So does the FIA wants to clam down on this rule for the sake of rules compliance or safety? I for sure remembers in the last Miami GP they refused to put down tech pro barriers that the drivers requested. The absence of tech pro barrier resulted into a 51G crash by Ocon.
With the new FIA president and race director I’m sure they want to make a stand and show that they’re taking rules more seriously. That’s exactly what this is. They’re more focused on what type of underwear someone wears than actual safety.
FIA & F1 : "We care about your safety, so no more dangerous jewelry or flashy non standard underwear." ALSO FIA & F1 : "Lack of TecPro Barriers & racing LITERALLY in the same city where bombing was happening." 👏
That's absolutely true the FIA has dropped the ball but why not just follow all the rules for safety? I don't get the fuss at all. There's a regulatory body and they should be respected. Period.
On the one hand. Rules are rules and should be followed. If you want then applied more consistently then this is the result. On the other hand, they can’t be getting on at jewellery and then not putting the proper safety measures into effect at a track like with the Barrie’s at Miami
Yes…this is the entirely the biggest point. If it was really about safety, there are other things that they should actually be addressing or looking to actually enforce. I feel like its similar to the shirt ban as well. Its like these orgs are trying so hard to get good PR by looking like they’re championing progressive causes but in the end they’ll kowtow to whoever is giving them money regardless and chastise drivers who would call attention to said causes. Its incredibly fucked.
They completely ignored people ignoring the yellow flags on the last lap of Saudi Arabia because basically everyone did it, but then dragged all this out in the name of safety...
That's sort of like saying "they won't put in safer barriers so the drivers shouldn't have to wear harnesses". Necklaces and earrings are absolutely dangerous. I can't even take my motorcycle helmet off without losing a contact lens, so I can only imagine in an emergency were you get your earrings ripped out when they take the helmet off. They should do all the things.
I think there are much bigger safety concerns to be addressed before enforcing a rule like this, if a driver's underwear is on fire or a piercing is an issue for an MRI, then some of these things might have gone wrong before: - VSC, Safety Car & Red flag procedures, timings and requirements - inconsistent procedures about race restarts - Standard use of tecpro barriers - Existence of blind corners - Used of heavy machinery while cars on track - Unsuitable track surface materials - Increased weight of the car producing higher energy crashes - Failsafe measures regarding electrical components in the event of a crash. - Inconsistent use of DRS on drying tracks
And they could and maybe deal with those other safety issues as well, but those things are not related. Either you think this rule should be enforced or you don't think it should be enforced. What you are doing now is called "whataboutism" and that is never an argument. Or as John Oliver put it: "it implies that all actions, regardless of context, share a moral equivalency. And since nobody is perfect all criticism is hypocritical and everybody should do whatever they want."
@@the1gladiator2 I think he is right. Personal items become a problem only in serious accidents. FIA should focus it's resources on avoiding this serious accidents not making them easyer to deal with.
@@TheAhille You can name many different things that you might find more important. But that isn't the question. The FIA can enforce this rule AND also look into how accidents can be prevented. What you are doing is classic "whataboutism". And even worse you're using this generic thing "focus on avoiding incidents" which you can apply to pretty much anything. Wearing helmets? No, focus on avoiding incidents! Safety belts? No, focus on avoiding incidents! Trained medical staff? No, focus on avoiding incidents! This way you never have to deal with the actual issue at hand. If we agree that drivers are less likely to suffer serious injuries in a crash when they are not wearing jewelry then should we allow drivers to wear jewelry while racing? That's a very complex question, but it has nothing to do with any other unrelated issues.
@@the1gladiator2 I don't disagree that the FIA is within its right to enforce this rule but it's not "whataboutism", it simply addressing the issue of driver safety from most to least likely to result in serious injury. It's a simple pragmatic approach. No rulebook will ever be completely enforceable or all encompassing, meaning that there will always be exceptional situations that rely on judgment calls. So the logical path moving forward is to strive for better standards and procedures, based on which officials will make better judgement calls. We shouldn't be asking the FIA to become more strict, but to become wiser.
I understand both sides. I’ve actually dealt with similar issues when I was in the military. Certain regulations don’t get enforced then either a safety issue happens or a new commander comes in and starts enforcing a rule you never followed. The fact is, rules can be enforced at any time. And rules are rules, these drivers all signed a contract. Funny enough, one of rules that got enforced at my unit was fire resistant underwear. It felt ridiculous then but in the end we had to start wearing it. Sooo
Yeah but a nose ring? That shouldnt matter.. following rules just because they exist is why our justice and prison systems r corrupted and a joke. Military is WORST you should NOT follow rules/laws if they are wrong. Thats the truth. Society brainwashes u to think "well someone made the rule/law it must be right" NO WE CANT KEEP ADDING RULES/LAWS 4ever we MUST revaluate these things constantly as society changes
Consistency is the word here. How can a nose piecing be deemed unsafe but a wedding ring is good to go? And expect the perception that the rules are not targeting LH?
Why do you think rules can be enforced at any time and need to be followed? So if new commander comes and enforces you to eat bird poop because it helps with your eyesight you would do it just because he said that those are the rules and rules need to be followed? C’mon man, you can’t be that brainwashed. Rules need to be followed😂
Kevin Magnussen said it best for me when he explained why certain stuff should be allowed. "I understand what they are saying, but it is a wedding ring around your finger. I'll take a little bit of extra burn on my finger to race in my wedding ring. And if something was going to happen, something bad, I would want to wear my wedding ring. It kind of feels bad to take it off. With something like that, like your wedding ring. Let us take that responsibility. There must be some way to remove liability."
After the Grojean crash, I can imagine every aspect of safety was considered. You also can't have these rules exist in lower levels of racing and not be enforced at this level of sport.
None of these rules are new for motorsport. Even at club level fire retardant underwear is mandated in some cases. Not hard to understand why or comply, same for jewelery.
Exactly and at club level they are enforced, I had a friend that was shocked he had to take out all piercings when he went to his fist few bike track days. But he was clean enough and sensible to have all his piercings removable as when the skin sets them in place they can cause infections more easily
If you think flame retardant underwear is something necessary in f1 that you just lack common sense. I mean did grosjean get his dick burned? Why would the fire be inside the monocoque anyway.
1. The rules have been in place for more than 15 years (the fact they've not been enforced doesn't make them non-existent). 2. They signed contracts with said rules. 3. The rules are now being properly enforced (as they should have always been). 4. They either comply with the rules or they're in breach of their contract, in which case they'll be fined. Pretty simple stuff, really.
“If Massa had worn earrings or any other facial jewelry, the emergency responders would have struggled to get his helmet and balaclava off at the time of the accident. This could have delayed their efforts to stabilize him just enough to cause lasting brain damage or even death. At the very least, their actions could have injured him even more.” People like debating stuff. And then a driver dies, marshall get sued, jewellery banned and with that recent accident drivers suddenly follow all rules without question, thanking the people responsible for safety.
@@valkenburgert that's exactly my concern Lots of years without fatal accident would made some minor rules becoming lax. Until it happened again like in 80's to imola 1994
@@valkenburgert Everytime I went to a hospital with injuries under my clothes they would just cut them open with scissors. I don't see why that would be different for a balaclava to be honest. Also they wouldn't care about him getting hurt. Life is the first priority and you can injure your patients if it means saving their lives. So they can also rip those earings straight out together with the balaclava. It might be advisable to not wear piercings to avoid injury, but as long as it's not life threatening I don't see any reason for the FIA to step in.
The only jewelry issue I can see from a medicine side as a EMS medic is the nose ring/piercing , if Hamilton where to have a serious accident and need an emergency MRI , they would first have to remove which can sometimes take upwards of 30min , necklaces , wedding rings and watches are far easier to remove the piercings or earrings for doctors
I read elsewhere on the 'net that he wears platinum jewellery for that exact reason. Take that with a pinch of salt, obviously, as I can't readily find a source. Like most sports people, I imagine, he's in and out of MRIs all the time, I guess to make sure those aches and pains aren't actually injuries.
