Entertainment
alle pijlers
F1/Max Verstappen deel 6
zaterdag 13 november 2021 om 18:48
Deel zes in de topicreeks over Max Verstappen en alles wat met Formule 1 te maken heeft. 
Vorige deel
Vorige deel
anoniem_65cdc6932d812 wijzigde dit bericht op 12-12-2021 21:50
7.40% gewijzigd
zondag 12 december 2021 om 20:04
zondag 12 december 2021 om 20:05
zondag 12 december 2021 om 20:08
Ik wel. Maar er staat geen toelichting in?
Edit. Ik zie alleen dit:
Title Decision - Mercedes Protest Art. 48.12
Description Decision - Mercedes Protest Art. 48.12
Enclosed UAE DOC 58 - Mercedes Protest Art 48.12.pdf
Edit nummer twee. Laat maar, mijn laptop laadde de andere pagina's niet :')
Edit. Ik zie alleen dit:
Title Decision - Mercedes Protest Art. 48.12
Description Decision - Mercedes Protest Art. 48.12
Enclosed UAE DOC 58 - Mercedes Protest Art 48.12.pdf
Edit nummer twee. Laat maar, mijn laptop laadde de andere pagina's niet :')
aurorus wijzigde dit bericht op 12-12-2021 20:10
76.07% gewijzigd
zondag 12 december 2021 om 20:09
Got it:
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/se ... ionship-14
The claims of Mercedes:
Mercedes claimed that there were two breaches of the Sporting Regulations (Article 48.12)
namely that which states “..any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass
the cars on the lead lap and the safety car” and “…once the last lapped car has passed the leader
the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap.”
Mercedes argued that had this been complied with, Car 44 would have won the race.
They therefore requested the Stewards to amend the Classification under Article 11.9.3.h of the
FIA International Sporting Code.
Red Bull’s arguments in defence:
Red Bull argued that
1. “Any” does not mean “all”.
2. The Article 48.13 of the Sporting Regulations states that the message “Safety Car in this
lap” is the signal that it will enter the pit lane at the end of that lap.
3. That therefore Article 48.13 “overrides” Article 48.12.
4. That Article 15.3 gives the Race Director “overriding authority” over “the use of the safety
car”.
5. That even if all cars that had been lapped (8 in total, of which 5 were allowed to overtake
the safety car) it would not have changed the outcome of the race.
Race Director’s Evidence
The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that
would “interfere” in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one
that applied in this case.
The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible
it was highly desirable for the race to end in a “green” condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car).
Conclusions of the Stewards :
The Stewards consider that the protest is admissible.
Having considered the various statements made by the parties the Stewards determine the
following:
That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our
determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.
That although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning
to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message
“Safety Car in this lap” has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end
of that lap.
That notwithstanding Mercedes’ request that the Stewards remediate the matter by amending the
classification to reflect the positions at the end of the penultimate lap, this is a step that the
Stewards believe is effectively shortening the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate.
Accordingly, the Protest is dismissed. The Protest Deposit is not refunded.
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/se ... ionship-14
The claims of Mercedes:
Mercedes claimed that there were two breaches of the Sporting Regulations (Article 48.12)
namely that which states “..any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass
the cars on the lead lap and the safety car” and “…once the last lapped car has passed the leader
the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap.”
Mercedes argued that had this been complied with, Car 44 would have won the race.
They therefore requested the Stewards to amend the Classification under Article 11.9.3.h of the
FIA International Sporting Code.
Red Bull’s arguments in defence:
Red Bull argued that
1. “Any” does not mean “all”.
2. The Article 48.13 of the Sporting Regulations states that the message “Safety Car in this
lap” is the signal that it will enter the pit lane at the end of that lap.
3. That therefore Article 48.13 “overrides” Article 48.12.
4. That Article 15.3 gives the Race Director “overriding authority” over “the use of the safety
car”.
5. That even if all cars that had been lapped (8 in total, of which 5 were allowed to overtake
the safety car) it would not have changed the outcome of the race.
Race Director’s Evidence
The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that
would “interfere” in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one
that applied in this case.
The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible
it was highly desirable for the race to end in a “green” condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car).
Conclusions of the Stewards :
The Stewards consider that the protest is admissible.
Having considered the various statements made by the parties the Stewards determine the
following:
That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our
determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.
That although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning
to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message
“Safety Car in this lap” has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end
of that lap.
That notwithstanding Mercedes’ request that the Stewards remediate the matter by amending the
classification to reflect the positions at the end of the penultimate lap, this is a step that the
Stewards believe is effectively shortening the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate.
Accordingly, the Protest is dismissed. The Protest Deposit is not refunded.
"I love not Man the less, but Nature more..."
