Formula 1 Rolex Belgian Grand Prix 2021Formula 1
- Thread starter Jimlaad43
- 464 comments
- 28,580 views
MagpieRacer
Premium
- 17,286
- Wymondham, Norfolk
- Seagull_Racer
I don't think there is anything cringey about that. It was earned yesterday and in and conditions may well have had that result anyway. He's had such bad luck I think he's the only driver who could have gotten away with celebrating anything.
I wonder if they would have gone racing had the other crashes over the weekend not happened. It just put the circuits safety back to the forefront of conversation and kept them second guessing.
- 3,836
- Canada
- TPCDangerSashimi
Saw this article about the 1985 Belgian GP written after the cancellation of the Australian GP last year called, "The only other time F1 called off a race... Interesting stuff in hindsight.
Only once previously in the 70-year history of the world championship has a race failed to happen when everyone was already on site."
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/belgian-gp-1985-spa-retro/4772725/?nrt=54
Only once previously in the 70-year history of the world championship has a race failed to happen when everyone was already on site."
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/belgian-gp-1985-spa-retro/4772725/?nrt=54
Jubby
Premium
- 1,528
- Maine
- jubbyboi617
- 777
- Canada
I would hope they're not giving out refunds just because Lewis said something. Although not surprising that they had no plans to refund people.
This would actually be really on-brand for F1:
- Overcharge fans for a race.
- Cancel the race after running 3 parade laps.
- Force the drivers to pay for ticket refunds, despite not paying their salaries.
- Keep ticket revenue from the event.
- Profit.
As far as I've read the terms and conditions for ticket sales stated that in the case of cancellations for reasons of force majeure like the weather, they wouldn't be entitled to refunds even if there was zero running.
Of course that doesn't mean the T&Cs can't be legally challenged. But it'd probably be difficult, since you are agreeing to them at the point of sale. Any refunding is likely to be out of the goodness of FOM/Spa. Hopefully the former, given that they can more afford it.
Of course that doesn't mean the T&Cs can't be legally challenged. But it'd probably be difficult, since you are agreeing to them at the point of sale. Any refunding is likely to be out of the goodness of FOM/Spa. Hopefully the former, given that they can more afford it.
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,410
- Texas
It was interesting to see Hamilton "critics" bring this up on Reddit in regards to refunds, proposing that Lewis wouldn't shell out the money himself.
TMU from the Independent & Republicworld, Lewis' new contract extension is around £40m/year. The latter states Lewis' current contract was a 2-year, £35m/year. Divided across the 22 races, that's around £1.6m-£1.8m a race. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that if pressed on it, Lewis would forgo (or even donate) £2m of his salary from a race weekend (even though he did do Friday & Saturday sessions) to show he's serious about the fans. The man was reported to have pledged £20m of his own money to his new charity.
As for any future rule changes around similar weekends in future I think there only really needs to be one major one, and that's obviously for the points.
If we go by the rule of 100% of the points needing 75% of the race completing than it stands to reason that 50% of the points should require 25% race completion, and they also need a stipulation that they are green flag laps. You know, actual racing. What a wild concept, I know.
If we go by the rule of 100% of the points needing 75% of the race completing than it stands to reason that 50% of the points should require 25% race completion, and they also need a stipulation that they are green flag laps. You know, actual racing. What a wild concept, I know.
- 29,669
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I mean... surely 50% of the points should mean a minimum of 50% of the race? Just as a nice, wholesome fraction that satisfies the human brain's insatiable lust for satisfying patterns.
Anything less than 50% should be 25% points max. And yes, I am aware of splitting the cake into even further fractions but still...
Anything less than 50% should be 25% points max. And yes, I am aware of splitting the cake into even further fractions but still...
Last edited:
Logically yes but as I say, currently the rules say we only have to cover 75% distance to get full points if it's stopped. So 25% to get half points works in that regard. I think, maths was never my strong suit.
