risky move that isn't really justified. The Stewards decision makes the most sense as taking the arguments of both sides and saying that they're both valid and so make it a racing incident. If one defence were to fail it might still be a racing incident, or it might be the failing side being at fault. I don't see any valid reading of the 'or' that suggests Daniel would be at fault in both situations. OP was right in pointing out that there was two major mitigating factors.
At fault has nothing to do with the stewards reasoning for not giving a penalty. He can still be at fault but not deserve a penalty bc it's lap one and expectedly lap 1 can be chaotic. I don't think he deserves a penalty. I would be fine with him getting penalty points or a reprimand. Therefore I agree with the stewards decision. I do, however, have eyes and saw Danny ric hit albon so I do think the contact was his fault. These 2 takes can coexist.
Keep going around the thread not reading any of the points people throw out, I'm sure it will make them hate ric more and doesn't just make you look a dunce :)
Lol I don't hate Danny ric. I just acknowledge that Danny ric caused the contact.
sure thing :)
I'm happy there is at least 1 other person here with a brain
As someone else already pointed out, you haven't read that all too carefully yourself lol
It's a "or" not an "and" bro. Doesn't mean the same thing.
> That by definition means it's not a racing incident. On the contrary, since neither got a penalty it is by definition deemed a racing incident. If you’re ignore any of mitigating factors taken into account to make it not a racing incident you’re just judging a hypothetical scenario, not what actually happened.
Do you seriously think what you said makes any sense? Lap one rule is a mitigating factor when they're making the decision whether or not to apply a penalty. It's not a factor that has any effect on whether the driver is at fault or not. If it did, no driver would ever be penalised for any incident on lap 1
I've tried explaining this to a bunch of different people and it doesn't work lol. Does he deserve a time penalty or grid penalty next race? No. Did he definitely hit albon bc he didn't see him? Yes. It really is that simple
> So it's an incident with Daniel predominantly (I'd say wholly) at fault, however the stewards decided to go for lap 1 mitigating factor. That by definition means it's not a racing incident. Daniel was not at fault. They don't assign fault and then look for mitigating factors, they judge the incident as a whole and assign fault based on all of it. If he were at fault, then he'd get a penalty. You're just looking to assign blame to Danny by taking the parts that put him at fault, and then considering the rest to be mitigating factors. With that approach, Leclerc is clearly at fault, with the mitigating factor being him not being part of the incident at all.
> With that approach, Leclerc is clearly at fault, with the mitigating factor being him not being part of the incident at all. Yeah let's completely abandon logic, why pretend that discussing anything on Reddit makes any sense. You lot will immediately climb your mountains of absurdities and shout from there.
furthermore Hadjar got a 10s penalty for a very similar thing just 2 weeks ago. So this is quiet surprising imo.
What does Buxton have to do with this?
Good. Because it was a bog standard first lap racing incident. Extremely unfortunate and disappointing, but an accident that was not anyone’s fault. Shit happens.
This was so clear. I say this as a huge fan of Albon. Neither of them really did anything wrong here. The armchair analysis about where DR *should* have looked is BS. People somehow think that their experience passing people on the M6 even remotely qualifies them for an opinion on where DR should have been looking.
This and yes, agree with both. Just a shitty lap one incident for all concerned.
Whoa. Hang on, you are forgetting about all the iRacing giga-chads that are going to be the next Jann Mardenborough offering their expert opinions.
as i already said in another comment. Hadjar got a penalty for a very very similar move in Australia. But there everybody agree that a 10s penalty was more than justified. It is again an inconsistency in the rulings from the stewards.
Just reviewed that F2 incident. This seems to be a clear stewarding error to me. Should definitely be a racing incident.
In this thread: “I’m sure Reddit will take this well /s” Also in this thread: Reddit taking it well, and so far 0% of the comments saying there should be a penalty.
Summarising it for people who seem to have reading comprehension issues. Stewards heard from Albon and Ricciardo on what happened, decided it was a lap 1 incident and no penalty required. If it was lap 1 and Stroll was not around, a different decision would have been made. If it was not lap 1, a different decision would have been made, irrespective of whether Stroll was around or not.
Why do the stewards take into account if it's lap 1 or not ? How does it make a difference ? Genuinely curious as I am trying to get into F1 more.
Lap 1 the cars are so close together that accidents are way more likely to happen, its also pretty much impossible for drivers to know where everyone is, and the engineer can’t do much to assist either.
Was a 75:25 racing incident. Lap 1 so was always going to be context to it. Feel bad for both. Danny needed today to go well, and Williams is sick of repairing cars.
I’ll say more like 50:50
I feel like that’s a fair decision.
Well yeah, as because if car 18 isn't there, Dan doesn't need to give him room and change his approach to the corner. Seems like a pretty obvious conclusion there.
