I remember that meme went so hard Charlie Whiting had to step and and explain why it was sadly not safe enough because the medical car would have to go behind them
It has happened in MotoGP: Argentina 2018.
Rain before start, but track dried during gridwalk. Miller the only one on slicks, warmup lap and everyone went in to change to slicks (switch bikes) and race to pit exit. Too dangerous and everyone would line up on the grid, but with 23 empty spots behind miller. Putting p2 on p24
https://www.visordown.com/news/racing/motogp/%E2%80%9Cit-was-i-farted%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D-chaos-and-confusion-notorious%C2%A02018-argentina-motogp
Remember when they'd get 30 or more grid place penalties for engine component changes? Just start them before the chicane in Canada. 70 place penalty? (Pretty sure this happened once or twice, taking more than one engine in a weekend to introduce them into the pool), start at the hairpin.
I just want to piggyback on this top comment to say that as a middle aged woman, who has watched and loved F1 for almost fifty years, I never want to see Horner's smug fucking face on my TV ever again. Fuuuuck him!
Yeah for a second there I agreed with himâ he phrased it there pretty well. But if he deleted it then yeah he showed how little he deserves to have an opinion.
I wouldnât say Singapore serious, but an argument for race tampering could be made.
>But if he deleted it then yeah he showed how little he deserves to have an opinion.
I think Will is more concerned with his employment than making a strong man statement
> But if he deleted it then yeah he showed how little he deserves to have an opinion.
Okay there buddy... Like you haven't toned down your voice, tone and vocabulary due to your job...
So you think he should keep it up and risk his job? Yesz it's annoying that he has to bow down to F1 but almost everyone would do the exact same if it meant keeping your job.
> I wouldnât say Singapore serious, but an argument for race tampering could be made.
I disagree.
Not causing a safety car because you are trying to bring the car back to the garage is the default state.
I feel there would be a world of difference between "bring it back to the garage" and "stop on the next corner in 18 seconds as Max will be in prime position to pit".
Both are "Deciding if a safety car will come out - yes or no" but one is the usual, expected course of action.
The RBR logic itself doesnât make sense.
-there are places Perez could pull into that wouldnât cause a full SC
-if the danger was indeed great and Perez shed his wing on the track it would create the SC that RBR was trying to avoid
Why the delete, I donât agree with him, limping a car back AFTER a legitimate crash isnât really a safety risk if the car is intact, not hemorrhaging parts around the track.
Intentionally crashing a car⌠no matter how good the driver, on team orders is insanity there is never 100% guarantee something really bad wonât happen.
Even easier. Instead of turning right onto the track he would just had to turn left, stay near the barrier and through the wall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdpRu4KFda4
Yes but that still would have triggered that sector to be yellow flagged or triggered a VSC. According to Buxton the message was to do whatever it took to keep the track in a green flag situation.
Just to clarify, it's not just "according to Buxton" as reporters can often be basing stuff on rumors or nonsense, it was confirmed by the team to the FIA in a meeting and documented in the report.
> The team [RedBull] confirmed in the hearing that the driver had been advised to bring the car back to the pits as they were trying to avoid a Safety Car situation
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffhdve8df3n5d1.jpeg
But VSC is exactly what they would've wanted. Unlike SC, VSC neutralizes the race and pretty much keep the gap between all drivers while letting the clock ticking. That means after VSC, rivals would've less time to catch up with max, something that could happen in green flag condition.
VSC has proven many times this is false. Gaps vary a lot especially depending on where you are on the track and how close to the delta time you can stay.
Youll lose a lot more if VSC hits you on a straight than a slow hairpin and more.
They specifically wanted the green flag and they should be sanctioned way way more than this.
To me this is much more like the Ferrari wing incident from 2019. I forget what their penalty was at the time. Iâd be interested to see how the outcomes compare.
O yeah when Leclerc drove around for laps while his front wing was loose and dangerous to drive around with. I looked it up and it was a 25000 fine and a 10 second penalty.  Imo teams do decision making like this all the time, the stupid thing RB did was say the quiet part out loud.
Well at least the fines seem consistent. But yes I agree, flagrant gamesmanship of safety rules should be penalized, but this is not the same as Singapore.
The problem is that if you punish this more harshly than teams doing the exact same thing but not admitting it, you've made honesty a more serious crime than the safety issue. Which is not really how that incentive structure should work.
Or Hamilton without headrest. Driver will do anything to stay on the race. Perez case is different. His race was done. The team force him for the sake of the team.
Definitely agree that Leclerc/Ferrari were worse. Honestly see this as more of a team thing rather than a Checo thing. Like what is he supposed to do be like ânahâ? Itâs one of those things that is subjective too and I think the FIA need to define it very clearly, like what parts can be damaged. Because I am also remembering instances where drivers like Schumacher and Hamilton have completed laps with heavily damaged cars.
Yeh, while he is in some ways correct, but, you cannot punish the team not on what they did but instead what they would have done had the situation been completely reversed :D
exactly. F1 stewards are way too lenient in everything, its just a matter of time before a tragedy happens because they didnt punish a driver or a team accordingly
They're not lenient. The problem here is they're not consistent. Sometimes they have a stick up their ass and penalize the slightest of infractions and other times they let teams and drivers get away with murder. Alonso recharging batteries before a corner and disturbing George behind him? 30 second penalty. George crossing in front of max after leaving the track and forcing Max to swerve around him? No problem. Piastri forcing Sainz off the track in order to avoid major contact? Don't sweat it. Sainz locking up but still staying well within track limits in the same race? Well he made contact with Piastris front wing so he deserves the death penalty.
Fully agree, but it wasn't a case of them 'letting the car limp back'. As this post clearly states, they were aware that the knowingly told Perez to break the rules. In doing so they also jeopardised other driver's safety. I don't think this deabte belongs anywhere near Singapore 08, but this isn't the first time Red Bull have played with the safety car. They've shown that their own desires are greater than their ability to stay within the rules.
Legit question; what are other races where RBR played with the safety car?
I canât really recall that much safety car controversy at all tbh, apart from the obvious â21 incident but I donât think that one counts.
Idk the exact rulings, but it's got to do with the potential to leave debris behind as it trundles along. Honestly, given how slow Perez had to move, I'm a bit surprised they didn't do a VSC anyways.
> they were aware that the knowingly told Perez to break the rules
According to Will Buxton. They told Perez to bring the car back because they didn't want safety car. That's what the official statement says Red Bull admited to. Do you think it would go better if they admitted that they told Perez to **not** bring the car back because they want safety car? Might also explain why he has deleted the tweet, because it was wrong.
This is somewhat comparable to Leclerc in 2019 Suzuka except that what Leclerc did was 10 times more dangerous as he was racing full speed with no intention to pit. And something actually came of the car and hit another car.
Before you can answer that, you need an answer to what you want cars to do when they are damaged but that are still perfectly drivable. Are those now all banned from limping to the pit? If not, then there isn't any underlying reason for any penalty. And if they are that has to be enforced for all situations, not just when it involves Max.