Platinum, titanium, some grades of stainless steel would all be options yeah? I can imagine a balaclava snag causing some mischief but I'm guessing in an emergency surgery situation the scissors are coming out anyway?
Things like this happen whenever there are clearly written rules that aren't enforced, and then there is suddenly a crackdown. Imo it's unfair to both parties involved (the FIA and the drivers)
To be fair they have been given ample time to comply with the rules. If Lulu wants to work with the FIA so he can continue wearing jewelery he may be able to suggest negating the safety concerns by having a silicone cover made, if it would be possibly to affix it to the stud of course. This would prevent snagging on clothing and provide some protection against heat. Of course thinking of and suggesting that would require him to act like an adult rather than a petulant child.
@@trance9158 So do we wait for a driver to have serious injuries or for there to be a death which could have been prevented if jewelry had not been worn to implement the rule? If clothing snags and cannot be removed as quick this delays the administering of first aid. If jewelry increses the conduction of heat to the flesh, this can increase the severity of burns.
Typical inconsistency from the FIA, but the rule on jewellery is 100% correct. The quote from Wittich at 1m20s is bang on. Ask a medical professional. The real question is why it hasn't been applied before now....
Of course, they cant go on MRI, because magnet will interact with metal parts. CT scan is a bit dangerous because of radiation (20mSv), it is not recommended to go on CT scan more than once a year. After 50G crashes they must be checked.
Yes, but it's still a decision by who wears it. Unless the jewelry endangers others, it's the driver's right to decide if he wants to put his life at risk or not. That is issue here.
The rules are so many. There are things that might be missed or RD just simply dismisses it because there are no fatal accident where jewellery contributes to the injury
I am a medical professional. WE EASILY REMOVE METAL ITEMS IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM. Ergo, if the driver signs a waiver for possible burns/contusions due to their wearing of metallic objects; end of story. end of discussion. Don't they understand cardiac arrest patients, with multiple items of metal, arrive in ER's all the time?
That’s completely different and anyone that thought halos was a bad idea is not smart. Underwear and jewelry bans are completely different than a safety component that keeps drivers from being killed by other cars or debris.
@@patrickwhite4449 you should share your engineering and medical analysis (and credentials) with the FIA Technical and Medical delegates to show them why they are wrong. I’m sure they’d appreciate a. robustly-supported refutation of their calculations and experiences.
Front right of the alfa flies off towards the stand in austria = 5000 fine for safety. I think it happened to someone else in the pit lane in a different race = 5000 Touch opponents car in parc ferme = 50000 Wear your comfiest slacks under you race suit = 265000 WTF! 😂
Pieces falling off the cars and flying towards fans is not something they have control over. Touching someone else's car in park ferme is something that one has complete control over Piercings and underwear are also completely controlled. He is choosing to disobey the rules, so he can pay the fines for each and every single time he decides he is above the FIA law.
@@aurorasstorm5877 Touching someone else's car can lead to potential DSQ for the touched car. The fine has to be high to stop drivers meddling with car parts.
As a Paramedic who has attended more than my fair share of trauma calls and can honestly say that I have never, ever, had any medical assessment hindered by the sort of jewellery they're talking about. The only jewellery related injury I've been to was when someone caught an earing and had it torn out of their ear - not even possible whilst wearing a helmet. The same cannot be said for rings. They can cause significant issues in hand injuries due to swelling and I've had to get more than one wedding band cut off a patient.
With respect, I think the body piercing rule is to avoid drivers being burnt by the metal objects against their skin, underneath the flameproof clothing. I was a navy firefighter, we weren't allowed to have body piercings for that very reason. Doesn't mean that nobody did have them of course, but they didn't advertise the fact
with the jewelry one, it's absolutely absurd to me that they couldn't have thought to include "while in the car". jewelry is not dangerous in the paddock, only in the event of a crash
@@BruceDoesStuff what does jewelry have to do with catching on fire? are you saying Jewelry is more dangerous than fire? jewelry is flammable? the pit crew is driving the car? the flame retardant suits are jewelry? if you're going to twist my words at least make it make sense. zero gravity moon jumping to conclusions over here
I believe jewelry is not an issue in the car, but in the case a driver is injured and they need to perform a MRI or brain scan and there is chunks of metal jewerly on someones face/head
A man wearing jewerly goes against the new FIA presidents religious beliefs. So it being shown out of the car is far more problematic for him than when covered by a helmet.
Either make all jewellery illegal or leave things as they are. Wedding rings shouldn't get special treatment. As long as they do, I side with Lewis and Vettel on the matter.
Wedding rings should be allowed... and chain of a Religious belief should aloud. After that no . Hamiltons stuff that definitely could be a risk I understand. And I agree rules should br rules.
So let’s say they need to take scan to understand a head wound Lewis has… and every second counts… they will have to try and remove his ear rings nose rings maybe blood involved burns whatever just to get started to save his life.. you know images are made by catching rays like your eyes. If there’s dense metallic object that don’t allow rays to pass through, which is the purpose of internal scan. It will reflect the rays and cause shiny brights spots on the imaging and not allow for visual clarity in that area… anyway you put it if time is of the essence because your life depends on it… I don’t think you want someone fidgeting with your nose ring and ear ring to save your life just cause you wanted to look special It doesn’t matter how good or bad your life is… if you’re in an accident and you survive you’ll be glad just to be breathing. The rest money f1 cars diamonds jewelry won’t matter… Prove me wrong.. don’t just wear an underpants over your suit and pretend like behaving like a child is saying something…
This is the problem with people you never really think… you just start shouting and yelling anything that comes to mind which isn’t much… yet never actually contemplated a reality where it could be a problem…
Could you maybe make a video explaining what role the FIA actually does to make racing possible in Formula 1 and maybe explore the possibility of Formula 1 going against the FIA and doing their own thing
FIA run all global Motorsport events same as the FIM. For an organization to be run with the same respect / credibility, it must adhere to an FIA guidelines. Series like WEC. Splitting F1 with FIA will mean F1 as a independent will have to sort of many things from their own safety requirements, their own investigations and also decide what standard the tracks F1 races are ( non FIA grade 1 tracks are not qualified to host a F1 weekend with a certain track exemption as those tracks are grandfathered in)
Just let them sign safety exemptions if they want to fight this hard over it. I won't be crying over it if someone's jewellery gets removed in an MRI machine or becomes a eunuch lmao
Because its not fair to those who do have to remove the jewellery to those who don't Why should a nose ring not be allowed but a wedding ring should?! They must be targeting me!
I understand the rules but they need to be consistent... It is black or white. No gray zones. If jewelry is not allowed, then wedding rings should be also included in this rule.
It's ridiculous that these are the rules the FIA are deciding to concentrate on enforcing after the rules were threw out in the Abu Dhabi GP when they screwed Hamilton out of his 8th title
Merc + Hamilton after Abu Dhabi 2021: The FIA needs to enforce all rules in a consistent manner!!!! FIA: Does exactly that Merc + Hamilton: No, not like that!!!
This is just Lewis trying to keep himself in the press and British press shamelessly lapping it up. Ignore the fact that Russell is beating him week in and week out. Lewis is 6th in the standings, out of the championship hunt, and he’s still getting breathlessly reported on as if he’s actually doing something noteworthy on track.
👀👀👀🤔🤔🤔.ARE YOU FOR FUCKING REAL? 7 TIMES WDC,ROBBED FROM GETTING THE 8th AND 4/5 RACES INTO THE NEW SEASON YOU FEEL QUITE HAPPY TO BE TALKING A LOAD OF “SHIT”.PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY.WHEN ANY DRIVER COMES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BE ABLE TO WIN 7 WDC,I MIGHT PAY SOME ATTENTION TO THEM, BUT IN THE MEANWHILE!!! PLEASE SHUT THE “EFF” UP. Thanks.
Martin Brundle said it perfectly " if your underwear is on fire I think you have much bigger problems" what a health and safety crazy world we live in lol
Problem is elastics in underwear generally use plastics, which can melt at a much lower temperature than your skin seriously burns at. So, while the suit protects you and nothing catches fire, you might still need skin grafts on your junk because your chones melted to your ballsack.