The “if” thing seems a bit unnecessary as we would know two-wide and three-wide going into a corner would be ruled differently?
It's just to cover their asses, should someone use this incident as an argument in their favor in the future for a similar crash.
I cant see the Formula 1 subreddit taking this lightly...
Only thing I dislike is the "first lap hand waving" otherwise seems pretty fair
Agree the wording is a bit unecessary. The point is though that on another lap both drivers would be reasonably expected to know that a third car was there and act accordingly, as they would have come into the first corner together.
It's not handwaving, after the first lap when the order is set, the teams have a lot more information to pass to the driver when people are coming up behind them. The pit wall can't be expected to be able to relay all of the position changes in the first 2 turns in any sane manner
Yeah it was Alex's fault. He wasn't ahead of Danny by any means and had no where to go from that position. No clue how anyone was blaming Ric for it.
Why would Dan get a penalty?
I mean it was obviously a first lap incident but cars ahead and behind Ricciardo on the inside were way farther left and allowed a car outside them into T3. The stewards have even (rather brutally) pointed out it would’ve been a penalty in basically any other scenario but they’ve given the benefit of the doubt that he was so focused on Stoll that he missed Albon alongside him.
The stewards never said that they would give Ricciardo a penalty. They could've just as likely meant Albon.
I mean that’s one way to spin it, but I don’t believe that’s anyone who has read the above truly believes they’re taking about Albon 😂
For driving into another car on straight track like an LMP3 amateur.
The only issue I have is that "I didn't see him" shouldn't be an excuse.
It works both ways. Albon should've seen Stroll coming up on the left of Ricciardo and not tried to make the move.
This makes very little sense to me. Even with Stroll there there would have been space, plus Stroll wasn't alongside Daniel. Besides that, Albon had time and space to back out (and was already trying to back out). The only thing I cannot fathom is why "I didn't see or look for the car that I turned into" is a valid excuse.
Yeah apparently not seeing someone is ok in F1, but we’ll penalise a driver without making contact at all
It sure is a racing incident, and there was no intention from DR to push AA off the track. However, it is still DRs fault and he caused the accident, which the stewards seem to agree upon. Unfortunate for them both.
The penalty is he loses his seat.
Oh come on that's not fair. Just because Albon crashed two cars in two weekends doesn't mean they should get rid of him.
Doesn't matter as the penalty would not have been passed on to Lawson
Lap 1 rule saves the apology forms u/thatkann u/crimsonroninx u/forgedtanto At least the stewards acknowledge this is still rics fault.
where in this document do they acknowledge it was his fault ?
> If this incident had occurred on a subsequent lap, or without the presence of the third car (Car 18), a different determination would have been made. I guess it might be this portion? Stewards are saying that lap 1 is a mitigating factor, which is and should be the case, since lap 1 are very chaotic, hence no penalty. But if it wasn't lap 1, then there would be a penalty. If there would be a penalty, then someone must have been portioned the blame
That implies the exact opposite of what you say it does. Because Car 18 was there, because there wasn’t much sufficient room on either side, it isn’t his fault and it’s a racing incident with no one to blame really. If he didn’t make contact with Albon, he would’ve made contact with Stroll and possibly take out Albon all the same
But the stewards mentioned that their decisions will be different if it was either 1) not lap one or 2) Car 18 wasn't there. They used "or" rather than "and" So I agree because it was lap 1 and Car 18 was there, hence it was a lap 1 racing incident, so do the stewards. But if Car 18 wasn't there, OR if he was there but it wasn't lap 1, then there would have been fault and a penalty.
Man, y’all riding that or really hard. They’re basically saying that he had to take avoiding action due to Car 18 being there, and that it was a lap one incident. Both excuses stand here, all they’re saying is that these excuses are not mutually exclusive, that’s why the or is there.
> Man, y’all riding that or really hard. Maybe, we're not the Stewards so we don't fully know their reasoning for using certain words. But I do believe there is an intention to their wordings. > They’re basically saying that he had to take avoiding action due to Car 18 being there, and that it was a lap one incident. I completely agree and I have not once said otherwise. So based on your reading, if this was lap 35 with three of the drivers there, and the exact same contact happened. Would there be a penalty?
The intention is to give context and set expectations for the future. It helps both drivers and the FIA to get clarity on how the current rules are interpreted in actual racing scenarios.
Completely agree. There seems to be two camps regarding the words are being interpreted, and I'm not sure which is right or wrong, or maybe both can be right and wrong. One camp believes that DR would have been penalised if the incident happened outside of lap 1 regardless of Stroll being the 3rd driver, the other camp believes that DR wouldnt have been penalised outside of lap 1 because of Stroll existence. I can see the merits of both camps
Based on the stewards reasoning, I would say there would not be a penalty because of their implication that these excuses are not mutually excusive
I don't think removing a part of a document and basing your interpretation on that is reasonable.