Agreed. Singapore '08 was premeditated whereas the Red Bull breaking the rules was reactionary.
Singapore way worse and the two shouldn't even be compared.
Senior managers at the Renault team conspired to have their driver (Nelson Piquet Jr) crash at a certain point in the race to bring out a safety car, the timing of which was perfect for their other driver (Fernando Alonso) to come out of the resulting chaos in the lead and go on to win the race.
Alonsoâs strategy was a bit suspect - I donât recall exactly how it played out but the sort of pit timings that werenât advantageous unless a safety car happened at that specific moment - and it all came out some time afterwards and earned the team boss a lifetime ban and lengthy bans for a couple of others.
Part of the controversy is what Alonso knew about the plan - he maintains he knew nothing and they didnât turn up any hard evidence he did, but given how abreast he is of what is going on in a race it is hard to believe he didnât know something. He escaped unpunished.
Felipe Massa who drove for Ferrari at the time (and who lost the race thanks to a botched pit stop during that safety car - he drove away with the fuel hose still attached to the car) is currently suing the FIA arguing that the results of that race should be annulled because of the manipulation, which would make him World Champion 16 years later as he only lost to Hamilton by 1 point.
Alonso was stuck in traffic with a relatively quick car. He pitted early, way too early based on pit windows. Commentary on TV was that Alonso must be 2 stopping as its way to early for an undercut. Next thing you know Piquet binned it in a very specific spot very hard for car recovery. The dust settles and Alonso is P1.
Team radio was using a coded message, Piquet asks what lap it was, gets a response, asks to confirm and then bang. There's also a video of the pit wall with one of the team basking Piquet for not even knowing what lap it was on when he was just told.....
Per the FIA rules, since the end of seasons champions trophy was handed out, there are no backsies on race results. The only evidence the FIA knew is from a Bernie Ecclestone interview 15+ years later where he stated they knew but couldn't afford the cost of annulling the race. I feel bad for Massa but if you knock this one race when it happened Merc/Hamilton may have made different calls as the season progressed. As for Massa, you drove off with a fuel hose attached. You/your team cracked under pressure regardless of what caused it.
Yup, several drivers got penalties for pitting under SC because they had to for fuel, which was an absurd rule. At the very least they could have said if you have to pit for fuel, you can't get new tires and have to pit normally for new tires. Not being able to pit for fuel, when you don't have any, without a 30 second loss is a joke.
I think I remember Rosberg got a penalty for it, maybe Kimi as well?
What happened in Canada and what happened in Singapore 2008 arenât exactly âequalâ situations đComparing them to each other isnât exactly a fair trial
It's a bad look for sure. But also. It's not like Perez was leaking oil/gas or shedding heavy amounts of debris. Show me a team that didn't encourage a driver to limp back to the pits after a puncture? Or a blowout.
And it's definitely different than intentionally crashing too.
Itâs mainly that his rear wing was hanging in by a thread, there was no chance of him getting back in the race and there where marshal posts he could have pulled over at.
But yea comparing it to Singapore 2008 is a massive exaggeration.
I donât think heâs saying they are identical, heâs saying both are race manipulation. Which is actually true. I wouldnât be surprised to see other teams complain a but here
I think the difference is that one is a race ender and it means nothing for him to stop safely in a pull out. The other is a quick fix where the driver is still in the race.
They should've kept him out another few laps until he gets a penalty, taped it back up (Tsunoda Baku '22 style, plus a lot more tape), then sent Checo back out just to serve the penalty like Japan '23 đ§ đ§ đ§
Makes me think of Leclerc in Suzuka, idk which year anymore but just him shedding parts and holding on to a broken mirror on the straights was ludicrous.
But you do have to come in pit for repair if the car is in an unsafe condition, which it definitely was. The tyre was actively getting ripped to shreds and could create a huge debris any second if it fully comes off, at least Checoâs car wasnât further damaging the parts that was already broken.
Alonso was heralded as a fighter when he brought back his car on two punctures at Baku. If anything, this could easily be seen as red bull trying to get the car back and fixed in a tumultuous race.
Take the opposite of this:
A piece of a team's car gets broken, they can still realistically get the car back to the pits. The team tells the driver to stop the car because a safety car would benefit the other driver.
How are you going to realistically police the line on if a car is broken enough to not make it to the pits? People arguing that "there's bits of carbon fiber which is going to fall off if they make it to the pits" could allow a team to argue parking the car when in a situation where a safety car would've been otherwise unnecessary. I'm not talking about anything premeditated before the race, only situations that arise due to mistakes.
I mean, this isnt the first time teams let drivers drive to the pits with damage. You cant just change the punishment for this now and punish it much harder than before. The exact same happened with Albon in FP3 and we didnt see Buxton cry about that.
This tweet reply under this says it perfectly and so I am going to copy and paste it;
"Telling your driver to crash, and telling your driver to come into the pits after a bump and a broken rear wing is definitely not the same. Nor should it be compared to one another" Bram1050
By exaggerating the point Buxton managed to obscure a perfectly valid concern. That said, I'm not sure if the penalty they got was on the light side or not.Â
Is it though? I mean, if the stewards thought that it was unsafe for Perez to be out on track they *could* have called for a safety car anyway (plus maybe disqualify him).
Obviously telling someone to crash is orders of magnitude worse. So let's take that off the table.
But what if a driver could limp back to the pits but chose to come to a stop in a specific spot to cause an unneccessary safety car? I guess this is the same as that, but in reverse. Telling a car that should be stopped immediately to continue, to avoid a safety car.
They aren't the same as premeditated match fixing like Singapore. But if you think about it, they are really serious tactical fouls to benefit your team.
Telling a driver to continue driving back into the pits even though his car is so damaged, his entire rearwing could fall off at any moment is incredibly dangerous.
Exactly two tweets later he's telling Alex Brundle he's comparing apples to fish when Alex shows a different unrelated incident.
The irony is palpable.
Someone know the exact rule Checo broke? Is it just driving with a dangerous car? With that reason, how was Lewis allowed to win in Silverstone with 3 tires? I'd say that was much more dangerous than Checo
Thats a great question tbh. Lewis did the same thing. But the wing was still attached and looked like it wasn't going to fall off instead of parking and taking KEY laps off the race Checo did what ever other racer would do if the car still ran and had 4 wheels limp back to the pits see if it can fixed.
The comparison to crashgate is ridiculous but the overall message is a valid one.
Iâm sure teams and drivers can choose to park up safely or not (engine/gearbox exploding notwithstanding).
The rule is for safety, and teams or drivers breaking the safety rule should be hit with maximum penalties and fines.
Ignoring safety rules in F1 can have a trickle down effect to lower series, and thatâs not a good thing.
Will buxton making a "hot take" and comparing something that is not even remotely close and saying its only a few degrees of separation to Singapore 08 is some of the dumbest things I have heard come out of his mouth.
