How to solve Stewarding problems of Formula 1

Rules can be as clear as you want, but the interpretation and enforcement of them will always introduce an element of the subject.

This is why the quality of working in Formula 1 regularly returns to the top of the agenda, ok or – not more often – incorrectly.

Some commentators have linked the suspension of Derek Warwik to the role ahead of Canadian Grand Prix, which was with a painful wait of five hours after five and a half hours after the checker flag before the result was effectively confirmed. But this task is to reduce correlation with causes.

Enrich Bernoldie joined the stewers panel through a video link from the FIA’s Remote Operations Center in Geneva and the process is understood that it was not ideal, even if it was not ideal. The main reason for the delay is not registering its opposition beyond the red bull George Russell Straight, it was not only to investigate the accident between the two McLaren The driver who used to increase the late-race safety car, but there are many violations during the full-curves Yellow, which had already been flagged off by Race Control.

So, two different problems, of which are more straightforward to fix each other.

The Warwick Motorsport Community, a Le Mans winner and a grand prix driver of the note, is a pillar of the former chairman of the British Racing Drivers Club. He was suspended from a steviding panel in Canada on late notice as he had an interview to a gambling website in which he commented on various matters of the moment in F1, including the event between Russell and. Max Verustapane In Spanish Grand Prix.

In January, former F1 driver Johnny Herbert The fully stewed was dropped from the roster. In the FIA’s statement on the matter, his “Duties as FIA Steward and a media pundits were incompatible”.

Each Grand Prix has four steovers and, since 2010, one of them has always been a pre-F1 driver. At that time, FIA President Jean Tod presented the idea in response to the contestants, complaining that the decision of the Steovers lacks both continuity and a clear understanding of the mechanics of racing conditions.

But Steovers – even former drivers – are still volunteers who exclude their expertise from the goodness of their hearts. This is not a payment situation. Their expenses have been covered, but, under the current regime, they are not grand. Max is the days of Mosley’s reign when senior FIA personnel can order liquor from under the list.

From that point of view it makes sense that an unpaid volunteer can accept payment for his time to give an interview. But the nature of the role of such stewers is that optics are not good-especially given the political status of fever ahead of the Canadian GP, ​​where the Red Bull was severely frightened to other drivers, taking advantage of the peril of the punishment-points of Vastapane.

A solution, as looted themselves by drivers of F1, have full -time stewers, which are paid for their work. Of course, it will not reduce some more deranged allegations of corruption and prejudice that emit from the lower half of the Internet – but it will widely satisfy competitors and stakeholders, which really matters.

But the problem here is who will pay these salary. FIA President Mohammad Ben Sulem has often talked about how no one can easily order new officers because anyone can buy a new TV from Amazon. Along with starting an initiative to combat the online misuse of race officers, he established FIA’s steward and race director ‘Pathway’ to provide career development.

However, when the theme of paying F1 stewers was raised last year, Ben Sulem’s response was that the FIA ​​could not tolerate it and drivers were welcomed to pay the bills. In addition, whenever questions are raised about the decisions during the Grands Prix, the FIA’s default position is ‘no comment’ on the basis that the steward is “independent of the FIA”.

The paid stewers are a clear answer to some issues raised in recent months, but this side is blocked until the stakeholders are prepared to compromise.

In the context of avoiding landscapes, in which the race results in doubt for hours after the checker flag, there are many solutions that are easy to apply. One has to adopt more flexibility on the order in which events are processed.

This creates commercial, sports and logical meaning to prefer events that affect the title results of the race. After the result, or even held in Limbo, the checker does not have a good look for F1 for hours after the flag.

In this case, the driver and the team manager, who has already been invited to appear in front of Steward at a specific time, can wait to convince themselves, but they should suck more and more good.

It may also be a good idea to revaluate the deposit cost of a protest, currently small changes for the € 2000-an F1 team, even in the budget-captive environment.

Red bull opposition was the best and optimistic, and an example is how cognitive bias can compound foolishness. The team saw the incident behind the safety car, as Russell tried to adopt Verustapane to do a foolish task through the optics of believing it would bring to a punishment.

This is an example of how one should be cautious in evaluating evidence of on-car cameras, as they may appear to provide unwavering evidence of an previous approach. In this case Mercedes The Russell safety car was following the car delta and not breaking or sharp than the normal pattern of doing so during the neutrality of the course.

It was a security car that was faster and ending incorrectly – in all footage, of course, but still confirmation is subject to bias.

Then, looking at all brouhaha, it is ironic that FIA sports director, Tim Mallyan made it clear that it is believed that the failure of the ‘brake test’ and the length of the security car to stay within the length of the 10 car would not have been sent to the steors by race control – because they could see data in real time which later returned to the case of Mercedes.

So here is another idea to improve the process: stop wasting the time of the steovers.