Safety 😂 like continuing a race weekend when you can taste the fire from the refinery that was hit by a rocket 😂😂😂All drivers should refuse to race if the FIA want to take a stance on bullshit but don't think the possibility of fans/teams/drivers being hit with missiles warrants the same concern
I feel like the FIA should put more effort into making the fireproof underwear comfortable. IDK why else drivers wouldn't want to wear it, and that seems like a fairly simple thing to do. As for jewelry, I'm not an expert in safety, but I do think it's important to note that different cultural groups have different beliefs on jewelry and the current regulations have little impact on what is considered normal for straight white men from western countries to wear, only impacting crosses worn by some Christians. Obviously, there are also safety concerns, but I do wonder why wedding rings are exempt but other items aren't. IMO, instead of a blanket ban, the FIA should evaluate the safety of different pieces of jewelry independently. Other sports ban jewelry because of the potential for it to be snagged, but F1 has different safety concerns.
You want to take a simple safety rule that has been in place all along (before Hamilton ever entered F1), and complicate it further by having it tailored individually to consider each individual driver. Good luck.
The jewelry one I believe has a case because we can look back at grosjean having his hands burned in 2020 and since he was wearing a watch and his ring we can imply is had some effect on the safety of the fire suit as his hands ended up burning as if his gloves area was compromised. I have not found much about his jewelry affecting the crash but I did read somewhere that they had to cut off the ring from it burning his finger. As for the nose stud and earrings I believe the fia is trying to set a zero tolerance policy that, unlike the cars, doesn’t have a loophole to be exploited and can set a standard through the league
@@ClashwithCurtis there is 100% chance they let him in that car with his watch on. There was never a question about whether he had a watch on, there are plenty of videos and photos showing it, and interviews where Grosjean outright states he always wore his ring and watch. Now he wears it while racing Indy.
We can't *infer* that his watch and ring had some effect on the safety of the fire suit. If it did, that would have been pointed out in the investigation of the crash, and they would have started enforcing that rule immediately. And the FIA is not setting a zero tolerance policy when they immediately turn around and said they would allow wedding rings.
This type of rule (on safety grounds) has been around for many years now, and not just in F1, having seen this thru years of my brother racing open wheelers here in OZ.. so the real issue is why wasn't it enforced before this? Beyond that, it appears politics has once again raised its head in what Murray Walker called "the piranha club" that is F1, so nothing new there, but..with teams stripping paint off these new, HEAVIER cars to get them down to the actual weight limit, id have thought that they'd be the first to demand that all excess bling is a no go.. odd.
Drivers are subject to a minimum weight of 80kg, most drivers weigh below 70kg so that 10kg comes from ballast. Lewis for example with his racing gear weights 73kg so he’s got space for either 7kg of ballast or jewellery 🤣.
It was being enforced all this time, just some douches were trying to skirt around the rules and were given leniency but are now kicking up a fuss that it's being clamped down on.
@@SuperNyz yup otherwise every team would be hiring a Yuki sized racer for weight benefits and athletes would be starving themselves for the sake of gaining a few tenths which would inevitably end up being a safety risk
This is SO ridiculous. Why should Vettel and Ham have different treatment? These are the rules, period. They want to advocate? They should become lawyer or political activists. No wonder why Russel's beating him; he's focused on racing, instead of making statements about garments, etc.
I can understand the argument for cracking down on underwear - so much work has gone in to fireproofing the race suits. I don't think it's too much to ask the drivers to wear certain fabrics for their underwear, if that helps fireproofing efforts without needing tons of extra work improving the race suits. But the jewellery one seems a little excessive to me - the theoretical injuries that could be sustained from ear and nose rings are very minor. Burns on near-extraneous parts of the body (nose and ear lobes). Especially if there's an exception for rings... In the wrong circumstances, your finger could be degloved if you're wearing a ring. That's going to be excruciating and potentially career-ending. The jewellery rules don't seem consistent for these reasons.
Imagine, Hamilton pecker and nose get mutilated because they had to remove piercings with force in the hospital because of his Ego. Good luck with that Mr Ham.
@@pondracek The worst part about this entire discussion is that people like you are weighing in when they don't actually know what they're talking about. I have nose and ear piercings and have had both MRIs and CT scans on my head and neck without issue.
I agree with removing loose jewelry such as earrings, rings, chains etc for driving as they could snag and cause further injury, or cause further burns from fire. But a flat nose ring that Lewis has? That poses no safety risk
@@fabiandialer1715 lol how is a nose ring on a patient a safety risk? These guys race F1 cars for a living.. and they're trying to micro manage arbitrary risk factors? 😂
It would be when he is in the hospital. Some procedures such as CT scan, MRI require you to remove metal objects. You don’t want to wear a nose ring near a giant magnet. And taking that off will also mean wasting time in a emergency situation.
I don't generally like Hamilton's tantrums but I find him to be right in this case. The FIA is Chaired by a man who comes from a notoriously religious nation where even construction staff of a particular faith are exempted from wearing safety gear as seen when the Saudi F1 track was being built. Where was FIA safety policy when the track near a bombing site less than a couple of months ago ?!
@@tariqhabaybeh4937 You'll have to excuse these type of people. They love to preach 'tolerence' and 'acceptance' yet they actually have zero tolerence for anything that is different from their world view.
@@tariqhabaybeh4937 Well…a quick google: *How religious are people in UAE?* Islam is both the official and majority religion in the United Arab Emirates followed by approximately 76% of the population.
Followed by Christianity (14%), Hinduism (9%), and Buddhism (2%). Which totals 100% of people. You can't get any more religious than that for a country!
I think they should change the rule to make it easier to clampdown on. Something like "Jewellery must be approved for safety compliance". That would still give the FIA authority over what is and isn't allowed, while giving them flexibility over the situation. They have already got this as the rule in practice, since they make exemptions for certain items, so why not just make it the rule. The longer this goes on, the more embarrassing it will be for F1 when they lose on this one, and they will lose.
I can get behind both rule changes, the underwear part first, wearing synthetic underwear can melt around your body making more burn wounds, that being said underwear made out of natural products, such as cotton or wool tends to just burn away and when extinguished not cause any more harm. Now on to the jewellery, it can also melt in case of a crash making it deformed and perhaps causing more burn wounds than necessary. But it also makes rescue harder, it can get stuck behind objects and tear out meaning you again get unnecessary problems, it can also get stuck to the overalls making immediate operations harder to perform. Yet I think drivers who made the choice to wear these specific items, should also than just live with the consequences. So attending drivers on the danger okay, prohibiting is in my book a step too far
There is no increased risk to others or competitive advantage to be gained by the drivers who accept to wear these items and the risks associated with them. Wearing wedding rings or religious items is allowed because of their meaning. Maybe Lewis is opposed to the ban for the sake of showing race drivers don't always look the same. So I agree with you comment 100%
It's a Monkey Paw's moment for Lewis. If they wanted the FIA to be more strict about enforcing their rules and going by the book -- that means they also gotta be strict for even things that almost seem trivial to the drivers themselves.
When I had to go into factories, I was made to remove all rings, watches and even ties. It was a safety thing. If I did not do so then I did not get in to do my work. Either enforce all rules or remove them from the regulations.
but imagine you had been going to work for 16 years wearing jewellery and no one had ever stopped you, then one day they tell you that you cant wear jewellery any more because they were going to start enforcing existing rules. You would be pretty pissed and if you were in a position to protest, you would. Im only on Lewis's side because of that. They should never have allowed him to wear the jewellery in the first place but they have for 16 years and so they cant really start now.
@@bipolarminddroppings Mercedes and Hamilton were the loudest to demand that rules must be followed. Now they got what they asked for and it's suddenly bad...
@@Karincl7 Well, he should have read the rules before making polar opposite demands regarding following the rules within only a few months. It's not like "the grid" made a suggestion for rule overhauls during the winter break either. He's just speaking up because suddenly a rule negatively impacts him and it is a good way to distract from his bad performance compared to Russell.