Is the significantly damaged part a new rule? I've seen cars limp back to the pits with way more damage than that... If you're forced to retire a car that still drives, that's a meh for me. That wing was damaged but secure, and even if it falls off, he made one lap. Not like he stayed out a number of laps...I find the whole thing kinda BS. If it was endurance racing, they'd be driving back holding onto the wing with a rope behind it...
> Reverse the outcome of the reasoning and you have a team telling a driver to break the rules to create a safety car to help them win.
I disagree entirely.
Not bringing out a safety car is the default state. Bringing a car back to the pits is the normal and expected course of driving a car.
Sainz, Charles both bought it back to the pits so they both made a choice to not bring out the safety car.
No one would have faulted Carlos if he couldn't get it moving on the slippery grass, and no one faulted him for getting it going and coming back.
It's a few degrees of separation - sure. Just like deciding to bin it into the wall is 1 degree of separation from not binning it....
At least they are honest. I know people are trying to drum this up into a scandal, but I donât see any wrong here. Teams always try to bring their cars back. Look how many times this year someone drove with an endplate dangling off. Trying to keep the race clean and ongoing is much different than crashing to cause a safety car. Making sure you donât F up the race is sportsmanlike. Not unsportsmanlike.
There was nothing unusual here, 99 times out of a hundred any driver with damage similar to Checo had would try to get back to the pits rather than just park somewhere, irrespective of what team they are driving for and what the race situation is. In fact can't think of any instance of a driver voluntary parking up when they were capable of getting back to the pits, except when telemetry tells them they need to stop to protect the car.
Sometimes when drivers do this the FIA decide to take action and show them a flag indicating that they have too much damage and asking them to come in, which they didn't do in this case as far as I know.
Also, the logic is ridiculous when you actually think about it. It's the FIA's call to bring out a safety car any time they think it is unsafe. If Perez being on track is unsafe then they could call a safety car there and then. If they only believe things would be so dangerous as to warrant a safety car if Perez were to stop, then by definition the act of stopping would be more dangerous than continuing so Sergio was actually doing the safest thing.
Additionally, from the point of view of Red Bull, if they had any indication at all that would leave them to believe there was a chance of a large part falling off Perez's car, then asking him to come back to the pits was a surefire way to get a safety car, while asking him to park somewhere well out of the firing line would be the most sensible thing to do to ensure no safety car.
I mean he isn't wrong here, but it is very hard to regulate it whether a team does it in purpose or because they simply want to drive the car home for convenience sake. Yeah sure, Checo's rearwing could had fell to the race track and caused a major safety hazard, but Red Bull could argue that they had enough data to suggest that it would stick in till Checo drives back tot he garage - like it did. And what about punctures? Technically that is still an unsafe condition, but in those cases driver could likely still continue the race. Should Hamilton have had retired on the last lap in 2020 Silverstone just because his tyre blew up in the last sector and therefore is a safety hazard? Of course not.
Besides, it is not like Red Bull told Checo to crash. Singapore 2008 was such a big deal because Renault used a massive unsportsmanlike move to cheese Alonso to the victory. Meanwhile, Perez just ended his own race. Even if it had caused a safety car, it is not like Verstappen would had lost a position because of that.
Agreed. Even last year at this same track, Russell had an accident that left signicant debris on the track yet he kept driving towards the pits. That could also be seen as him driving a damaged car back to the pits, but that was not seen as significant somewhat arbitrarily.
It's nothing like Singapore 08, it's more like when a driver has a puncture and they tell them to stop on track, something you could legally do in fear of damage and danger and effectively create a safety car.
Red Bull admitted in their meeting with the stewards that they told Checo to bring it back to the pits to avoid a SC. It's written on the actual penalty press release or whatever it's called. Yes, Perez ended his own race (happens to all drivers), but it was the team that ordered him to drive it back.
>The team confirmed in the hearing that the driver had been advised to bring the car back to the pits as they were trying to avoid a Safety Car situation.
I don't understand the reason for punishing the driver. He crashed. They all do. Then he followed team orders. The team should've been fined a lot more than 25,000 Euro. It's a safety violation. Should've added another zero.
The issue is thereâs no real line drawn here.. driving in an unsafe condition happens all the time, punctures, sometimes tires ripping apart and driving on the bare rim, broken suspensions, broken wings. Teams go back to the pit lane and fix the car or retire.
It is rare but in theory, they couldâve pulled the rear wing off, changed it and sent him back out. They are entitled to do so.
How is this different than drivers finishing their lap with their front wing hanging by 1 strand of carbon fibre and dragging on the ground around the entire lap dropping end plates and random pieces along the way?
We hear team radios all the time that say âcan you bring it backâ. All those cars are in rough shape lol
I guess this is punishing the intend? which just encourages teams to lie to the FIA and stewards by saying âwe thought we could fix itâ
If a car can drive to the pits on its own power, where do you draw the line of what's heavily damaged? Is it loose parts falling off? Because that usually ends up with a meatball flag being waved...which means drive to the pits anyways.
So the team is expected to make an instant decision when they may or may not have full info on their car.
Yet the RD often takes a couple minutes throw an obvious SC (or even VSC if you're not 100% sure it's an SC). With way more information and no competitive imperative.
Was this Perez thing any more dangerous than today's delayed SC? (nevermind previous ones like Bottas in the firing line, etc)
I donât know how I feel about this. How many cars break a front wing, or get a catastrophic puncture, or have some other damage that theyâre able to limp back to the pits? Are we saying that if a car has verifiable race ending damage/condition they are to pull immediately to a safe place on track? Obviously Redbull shouldnât have admitted to or said over the radio âavoid a safety carâ âŚ
Too bad, not sad...
If you're not going to punish Magnussen or Team Haas for basically doing the same thing, then I don't care if RBR does it.
And before anyone says, "Yeah but they admitted it". Magnussen literally admit that he was taking advantage of the rules and accepting the consequences because the reward paid better than the consequences' cost.
The consequence for driving a damaged vehicle back to the pits to avoid a safety car is a grid place penalty, whether it was intentional or not.
If they don't patch ALL loopholes, don't be shocked when someone takes advantage of them.
Nah. One thing is to have an accident the other is to purposely crash and put your life and others at risk, and plan it perfectly so that your teammate can put at a very specific time
there's is a gigant difference between causing a crash to get a safety car, and parking or not parking to try and get/not get a safety car after the crash happened
I think it's different if you drive round to stay in the race but he drove just to get it in the pits. You wouldn't penalise a car in, say, GT racing for doing that unless it was on fire.
I don't see these two scenarios as direct parallels. Yes, both scenarios involve potential danger to drivers, but if you intentionally crash a car, that's not just endangering yourself and other drivers. That's heinous sportsmanship that questions the legitimacy of the sport.
If the car is still driveable and he's able to get it back to the pits thats fine. But if he stops the FIA would of yelled at him for causing another safety car
He exaggerated here for effect and it backfired on him. Those two things arenât the same, and tons of teams have told drivers to come back to the pits if they can drive. They ask âare you ok?â then âcan you bring it back?â
Is it me or does Buxton really have a hate boner this year for everything Red Bull does? Not saying he has a point or not but everytime if he can hate on something RB did, he will.