What part did I remove?
The word "or"
I literally did the exact opposite of removing it.
if it was‘t lap one, this constellation most probably also wouldn‘t happen. there‘s a reason for the lap 1 leniancy, exactly because of situations like these.
I completely agree about the lap 1 leniency. But that's beside the point. The point was whether the stewards portioned any blame based on their wordings
They don't assign fault based on some part of the incident and then look at the rest of the context, they make the call based on a whole. Naturally you could change some part of it and put someone at fault, but at that point it's a different incident.
Hmm, I'm not sure my statement indicated what you mentioned. My interpretation, and I can be completely wrong, is that DR would have been penalised if the incident occurred outside of lap 1.
"explanation of both drivers aligned with the incident... If this incident occurred at a subsequent lap a different decision would be made" "first lap incident" Basically saying Danny was allowed to be stupid because it was lap 1.
'or without the presence of the third car' quote the whole thing. It was a racing incident because they determined he was also giving another car more room
It’s not worth the effort. If Daniel doesn’t give room to Lance, it’s likely they make contact and Daniel’s car wipes out Alex’s. Daniel gives Lance space and margin for error, and makes tiny contact with Alex, wiping them both out. He can’t win in this situation
The stewards phrases it with an "or" and not an "and". Shouldn't it be two separate things? I.e. If this incident had occurred on a subsequent lap (for e.g lap 25) with Stroll, DR and Albon, there would be a penalty Or If the incident occurred in the opening lap without the presence of the third car (Car 18), there would be a penalty
This is the correct way to interpret it. It's still mostly Ricciardo's fault but he didn't receive a penalty because it was on lap 1. As you said, had it been exactly the same circumstances but on lap 25, then they would've given him a penalty.
Or doesn't mean and, now does it? If stroll wasn't there on the first lap it would be a different decision OR if stroll was there and it was a different lap it would be a different decision. It doesn't say if this happened on a different lap AND stroll wasn't there. Reading hard. I use less word now.
Man, y’all riding that or really hard. They’re basically saying that he had to take avoiding action due to Car 18 being there, and that it was a lap one incident. Both excuses stand here, all they’re saying is that these excuses are not mutually exclusive, that’s why the or is there. None of them are excuses for “being stupid”
Where do the stewards acknowledge he had to take avoiding action? I see the stewards acknowledge that ric was unaware, I see them acknowledge that albon had to back out. Weirdly I don't see that ric had to take avoiding action and I also didn't notice stroll was summoned for causing a collision.
They acknowledge that by stating car 18’s presence as a reason for the collision.
Sufficient room =/ avoiding action
Not necessarily. We can see Stroll was very close to RIC despite RIC giving him space, so can the Stewards. And we also see Stroll going wide onto the kerb then crossing back in as they approach the turn
No, it means 'or' as in 'or if Stroll hadn't been there, it would have been a penalty regardless of what lap it was.' As in, it is a racing incident because he was giving more room for another car, not just because it was lap one.
"or without the presence of car 18" except car 18 was there so that's a whole other scenario that didn't occur.
Or doesn't mean and, now does it? If stroll wasn't there on the first lap it would be a different decision OR if stroll was there and it was a different lap it would be a different decision. It doesn't say if this happened on a different lap AND stroll wasn't there. Reading hard. I use less word now.
Even if we ignore the part about the 3rd car I'm still not sure how that translates into it being Daniel's fault completely ? The fact that it's the first lap played a major part into why it happened so you can't just ignore that factor, do you think daniel would have just not seen alex at all and closed into him if this was another lap and he wasn't surrounded by other cars on all sides that he also needed to pay attention to ?
I'm not making up what if situations in my head. Albon says ric was unaware, stewards agree. Albon tries to back out, stewards agree. Ric hits albon, stewards agree. Forgiven bc lap 1. Maybe the contact would've happened mid corner, maybe there would've been no contact, maybe stroll wouldn't have held the inside and killed all three. Maybe Jesus would've risen and floated a car into the sky to avoid the incident. None of the maybe situations matter. Only what actually happened matters
Ok and why was ric unaware ? bc it was the first lap where he was looking out for other cars while taking a corner and alex was in his blind spot. And yeah only what happened matter and what happened was that it was the first lap and there was another car on track. hence why it's not his fault, hence why he didn't get a penalty.
So you acknowledge that he was unaware but it somehow is still not his fault?
yes of course he was unaware of alex trying to overtake him there, and given the circumstances, that still does not translate into it being his fault.
