Liberty as promoter would have a ton of insurance, I am sure by the end of the week, claims will be filed, settled, it was an accident, and this is why we have insurance...
If the penalty was a result of something a team principle voted against the lifting of the engine penalty, to say another tea principle should do the same, is tragic, what is clear is that the rules prevented granting the 1 time dispensation, this was negotiated at the last concord agreement, to which all teams signed in agreement..
Was this an oversight? Suggest yes, as drains and cars have been an ongoing issue in every decade and every concord agreement since 1950 has not addressed this issue, that means 1 of 2 things, 1-it is such a rare occurrence, that creating a rule would be cumbersome and pointless, 2- they are aware of it, and it is covered under track insurance, and no discussion is required, just file the paperwork, let the legals and the moneymen deal with the accounting...
What happened was a mistake, handled somewhat unprofessionally, all that needed to have been said, was claims would be covered and cars that require part changes will incur grid penalties, this was a result of the agreeement in the latest valid concord agreement...
The race went off pretty much without much issue, apart from the Lando Norris crash, which it is claimed by team, to be a result of a "bump+cold tyres".. Maybe run the race earlier as suggested by 1 team principle, or run a series of lower formula to rubber up the track..
This was the 1st of 10 planned events, much will be discussed in the next year in the lead up to the event.. One has to look at the calendar for the F2/F3 event, maybe move one or more events so that they have events at Qatar, and Las Vegas, to act as sweepers, as they do for Monaco...
If the penalty was a result of something a team principle voted against the lifting of the engine penalty, to say another tea principle should do the same, is tragic, what is clear is that the rules prevented granting the 1 time dispensation, this was negotiated at the last concord agreement, to which all teams signed in agreement..
Was this an oversight? Suggest yes, as drains and cars have been an ongoing issue in every decade and every concord agreement since 1950 has not addressed this issue, that means 1 of 2 things, 1-it is such a rare occurrence, that creating a rule would be cumbersome and pointless, 2- they are aware of it, and it is covered under track insurance, and no discussion is required, just file the paperwork, let the legals and the moneymen deal with the accounting...
What happened was a mistake, handled somewhat unprofessionally, all that needed to have been said, was claims would be covered and cars that require part changes will incur grid penalties, this was a result of the agreeement in the latest valid concord agreement...
The race went off pretty much without much issue, apart from the Lando Norris crash, which it is claimed by team, to be a result of a "bump+cold tyres".. Maybe run the race earlier as suggested by 1 team principle, or run a series of lower formula to rubber up the track..
This was the 1st of 10 planned events, much will be discussed in the next year in the lead up to the event.. One has to look at the calendar for the F2/F3 event, maybe move one or more events so that they have events at Qatar, and Las Vegas, to act as sweepers, as they do for Monaco...