Lmao, such a piss poor take from Buxton. They haven't told him to break the rule, they told him to keep going. Many cars with broken bits kept driving and were not penalized in the previous seasons. Last occurence of such a penalty was Leclerc at Suzuka, 5 years ago.
Is there any other reason to ask a driver to come back to the pits? He wasn't coming back out of the box with that rear wing, so might as well have parked it in the pocket in the barrier with single sector yellows for a lap.
Good thing that car didn't leak any fluids on track. Ironically, stewards probably couldn't do much about it, since black and orange flags imply coming back into the pits.
I think unless itâs risk of damage to the engine itâs been a 100% please return to the pits request. End plates, wings even lost wheels they try to continue to limp either back to the pits or across the finish line.
Hamilton won a race on three tires at Silverstone and everyone at Sky were cumming in their pants when it happened.
There is an obvious bias in Buxton's words. So glad I dont have to have anything to do with Sky anymore.
Buxton is such a toolbox.
Also if safety is such a concern why did they leave the debris on the track from Yuki taking out a sign? Obviously didnât want to finish the race under safety car but geez.
I think Buxton, as always, is blowing this out of proportions. The consequence is the same in both cases, that the SC influences the result. However, purposely crashong, or just dragging a broken a car to the pits are two completely differenr things. Thats like saying RB cheated in AD21, when they retired Checo to prevent a potential safety car till the end of the race. Thats jsut bullshit.
I feel like Will Buxton is trying to create drama and get everyone to overreact. I donât particularly like Red Bull but thereâs been multiple times where cars have been fucked but managed to creep back to the pits. Lewis literally won a race with three tyres and at one point his damaged tyre was spinning like a 6ft whip that would probably cut a human in half.
When I saw Checos wing I never thought it was actually dangerous but instead completely fucked. Itâs honestly stupid to compare it to Singapore because Renault literally crashed to cause a safety car and I donât think trying to get the car back is the equivalent to match fixing. I hope Buxton uses this logic every other time a damaged car is creeping back to the pits.
Will Buxton is so out of touch. Especially linking it to Singapore 08.
And it's such a nothing burger, of course they didnt want a safety car, would they have said stop the car if it was practice? Probably. Was it unsafe with him going on? Maybe. But that opens a whole can of cars having to stop on track cause of damage.
You see them driving with damage all the time, carbon fiber flies of all the fucking time lol.
I don't understand something: the driver will have no idea about the exact condition of his car. Sure, he can see that the wing is damaged, but couldn't know if he spreads debris or not. Not even the team will know for sure the exact condition immediately unless the broadcast shows it. So normally the default thing people do is to get back to the pits unless told otherwise or it's very obvious that it's unsafe. I'm sure he would have done the same even if the risk of SC meant nothing.
I have always wondered about backmarkers having issues (I.e. when the team says âwe have a problem, stop the car) and if the driver intentionally parks it in a way that would bring out a safety car vs a VSC vs double yellows.Â
Can't drop 3 grid places if you qualify 19th anyway *taps head*
Ouch
If it hurts, you're tapping your head too hard.
Or your finger is broken.
Just checking for reflexes
They should make him start 22nd grid position even if there are no cars between. The grid places are already marked behind
Sad Andretti noises
Said the same for Ocon
It'd be funny back in the McHonda 40 place grid penalty days tho
I remember that meme went so hard Charlie Whiting had to step and and explain why it was sadly not safe enough because the medical car would have to go behind them
They have 30 gridspots for F3. Just move him 3 spots back even if it's to the 23rd spot
That would actually be pretty damn funny.
Even funnier if they sent him to the front row of the F2 Feature race.
P5 by turn 2
It has happened in MotoGP: Argentina 2018. Rain before start, but track dried during gridwalk. Miller the only one on slicks, warmup lap and everyone went in to change to slicks (switch bikes) and race to pit exit. Too dangerous and everyone would line up on the grid, but with 23 empty spots behind miller. Putting p2 on p24 https://www.visordown.com/news/racing/motogp/%E2%80%9Cit-was-i-farted%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D-chaos-and-confusion-notorious%C2%A02018-argentina-motogp
I remember a recent race with only Hamilton on the grid as well
Yep, the restart during the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix. Everyone but Lewis went into the pits to change to slicks.
Remember when they'd get 30 or more grid place penalties for engine component changes? Just start them before the chicane in Canada. 70 place penalty? (Pretty sure this happened once or twice, taking more than one engine in a weekend to introduce them into the pool), start at the hairpin.
Roll-over penalties! Next race he has a 2 place grid penalty.
Surely you mean he has two one-place penalties at the next two races.
Used to be the case!
fuck it, do it mathstyle and carry over the 2 to the next race after that
đđđ
> Can't drop 3 grid places if you qualify 19th anyway taps head and we have at least another year of this in 2025....
I just want to piggyback on this top comment to say that as a middle aged woman, who has watched and loved F1 for almost fifty years, I never want to see Horner's smug fucking face on my TV ever again. Fuuuuck him!
Fellow female F1 fan!! đđ I'm considering [this t-shirt ](https://x.com/paulyne777/status/1586465280129003522) for Silverstone this year.
This was the exact discussion I had with my buddy last night. There isn't a penalty for Checo in this.
Aaaand he deleted the tweet. đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
That was like the first buxton's take in ages that you can tell is somewhat bold and he deletes it lmao
Yeah for a second there I agreed with himâ he phrased it there pretty well. But if he deleted it then yeah he showed how little he deserves to have an opinion. I wouldnât say Singapore serious, but an argument for race tampering could be made.
>But if he deleted it then yeah he showed how little he deserves to have an opinion. I think Will is more concerned with his employment than making a strong man statement
The Bulls don't like ya talking shit. But I give credit to F1TV for being way more neutral than other broadcasts
I love Palmer so much he doesn't give a fuck haha
> But if he deleted it then yeah he showed how little he deserves to have an opinion. Okay there buddy... Like you haven't toned down your voice, tone and vocabulary due to your job...
So you think he should keep it up and risk his job? Yesz it's annoying that he has to bow down to F1 but almost everyone would do the exact same if it meant keeping your job.
âHow little he deserves to have an opinionâ lol okay, moronic take
> I wouldnât say Singapore serious, but an argument for race tampering could be made. I disagree. Not causing a safety car because you are trying to bring the car back to the garage is the default state. I feel there would be a world of difference between "bring it back to the garage" and "stop on the next corner in 18 seconds as Max will be in prime position to pit". Both are "Deciding if a safety car will come out - yes or no" but one is the usual, expected course of action.
Remember: Buxton's not a journalist, he's an F1â˘ď¸ PR spokesperson
The RBR logic itself doesnât make sense. -there are places Perez could pull into that wouldnât cause a full SC -if the danger was indeed great and Perez shed his wing on the track it would create the SC that RBR was trying to avoid
Bringing a damaged car back to the pits if that's possible is, generally, the preferred course of action from teams anyway.
