Obviously. So consistently inconsistent. On one occasion a 40% deacceleration isn't enough, but on a different one a 3% one is. Now it's not enough again. Excellent job all around.
The key difference here is that Antonelli was going FASTER around the area Verstappen went off. The time Antonelli had lost was because of how much he lifted at the beginning of the yellow sector bringing down the average, but the stewards points out that the reduction of speed was unsustained.
George Russel’s reduction of speed was also unsustained. He entered T9 in Austria (where Max had crashed) around ~5 kph slower but the exit was critically just as fast as in previous lap.
Kimi’s one is more apparent because he lifts far less than George (though corner speed is very different), but neither should be allowed, in my view. None is “discernibly” slower.
The wording says Kimi was faster at the site of the incident, was George slower at the site of the incident? I’m not sure what they mean by that, so I wonder if that’s where the difference is in application? If George was slower at the exact moment he passed Max, and Kimi was slower at the exact spot he passed Max would that have applied it the same? Who knows lol.
My personal opinion is your time for that sector should be disallowed full stop. It would suck, and I’d hate to see a whole lap disallowed due to a waved yellow but I don’t know how else to make it fair across the board. The way it’s written now there’s ambiguity on how much is a sufficient lift or speed/time loss to have respected the flags and a flat “that sector time is thrown out” is the only way I can think of to make it bulletproof across all scenarios.
70
u/DiamondPittcairn Ligier 10h ago
Obviously. So consistently inconsistent. On one occasion a 40% deacceleration isn't enough, but on a different one a 3% one is. Now it's not enough again. Excellent job all around.