I think what teams/drivers feel the issue is is that they want consistent rule enforcement, but the rules that are being stressed (underwear, jewellery) feel like they should be way down the list VS what the teams were likely talking about when they asked for this clamp down. 2021 ended in a super messy way, regardless of who you supported and they need to avoid that when they are trying to appeal to a larger audience and generate growth.
Just enforce the rules no excuses. Rules are there to be implemented. Teams, managers, and drivers, professional as they are, all agreed to follow the rules even before they enter and join the sports. I don't understand why is this even an issue.
The problem is these rules were not enforced for many years and the backlash to due to them trying to enforce them when they weren't originally. It's the lack of consistency that is the problem and the FIA have no one to blame but themselves so they should pipe down or enjoy being public enemy number 1 like Max Mosley was.
@@kizzagt That is not a problem. FIA have a new administration who is obviously trying to correct the errors and the bad practices of the previous ones. The drivers and teams themselves had asked for a stricter rule enforcement last season. They got what they wished for. So I don't understand why some personalities are making a huge drama out of it.
@@gelmir7322 I doubt that considering they've continued on from where previous administrations have left off in many examples. The FIA needs an almighty flushing of the organisation to the point it's not recognised from what it was previously. It's obvious to me they have major problems with communication clarity and must accept brutal scrutiny from everyone in question.
7:00 this perfectly sums up how I feel about this discussion. They 'cracked down' on all existing rules, not just specifically this rule, let alone specifically aimed at one person. Hell, they even changed rules and made them stricter, like the new safety car restart rule. It's a logical result from Grojean's accident and the drama last year over the way Massey applied the standing rules.
People seem to want to pick and choose which of these explanations is valid - it's not just risk of burns, or imaging, or snagging, or ingesting. It's all of them. If any metal under fireproof clothing increases risk of burns injury, burn injury is more critical if it is around the neck or on the head (and much less critical for a ring on the finger). It's not being petty, or trying to attack 'individuality'. They don't rule on what the drivers wear outside of competing. No wonder this is resurfaced under a new race director, with cars designed to prevent another Grosjean style fireball. Masi was pretty lenient and people didn't like his way of doing things. OK, so stop whining now.
@CleanPipes Because metal conducts heat? So if there is fire on the suit, it doesn't stop that heat being transmitted and doing extra damage. Grosjean still had burns on his hands despite the gloves.
@CleanPipes ye the suits arent 100% fireproof, realistically it only gives a few extra minutes to get out the car. he had burns on his wrists because of the gap between glove and sleeve. he also had burns on his hands when he had to hold onto the halo to pull himself out the car
@CleanPipes Nomex is still going to get hot if it's in a fire isn't it? It just won't melt as quickly as other materials, or catch fire. So if the nomex is next to your skin, and the nomex gets hot, you are still going to get burns. It's not magic. If the jewellery is up against the nomex, it will conduct that heat faster, and make the burn worse. Burns lead to swelling, which you especially don't want around your airway or chest. So while burns on your extremities are fucking annoying, it's not as serious as your head or torso. The big problem with burns is loss of fluid. For serious burns it can become impossible to get fluids into someone quick enough to compensate for the tissue swelling.
I understand the hazard of neckchains, and that metal conducts heat (in case of fire) but when it comes to earring etc., just make the drivers sign a waver and get on with the racing. And if they're wearing flame retardant suits, why does it matter if their undies are fireproof or not?
because it doesnt take direct contact with flames for a material to catch fire. sufficient heat can cause materials like silk and nylon to spontaneously combust, and while the suits are flame retardant, i highly doubt they can shield the body from all of that heat from the fire.
In a Emergency say after bad crash and a fire the hospital have to put the driver in a MRI machine and something metal anywhere on his body isn't visible let's say because it's melted into his skin ?? That bit could go true some vital Body organ and kill him... I believe Hamilton said he can't take out his nose ring without help . So it's a hazard. Simple fellow the rules your getting 1 m a race you dick just do it .
This push for this set of regulations, with the carve outs for different types of jewelry, just has a Mormon / overtly religious feel to it. Drivers have to wear certain underwear, jewelry that shows marriage and or religious views are fine but having piercings are not.
Having the drivers sign a waiver to remove responsibility from the FIA for any injuries caused by jewelry in the event of a crash seems like the best way to resolve this. So natually that's not what will happen...
I get you, but it would still look bad on them. I don't think the FIA are too concerned about responsibility(in this case) and more the image of the sport and making safety optional, is a very bad look. For example, would it be OK if they signed a waiver to not have to ware anything at all or make harnesses optional. I work in construction and the waiver idea is often brought up by trades people, but it's just not an option. You could still take legal action if you were injured under a waiver agreement.
I disagree, if the worst were to happen the FIA and the sport would still be on the end of bad PR (At best) regardless of a waiver being in place. The FIA could even be held as negligent for allowing a practice it knows to be unsafe.
I really dont get the fuss about the underwear thing. Do You want your testicles to burn in a crash? And do F1 and the FIA want to deal with the publicity desaster following an injury that, following the rules, shouldnt have happened? I dont think so. The jewellery thing is the same to me: In sports class in school it was simple. You want to participate? Okay, take your earrings off, the teachers dont want to be responsible for these really nasty injuries. Full stop. The rules are there, you have to follow them. I think it is as easy as that.
The issue is they weren't enforced for many years hence the backlash. Lack of consistency which is ironically part and parcel with the FIA creates this situation so they should own it like an adult or continue acting like children.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with what they are wearing. Nomex against skin isn't comfortable, it's bearable against arms, legs, torso but delicate areas it most certainly isn't. Under their race suits, helmet, gloves and boots they have a balaclava, long sleeved top, long John's & socks all fireproof, the balaclava is tucked into the neck of the suit and even at amateur level the top is tucked into the long John's which are tucked into the socks to create a barrier. How is adding fireproof pants under all that going to help other than be uncomfortable, if the existing fireproof garments under their race suit aren't going to do a good enough job and God forbid there is a serious incident involving prolonged fire, what is the point of only having having that small area of their person remaining intact? Cotton or polyester pants under fireproof layers aren't going to heat up disproportionately to skin/organs or spontaneously combust. The piercings removal I believe should be enforced fully.
@Krjen No a rule that isn't enforced doesn't exist practically speaking so the teams and drivers should not only disregard the FIA but relentlessly mock them and bring up numerous examples of their sheer incompetence and inconsistency to the point the FIA submits and humbles itself into being a credible respectable organisation or enjoy being public enemy number 1.
@@outoftheburrough They forbid synthetic underware because of burning issues....and I know those issues are very severe when the synthetic material melts into your skin. That's the first thing which happens when in a crash like Grosjean....I suppose he was NOT wearing synthetic underwear.. Much less of a problem is soft wool as underwear of pure cotton. I cannot see how the FIA has forbidden that material for drivers. At least it was not mentioned in the video. And those material will not melt into your skin. Metal gives other problems...especially with MRI scans. But also metals is very good at transporting heat. Also when coming into a 51 G accident (Max in Silverstone) any piece of metal will be 51 times more heavy than normal....a sport watch of 100 grams will pull to your wrist with 5.1 kilograms. How strong ar your ears when those piercings will gain 51 times more weight? The helmet is not an issue with weight increase because that thing is also fixed to the chair. When I should be driving in F1 (or doing any other speed sport as downhill skying I would never wear any of those items....with or without a rule about those. In other words...no gopro camera on my helmet. Also on race rowing boats (I used those for >50 years and have my own training skiff) I would never wear anything which can get me trapped when the boat gets upside down....in otherworsds...no chains around wrist, neck, no loose ribbons at my clothes. There atre no rules for those...just a matter of healthy thinking.
If anything, rings are more likely than any other type of jewelry to cause problems in the event of an emergency. Injured fingers can swell to the point where a ring becomes extremely difficult to remove, and unlike piercings, necklaces, or watches, they cannot be cut without a significant risk of injuring the fingers.
To look at these two veterans sticking together like this there's nothing that makes me happy and see that. These guys are at each other when they're racing for championships against each other you can tell the respect between them now my God how wonderful.
The Fia said after they where forced to sack massi they would be cracking down on rules this year and quite rightly so, also Lewis can easily afford to pay all the fines he gets for the rest of the year from 1 possibly 2 races of the season just from his Mercedes pay
I find it that the drivers and people are making it way too much of an issue. Especially when you consider that folks have been complaining before about rules not being followed.
The thing is there is a point to the rules. You can't, for example, have an MRI with metal in your body... it could be ripped out. Therefore causing extreme delays in diagnosis and treatment.
In amateur and hobbyist racing clubs the same bans are there, especially in accordance with non-compliant underwear, I'd have to check my rule book if there's anything really about jewelry because I don't wear any so it doesn't matter. However, the point stands that the pros should have to follow those rules too.
I competed professionally and no one had to remove earrings or piercings. They even allowed drivers to wear glasses inside the helmet. The fia was the governing body of the championship. Their only condition was to have a new helmet and a flame-proof suit.
@@dvlad2693 Yea, I was just flipping through and there isn't anything about jewelry here either. It's funny you mention glasses because I actually wear glasses in my helmet haha
These rules are there for other sports as well. It is very valid for contact sports like mma, football, basketball, etc. I am assuming its validity is not contested there. But non-contact sports can't enforce such rules without making such a spectacle because the objective of the rule is open for debate and interpretation
Plenty of venues demand jewellery to be taken off. Because the medical institutions advise to do so. Objectivity of any academic institution can be argued, one could even argue objectivity itself is an illusion. From a philosophical angle I would agree, from a practical angle I would disagree. The FIA has to make practical rules and follows practical advice. Replying philosophical makes things terribly complicated.
@@valkenburgert I think part of the problem of the jewelry rule is how much of a wide term jewelry is. I believe Stirling Moss used to race with multiple rings and drivers used to race with watches... which is definitely a safety hazard. I don't think the same can be said about earing though.
@@erza.1119 “If Massa had worn earrings or any other facial jewelry, the emergency responders would have struggled to get his helmet and balaclava off at the time of the accident. This could have delayed their efforts to stabilize him just enough to cause lasting brain damage or even death. At the very least, their actions could have injured him even more.” No need to go way back in time. Anything on the head is vastly different than on other body parts because the brain is quite a vital organ and is, as I’m sure you know, located in the head. Discussing rings and watches is all good with me. Directly life threatening piercings however should be managed by experts. Including the definitions of their opinions if they are not clear enough, which in this case they are.
People wear necklace all the time in football. Why the hell would you want to wear jewelry in MMA or basketball? You points make zero sense. It's completely different than sitting in a car.
This sudden fixation on jewelry is odd. Apparently they're going to allow wedding rings so I think accommodations can be made for other items. A metal necklace wouldn't be an issue in any scenario, neither would a nose stud
Absolutely a metal necklace would be an issue. It will conduct heat and thus increase risk and severity of burns. A piiecing which goes through the flesh can also conduct heat and is worse than jewelry which does not go through the flsh because it conducts the heat to areas which may be more prone to burn damage than the skin which may increase the severity of burns. In addition metal jewelry can conduct electricity which poses a further risk with these hybrid cars.
And the wedding ring exemption makes sense from the medical care perspective. Emergency personnel expect wedding rings with severe trauma, while other piercings are a surprise. And if Lewis's nose got mangled, that piercing would almost certainly be missed because it wouldn't be immediately noticed.
It's not so odd if you look into religious beliefs surrounding men and jewelry. That it's not just about wearing it in the car but also in the paddock is quite telling.
I've worked on many sites erecting steel, where no rings, bracelets, or chains were allowed. One guy argued that a ring didn't matter if your wearing gloves. He was banned from site. So no one should be above the rules.
I can understand the regulations I feel like the jewelry probably isn’t that big of a deal but the flame retardant underwear makes perfect sense that should be mandated
...I thought drivers already didn't wear watches in the car given that normally during cooldown you often see the podium drivers putting on whichever watch they've been provided by their team sponsor after removing their gloves.
I miss the part where the actual reason is that in case of an after-crash MRT scan they cant quickly remove piercings, but rings are taken off easily. Can't complain about not being strict on rules last year and now try to fight them.
Actually rings are notoriously difficult to get off, especially in a trauma where the fingers could be swollen or deformed. Regardless, CT scan is the imaging of choice after a crash not an MRI (assuming that’s what you meant by MRT) in which case jewelry is irrelevant.
When i was in the army we couldnt wear any jewelry because if the tank got hit and we got burned then the skin would inflate and the jewelry could cut or block your blood flow. Sorry for any spelling mistakes im not a native english speaker
If it was a rule since 2005 and was never enforced, then we there’s nothing to discuss about, follow the rules. It like when mum comes home and yell at the kids for something they did and they answer “but dad let us do it”
I totally understand and am on the driver’s side on this. The annoying part for the drivers is the hypocrisy in the _exception_ for wedding rings in the jewellery ban. If it was truly for “safety” then ALL items of jewellery would be forbidden. Just banning nose piercings and then allowing wedding rings and watches just seems like a petty FIA change targeted directly at Hamilton. Plus, the FIA have refused to put safer barriers in place at Miami on the concrete wall where Ocon had a 51G crash in practice and Sainz crashed too- even though the drivers requested it! So… the FIA president Mohammed thinks that racing next to missile strikes and unprotected concrete walls is safe, but jewellery is too far? I call bullshit, and I believe that the new president’s religious views are being subversively pushed onto the drivers.
Totally agree. Seems like the old guy is worried about someone having earrings in both ears, or nose rings, or necklaces - and he also seems really worried about having his grey beard airbrushed regularly - but he doesn't mind if you are married and wear a ring. I wonder why?
F1 started as crazy people doing crazy things out of the passion, and the passion is replaced with businessmen who only try to milk every single penny out of everything.
@@Marcelg13 idiotic random rules, with insane financial repercussion imposed by a financial shark sniffing out every last penny... clearly nothing to do with the topic at hand.
@@kurt120032002 Why would it be so hard to follow the rule? If FIA would give them a lesser punishment than non of these petty Drivers would care to follow the rule. Lets make one thing clear. These Drivers earn huge sums of Money and the fine is pretty fair tbf. This Rule is not "Random". It is a very common Rule in Motorsport and the Drivers need to follow the Rules. Pretty simple.
FIA when applying racing regulations: "Sure the driver exceeded track limits but we'll allow it" FIA when applying etiquette regulations: "We will not allow even the slightest infringement"
They are both welcome to race somewhere else. In fact they can start their own race league if they wish. Otherwise you follow the rules or accept the consequences
I mean, the FIA literally said they'd take a stricter approach to rules this year, after the debacle of last year. This is a rule that's been on the books for near two decades, just not enforced. Can't claim that the FIA are targeting Hamilton if they're simply enforcing the rules currently on the books, which was demanded by the teams and drivers themselves. Hell, they even gave him a grace period which they technically didn't have to. Just seems like a whole lot of fuss over nothing from the drivers.
@@pierrebinyom1747 Who knows. The wording of the rule is clear however. If the drivers want to debate the content of the rule, then they can do so (and I actually think if enough of the teams and the FIA agreed, they can change it even mid-season, though I'm not sure on that). But throwing a tantrum because the FIA decided to enforce a rule that's been on the books for years is just childish. We literally asked them to do this. They let all the teams know in advance this rule would be enforced. They've given Hamilton a grace period. How anyone can claim this is targeted is beyond me.
This is all just extremely silly, I understand the need for more safety and having some kind of lose accessories that might get caught or stuck in case of a emergency is a slight risk, but It should only be a suggestion and the drivers choice. People especially racers can be superstitious and these little accessories can mean a lot to them. If they can't race with it they might actually feel less protected.
I think it’s a case of a driver needing an emergency MRI. Any jewelry could be ripped out and flung around and could not be easily removed from an injured driver.
Most other sports prohibit wearing accessories and even in PE class in school this rule was applied when I went to school many many years ago. What's silly here is that this hasn't been enforced for as long as it has.
Just remove the jewellery for the couple of hours you're in the car. They're got a totally valid point, what if you need an urgent MRA scan following and injury but first they have to remove the countless piercings?
@@mre1369 The FIA care because they are concerned about lawsuits. Lawyers for a badly injured driver would have a field day if a non-enforced rule could have saved their client from severe injury. Are the FIA concerned about the drivers? Debatable. But considering three races in 2023 will happen in the USA, the home of litigation, the risk of a lawsuit is magnified. Money talks
@@James-gx9gn Are you implying there might be more rules that one could find excessive that are not mentioned in the mainstream media (or F1 specific media for that matter)? Mind is blown 🤯 I just watch Drive to Survive and genuinely thought I knew everything about F1 but now start to realise there might be more to it then I thought.
Lewis wears platinum jewelry. Which is a non issue doing any scans potentially needed. So there's zero argument there. Any scan needed to potentially be done can be with platinum, they would not need to remove anything. Simple research can give you that answer.
@@valkenburgert I'm implying that lawsuits are expensive to defend and even more expensive to pay out if you lose them. The FIA are probably just trying to cover themselves considering there is more racing happening in the USA next year. A case of better to be legally safe than lawsuit sorry
I think I would have more time for those supporting the FIA if they could explain on safety grounds why rings will get a bye from the FIA, but a nose stud wont.
I went through this when my company introduced a jewelry ban.. Wedding rings in many cases can not be physically removed and are not considered jewelry as their primary purpose is religious ( I now get flamed by non believers) Nose studs and Prince Alberts are just jewelry though no one at work volunteered to check for the latter.😁
@@bennylloyd-willner9667 So no problem to cut a nose stud out but not one on your finger? Seems any flimsy excuse for every item of jewellery except a nose stud. So briefly rings ok, religious artefacts ok, metal objects that support the driver in some way ok and anything under the suit (noting we have female drivers) as no ones going to check that.
"Underwear clampdown" is something I would never imagine reading in an F1 context.
“Underwear Clampdown” is something I never thought I would ever hear haha
Most of them never heard this word before.
Just two words that produce fear and curiosity about the world
Give folks power and they shall abuse.
😂
So does the FIA wants to clam down on this rule for the sake of rules compliance or safety? I for sure remembers in the last Miami GP they refused to put down tech pro barriers that the drivers requested. The absence of tech pro barrier resulted into a 51G crash by Ocon.
With the new FIA president and race director I’m sure they want to make a stand and show that they’re taking rules more seriously. That’s exactly what this is. They’re more focused on what type of underwear someone wears than actual safety.
Good point, so let’s ignore all rules
Dunno. Ask Niels about that
@@moeez1211 well they didnt follow their own rules at the end of last season
Hipocrites
@@moeez1211 classic FIA
FIA & F1 : "We care about your safety, so no more dangerous jewelry or flashy non standard underwear."
ALSO FIA & F1 : "Lack of TecPro Barriers & racing LITERALLY in the same city where bombing was happening."
👏
Exactly
@@asterixdogmatix1073 literally, FIA only cares about money.
100%
Facts
That's absolutely true the FIA has dropped the ball but why not just follow all the rules for safety? I don't get the fuss at all. There's a regulatory body and they should be respected. Period.
On the one hand. Rules are rules and should be followed. If you want then applied more consistently then this is the result.
On the other hand, they can’t be getting on at jewellery and then not putting the proper safety measures into effect at a track like with the Barrie’s at Miami
Yes…this is the entirely the biggest point. If it was really about safety, there are other things that they should actually be addressing or looking to actually enforce.
I feel like its similar to the shirt ban as well. Its like these orgs are trying so hard to get good PR by looking like they’re championing progressive causes but in the end they’ll kowtow to whoever is giving them money regardless and chastise drivers who would call attention to said causes. Its incredibly fucked.
Bro, that's a non sequitur.
They completely ignored people ignoring the yellow flags on the last lap of Saudi Arabia because basically everyone did it, but then dragged all this out in the name of safety...
That's sort of like saying "they won't put in safer barriers so the drivers shouldn't have to wear harnesses". Necklaces and earrings are absolutely dangerous. I can't even take my motorcycle helmet off without losing a contact lens, so I can only imagine in an emergency were you get your earrings ripped out when they take the helmet off. They should do all the things.
@@kalasmournrex1470 Exactly.
I think there are much bigger safety concerns to be addressed before enforcing a rule like this, if a driver's underwear is on fire or a piercing is an issue for an MRI, then some of these things might have gone wrong before:
- VSC, Safety Car & Red flag procedures, timings and requirements
- inconsistent procedures about race restarts
- Standard use of tecpro barriers
- Existence of blind corners
- Used of heavy machinery while cars on track
- Unsuitable track surface materials
- Increased weight of the car producing higher energy crashes
- Failsafe measures regarding electrical components in the event of a crash.
- Inconsistent use of DRS on drying tracks
And they could and maybe deal with those other safety issues as well, but those things are not related. Either you think this rule should be enforced or you don't think it should be enforced.
What you are doing now is called "whataboutism" and that is never an argument. Or as John Oliver put it: "it implies that all actions, regardless of context, share a moral equivalency. And since nobody is perfect all criticism is hypocritical and everybody should do whatever they want."
@@the1gladiator2 exactly 👏
@@the1gladiator2 I think he is right. Personal items become a problem only in serious accidents. FIA should focus it's resources on avoiding this serious accidents not making them easyer to deal with.
@@TheAhille
You can name many different things that you might find more important. But that isn't the question. The FIA can enforce this rule AND also look into how accidents can be prevented.
What you are doing is classic "whataboutism". And even worse you're using this generic thing "focus on avoiding incidents" which you can apply to pretty much anything. Wearing helmets? No, focus on avoiding incidents! Safety belts? No, focus on avoiding incidents! Trained medical staff? No, focus on avoiding incidents!
This way you never have to deal with the actual issue at hand.
If we agree that drivers are less likely to suffer serious injuries in a crash when they are not wearing jewelry then should we allow drivers to wear jewelry while racing? That's a very complex question, but it has nothing to do with any other unrelated issues.
@@the1gladiator2 I don't disagree that the FIA is within its right to enforce this rule but it's not "whataboutism", it simply addressing the issue of driver safety from most to least likely to result in serious injury. It's a simple pragmatic approach.
No rulebook will ever be completely enforceable or all encompassing, meaning that there will always be exceptional situations that rely on judgment calls. So the logical path moving forward is to strive for better standards and procedures, based on which officials will make better judgement calls.
We shouldn't be asking the FIA to become more strict, but to become wiser.
Seb is an absolute character, I haven’t seen captain underpants in a while 😆
Lol
He is a wanker. He should go sign up for the Ukrainian military.
He’s just an attention seeker trying to stay relevant
@@picrureperfect8476 We did it everybody, we've officially found the worst take in this comment section
@@picrureperfect8476 a 4 time world champion "Staying relevant". I think the record books will do that for him all on their own.
I understand both sides. I’ve actually dealt with similar issues when I was in the military. Certain regulations don’t get enforced then either a safety issue happens or a new commander comes in and starts enforcing a rule you never followed. The fact is, rules can be enforced at any time. And rules are rules, these drivers all signed a contract. Funny enough, one of rules that got enforced at my unit was fire resistant underwear. It felt ridiculous then but in the end we had to start wearing it. Sooo
Yeah but a nose ring? That shouldnt matter.. following rules just because they exist is why our justice and prison systems r corrupted and a joke. Military is WORST you should NOT follow rules/laws if they are wrong. Thats the truth. Society brainwashes u to think "well someone made the rule/law it must be right" NO WE CANT KEEP ADDING RULES/LAWS 4ever we MUST revaluate these things constantly as society changes
So it maybe interesting then.
Consistency is the word here. How can a nose piecing be deemed unsafe but a wedding ring is good to go? And expect the perception that the rules are not targeting LH?
Sooo what
Why do you think rules can be enforced at any time and need to be followed? So if new commander comes and enforces you to eat bird poop because it helps with your eyesight you would do it just because he said that those are the rules and rules need to be followed?
C’mon man, you can’t be that brainwashed.
Rules need to be followed😂
Kevin Magnussen said it best for me when he explained why certain stuff should be allowed. "I understand what they are saying, but it is a wedding ring around your finger. I'll take a little bit of extra burn on my finger to race in my wedding ring. And if something was going to happen, something bad, I would want to wear my wedding ring. It kind of feels bad to take it off. With something like that, like your wedding ring. Let us take that responsibility. There must be some way to remove liability."
Even by making a public statement like this, that could definitely be used in court to remove them from liability.
Spoken like a true Viking. Wedding ring or Valhalla.
Seb is having a Kimi moment. The man just doesn't care anymore lmao
Carrying the idgaf torch with pride. Respecct 👑
After the Grojean crash, I can imagine every aspect of safety was considered.
You also can't have these rules exist in lower levels of racing and not be enforced at this level of sport.
Grosjean always has worn his wedding ring.
I am like “ok, safety 1st probably.” Until i heard.. wedding ring is ok??!! Wuttt?! I guess safety isn’t 1st then..
@David Rubinstein he doesn't were than in the car tho.
@David Rubinstein pretty sure he was wearing that to make a statement, much like Seb's captain underpants cameo.
@David Rubinstein LH removes all his rings and chains, except for his nose and maybe ear rings.
None of these rules are new for motorsport. Even at club level fire retardant underwear is mandated in some cases. Not hard to understand why or comply, same for jewelery.
Exactly and at club level they are enforced, I had a friend that was shocked he had to take out all piercings when he went to his fist few bike track days. But he was clean enough and sensible to have all his piercings removable as when the skin sets them in place they can cause infections more easily
Vettel: Its just an INCHIDENT.
EXACTLY!
If you think flame retardant underwear is something necessary in f1 that you just lack common sense. I mean did grosjean get his dick burned? Why would the fire be inside the monocoque anyway.
@@HootMaRoot Your friend should have refused. Like our leader Hamilton!
Viva la revolution! 💪
1. The rules have been in place for more than 15 years (the fact they've not been enforced doesn't make them non-existent).
2. They signed contracts with said rules.
3. The rules are now being properly enforced (as they should have always been).
4. They either comply with the rules or they're in breach of their contract, in which case they'll be fined.
Pretty simple stuff, really.
“If Massa had worn earrings or any other facial jewelry, the emergency responders would have struggled to get his helmet and balaclava off at the time of the accident. This could have delayed their efforts to stabilize him just enough to cause lasting brain damage or even death. At the very least, their actions could have injured him even more.”
People like debating stuff. And then a driver dies, marshall get sued, jewellery banned and with that recent accident drivers suddenly follow all rules without question, thanking the people responsible for safety.
@@valkenburgert would would would
@@Karincl7 Such an insightful argument.
@@valkenburgert that's exactly my concern
Lots of years without fatal accident would made some minor rules becoming lax. Until it happened again like in 80's to imola 1994
@@valkenburgert Everytime I went to a hospital with injuries under my clothes they would just cut them open with scissors. I don't see why that would be different for a balaclava to be honest. Also they wouldn't care about him getting hurt. Life is the first priority and you can injure your patients if it means saving their lives. So they can also rip those earings straight out together with the balaclava.
It might be advisable to not wear piercings to avoid injury, but as long as it's not life threatening I don't see any reason for the FIA to step in.
The only jewelry issue I can see from a medicine side as a EMS medic is the nose ring/piercing , if Hamilton where to have a serious accident and need an emergency MRI , they would first have to remove which can sometimes take upwards of 30min , necklaces , wedding rings and watches are far easier to remove the piercings or earrings for doctors
Hamilton had had MRIs with it before, it's most likely platinum.
I read elsewhere on the 'net that he wears platinum jewellery for that exact reason. Take that with a pinch of salt, obviously, as I can't readily find a source. Like most sports people, I imagine, he's in and out of MRIs all the time, I guess to make sure those aches and pains aren't actually injuries.
Hamilton has platinum piercing, so the MRI is bullshit.But why remove all earrings and piercing but no rings ? They don't hinder an MRI ?
Platinum, titanium, some grades of stainless steel would all be options yeah? I can imagine a balaclava snag causing some mischief but I'm guessing in an emergency surgery situation the scissors are coming out anyway?
@@pierrebinyom1747 No they don't. You don't so MRIs on hands
Things like this happen whenever there are clearly written rules that aren't enforced, and then there is suddenly a crackdown. Imo it's unfair to both parties involved (the FIA and the drivers)
@David Rubinstein the FIA ignored it for over 16 yrs. It's a redundant rule.
@David Rubinstein I was for the halo from the start.
To be fair they have been given ample time to comply with the rules. If Lulu wants to work with the FIA so he can continue wearing jewelery he may be able to suggest negating the safety concerns by having a silicone cover made, if it would be possibly to affix it to the stud of course. This would prevent snagging on clothing and provide some protection against heat. Of course thinking of and suggesting that would require him to act like an adult rather than a petulant child.
@@trance9158 So do we wait for a driver to have serious injuries or for there to be a death which could have been prevented if jewelry had not been worn to implement the rule?
If clothing snags and cannot be removed as quick this delays the administering of first aid. If jewelry increses the conduction of heat to the flesh, this can increase the severity of burns.
@@streuthmonkey1 spot on.
As shown by Grosjeans worst burns being around the area of his wedding ring
Typical inconsistency from the FIA, but the rule on jewellery is 100% correct. The quote from Wittich at 1m20s is bang on. Ask a medical professional. The real question is why it hasn't been applied before now....
Of course, they cant go on MRI, because magnet will interact with metal parts. CT scan is a bit dangerous because of radiation (20mSv), it is not recommended to go on CT scan more than once a year. After 50G crashes they must be checked.
Yes, but it's still a decision by who wears it. Unless the jewelry endangers others, it's the driver's right to decide if he wants to put his life at risk or not. That is issue here.
Lewis jewelry are made of titanium, they don't cause interference
The rules are so many. There are things that might be missed or RD just simply dismisses it because there are no fatal accident where jewellery contributes to the injury
I am a medical professional. WE EASILY REMOVE METAL ITEMS IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM. Ergo, if the driver signs a waiver for possible burns/contusions due to their wearing of metallic objects; end of story. end of discussion. Don't they understand cardiac arrest patients, with multiple items of metal, arrive in ER's all the time?
To be fair to the FIA we always used to think not having a halo and driving coffins around was a good idea
That’s completely different and anyone that thought halos was a bad idea is not smart. Underwear and jewelry bans are completely different than a safety component that keeps drivers from being killed by other cars or debris.
I still hate the halo and want them gone.
@@jimrustle270 Leclerc would be dead lmao
@@patrickwhite4449 you should share your engineering and medical analysis (and credentials) with the FIA Technical and Medical delegates to show them why they are wrong. I’m sure they’d appreciate a. robustly-supported refutation of their calculations and experiences.
@@jimrustle270 literally saved grosjeans life stfu LMAO
Front right of the alfa flies off towards the stand in austria = 5000 fine for safety.
I think it happened to someone else in the pit lane in a different race = 5000
Touch opponents car in parc ferme = 50000
Wear your comfiest slacks under you race suit = 265000
WTF! 😂
it's escalating fines, so it doesn't start out at 265k
Pieces falling off the cars and flying towards fans is not something they have control over.
Touching someone else's car in park ferme is something that one has complete control over
Piercings and underwear are also completely controlled. He is choosing to disobey the rules, so he can pay the fines for each and every single time he decides he is above the FIA law.
@@aurorasstorm5877 Touching someone else's car can lead to potential DSQ for the touched car. The fine has to be high to stop drivers meddling with car parts.