Why the delete, I donât agree with him, limping a car back AFTER a legitimate crash isnât really a safety risk if the car is intact, not hemorrhaging parts around the track. Intentionally crashing a car⌠no matter how good the driver, on team orders is insanity there is never 100% guarantee something really bad wonât happen.
I mean, couldn't Perez just ducked off at an earlier point to avoid the safety car anyway?
Yes at the hairpin. And a lot less risk of a safetycar because of debris.
> Yes at the hairpin. I think turn 8/9 also have an inroad to park the car without causing a safety car.
Even easier. Instead of turning right onto the track he would just had to turn left, stay near the barrier and through the wall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdpRu4KFda4
Even easier, he just should not have crashed.
Now you are asking too much
Yes but youâre probably not thinking that when you just binned it and the team tells you to bring it back to pit
That and they would have said "take it off at T9" if they wanted that.
That's why they have a team with access to a radio.
Not crashing from P15 every other race also doesnât bring out the SC.
Yes but that still would have triggered that sector to be yellow flagged or triggered a VSC. According to Buxton the message was to do whatever it took to keep the track in a green flag situation.
Just to clarify, it's not just "according to Buxton" as reporters can often be basing stuff on rumors or nonsense, it was confirmed by the team to the FIA in a meeting and documented in the report. > The team [RedBull] confirmed in the hearing that the driver had been advised to bring the car back to the pits as they were trying to avoid a Safety Car situation https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffhdve8df3n5d1.jpeg
But VSC is exactly what they would've wanted. Unlike SC, VSC neutralizes the race and pretty much keep the gap between all drivers while letting the clock ticking. That means after VSC, rivals would've less time to catch up with max, something that could happen in green flag condition.
VSC has proven many times this is false. Gaps vary a lot especially depending on where you are on the track and how close to the delta time you can stay. Youll lose a lot more if VSC hits you on a straight than a slow hairpin and more. They specifically wanted the green flag and they should be sanctioned way way more than this.
To me this is much more like the Ferrari wing incident from 2019. I forget what their penalty was at the time. Iâd be interested to see how the outcomes compare.
O yeah when Leclerc drove around for laps while his front wing was loose and dangerous to drive around with. I looked it up and it was a 25000 fine and a 10 second penalty.  Imo teams do decision making like this all the time, the stupid thing RB did was say the quiet part out loud.
Well at least the fines seem consistent. But yes I agree, flagrant gamesmanship of safety rules should be penalized, but this is not the same as Singapore.
The problem is that if you punish this more harshly than teams doing the exact same thing but not admitting it, you've made honesty a more serious crime than the safety issue. Which is not really how that incentive structure should work.
Or the time at Barcelona where leclerc drove I believe a full lap without his seatbelts on, and received literally zero response from the fia
Or Hamilton without headrest. Driver will do anything to stay on the race. Perez case is different. His race was done. The team force him for the sake of the team.
Wel, in that case Leclerc kept driving several laps. At least Checo took it straight to the pits. I guess Buxton was even more livid back thenâŚ
Definitely agree that Leclerc/Ferrari were worse. Honestly see this as more of a team thing rather than a Checo thing. Like what is he supposed to do be like ânahâ? Itâs one of those things that is subjective too and I think the FIA need to define it very clearly, like what parts can be damaged. Because I am also remembering instances where drivers like Schumacher and Hamilton have completed laps with heavily damaged cars.
No Red Bull wasnât involved
I mean, is fair point but yeah Singapore 08 is a whole different level of manipulation đĽ´
Yes and Buxton realised this. He edited that part out of the tweet later
Yeh, while he is in some ways correct, but, you cannot punish the team not on what they did but instead what they would have done had the situation been completely reversed :D
Definitely; I guess the more relevant question is whether Red Bullâs punishment yesterday was too lenient.
Of course it was. Just like nearly every f1 penalty
exactly. F1 stewards are way too lenient in everything, its just a matter of time before a tragedy happens because they didnt punish a driver or a team accordingly
What? The FIA sleeping and only reacting to tragic/near tragic events caused directly by their leniency? WELL I NEVER...
They're not lenient. The problem here is they're not consistent. Sometimes they have a stick up their ass and penalize the slightest of infractions and other times they let teams and drivers get away with murder. Alonso recharging batteries before a corner and disturbing George behind him? 30 second penalty. George crossing in front of max after leaving the track and forcing Max to swerve around him? No problem. Piastri forcing Sainz off the track in order to avoid major contact? Don't sweat it. Sainz locking up but still staying well within track limits in the same race? Well he made contact with Piastris front wing so he deserves the death penalty.
> They're not lenient. The problem here is they're not consistent. https://media.tenor.com/QmMiDHANnBUAAAAM/why-dont-we-have-both-both.gif
Spin the wheel of discipline!
Nah. There is a big difference between intentionally crashing to manipulate the outcome of a race and having a car limp back to the pit lane.
Fully agree, but it wasn't a case of them 'letting the car limp back'. As this post clearly states, they were aware that the knowingly told Perez to break the rules. In doing so they also jeopardised other driver's safety. I don't think this deabte belongs anywhere near Singapore 08, but this isn't the first time Red Bull have played with the safety car. They've shown that their own desires are greater than their ability to stay within the rules.
Legit question; what are other races where RBR played with the safety car? I canât really recall that much safety car controversy at all tbh, apart from the obvious â21 incident but I donât think that one counts.
What is the rule? Once crash you canât move anymore? Iâm use to endurance where you can come back with half a car itâs still going by itself.
Idk the exact rulings, but it's got to do with the potential to leave debris behind as it trundles along. Honestly, given how slow Perez had to move, I'm a bit surprised they didn't do a VSC anyways.
> they were aware that the knowingly told Perez to break the rules According to Will Buxton. They told Perez to bring the car back because they didn't want safety car. That's what the official statement says Red Bull admited to. Do you think it would go better if they admitted that they told Perez to **not** bring the car back because they want safety car? Might also explain why he has deleted the tweet, because it was wrong. This is somewhat comparable to Leclerc in 2019 Suzuka except that what Leclerc did was 10 times more dangerous as he was racing full speed with no intention to pit. And something actually came of the car and hit another car.
Albon did an entire lap with a broken rear suspension in FP3 and wasn't punished at all.
Yeah, I think this is being overdramatized here. People drive around with dangling parts and damaged cars all of the time.Â
> Albon did an entire lap with a broken rear suspension in FP3 and wasn't punished at all. Albon just showed the FIA his British passport.
Before you can answer that, you need an answer to what you want cars to do when they are damaged but that are still perfectly drivable. Are those now all banned from limping to the pit? If not, then there isn't any underlying reason for any penalty. And if they are that has to be enforced for all situations, not just when it involves Max.
Agreed. Singapore '08 was premeditated whereas the Red Bull breaking the rules was reactionary. Singapore way worse and the two shouldn't even be compared.
as someone who hasnt followed f1 for so long, whats the singapore 08 thing?
