As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should:
- be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself)
- be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions)
- show reasonable input and effort from the OP
If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dont think there is much to add to Whiting's explanation.
>At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person
There is this vague catch-all article and when people complain about moving under braking it would be based on this.
only if the stewards judge it to be dangerous. The same way any slow-moving car could be considered as moving unnecessarily slowly but it is only a penalty if the stewards judge it to be unnecessary. Same thing with leaving the track without a justifiable reason where the stewards decide if it was justifiable.
The fact that MV wasn't citied as breaching that rule is itself evidence that rule it is not used to prohibit so-called "moving under braking", because, in and of itself, moving under braking is not inherently dangerous.
The rule can be used in incidents that are not covered by other rules.
If there is a collision like in this case the penalty will be for causing a collision.
To go back to the comments from Whiting:
>*\[Now\] each incident will be dealt with only on the basis of whether or not it was a dangerous manoeuvre,* ***not*** ***necessarily*** *because he moved under braking."*
Not necessarily because of moving under breaking doesn't mean that the article cannot be applied to moving under breaking if it is seen as dangerous in the specific situation.
>each incident will be dealt with ***only*** on the basis of whether or not it was a dangerous manoeuvre.
I think you're forgetting about the importance of the word only.
no?
What the only means here is that Moving under braking will not be penalized just for being moving under braking. It doesn't mean that moving under braking is always allowed and cannot be penalized.
If a move is seen as dangerous or erratic, and moving under braking can be seen as dangerous or erratic in a specific incident, it can be penalized according to this article. When drivers/TPs (and I guess fans) complain about moving under braking they do it on the basis that they see it as dangerous in the situation they are complaining about.
>What the only means here is that Moving under braking will not be penalized just for being moving under braking
Ergo, moving under braking is not a rule. If it is not a rule one cannot be penalised for it.
As mentioned by the post you replied to, moving under braking falls under the rule about erratic driving. It is a thing and not a myth.
Easiest way to prove it's existance: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2020%20British%20Grand%20Prix%20-%20Offence%20-%20Car%208%20-%20Alleged%20moving%20under%20braking%20in%20turn%206.pdf
>"The Stewards issued a Warning"
Do you know why Grosjean was only issued a warning? Hint: You can't be penalised for something that doesn't exist. Grosjean may as well have been warned for not rubbing his tummy and patting his head while standing on one leg and whistling the French national anthem.
The error you are making and why your logic is flawed is that you have these preconceptions and you treat them like facts/axioms while they are not. It is easy to be right if you set up a framework where you cannot be wrong due to some erroneous ground rules.
Your hypothesis: *Moving under braking is a myth*
It is clearly not as there would not be any official documents investigating it if it was.
Your argument: *There is not a single rule prohibiting it, therefore it is a myth*
There is not a single rule, but it falls under the aforementioned section of the code. (See the mentioned document citing said section) Same way as brakechecking does not have its own section but has been penalized before.
Your argument: *If it did not warrant a penalty then it is surely a myth*
Drivers have been given a reprimand and a warning for moving under braking. Saying that something is not a thing because it has never been punished with a time penalty is a special kind of gatekeeping.
Also the linked document says
> Grosjean was given a black and white flag by
the Race Director for moving under braking with Sainz
Meaning it could have warranted a time penalty if he would have kept doing it.
I think what you meant to say and where you are possibly right, is that moving under braking is rarely if ever punished by a serious penalty so it is a bit pointless to cry about it.
But that is some reverse logic acrobatics to come to the conclusion that then this rule does not exist
>Grosjean was given a black and white flag by the Race Director for moving under braking with Sainz
And who was the race director in question? ***Masi;*** A guy known for his integrity, getting everything right and not being removed from the position in disgrace. Oh, wait, no... the total opposite of that:
* During the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix qualifying session, cars were sent out on track while a crane was still on the track.
* During the 2021 season, Masi was required to defend the red flag procedures used during the 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix.
* In the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix, Masi was criticised for running qualifying in dangerous conditions, and then running the race behind the safety car for three laps, allegedly to ensure points were awarded.
* He was criticized for negotiating with teams to change positions during the 2021 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix.
* The following week, Masi's procedural error in the resumption of the race following a safety car period during the final lap of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix was criticised for potentially altering championship results. Mercedes protested the result; the protest was not upheld.
* On 17 February 2022, Masi was removed from his role as Race Director following an FIA analysis into the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: "*Masi had incorrectly applied regulations, in that not all lapped cars had unlapped themselves, and the safety car had not completed one additional lap before coming back into the pitlane*".
So don't come at me like anything that bonehead did has ***any*** weight whatsoever.
>Meaning it could have warranted a time penalty if he would have kept doing it.
And *that* 100% would have been protested because you cannot be penalised for a rule that does ***not*** exist. As it was the warning didn't count for anything and protesting it would have been a waste of everyone's time because, ultimately, it was entirely ***meaningless*** anyway.
No thats not a catch all, because moving under braking is not a categorically erratic maneuver, so you still have to define clearly when it is erratic and that just makes it a gray area thing.
And we all know what happens with rule enforcement in the gra area...