Either way, 25% or 50% would be fine I think. Just as long as the current absurdity of two laps is gone and making it a requirement for green flag laps is the main thing, even if they decide to keep the two laps rule.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,216
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Martin Brundle - "The race is unquestionably underway"
This is pretty good:
language warning
This is pretty good:
language warning
Last edited:
- 1,049
- Grand Rapids,MI
- HaydenFan69
Going back to practice and drivers claiming the conditions where too dangerous, yet still driving at 100%.
Someone please explain why no driver had the balls to stand up and say, “No, over my dead body will I go out.”
The drivers formed a union to protect themselves from this sort of situation. This weekend could’ve been over before Sundays fiasco. So why don’t they utilize this power? The whole thing is about protecting F1’s biggest asset; it’s drivers.
So if I was a driver, I want to know; is George Russell a bad guy to represent the driver’s? Seeing as he took the risk to great reward, even to the detriment of his fellow competitors.
This is what makes this significantly bigger than Indy ‘05. At least Michelin was the bigger person and had their teams withdraw in order to protect the drivers (more-so their image, but they knew if a driver was injured due to them it’d likely cause significant financial blows to the company).
Someone please explain why no driver had the balls to stand up and say, “No, over my dead body will I go out.”
The drivers formed a union to protect themselves from this sort of situation. This weekend could’ve been over before Sundays fiasco. So why don’t they utilize this power? The whole thing is about protecting F1’s biggest asset; it’s drivers.
So if I was a driver, I want to know; is George Russell a bad guy to represent the driver’s? Seeing as he took the risk to great reward, even to the detriment of his fellow competitors.
This is what makes this significantly bigger than Indy ‘05. At least Michelin was the bigger person and had their teams withdraw in order to protect the drivers (more-so their image, but they knew if a driver was injured due to them it’d likely cause significant financial blows to the company).
- 12,952
- United Kingdom
The two laps rule was brought in a few years ago to make sure that a race could be classified if worst comes to worst. Those conditions were not raceable, and Bernie's comments about him demanding the race happening were ludicrous. We don't need another Spa '98 crash, this time at the top of Raidillon. Wet races are fun, but boat races don't work with tyres.
With the rules in place, giving points for the race was correct and justified. Perez and Stroll were classified different to where they qualified, and some drivers like Norris and Bottas missed out on points because they dropped the ball in quali and Hungary respectively. Really, the only thing making this result not feel so sour is Russell's podium which is both fully deserved and not deserved at all at the same time. It's killed the battle for 8th in the Constructors championship even more than Hungary did, but Williams won't care.
I don't like kneejerk reactions to a rule that existed until it was used, but I can see why this one has such discussions. Masi made all the right calls and deserves praise, not hate, for actually gauging the weather and not caving into calls to run a race that would have just been Safety Cars and big crashes. A big crash happening is fine, but it's the extra, avoidable danger of other cars joining it in zero-visibility that's the unreasonable part that you just can't actively allow to happen.
The two laps rule makes sense as something the FIA would have never hoped to have needed to use. If it was 25% distance, we would have had 11 laps behind the Safety Car before the Red Flag, and would that really have been better to watch? It's all a balancing act, and what's the point going to a race track if you can't actually host the race? I think the FIA will have to look at the options to reschedule, but in such a tight, worldwide calendar where everything is scheduled to the second (plus the short turnaround for the triple-header), just throwing a Monday race in without any prior contingency is just not an option.
We got the best of a selection of terrible solutions to too much rain for a race. A result was declared, the cars didn't just aimlessly drive around not clearing the circuit and at risk of an embarrassing aquaplaning off under the Safety Car moment on lap 7 or something and nobody got hurt. I'd call that a win in the end.
With the rules in place, giving points for the race was correct and justified. Perez and Stroll were classified different to where they qualified, and some drivers like Norris and Bottas missed out on points because they dropped the ball in quali and Hungary respectively. Really, the only thing making this result not feel so sour is Russell's podium which is both fully deserved and not deserved at all at the same time. It's killed the battle for 8th in the Constructors championship even more than Hungary did, but Williams won't care.