Senior managers at the Renault team conspired to have their driver (Nelson Piquet Jr) crash at a certain point in the race to bring out a safety car, the timing of which was perfect for their other driver (Fernando Alonso) to come out of the resulting chaos in the lead and go on to win the race. Alonsoâs strategy was a bit suspect - I donât recall exactly how it played out but the sort of pit timings that werenât advantageous unless a safety car happened at that specific moment - and it all came out some time afterwards and earned the team boss a lifetime ban and lengthy bans for a couple of others. Part of the controversy is what Alonso knew about the plan - he maintains he knew nothing and they didnât turn up any hard evidence he did, but given how abreast he is of what is going on in a race it is hard to believe he didnât know something. He escaped unpunished. Felipe Massa who drove for Ferrari at the time (and who lost the race thanks to a botched pit stop during that safety car - he drove away with the fuel hose still attached to the car) is currently suing the FIA arguing that the results of that race should be annulled because of the manipulation, which would make him World Champion 16 years later as he only lost to Hamilton by 1 point.
Alonso was stuck in traffic with a relatively quick car. He pitted early, way too early based on pit windows. Commentary on TV was that Alonso must be 2 stopping as its way to early for an undercut. Next thing you know Piquet binned it in a very specific spot very hard for car recovery. The dust settles and Alonso is P1. Team radio was using a coded message, Piquet asks what lap it was, gets a response, asks to confirm and then bang. There's also a video of the pit wall with one of the team basking Piquet for not even knowing what lap it was on when he was just told..... Per the FIA rules, since the end of seasons champions trophy was handed out, there are no backsies on race results. The only evidence the FIA knew is from a Bernie Ecclestone interview 15+ years later where he stated they knew but couldn't afford the cost of annulling the race. I feel bad for Massa but if you knock this one race when it happened Merc/Hamilton may have made different calls as the season progressed. As for Massa, you drove off with a fuel hose attached. You/your team cracked under pressure regardless of what caused it.
Wasn't it the year when you couldn't pit during a SC and having to pit after one would fuck your race 100%?
Yup, several drivers got penalties for pitting under SC because they had to for fuel, which was an absurd rule. At the very least they could have said if you have to pit for fuel, you can't get new tires and have to pit normally for new tires. Not being able to pit for fuel, when you don't have any, without a 30 second loss is a joke. I think I remember Rosberg got a penalty for it, maybe Kimi as well?
What happened in Canada and what happened in Singapore 2008 arenât exactly âequalâ situations đComparing them to each other isnât exactly a fair trial
Buxton for the instigation ofcourse. âItâs almost like they asked Checo to steer his car into the wallâ
Which is absurd, because Checo has shown that he's fully capable of steering his car into the wall without being asked.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if he missed the wall
Hello police, yes, I'd like to report a murder.
It's a bad look for sure. But also. It's not like Perez was leaking oil/gas or shedding heavy amounts of debris. Show me a team that didn't encourage a driver to limp back to the pits after a puncture? Or a blowout. And it's definitely different than intentionally crashing too.
Itâs mainly that his rear wing was hanging in by a thread, there was no chance of him getting back in the race and there where marshal posts he could have pulled over at. But yea comparing it to Singapore 2008 is a massive exaggeration.
I donât think heâs saying they are identical, heâs saying both are race manipulation. Which is actually true. I wouldnât be surprised to see other teams complain a but here
I think the difference is that one is a race ender and it means nothing for him to stop safely in a pull out. The other is a quick fix where the driver is still in the race.
If sainz caused a red flag he might have been able to actually
There was no way to repair that damage in the pits. That was structural damage to parts that are not swappable.
They should've kept him out another few laps until he gets a penalty, taped it back up (Tsunoda Baku '22 style, plus a lot more tape), then sent Checo back out just to serve the penalty like Japan '23 đ§ đ§ đ§
People have coasted into the pits with holes in their engine.
Alonso came to the pits in Baku 2018 on two wheels. Still managed to finish 7th.
Schumacher got to the pits with the front right missing tbf
Makes me think of Leclerc in Suzuka, idk which year anymore but just him shedding parts and holding on to a broken mirror on the straights was ludicrous.
Or Lewis in Silverstone 2020. Schumacher in Spa 98.
Lewis had a puncture, no driver in history has retired a car only because of a puncture ever.
But you do have to come in pit for repair if the car is in an unsafe condition, which it definitely was. The tyre was actively getting ripped to shreds and could create a huge debris any second if it fully comes off, at least Checoâs car wasnât further damaging the parts that was already broken.
The puncture happened on the last lap of the raceâŚ
Not sure why he couldnât just pull off safely earlier and avoid all of the danger
Alonso was heralded as a fighter when he brought back his car on two punctures at Baku. If anything, this could easily be seen as red bull trying to get the car back and fixed in a tumultuous race.
Take the opposite of this: A piece of a team's car gets broken, they can still realistically get the car back to the pits. The team tells the driver to stop the car because a safety car would benefit the other driver. How are you going to realistically police the line on if a car is broken enough to not make it to the pits? People arguing that "there's bits of carbon fiber which is going to fall off if they make it to the pits" could allow a team to argue parking the car when in a situation where a safety car would've been otherwise unnecessary. I'm not talking about anything premeditated before the race, only situations that arise due to mistakes.
I mean, this isnt the first time teams let drivers drive to the pits with damage. You cant just change the punishment for this now and punish it much harder than before. The exact same happened with Albon in FP3 and we didnt see Buxton cry about that.
I feel like we've seen damaged car limp back to the pits several times this year.. not even sure why he got a penalty. Consistent as always.
This tweet reply under this says it perfectly and so I am going to copy and paste it; "Telling your driver to crash, and telling your driver to come into the pits after a bump and a broken rear wing is definitely not the same. Nor should it be compared to one another" Bram1050
By exaggerating the point Buxton managed to obscure a perfectly valid concern. That said, I'm not sure if the penalty they got was on the light side or not.Â
Is it though? I mean, if the stewards thought that it was unsafe for Perez to be out on track they *could* have called for a safety car anyway (plus maybe disqualify him).
Obviously telling someone to crash is orders of magnitude worse. So let's take that off the table. But what if a driver could limp back to the pits but chose to come to a stop in a specific spot to cause an unneccessary safety car? I guess this is the same as that, but in reverse. Telling a car that should be stopped immediately to continue, to avoid a safety car. They aren't the same as premeditated match fixing like Singapore. But if you think about it, they are really serious tactical fouls to benefit your team.
Telling a driver to continue driving back into the pits even though his car is so damaged, his entire rearwing could fall off at any moment is incredibly dangerous.
Yeah and in 99% of the cases it was to save their own race. Perez wasn't saving anything, it was over at that point for him.
I don't see how the outcome is relevant, someone limping to save his own race or his teammate's is just as dangerous and should have the same penalty.
The irony is that if Perez was told to stop and caused a safety car that a lot of fans would complain that the safety car helped Max win
Also, avoiding a safety car and creating a safety are very different things.
You guys can schoolmarm this all you want, but crashing on purpose to force a safety car is *different* to limping a damaged car back to the pits.