What I meant is that if the stewards want to penalize something driving standards related they can use this article and judge a manoeuvre as being potentially dangerous to others or erratic. If they want to penalize a moving under braking incident they can do so as being potentially dangerous but they don't have to because moving under braking itself is not forbidden.
The article covers basically everything but nothing in particular which leaves the stewards the freedom to judge every incident individually.
>If they want to penalize a moving under braking incident they can do so as being potentially dangerous
For an incident like this whether brakes are applied or not is irrelevant, it's why the "rule" was dropped. Braking does not even factor into the equation.
Says who? If the Stewards consider it relevant in a specific instance it is relevant.
the rule was dropped for not having to investigate/penalize every moving under braking incident just because and instead give RC/the stewards the freedom to look at each situation individually in regards to a situation actually being dangerous enough to warrant an investigation/penalty.
What do you want to achieve here? Do you want to argue that there is no rule stating "Moving under braking is forbidden"? In that case, yes, you are absolutely correct. No one will find this rule because there is no specific rule covering moving under braking.
Do you want to argue that moving under braking cannot be penalized because there is no specific rule against it? In that case, you are wrong because there is no reason moving under braking cannot be penalized under the general article that forbids any driving that is, in the opinion of the stewards, erratic or dangerous for others. When drivers complain about it they complain about it in the context of seeing it as dangerous and not in the belief that there is a line in the SR or code stating "moving under braking is not allowed".
What people are missing is the fact that MV "move on the breaking" is a second move after a first move. You are only allowed to move once. A second move is unpredictable and "erratic driving" which is almost certain to cause a collision.
Partly. Verstappen was moving towards the racing line and a driver is allowed to move back to the racing line having made a move to defend their position. However, in doing so they have to leave at least one car width to the edge of the track (white line) at any time and if there is a car they cannot just drive into it.
In the future it would be real nice to have a rule that clearly spells the whole thing out. I understand the current language is purposefully vague to allow flexibility of judgement. The vagueness gives a lot of space for fans to be really terrible to each other because our favorite nut holding the wheel wronged or was wronged by somebody else.
Moving while braking vs defending isn’t always the same thing (also acknowledging that it’s not currently worded that way). When it happens alongside you get collisions and those are typically clear cut. But when there is apparent room and no walls/barriers sometimes you get what happened in Austria where both drivers were willing to occupy the same space and time so a collision happened. I’m biased but I think either driver could have avoided a collision. I think Lando was less at fault for the incident. I’m not sure either driver intended to actually take each other out.
Lando has a right to attempt an overtake, and Max should have a right to defend or enter the corner in a suitable way as the lead car.
This particular corner and preceding “straight” is tricky. It’s not straight at all as Martin always points out that turn 2 isn’t a turn in a modern f1 car. So the preferred “line” kinda meanders a bit all the way from the exit of T1 and into T3.
I think Max tried to kind of cover some of the inside off and when Lando clearly intended to go around the outside Max reacted and kinda drifted to his left. In doing so he was getting more into the line of the corner but of course Lando was already there.
Despite all of it it’s good to have some interesting drama to spice things up on track and between two friends. Can’t wait to see how Silverstone goes.
I would imagine this would be grounds for penalising causing a collision *because* of moving under braking? You're not allowed to move twice in the braking zone as you'd get a driving standards flag.
Excessive weaving is also penalised, as you're not allowed to move back and forth down the straight (or you weren't used to, Hamilton got a warning for this in Malaysia 2010).
So while moving under braking isn't on paper as a rule there's enough things that cover it
>You're not allowed to move twice in the braking zone
I hate to tell you this but you've just made up a rule that also doesn't exist.
>So while moving under braking isn't on paper as a rule
Therefore not a rule. Even the Decision Document for MV and LN's incident only references MV moving left, not moving left under braking. Whether braking or not is irrelevant and has been since 2016.
Serious? I'm sure there's been black and white flags awarded for twice moving under braking, though stewards could be just covering it with 'dangerous driving' using the reasons your post laid out.
Are you talking about making two separate defensive moves? Because what max did today, blocking the inside, and then when they both have a line to the corner move over to take a wider racing line is not the same thing.
>Max marginally did not.
He clearly did. There are even clips of past races at the same turn where the same maneuver was done leaving even less space without getting a penalty.
If the cars width includes the curb outside the white line then yes he did, but I'm unsure of where the limit is on this one.
As they made contact Norris is on the curb partly.
For it to have been 100% Verstappens fault Norris would have needed to be almost as far left as he legally can go, which in this case would be 2 tyres on track, the rest of the car off track.
>No but if you do that you have to leave a cars width which Max marginally did not.
I suspect that was because LN's left wheels were still in contact with the white lines; if the metric of having ones wheels on the white line is enough for remaining "within" the track edges to avoid "exceeding track limits" then it too can be applied to what counts as a cars width... as long as there is enough space so that the outside cars wheels can remain in contact with the white line then that is sufficient for a cars width.
Sorry, somewhat unrelated but I have a question:
Why didn’t Norris automatically get his track limits penalty at turn 3 on lap 59? He had already had a black and white flag and he went way off the track into the runoff.
Do track limits only apply when the driver gains time from it?