I don't like kneejerk reactions to a rule that existed until it was used, but I can see why this one has such discussions. Masi made all the right calls and deserves praise, not hate, for actually gauging the weather and not caving into calls to run a race that would have just been Safety Cars and big crashes. A big crash happening is fine, but it's the extra, avoidable danger of other cars joining it in zero-visibility that's the unreasonable part that you just can't actively allow to happen.
The two laps rule makes sense as something the FIA would have never hoped to have needed to use. If it was 25% distance, we would have had 11 laps behind the Safety Car before the Red Flag, and would that really have been better to watch? It's all a balancing act, and what's the point going to a race track if you can't actually host the race? I think the FIA will have to look at the options to reschedule, but in such a tight, worldwide calendar where everything is scheduled to the second (plus the short turnaround for the triple-header), just throwing a Monday race in without any prior contingency is just not an option.
We got the best of a selection of terrible solutions to too much rain for a race. A result was declared, the cars didn't just aimlessly drive around not clearing the circuit and at risk of an embarrassing aquaplaning off under the Safety Car moment on lap 7 or something and nobody got hurt. I'd call that a win in the end.
- 17,099
- United Kingdom
I think offering a healthy discount on next years tickets for this years ticket holders would be a good shout, simply as a good faith gesture. They're not going to want to be out of pocket on this year, but they might also be worried about reduced attendance next year off the back of it.
@Dennisch Do you have a ticket with the T & C's on the back?
@Dennisch Do you have a ticket with the T & C's on the back?
- 595
- Stockholm
@Jimlaad43 one alternative would have been to run zero laps at all and end up with no classified race result.
It's written into the rules that force majeure can lead to a cancelled event, they should have exercised that rule.
It's written into the rules that force majeure can lead to a cancelled event, they should have exercised that rule.
- 31,553
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Nope. Printed E-ticket with a fancy QR-code and a picture of the track.
- 2,027
- Bristol, UK
- OJBrit
Honestly this is the first time I have been glad I don't actively watch the races any more.
That was a complete farce. They have raced in worse conditions before now.
Let's not forget the favoured quote of Martin Brundle which gets wheeled out in a wet race. The rain tyres clear 24 litres of water per second from the surface of the track. Yes the spray was bad but they had barely touched it by that point. It was only going to reduce from that point onwards. In the past the safety car has stayed out 5 to 10 laps longer than it needed to. So much to the point the F1 cars are diving into the pits behind it for slicks. They could have relaxed the safety car rules and allowed the cars to drop back a bit and clear different sections of the straights. After 5 laps of doing this I bet the drivers would have been all ready to race. Yes there is always drama in a wet race, that's part of F1. But boy am I glad there was some great racing on the other side instead of watching trees for 5 hours.
That was a complete farce. They have raced in worse conditions before now.
Let's not forget the favoured quote of Martin Brundle which gets wheeled out in a wet race. The rain tyres clear 24 litres of water per second from the surface of the track. Yes the spray was bad but they had barely touched it by that point. It was only going to reduce from that point onwards. In the past the safety car has stayed out 5 to 10 laps longer than it needed to. So much to the point the F1 cars are diving into the pits behind it for slicks. They could have relaxed the safety car rules and allowed the cars to drop back a bit and clear different sections of the straights. After 5 laps of doing this I bet the drivers would have been all ready to race. Yes there is always drama in a wet race, that's part of F1. But boy am I glad there was some great racing on the other side instead of watching trees for 5 hours.
I have no problem with all of his decisions on Sunday, all except the forcing of a result with zero green flag racing. Although that is really down to the rule book more than him.
No we would have had no laps, no result and no points. Do you not think it's absurd to hand out race points without any green flag racing? No racing, no points. It should be that simple.
Why do we need to force a result, no matter what? They don't do that in other sports, do they? "Oh the pitch is waterlogged, no way we can play, but let's get out there for five minutes, knock it about, no scoring allowed, and we'll call it a draw."
Sure it's far easier to rearrange football matches than F1, but it's not the end of the world if an event is entirely abandoned/cancelled is it?