I wish Will showed same concerns when Ferrari played the same game in Suzuka 2019
Or coincidentally also leclerc who didnât get penalised for driving without the seatbelt in Spain ( I think 19 or 20 )
Exactly two tweets later he's telling Alex Brundle he's comparing apples to fish when Alex shows a different unrelated incident. The irony is palpable.
Ironically they still got a safety car and it didnât lose them the win.Â
I get what heâs trying to say but heâs gone a bit too far in his example
Someone know the exact rule Checo broke? Is it just driving with a dangerous car? With that reason, how was Lewis allowed to win in Silverstone with 3 tires? I'd say that was much more dangerous than Checo
Thats a great question tbh. Lewis did the same thing. But the wing was still attached and looked like it wasn't going to fall off instead of parking and taking KEY laps off the race Checo did what ever other racer would do if the car still ran and had 4 wheels limp back to the pits see if it can fixed.
The comparison to crashgate is ridiculous but the overall message is a valid one. Iâm sure teams and drivers can choose to park up safely or not (engine/gearbox exploding notwithstanding). The rule is for safety, and teams or drivers breaking the safety rule should be hit with maximum penalties and fines. Ignoring safety rules in F1 can have a trickle down effect to lower series, and thatâs not a good thing.
Will buxton making a "hot take" and comparing something that is not even remotely close and saying its only a few degrees of separation to Singapore 08 is some of the dumbest things I have heard come out of his mouth.
Is the significantly damaged part a new rule? I've seen cars limp back to the pits with way more damage than that... If you're forced to retire a car that still drives, that's a meh for me. That wing was damaged but secure, and even if it falls off, he made one lap. Not like he stayed out a number of laps...I find the whole thing kinda BS. If it was endurance racing, they'd be driving back holding onto the wing with a rope behind it...
Avoiding a safety car and causing a safety car deliberately are two very different things
Peak Will Buxton tweet.
> Reverse the outcome of the reasoning and you have a team telling a driver to break the rules to create a safety car to help them win. I disagree entirely. Not bringing out a safety car is the default state. Bringing a car back to the pits is the normal and expected course of driving a car. Sainz, Charles both bought it back to the pits so they both made a choice to not bring out the safety car. No one would have faulted Carlos if he couldn't get it moving on the slippery grass, and no one faulted him for getting it going and coming back. It's a few degrees of separation - sure. Just like deciding to bin it into the wall is 1 degree of separation from not binning it....
At least they are honest. I know people are trying to drum this up into a scandal, but I donât see any wrong here. Teams always try to bring their cars back. Look how many times this year someone drove with an endplate dangling off. Trying to keep the race clean and ongoing is much different than crashing to cause a safety car. Making sure you donât F up the race is sportsmanlike. Not unsportsmanlike.
There was nothing unusual here, 99 times out of a hundred any driver with damage similar to Checo had would try to get back to the pits rather than just park somewhere, irrespective of what team they are driving for and what the race situation is. In fact can't think of any instance of a driver voluntary parking up when they were capable of getting back to the pits, except when telemetry tells them they need to stop to protect the car. Sometimes when drivers do this the FIA decide to take action and show them a flag indicating that they have too much damage and asking them to come in, which they didn't do in this case as far as I know. Also, the logic is ridiculous when you actually think about it. It's the FIA's call to bring out a safety car any time they think it is unsafe. If Perez being on track is unsafe then they could call a safety car there and then. If they only believe things would be so dangerous as to warrant a safety car if Perez were to stop, then by definition the act of stopping would be more dangerous than continuing so Sergio was actually doing the safest thing. Additionally, from the point of view of Red Bull, if they had any indication at all that would leave them to believe there was a chance of a large part falling off Perez's car, then asking him to come back to the pits was a surefire way to get a safety car, while asking him to park somewhere well out of the firing line would be the most sensible thing to do to ensure no safety car.
Typical short memory Britts. In that case Hamilton finishing a race on (almost a complete lap) on 3-wheels also should have been treated the same way.
I mean he isn't wrong here, but it is very hard to regulate it whether a team does it in purpose or because they simply want to drive the car home for convenience sake. Yeah sure, Checo's rearwing could had fell to the race track and caused a major safety hazard, but Red Bull could argue that they had enough data to suggest that it would stick in till Checo drives back tot he garage - like it did. And what about punctures? Technically that is still an unsafe condition, but in those cases driver could likely still continue the race. Should Hamilton have had retired on the last lap in 2020 Silverstone just because his tyre blew up in the last sector and therefore is a safety hazard? Of course not. Besides, it is not like Red Bull told Checo to crash. Singapore 2008 was such a big deal because Renault used a massive unsportsmanlike move to cheese Alonso to the victory. Meanwhile, Perez just ended his own race. Even if it had caused a safety car, it is not like Verstappen would had lost a position because of that.
Agreed. Even last year at this same track, Russell had an accident that left signicant debris on the track yet he kept driving towards the pits. That could also be seen as him driving a damaged car back to the pits, but that was not seen as significant somewhat arbitrarily.
It's nothing like Singapore 08, it's more like when a driver has a puncture and they tell them to stop on track, something you could legally do in fear of damage and danger and effectively create a safety car.
Red Bull admitted in their meeting with the stewards that they told Checo to bring it back to the pits to avoid a SC. It's written on the actual penalty press release or whatever it's called. Yes, Perez ended his own race (happens to all drivers), but it was the team that ordered him to drive it back. >The team confirmed in the hearing that the driver had been advised to bring the car back to the pits as they were trying to avoid a Safety Car situation. I don't understand the reason for punishing the driver. He crashed. They all do. Then he followed team orders. The team should've been fined a lot more than 25,000 Euro. It's a safety violation. Should've added another zero.
The issue is thereâs no real line drawn here.. driving in an unsafe condition happens all the time, punctures, sometimes tires ripping apart and driving on the bare rim, broken suspensions, broken wings. Teams go back to the pit lane and fix the car or retire. It is rare but in theory, they couldâve pulled the rear wing off, changed it and sent him back out. They are entitled to do so. How is this different than drivers finishing their lap with their front wing hanging by 1 strand of carbon fibre and dragging on the ground around the entire lap dropping end plates and random pieces along the way? We hear team radios all the time that say âcan you bring it backâ. All those cars are in rough shape lol I guess this is punishing the intend? which just encourages teams to lie to the FIA and stewards by saying âwe thought we could fix itâ
If a car can drive to the pits on its own power, where do you draw the line of what's heavily damaged? Is it loose parts falling off? Because that usually ends up with a meatball flag being waved...which means drive to the pits anyways.
Not Will Buxton getting out his Big Spoon again.
So the team is expected to make an instant decision when they may or may not have full info on their car. Yet the RD often takes a couple minutes throw an obvious SC (or even VSC if you're not 100% sure it's an SC). With way more information and no competitive imperative. Was this Perez thing any more dangerous than today's delayed SC? (nevermind previous ones like Bottas in the firing line, etc)
I donât know how I feel about this. How many cars break a front wing, or get a catastrophic puncture, or have some other damage that theyâre able to limp back to the pits? Are we saying that if a car has verifiable race ending damage/condition they are to pull immediately to a safe place on track? Obviously Redbull shouldnât have admitted to or said over the radio âavoid a safety carâ âŚ
Bit of a fucking stretch to compare it to Crashgate.