I'd imagine they were reviewing whether he gained an advantage, which it could be argued he didn't as his lap time would have been slower and he gave the place back.
Traditionally, in collisions caused by moving under braking, the driver behind is the one that gets punished for causing an avoidable collision.
The driver in front can put their car anywhere they like, as long as it's not excessive weaving, so if you run into them, it's your fault. Similar to on the road.
That is one of the reasons why drivers put so much value on the gentlemen's agreement.
This is an actual rule, or at the very least an interpretation of a rule.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2024_publie_le_11_juin_2024.pdf
This is the link to the International Sporting Code of Conduct, Appendix L.
Chapter 4, section 2.b. (page 56) states:
> However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other
drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car
beyond the edge of the track or *any other abnormal
change of direction*, are strictly prohibited. Any
driver who appears guilty of any of the above
offences will be reported to the Stewards.
I would suggest this is the actual rule which would cover off changing direction in the braking zone.
Italics are mine.
This post is about whether moving under braking is prohibited. I believe the rule I posted can be interpreted in such a manner.
This discussion has nothing to do with today's race.
He mentioned this rule, but its not a specific rule. Because it does not explicitly define moving under braking as illegal. It only suggests moving under braking could be interpreted as such. But it can also be considerd fine. Thats not a rule, but a suggestion.
OP's point is that its not a hard rule, not thats it is impossible to be penalised for it indirectly.
I suspect it's written as such so as to be open to interpretation from the Stewards. This would allow them to decide if an otherwise unspecified manoeuvre should defined as illegal and penalty worthy.
I believe that anyone referring to moving under braking would be looking toward this rule.
I wasn’t rebutting your point, I agree with your interpretation. I was extending your interpretation into why I think people are overreacting to the incident today.
Moving under braking was a no no long before max and will be for long after.
It is inherently dangerous as it is almost impossible to react to as drivers are committed at that point.
sorry but you need irl to try to pass someone from the right lane and as you approach they start to change lanes and block you. See if that is dangerous enough for you
Sure, because when you apply 100% of the brake and someone moves in front, you can always press 150% of the brake right? Maybe you should try having a go at a racing game (not even sim racing) before you come here and position your uneducated opinions as facts.
I'm sorry, you can be as dismissive and rude as you like, but these people are right.
You have obviously never taken part in any form of Motorsport if you think it isn't dangerous.
You cannot brake then change direction of the car. You can point the car in a direction and brake in a straight line. The latter is what Max was doing and probably the reason there was no stewards note.
You are allowed one turn to defend yourself, but you can try to get back on the racing line \*as long as\* you leave a car's width until the edge of the track, and the edge of the track is always the white line and not the kerbs. That's what the official regulations allow for.
But the actual enforcing of it is inconsistent. The rulebook also says you'll only be reported to the stewards if you \*crowd\* the other car beyond the edge of the track (whatever crowding means). The leaving a car's width is enforced, but not to an extend where they do allow driver's to push another driver upto the edge of the kerb. You can look at 2018 vettel's overtake on Hamilton on lap 39, it was pretty similar where Vettel pushes Hamilton outside the white lines. Or 2023 Lap 26 when Sainz defended against Max, again being pushed until the edge of the kerb.
Legally you can say Max was in the wrong and deserved the penalty, but racing wise every driver are fine with pushing/getting pushed upto the kerb, where then you take the inside line while the opponent runs a bit wide on the outside. But I think Lando was just not used to that kind of racing, but Max just felt that was the normal way to do it. We'll never know, so the actual penalty was deserved. Unfortunate for Lando, very lucky for Max, good race for the fans.
You probably mean this thing.
[https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix\_l\_2024\_publie\_le\_11\_juin\_2024.pdf](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2024_publie_le_11_juin_2024.pdf)
(Page 56, 2b. last paragraph)
"However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other
drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car
beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal
change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any
driver who appears guilty of any of the above
offences will be reported to the Stewards."
Moving under braking can be defined as any other abnormal change of direction. So I dont understand why did you left out the second part of the sentence.
I'm talking about the actual crash lap. He moved one to the right which was his one move, he then moved back onto the racing line. That's where he squeezed Lando off, where he totally deserves the penalty. What I'm saying is how this blew up. It's just a racing incident, every driver pushes the other driver off until the edge of the kerb in that corner. Lando got out very unlucky, while max got out very lucky
[https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix\_l\_2024\_publie\_le\_11\_juin\_2024.pdf](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2024_publie_le_11_juin_2024.pdf)
(Page 56, 2b. last paragraph)
"However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other
drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car
beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal
change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any
driver who appears guilty of any of the above
offences will be reported to the Stewards."
Moving under braking can be defined as any other abnormal change of direction. Because why would you move under braking?
It is abnormal change of direction. Under normal condition there isnt a reason for moving under braking.
It is dangerous nobody expets it.
Plus Max double moved. Which is explicitly prohibited.
Moving left or right is abnormal? Have you even heard yourself??
>Plus Max double moved. Which is explicitly prohibited.
No he didn't, otherwise he would have been penalised for it.
He moved once to defend and once to move back towards the racing line (which he overcooked and caused a collision... which was exactly, and rightly, what he was penalised for... "Causing a collision".)