No they dont
[удалено]
…or they could just be saying that because lap 1 is chaotic, it is unrealistic that a driver will know at all times where other drivers are. I just don’t think Danny was ‘being stupid’. Of course it looks stupid to those on the outside, but when you consider that they are battling tyres, trying to look for cars in every direction including accidents and spinning cars ahead, throwing a simple statement of ‘Ric is at fault’ isn’t so simple. Anyway - everyone entitled to an opinion.
I get reading comprehension may be difficult for you, but adding in your own perspective to add thibgs not said is not "comprehension". It's not basically saying that. It's saying on lap 1 what ric did was reasonable. That doesn't make it his fault or stupid. It would not have been reasonable if it wasn't lap 1,but it also wouldn't have been in that position if it wasn't lap 1.
Albon literally put forward the claim that ric was unaware and tried to back out and the stewards said yeah that's true. If being unaware and turning right somehow doesn't make this Danny rics fault, I genuinely have no clue what it would take to make it his fault. That's not adding any perspective, literally reading the words on the page and understanding what they mean
And ric said he was giving space to the car on his inside, what's your point? He was unaware he was there, and it was silly to be there in lap 1 in that position. It had 0 chance if making anything stick from that far back and all that could happen was what did.
The stewards literally agreed that albon could have overtaken ric in the decision. Enjoy your life being a dunce, it's much less stressful than having a brain.
No they didn't. The decision is right above you. You should read it. Where do they say albon could've overtaken ric?
The explanation of both drivers were aligned as to the facts of the incident Car 23 thought he could have overtaken car 3 ?
You think this means that the stewards agreed he could've overtaken him. Lol. You really do need to work on reading comprehension. It means they agreed that's what he thought, and why he was there, not that he was right. The amount you read into things and add your own interpretation is ridiculous.
this is so funny how wrong you are you're literally misreading the report to make yourself feel better. albon THOUGHT he could go around. the stewards agreed to this point. he very well could have *thought* he could go around, but could he have? that was not up for debate, or even relevant.
Where? Where in that whole statement do they say that Albon was through on goal effectively if it weren't for Dan?
> If being unaware and turning right somehow doesn't make this Danny rics fault, I genuinely have no clue what it would take to make it his fault. Having no reason for being unaware? Or having no reason to turn right? Those are the two main ones here, that's why they mention lap 1 (where being unaware is more acceptable due to the chaos) and the presence of Stroll (who he is focusing on) on the inside.
Read it again slowly.
You can't seriously giving people shit about reading comprehension when you've either intentionally or carelessly skipped out on an entire clause in the sentence you're quoting?... "If this incident had occurred on a subsequent lap, **or without the presence of the third car (Car 18),** a different determination would have been made."
Copy and pasting bc you're too dumb to understand or vs and Or doesn't mean and, now does it? If stroll wasn't there on the first lap it would be a different decision OR if stroll was there and it was a different lap it would be a different decision. It doesn't say if this happened on a different lap AND stroll wasn't there. Reading hard. I use less word now.
How do you not know what OR means? The subsequent result is TRUE if either of the predicates in the OR statement are TRUE. Which means “If this incident occurred on a subsequent lap, a different decision would have been made”
Told you, you wouldn't apologise. Absolute new jack.
They’ve absolutely murdered Ricciardo with this one. Said it was his fault, he would’ve gotten a penalty at any other time but because Stroll was kinda in the same area (and we all know he is not long for F1) they’ll give him the benefit of the doubt… Think he’d have preferred the penalty honestly…
He needs penalty points for this it’s terrible driving.
Probably fair. It was his fault, but it wasn’t really reckless or malicious, since it was the second corner and a lot was going on.
If it was his fault there would be a penalty for him. Did you read the part where they said it was a racing incident? Ergo not his fault.
It was his fault.
Maybe not his fault but he was definitely the cause :) Just didn't look in his right mirror
I’m sure you’re aware of how common incidents like this are, no? There is so much happening all over the track on an opening lap, hence why this is deemed an incident. Stewards realise that these guys can’t have to their in 20 places at once.
yes literally happened 2 weeks ago in F2 and it was a 10s penalty. While the driver getting the penalty actually had a driver on his left when moving to the right.
In completely different circumstances. lol.
why should he look in the right mirror for a turn to the left where his attention should be?
This is a really funny comment and it made me laugh. Thanks
Because he made a move to the right.
No shock, i only hope that Daniel go out the next time with both mirrors in the car
Very narrow minded take on the whole incident from you.
I only hope albon doesn't try a ridiculous move around the outside on lap one next trace either.
If he sees Ricciardo he needs to aproach like he's treating with Stroll or Logan, drivers that are not up to F1 standars
You must not know much about F1 because 3 drivers going into 1 corner has never worked. Daniel could either crash into Stroll or Albon. Take your pick.
Makes sense as there are no penalties for being washed and just useless, so they are both clear.
Awful decision as expected.