Not when it was still chucking it down it wouldn't. That visibility was appalling, on a track like Spa it was absolutely unsafe to race.
Last edited:
- 777
- Canada
If this race wasn't goofy enough, Lance Stroll got a penalty for changing a rear wing:
www.gpblog.com
"When the rear wing of a driver is changed, the driver officially has to start from the pitlane. However, all drivers started from the pitlane anyway due to the red flag.
The FIA, therefore, wanted to give Stroll a drive-through penalty, but due to the shortening of the race, this was no longer possible. Therefore, the Aston Martin driver now receives a ten-second penalty."
Complete nonsense, especially given that Red Bull fixed Checo's car without issue.
FIA adds more confusion: Ten-second penalty for Stroll
It was a chaotic day at Spa-Francorchamps with a delayed start, several formation laps and a three-hour-long interruption due to the rain. Unfortunately, all the confusion is not over yet, as the FIA continue to hand out penalties as well.
www.gpblog.com
"When the rear wing of a driver is changed, the driver officially has to start from the pitlane. However, all drivers started from the pitlane anyway due to the red flag.
The FIA, therefore, wanted to give Stroll a drive-through penalty, but due to the shortening of the race, this was no longer possible. Therefore, the Aston Martin driver now receives a ten-second penalty."
Complete nonsense, especially given that Red Bull fixed Checo's car without issue.
- 12,952
- United Kingdom
They didn't replace Checo's parts with those of a different spec though. AM basically went from a dry setup wing to a wet setup wing, which is a different spec. Hulkenberg had the same issue in Spain a few years ago when he broke their only updated Front Wing in quali, got knocked out then had the penalty because they could only put an old spec wing on. If the parts that went on Sergio's car were the same design as the ones pulled off, then it's not a problem.If this race wasn't goofy enough, Lance Stroll got a penalty for changing a rear wing:
FIA adds more confusion: Ten-second penalty for Stroll
It was a chaotic day at Spa-Francorchamps with a delayed start, several formation laps and a three-hour-long interruption due to the rain. Unfortunately, all the confusion is not over yet, as the FIA continue to hand out penalties as well.
"When the rear wing of a driver is changed, the driver officially has to start from the pitlane. However, all drivers started from the pitlane anyway due to the red flag.
The FIA, therefore, wanted to give Stroll a drive-through penalty, but due to the shortening of the race, this was no longer possible. Therefore, the Aston Martin driver now receives a ten-second penalty."
Complete nonsense, especially given that Red Bull fixed Checo's car without issue.
- 3,600
- Middelburg
https://tickets-spafrancorchamps.co...-francorchamps/cms/terms-and-conditions-6391/
ARTICLE 12: FORCE MAJEURE
In case of force majeure or another compelling reason, the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps reserves the right to cancel or postpone the service.
Included in the definition of a force majeure event are: terrorist threats, terrorist attacks, bad weather, strikes, fires, wars, government interventions, pandemics, etc.
The Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps will seek the best solution for the Parties to the contract without however being able to ensure the performance of the service(s).
No refund will be offered in case of force majeure.
While the Purchaser may wish to cancel their service/ticket following concerns related to terrorist threats or attacks, the purchase price will not be refunded in any case and no solution such as a subsequent provision of service will be sought or found.
Regular death also used to be a part of F1, we don't want that to return. I'm sure you haven't forgotten the last F1 driver death came in bad wet conditions and there was death at Spa two years ago in F2, in the dry.
Can you imagine if someone crashed like Norris on Saturday and came to a rest on the track, with those behind completely unable to see him as they approach at 170mph? I'd rather not imagine it personally, it would not be good. We absolutely should not be risking it when we don't need to. Drama is one thing, serious injury and death is another and the difference between the two can be very fine margins.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,410
- Texas
I mean, when you have the drivers themselves saying, "We can't race in this. I can't see the car in front of me", I don't know how much of a counter-argument can be made; they're valuing their lives first and foremost. The only driver behind Max I heard saying it was okay to race was Checo, but they showed him like 2 corners back from the car in front when they turned the camera on him.
Last edited:
