this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
194 points (97.1% liked)
Formula 1
8926 readers
166 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but donโt want to become formuladank.
Up next
2024 Calendar
Location | Date |
---|---|
๐ณ๐ฑ Netherlands | 23-25 Aug |
๐ฎ๐น Italy | 30 Aug-01 Sep |
๐ฆ๐ฟ Azerbaijan | 13-15 Sep |
๐ธ๐ฌ Singapore | 20-22 Sep |
๐บ๐ธ United States | 18-20 Oct |
๐ฒ๐ฝ Mexico | 25-27 Oct |
๐ง๐ท Brazil | 01-03 Nov |
๐บ๐ธ United States | 21-23 Nov |
๐ถ๐ฆ Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
๐ฆ๐ช Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is a random spot check but when you have a 50% failrate shouldn't it be investigated further? Imagine going skydiving. There's a parachute spot check that shows 50% of the parachutes don't work and everyone else is given the green light. Would you jump? Somehow I doubt it. The plank check is a similar safety check, except it's done after the race because you can't beforehand verify if the car isn't too low. It's a dangerous sport and safety should be taken seriously.
Also the current approach punishes the driver. It's not the driver's (at least I don't think it is) responsibility to make sure their team gives them a regulation-compliant car. It's the constructors responsibility and the punishment should focus on the constructor, which means at the very least both cars should be checked if one of them fails.