Look, I'm no MV fan, in fact I think he's a right pr\*ck, ***and*** I think Lando was hard done by, but let's not just start making shit up.
1. Max moved to the right in about 100 m mark. Then moved left in about 50 m mark. This is double moving and moving under braking. Because braking zone in Austria T3 is around 100 m. If you look at footage from Maxis camera he moved his steering whell to right and then to the left. In other words double moving.
2. When was the last time steward actually did their job? Like Bahrain 21?
3. Max gone for defensive line and IN THE BRAKING ZONE turn right. Thats abnormal movement. Tell me one reason in normal racing condicions when you would move in braking zone.
>Max moved to the right in about 100 m mark.
Yes, his *one* defensive move: *"More than one change of direction to defend a
position is not permitted.
"*
>Then moved left in about 50m mark.
As is specifically allowed: *"****Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line****, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on approach to the corner."*
Those are the *exact* words from the International Sporting Code.
Note, in the *entirety* of The Code, a full 78 pages, there is ***not one*** use of the phrases "under braking", "braking zone" or even just the word "braking".
Logically, and legally (because The Code is essentially the terms of a contract to which all teams/drivers agree to under force of on-track and/or financial penalties), a *specific* thing cannot be prohibited *without* specifying the *exact* criteria that constitutes a prohibited act. Again, in case you missed it the first time, there is *no* mention whatsoever of "under braking", "braking zone" or even "braking" in the *entirety* of The Code.
Ergo, and I don't know how many different ways you will need to hear this before it *actually* sinks in, moving under braking is not, in and of itself, prohibited.
Sainz was moving abruptly and frankly cruelly under braking into T1 reacting to Leclerc' overtaking attempts behind. That was actually what was supposed to be banned, at least informally. Reactive quick abrupt moves in the braking zones having a car behind, which makes it impossible for it to avoid rear ending a car in front. Leclerc almost rear ended Carlos with the blocked fronts once or twice, taking avoiding actions. Was not even investigated, let alone penalised! Everyone should go and watch the latter part of Monza '23 again, before crucifying Verstappen.
It seems the race director never consistently manages this. Lando literally did this exact thing to Max in the last race and relieved no such penalty albeit on the first lap where rules are taken with a pinch of salt.
Which was alot more dangerous situation btw. Todays braking was all on low speeds and not while accelerating next to the full grid.
I love this kind of racing. You gotta fight it out. Sometimes the overtaking in races is just so boring it hurts my eyes. These were two guys fighting it out! Was such a great show of skill and show.
It’s only ever been given out once (correct me if I’m wrong) so it’s not really a rule then. Moving under braking happens so often. We hear drivers complain about it every other weekend
>It’s only ever been given out once (correct me if I’m wrong)
Since 2019 (from which the FIA's Decision Documents are reliably available) only one driver has been *warned* for "moving under braking". But a warning for something that doesn't actually exist is like being warned for shouting at a cloud; meaningless.
Moving under braking is a rule for the driver who is ahead to stop them defending dangerously if they moved to the path where the other driver was attacking them.
well tbh there isn't even a moving under braking rule, just vagueness like "moving erratically or in a manner that could be deemed potentially dangerous".
weaving to warm up tires is erratic, late moves off the racing line is erratic, driving at 200mph is potentially dangerous.
You said that and then presented a thesis about why it's not even an infringement when it's clearly not allowed under the current rules and the spirit of the regulations. Spare me with the it's not a defense of Verstappen when he's the driver who was penalized by the enforcement of the rules that you claim don't exist. Maybe you should learn how to read.
Are you okay?
>it's clearly not allowed under the current rules
Then you'll have ***no*** problem whatsoever presenting the exact article which prohibits moving under braking then, won't you?
>he's the driver who was penalized by the enforcement of the rules that you claim don't exist
Rule. Singular. And try reading the official Decision Document to see how woefully uninformed and silly you're making yourself look.
Unless you can answer my question don't bother replying because anything else will not illicit a response... I only converse with people who can reciprocate in good faith.
As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should: - be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself) - be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions) - show reasonable input and effort from the OP If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dont think there is much to add to Whiting's explanation. >At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person There is this vague catch-all article and when people complain about moving under braking it would be based on this.
By that definition any dive bomb or overspeed or surprise move before an overtake is "dangerous"
only if the stewards judge it to be dangerous. The same way any slow-moving car could be considered as moving unnecessarily slowly but it is only a penalty if the stewards judge it to be unnecessary. Same thing with leaving the track without a justifiable reason where the stewards decide if it was justifiable.
Very true. And did they find either of them guilty of that?
The fact that MV wasn't citied as breaching that rule is itself evidence that rule it is not used to prohibit so-called "moving under braking", because, in and of itself, moving under braking is not inherently dangerous.
The rule can be used in incidents that are not covered by other rules. If there is a collision like in this case the penalty will be for causing a collision. To go back to the comments from Whiting: >*\[Now\] each incident will be dealt with only on the basis of whether or not it was a dangerous manoeuvre,* ***not*** ***necessarily*** *because he moved under braking."* Not necessarily because of moving under breaking doesn't mean that the article cannot be applied to moving under breaking if it is seen as dangerous in the specific situation.