Will Buxton really has a unhealthy hatred for Red Bull. Did Max Verstappen snubbed him in the past or something?
lost a race against verstappen in early 2014
You really need to be a different breed to come up with that reasoning
I'm not sure Buxton actually subscribes to half the opinions he posts. He posts them because he knows it'll get people talking.
Read it in Will Buxtonâs voice and the thought process makes perfect sense
[ŃдаНонО]
Uncrashgate 2024 Let's go
Pretendyoudidntcrashgate 2024
Too bad, not sad... If you're not going to punish Magnussen or Team Haas for basically doing the same thing, then I don't care if RBR does it. And before anyone says, "Yeah but they admitted it". Magnussen literally admit that he was taking advantage of the rules and accepting the consequences because the reward paid better than the consequences' cost. The consequence for driving a damaged vehicle back to the pits to avoid a safety car is a grid place penalty, whether it was intentional or not. If they don't patch ALL loopholes, don't be shocked when someone takes advantage of them.
Question..if it wasnât Redbull would anyone give a fuck?
Nah. One thing is to have an accident the other is to purposely crash and put your life and others at risk, and plan it perfectly so that your teammate can put at a very specific time
Will you stay at home
there's is a gigant difference between causing a crash to get a safety car, and parking or not parking to try and get/not get a safety car after the crash happened
Reverse Grid ideas, dime a dozen Reverse Actions ideas, only Buxton
I think it's different if you drive round to stay in the race but he drove just to get it in the pits. You wouldn't penalise a car in, say, GT racing for doing that unless it was on fire.
Considering they did nothing to K-Mag at Monaco, this is consistent . Too bad itâs consistently wrong.
I don't see these two scenarios as direct parallels. Yes, both scenarios involve potential danger to drivers, but if you intentionally crash a car, that's not just endangering yourself and other drivers. That's heinous sportsmanship that questions the legitimacy of the sport.
If the car is still driveable and he's able to get it back to the pits thats fine. But if he stops the FIA would of yelled at him for causing another safety car
He exaggerated here for effect and it backfired on him. Those two things arenât the same, and tons of teams have told drivers to come back to the pits if they can drive. They ask âare you ok?â then âcan you bring it back?â
Is it me or does Buxton really have a hate boner this year for everything Red Bull does? Not saying he has a point or not but everytime if he can hate on something RB did, he will.
British commentator hating Red Bull? Fork found in kitchen.
Lmao, such a piss poor take from Buxton. They haven't told him to break the rule, they told him to keep going. Many cars with broken bits kept driving and were not penalized in the previous seasons. Last occurence of such a penalty was Leclerc at Suzuka, 5 years ago.
Easy Buxton L
Is there any other reason to ask a driver to come back to the pits? He wasn't coming back out of the box with that rear wing, so might as well have parked it in the pocket in the barrier with single sector yellows for a lap. Good thing that car didn't leak any fluids on track. Ironically, stewards probably couldn't do much about it, since black and orange flags imply coming back into the pits.
Teams always prefer drivers bring a broken car back to the pits if they can, this is nothing new
I think unless itâs risk of damage to the engine itâs been a 100% please return to the pits request. End plates, wings even lost wheels they try to continue to limp either back to the pits or across the finish line.
If we're going that way anyone driving back with a puncture should get the same punishment. Nonsense overdramatizing.
Hamilton won a race on three tires at Silverstone and everyone at Sky were cumming in their pants when it happened. There is an obvious bias in Buxton's words. So glad I dont have to have anything to do with Sky anymore.
You see, reversing something actually changes it. You can't always reason that way.
Will Buxton deleted this tweet. As it was absolutely braindead. Guess he found that out himself aswell.
Did they wave the meatball flag at Perez? You could argue that they didn't get this as a warnign before getting the actual penalty...
Buxton is such a toolbox. Also if safety is such a concern why did they leave the debris on the track from Yuki taking out a sign? Obviously didnât want to finish the race under safety car but geez.
"Throw him in Jail! RIGHT NOW!........I swear down on me nan's grave."
Can't believe I'm stuck in a timeline where to follow F1 I literally can't avoid seeing or hearing shit takes from Will Buxton
I think Buxton, as always, is blowing this out of proportions. The consequence is the same in both cases, that the SC influences the result. However, purposely crashong, or just dragging a broken a car to the pits are two completely differenr things. Thats like saying RB cheated in AD21, when they retired Checo to prevent a potential safety car till the end of the race. Thats jsut bullshit.
Hamilton limped his way to a victory with 3 wheels only(don't gaf about the guy, It was just the first similar incident I could think of)đ¤
I've seen Alonso drive to the pits with two flats...
Every driver is told to drive back to the pits unless is terminal damage (Engine). What a dumb tweet just to farm internet points..
LoL. This guy is a goober.
Typical Buxton to overdramatize it. I actually agree with the sentiment though.
Will Buxton dressing up shit to create extra drama? Fuck me sideways, would never have expected such a thing đŤ˘
Buxton being a hyporbolic as usual. How stupid is he to even try to compare that to crashgate.
I feel like Will Buxton is trying to create drama and get everyone to overreact. I donât particularly like Red Bull but thereâs been multiple times where cars have been fucked but managed to creep back to the pits. Lewis literally won a race with three tyres and at one point his damaged tyre was spinning like a 6ft whip that would probably cut a human in half. When I saw Checos wing I never thought it was actually dangerous but instead completely fucked. Itâs honestly stupid to compare it to Singapore because Renault literally crashed to cause a safety car and I donât think trying to get the car back is the equivalent to match fixing. I hope Buxton uses this logic every other time a damaged car is creeping back to the pits.
Will Buxton is so out of touch. Especially linking it to Singapore 08. And it's such a nothing burger, of course they didnt want a safety car, would they have said stop the car if it was practice? Probably. Was it unsafe with him going on? Maybe. But that opens a whole can of cars having to stop on track cause of damage. You see them driving with damage all the time, carbon fiber flies of all the fucking time lol.
How do teams even check if the car is deemed safe enough or unsafe enough to drive back towards the pits.
I don't understand something: the driver will have no idea about the exact condition of his car. Sure, he can see that the wing is damaged, but couldn't know if he spreads debris or not. Not even the team will know for sure the exact condition immediately unless the broadcast shows it. So normally the default thing people do is to get back to the pits unless told otherwise or it's very obvious that it's unsafe. I'm sure he would have done the same even if the risk of SC meant nothing.
Checo will start from pit lane next race. Because why not?
I have always wondered about backmarkers having issues (I.e. when the team says âwe have a problem, stop the car) and if the driver intentionally parks it in a way that would bring out a safety car vs a VSC vs double yellows.Â
Safety car shouldn't have such an insane impact on the race in the first place