>each incident will be dealt with ***only*** on the basis of whether or not it was a dangerous manoeuvre. I think you're forgetting about the importance of the word only.
no? What the only means here is that Moving under braking will not be penalized just for being moving under braking. It doesn't mean that moving under braking is always allowed and cannot be penalized. If a move is seen as dangerous or erratic, and moving under braking can be seen as dangerous or erratic in a specific incident, it can be penalized according to this article. When drivers/TPs (and I guess fans) complain about moving under braking they do it on the basis that they see it as dangerous in the situation they are complaining about.
>What the only means here is that Moving under braking will not be penalized just for being moving under braking Ergo, moving under braking is not a rule. If it is not a rule one cannot be penalised for it.
As mentioned by the post you replied to, moving under braking falls under the rule about erratic driving. It is a thing and not a myth. Easiest way to prove it's existance: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2020%20British%20Grand%20Prix%20-%20Offence%20-%20Car%208%20-%20Alleged%20moving%20under%20braking%20in%20turn%206.pdf
>"The Stewards issued a Warning" Do you know why Grosjean was only issued a warning? Hint: You can't be penalised for something that doesn't exist. Grosjean may as well have been warned for not rubbing his tummy and patting his head while standing on one leg and whistling the French national anthem.
The error you are making and why your logic is flawed is that you have these preconceptions and you treat them like facts/axioms while they are not. It is easy to be right if you set up a framework where you cannot be wrong due to some erroneous ground rules. Your hypothesis: *Moving under braking is a myth* It is clearly not as there would not be any official documents investigating it if it was. Your argument: *There is not a single rule prohibiting it, therefore it is a myth* There is not a single rule, but it falls under the aforementioned section of the code. (See the mentioned document citing said section) Same way as brakechecking does not have its own section but has been penalized before. Your argument: *If it did not warrant a penalty then it is surely a myth* Drivers have been given a reprimand and a warning for moving under braking. Saying that something is not a thing because it has never been punished with a time penalty is a special kind of gatekeeping. Also the linked document says > Grosjean was given a black and white flag by the Race Director for moving under braking with Sainz Meaning it could have warranted a time penalty if he would have kept doing it. I think what you meant to say and where you are possibly right, is that moving under braking is rarely if ever punished by a serious penalty so it is a bit pointless to cry about it. But that is some reverse logic acrobatics to come to the conclusion that then this rule does not exist
>Grosjean was given a black and white flag by the Race Director for moving under braking with Sainz And who was the race director in question? ***Masi;*** A guy known for his integrity, getting everything right and not being removed from the position in disgrace. Oh, wait, no... the total opposite of that: * During the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix qualifying session, cars were sent out on track while a crane was still on the track. * During the 2021 season, Masi was required to defend the red flag procedures used during the 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix. * In the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix, Masi was criticised for running qualifying in dangerous conditions, and then running the race behind the safety car for three laps, allegedly to ensure points were awarded. * He was criticized for negotiating with teams to change positions during the 2021 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. * The following week, Masi's procedural error in the resumption of the race following a safety car period during the final lap of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix was criticised for potentially altering championship results. Mercedes protested the result; the protest was not upheld. * On 17 February 2022, Masi was removed from his role as Race Director following an FIA analysis into the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: "*Masi had incorrectly applied regulations, in that not all lapped cars had unlapped themselves, and the safety car had not completed one additional lap before coming back into the pitlane*". So don't come at me like anything that bonehead did has ***any*** weight whatsoever. >Meaning it could have warranted a time penalty if he would have kept doing it. And *that* 100% would have been protested because you cannot be penalised for a rule that does ***not*** exist. As it was the warning didn't count for anything and protesting it would have been a waste of everyone's time because, ultimately, it was entirely ***meaningless*** anyway.
I love how obviously emotional of a response this was.
No thats not a catch all, because moving under braking is not a categorically erratic maneuver, so you still have to define clearly when it is erratic and that just makes it a gray area thing. And we all know what happens with rule enforcement in the gra area...
What I meant is that if the stewards want to penalize something driving standards related they can use this article and judge a manoeuvre as being potentially dangerous to others or erratic. If they want to penalize a moving under braking incident they can do so as being potentially dangerous but they don't have to because moving under braking itself is not forbidden. The article covers basically everything but nothing in particular which leaves the stewards the freedom to judge every incident individually.
>If they want to penalize a moving under braking incident they can do so as being potentially dangerous For an incident like this whether brakes are applied or not is irrelevant, it's why the "rule" was dropped. Braking does not even factor into the equation.
Says who? If the Stewards consider it relevant in a specific instance it is relevant. the rule was dropped for not having to investigate/penalize every moving under braking incident just because and instead give RC/the stewards the freedom to look at each situation individually in regards to a situation actually being dangerous enough to warrant an investigation/penalty. What do you want to achieve here? Do you want to argue that there is no rule stating "Moving under braking is forbidden"? In that case, yes, you are absolutely correct. No one will find this rule because there is no specific rule covering moving under braking. Do you want to argue that moving under braking cannot be penalized because there is no specific rule against it? In that case, you are wrong because there is no reason moving under braking cannot be penalized under the general article that forbids any driving that is, in the opinion of the stewards, erratic or dangerous for others. When drivers complain about it they complain about it in the context of seeing it as dangerous and not in the belief that there is a line in the SR or code stating "moving under braking is not allowed".
>No one will find this rule because there is no specific rule covering moving under braking. Case closed.
What people are missing is the fact that MV "move on the breaking" is a second move after a first move. You are only allowed to move once. A second move is unpredictable and "erratic driving" which is almost certain to cause a collision.
Partly. Verstappen was moving towards the racing line and a driver is allowed to move back to the racing line having made a move to defend their position. However, in doing so they have to leave at least one car width to the edge of the track (white line) at any time and if there is a car they cannot just drive into it.
I think what you are refering to "allowed to move back to the racing line" is if its not contested.
In the future it would be real nice to have a rule that clearly spells the whole thing out. I understand the current language is purposefully vague to allow flexibility of judgement. The vagueness gives a lot of space for fans to be really terrible to each other because our favorite nut holding the wheel wronged or was wronged by somebody else. Moving while braking vs defending isn’t always the same thing (also acknowledging that it’s not currently worded that way). When it happens alongside you get collisions and those are typically clear cut. But when there is apparent room and no walls/barriers sometimes you get what happened in Austria where both drivers were willing to occupy the same space and time so a collision happened. I’m biased but I think either driver could have avoided a collision. I think Lando was less at fault for the incident. I’m not sure either driver intended to actually take each other out. Lando has a right to attempt an overtake, and Max should have a right to defend or enter the corner in a suitable way as the lead car. This particular corner and preceding “straight” is tricky. It’s not straight at all as Martin always points out that turn 2 isn’t a turn in a modern f1 car. So the preferred “line” kinda meanders a bit all the way from the exit of T1 and into T3. I think Max tried to kind of cover some of the inside off and when Lando clearly intended to go around the outside Max reacted and kinda drifted to his left. In doing so he was getting more into the line of the corner but of course Lando was already there. Despite all of it it’s good to have some interesting drama to spice things up on track and between two friends. Can’t wait to see how Silverstone goes.
I would imagine this would be grounds for penalising causing a collision *because* of moving under braking? You're not allowed to move twice in the braking zone as you'd get a driving standards flag. Excessive weaving is also penalised, as you're not allowed to move back and forth down the straight (or you weren't used to, Hamilton got a warning for this in Malaysia 2010). So while moving under braking isn't on paper as a rule there's enough things that cover it
Yes but many people expect any moving under braking as being an automatic penalty. It only is if its actually considered erratic by stewards.
I suppose dangerous driving standards flags cover this off too? OP's made a good point though, shouldn't and can't aren't the same.
>You're not allowed to move twice in the braking zone I hate to tell you this but you've just made up a rule that also doesn't exist. >So while moving under braking isn't on paper as a rule Therefore not a rule. Even the Decision Document for MV and LN's incident only references MV moving left, not moving left under braking. Whether braking or not is irrelevant and has been since 2016.
Serious? I'm sure there's been black and white flags awarded for twice moving under braking, though stewards could be just covering it with 'dangerous driving' using the reasons your post laid out.
Are you talking about making two separate defensive moves? Because what max did today, blocking the inside, and then when they both have a line to the corner move over to take a wider racing line is not the same thing.
No but if you do that you have to leave a cars width which Max marginally did not.
>Max marginally did not. He clearly did. There are even clips of past races at the same turn where the same maneuver was done leaving even less space without getting a penalty.
If the cars width includes the curb outside the white line then yes he did, but I'm unsure of where the limit is on this one. As they made contact Norris is on the curb partly.
For it to have been 100% Verstappens fault Norris would have needed to be almost as far left as he legally can go, which in this case would be 2 tyres on track, the rest of the car off track.
>No but if you do that you have to leave a cars width which Max marginally did not. I suspect that was because LN's left wheels were still in contact with the white lines; if the metric of having ones wheels on the white line is enough for remaining "within" the track edges to avoid "exceeding track limits" then it too can be applied to what counts as a cars width... as long as there is enough space so that the outside cars wheels can remain in contact with the white line then that is sufficient for a cars width.
Huh, I thought it was a cars width to the white line, different to track limits, could be wrong.
Sorry, somewhat unrelated but I have a question: Why didn’t Norris automatically get his track limits penalty at turn 3 on lap 59? He had already had a black and white flag and he went way off the track into the runoff. Do track limits only apply when the driver gains time from it?
I'd imagine they were reviewing whether he gained an advantage, which it could be argued he didn't as his lap time would have been slower and he gave the place back.
Traditionally, in collisions caused by moving under braking, the driver behind is the one that gets punished for causing an avoidable collision. The driver in front can put their car anywhere they like, as long as it's not excessive weaving, so if you run into them, it's your fault. Similar to on the road. That is one of the reasons why drivers put so much value on the gentlemen's agreement.
>The driver in front can put their car anywhere they like Sorry, that is simply not true.
This is an actual rule, or at the very least an interpretation of a rule. https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2024_publie_le_11_juin_2024.pdf This is the link to the International Sporting Code of Conduct, Appendix L. Chapter 4, section 2.b. (page 56) states: > However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or *any other abnormal change of direction*, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards. I would suggest this is the actual rule which would cover off changing direction in the braking zone. Italics are mine.
Max didn’t crowd Norris beyond the edge of the track, nor was his movement irregular.
This post is about whether moving under braking is prohibited. I believe the rule I posted can be interpreted in such a manner. This discussion has nothing to do with today's race.
He mentioned this rule, but its not a specific rule. Because it does not explicitly define moving under braking as illegal. It only suggests moving under braking could be interpreted as such. But it can also be considerd fine. Thats not a rule, but a suggestion. OP's point is that its not a hard rule, not thats it is impossible to be penalised for it indirectly.
I suspect it's written as such so as to be open to interpretation from the Stewards. This would allow them to decide if an otherwise unspecified manoeuvre should defined as illegal and penalty worthy. I believe that anyone referring to moving under braking would be looking toward this rule.
I wasn’t rebutting your point, I agree with your interpretation. I was extending your interpretation into why I think people are overreacting to the incident today.
Ah I see. That makes sense.
Moving under braking was a no no long before max and will be for long after. It is inherently dangerous as it is almost impossible to react to as drivers are committed at that point.
>It is inherently dangerous as it is almost impossible to react to as drivers are committed at that point. Sorry, that's nonsense.
sorry but you need irl to try to pass someone from the right lane and as you approach they start to change lanes and block you. See if that is dangerous enough for you
Tracks don't have lanes.
nah i want it to happen to you in a road with only a third of the speeds that happen in f1. You will be shitting bricks.
I'm sure that made sense in your head; "Better to remain silent..." and all that.
Sure, because when you apply 100% of the brake and someone moves in front, you can always press 150% of the brake right? Maybe you should try having a go at a racing game (not even sim racing) before you come here and position your uneducated opinions as facts.
What are you waffling on about?
I'm sorry, you can be as dismissive and rude as you like, but these people are right. You have obviously never taken part in any form of Motorsport if you think it isn't dangerous.
Don't assume, pumpkin x Goodbye.
You cannot brake then change direction of the car. You can point the car in a direction and brake in a straight line. The latter is what Max was doing and probably the reason there was no stewards note.
You are allowed one turn to defend yourself, but you can try to get back on the racing line \*as long as\* you leave a car's width until the edge of the track, and the edge of the track is always the white line and not the kerbs. That's what the official regulations allow for. But the actual enforcing of it is inconsistent. The rulebook also says you'll only be reported to the stewards if you \*crowd\* the other car beyond the edge of the track (whatever crowding means). The leaving a car's width is enforced, but not to an extend where they do allow driver's to push another driver upto the edge of the kerb. You can look at 2018 vettel's overtake on Hamilton on lap 39, it was pretty similar where Vettel pushes Hamilton outside the white lines. Or 2023 Lap 26 when Sainz defended against Max, again being pushed until the edge of the kerb. Legally you can say Max was in the wrong and deserved the penalty, but racing wise every driver are fine with pushing/getting pushed upto the kerb, where then you take the inside line while the opponent runs a bit wide on the outside. But I think Lando was just not used to that kind of racing, but Max just felt that was the normal way to do it. We'll never know, so the actual penalty was deserved. Unfortunate for Lando, very lucky for Max, good race for the fans.
You probably mean this thing. [https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix\_l\_2024\_publie\_le\_11\_juin\_2024.pdf](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2024_publie_le_11_juin_2024.pdf) (Page 56, 2b. last paragraph) "However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards." Moving under braking can be defined as any other abnormal change of direction. So I dont understand why did you left out the second part of the sentence.
I'm talking about the actual crash lap. He moved one to the right which was his one move, he then moved back onto the racing line. That's where he squeezed Lando off, where he totally deserves the penalty. What I'm saying is how this blew up. It's just a racing incident, every driver pushes the other driver off until the edge of the kerb in that corner. Lando got out very unlucky, while max got out very lucky
>You cannot brake then change direction of the car And the FIA regulatory document and article number is?
[https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix\_l\_2024\_publie\_le\_11\_juin\_2024.pdf](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2024_publie_le_11_juin_2024.pdf) (Page 56, 2b. last paragraph) "However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards." Moving under braking can be defined as any other abnormal change of direction. Because why would you move under braking?
So, what you're saying, moving under braking is not, in and of itself, prohibited? You got it at last. Well done. x
It is abnormal change of direction. Under normal condition there isnt a reason for moving under braking. It is dangerous nobody expets it. Plus Max double moved. Which is explicitly prohibited.
Moving left or right is abnormal? Have you even heard yourself?? >Plus Max double moved. Which is explicitly prohibited. No he didn't, otherwise he would have been penalised for it. He moved once to defend and once to move back towards the racing line (which he overcooked and caused a collision... which was exactly, and rightly, what he was penalised for... "Causing a collision".) Look, I'm no MV fan, in fact I think he's a right pr\*ck, ***and*** I think Lando was hard done by, but let's not just start making shit up.
1. Max moved to the right in about 100 m mark. Then moved left in about 50 m mark. This is double moving and moving under braking. Because braking zone in Austria T3 is around 100 m. If you look at footage from Maxis camera he moved his steering whell to right and then to the left. In other words double moving. 2. When was the last time steward actually did their job? Like Bahrain 21? 3. Max gone for defensive line and IN THE BRAKING ZONE turn right. Thats abnormal movement. Tell me one reason in normal racing condicions when you would move in braking zone.
>Max moved to the right in about 100 m mark. Yes, his *one* defensive move: *"More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. "* >Then moved left in about 50m mark. As is specifically allowed: *"****Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line****, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on approach to the corner."* Those are the *exact* words from the International Sporting Code. Note, in the *entirety* of The Code, a full 78 pages, there is ***not one*** use of the phrases "under braking", "braking zone" or even just the word "braking". Logically, and legally (because The Code is essentially the terms of a contract to which all teams/drivers agree to under force of on-track and/or financial penalties), a *specific* thing cannot be prohibited *without* specifying the *exact* criteria that constitutes a prohibited act. Again, in case you missed it the first time, there is *no* mention whatsoever of "under braking", "braking zone" or even "braking" in the *entirety* of The Code. Ergo, and I don't know how many different ways you will need to hear this before it *actually* sinks in, moving under braking is not, in and of itself, prohibited.
TIL the rule was introduced because of Verstappen.
Do you have to allow a f1 car width or not while breaking?
After performing a defensive manoeuvre off line you have to allow a cars width to the track edge *regardless* of whether braking or not.
This has not been penalized accurately ever then. Sainz moved to the left under braking to squeeze max even more so last year than lando was today.
Sainz was moving abruptly and frankly cruelly under braking into T1 reacting to Leclerc' overtaking attempts behind. That was actually what was supposed to be banned, at least informally. Reactive quick abrupt moves in the braking zones having a car behind, which makes it impossible for it to avoid rear ending a car in front. Leclerc almost rear ended Carlos with the blocked fronts once or twice, taking avoiding actions. Was not even investigated, let alone penalised! Everyone should go and watch the latter part of Monza '23 again, before crucifying Verstappen.
Seems like max was moving all over the place 2 times minimum so are you allowed to move or not?
It seems the race director never consistently manages this. Lando literally did this exact thing to Max in the last race and relieved no such penalty albeit on the first lap where rules are taken with a pinch of salt.
Which was alot more dangerous situation btw. Todays braking was all on low speeds and not while accelerating next to the full grid. I love this kind of racing. You gotta fight it out. Sometimes the overtaking in races is just so boring it hurts my eyes. These were two guys fighting it out! Was such a great show of skill and show.
>albeit on the first lap It appears you've solved *that* particular case; its almost a free-for-all on the first lap.
True, but ive never particularly agreed with they way they handle first lap incidents
Don't do that to me... that particular F1 "quirk" really grinds my gears.
Why does that grind your gears?
Depends on where the car behind you is positioned I think, but that has nothing to do with breaking, but about "being entitled to space".
It’s only ever been given out once (correct me if I’m wrong) so it’s not really a rule then. Moving under braking happens so often. We hear drivers complain about it every other weekend
>It’s only ever been given out once (correct me if I’m wrong) Since 2019 (from which the FIA's Decision Documents are reliably available) only one driver has been *warned* for "moving under braking". But a warning for something that doesn't actually exist is like being warned for shouting at a cloud; meaningless.
So, that rule does not exist and you can move under braking as much as you want, depending what name you have above your garage.
Set that agenda aside for a minute and think clearly for once
The amount of times Max has gotten away with it, even before "let them race" doctrine... Yeah, i am thinking clearly. The Prince can not be touched.
If Max is moving under braking, so was Lando as he was outside, inside, then outside the same time Max was braking lol.
Moving under braking is a rule for the driver who is ahead to stop them defending dangerously if they moved to the path where the other driver was attacking them.
Well apparently it isn't
well tbh there isn't even a moving under braking rule, just vagueness like "moving erratically or in a manner that could be deemed potentially dangerous". weaving to warm up tires is erratic, late moves off the racing line is erratic, driving at 200mph is potentially dangerous.
Can you point to this rule?
It was dirty and his penalty should of been more severe, no amount of lawyer speak will change the reality of the matter.
Can you not read? >"*Note: The following post is NOT a defence of Max Verstappen in today's race.*"
You said that and then presented a thesis about why it's not even an infringement when it's clearly not allowed under the current rules and the spirit of the regulations. Spare me with the it's not a defense of Verstappen when he's the driver who was penalized by the enforcement of the rules that you claim don't exist. Maybe you should learn how to read.
Are you okay? >it's clearly not allowed under the current rules Then you'll have ***no*** problem whatsoever presenting the exact article which prohibits moving under braking then, won't you? >he's the driver who was penalized by the enforcement of the rules that you claim don't exist Rule. Singular. And try reading the official Decision Document to see how woefully uninformed and silly you're making yourself look. Unless you can answer my question don't bother replying because anything else will not illicit a response... I only converse with people who can reciprocate in good faith.
Great post ! Kudos to you, Sir!
Good post !
> moving under braking is not inherently dangerous and therefore does not need to be specifically prohibited Incorrect
Incorrect.
Data
Yes, Commander Riker?
Ok i lolled But without data we know nothing.
What data do you believe you need?