@@anameyoucantremember
I wasn't disputing the fine, nor did I say anything bad about it. It's also part of the same FIA rules.
As a Paramedic who has attended more than my fair share of trauma calls and can honestly say that I have never, ever, had any medical assessment hindered by the sort of jewellery they're talking about. The only jewellery related injury I've been to was when someone caught an earing and had it torn out of their ear - not even possible whilst wearing a helmet.
The same cannot be said for rings. They can cause significant issues in hand injuries due to swelling and I've had to get more than one wedding band cut off a patient.
With respect, I think the body piercing rule is to avoid drivers being burnt by the metal objects against their skin, underneath the flameproof clothing. I was a navy firefighter, we weren't allowed to have body piercings for that very reason. Doesn't mean that nobody did have them of course, but they didn't advertise the fact
with the jewelry one, it's absolutely absurd to me that they couldn't have thought to include "while in the car". jewelry is not dangerous in the paddock, only in the event of a crash
Yes but it is in the car that is the context of some of this. Louis never takes out that rain whether he’s in the car or out of it.
So based upon your reasoning, the pit crew has no risk of burns or medical emergencies? That must be why they're wearing full fire kit too... 😏
@@BruceDoesStuff what does jewelry have to do with catching on fire? are you saying Jewelry is more dangerous than fire? jewelry is flammable? the pit crew is driving the car? the flame retardant suits are jewelry?
if you're going to twist my words at least make it make sense. zero gravity moon jumping to conclusions over here
I believe jewelry is not an issue in the car, but in the case a driver is injured and they need to perform a MRI or brain scan and there is chunks of metal jewerly on someones face/head
A man wearing jewerly goes against the new FIA presidents religious beliefs. So it being shown out of the car is far more problematic for him than when covered by a helmet.
Either make all jewellery illegal or leave things as they are. Wedding rings shouldn't get special treatment. As long as they do, I side with Lewis and Vettel on the matter.
Wedding rings should be allowed... and chain of a Religious belief should aloud. After that no . Hamiltons stuff that definitely could be a risk I understand. And I agree rules should br rules.
So let’s say they need to take scan to understand a head wound Lewis has… and every second counts… they will have to try and remove his ear rings nose rings maybe blood involved burns whatever just to get started to save his life.. you know images are made by catching rays like your eyes. If there’s dense metallic object that don’t allow rays to pass through, which is the purpose of internal scan. It will reflect the rays and cause shiny brights spots on the imaging and not allow for visual clarity in that area… anyway you put it if time is of the essence because your life depends on it… I don’t think you want someone fidgeting with your nose ring and ear ring to save your life just cause you wanted to look special
It doesn’t matter how good or bad your life is… if you’re in an accident and you survive you’ll be glad just to be breathing. The rest money f1 cars diamonds jewelry won’t matter…
Prove me wrong.. don’t just wear an underpants over your suit and pretend like behaving like a child is saying something…
This is the problem with people you never really think… you just start shouting and yelling anything that comes to mind which isn’t much… yet never actually contemplated a reality where it could be a problem…
@@solomon6082 all of Lewis jewellery is platinum so an mri isn't affected by it
@@Alucard-gt1zf read my comment again and up your wisdom about medical procedures with imagery there’s more than just mri scans
Could you maybe make a video explaining what role the FIA actually does to make racing possible in Formula 1 and maybe explore the possibility of Formula 1 going against the FIA and doing their own thing
The FIA is the governing body. they make the rules. they run the races. There is not F1 without the FIA
@@HeavyMetalGamingHD Watch this space...petty feuds are not helping the FIA's cause
FIA is in F1 like Uefa & Fifa in football. Without them it wouldn’t be possible to continue.
@@TravelTheCraftyLife well it would be you would just have to make a new body to replace the FIA.
FIA run all global Motorsport events same as the FIM. For an organization to be run with the same respect / credibility, it must adhere to an FIA guidelines. Series like WEC. Splitting F1 with FIA will mean F1 as a independent will have to sort of many things from their own safety requirements, their own investigations and also decide what standard the tracks F1 races are ( non FIA grade 1 tracks are not qualified to host a F1 weekend with a certain track exemption as those tracks are grandfathered in)
Just let them sign safety exemptions if they want to fight this hard over it.
I won't be crying over it if someone's jewellery gets removed in an MRI machine or becomes a eunuch lmao
It s not your tears they care about
It's a simple safety issue, this time I do not understand pilots' resistance.
Because its not fair to those who do have to remove the jewellery to those who don't
Why should a nose ring not be allowed but a wedding ring should?! They must be targeting me!
@@Alucard-gt1zf let a safety manager decide what's safe and what's not without bias and comply.
@@Alucard-gt1zf let a safety manager decide what's safe and what's not without bias and comply.
I understand the rules but they need to be consistent... It is black or white. No gray zones. If jewelry is not allowed, then wedding rings should be also included in this rule.
I've seen fingers stripped of all skin and flesh from wearing rings in the workplace.
It's ridiculous that these are the rules the FIA are deciding to concentrate on enforcing after the rules were threw out in the Abu Dhabi GP when they screwed Hamilton out of his 8th title
Merc + Hamilton after Abu Dhabi 2021: The FIA needs to enforce all rules in a consistent manner!!!!
FIA: Does exactly that
Merc + Hamilton: No, not like that!!!
This is just Lewis trying to keep himself in the press and British press shamelessly lapping it up. Ignore the fact that Russell is beating him week in and week out. Lewis is 6th in the standings, out of the championship hunt, and he’s still getting breathlessly reported on as if he’s actually doing something noteworthy on track.
👀👀👀🤔🤔🤔.ARE YOU FOR FUCKING REAL? 7 TIMES WDC,ROBBED FROM GETTING THE 8th AND 4/5 RACES INTO THE NEW SEASON YOU FEEL QUITE HAPPY TO BE TALKING A LOAD OF “SHIT”.PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY.WHEN ANY DRIVER COMES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BE ABLE TO WIN 7 WDC,I MIGHT PAY SOME ATTENTION TO THEM, BUT IN THE MEANWHILE!!! PLEASE SHUT THE “EFF” UP. Thanks.
Strange how the rules were not strictly enforced in Abu Dhabi.
Be careful what you wish for...............LH and Mercedes complained about the rules not being enforced. Its hypocritical to refuse to comply
Martin Brundle said it perfectly " if your underwear is on fire I think you have much bigger problems" what a health and safety crazy world we live in lol
Problem is elastics in underwear generally use plastics, which can melt at a much lower temperature than your skin seriously burns at. So, while the suit protects you and nothing catches fire, you might still need skin grafts on your junk because your chones melted to your ballsack.
I know right? How foolish that we try and take preventative measures to lessen dangers of injury or even death to men driving cars at 250mph
@@alexc3155 👏
FIA needs to sort its self out. They didn't put in crash barriers when asked by drivers at Miami but want to crackdown on jewellery.
thats whataboutism and doesnt make this Rule irrelevant.
Safety 😂 like continuing a race weekend when you can taste the fire from the refinery that was hit by a rocket 😂😂😂All drivers should refuse to race if the FIA want to take a stance on bullshit but don't think the possibility of fans/teams/drivers being hit with missiles warrants the same concern
whataboutism
The 2 drivers that have 11 world titles because the machines they drove were 1 second faster.
Mercedes and Hamilton ... didn't like when the rules weren't enforced to the letter, don't like when rules are enforced to the letter.
I feel like the FIA should put more effort into making the fireproof underwear comfortable. IDK why else drivers wouldn't want to wear it, and that seems like a fairly simple thing to do. As for jewelry, I'm not an expert in safety, but I do think it's important to note that different cultural groups have different beliefs on jewelry and the current regulations have little impact on what is considered normal for straight white men from western countries to wear, only impacting crosses worn by some Christians. Obviously, there are also safety concerns, but I do wonder why wedding rings are exempt but other items aren't. IMO, instead of a blanket ban, the FIA should evaluate the safety of different pieces of jewelry independently. Other sports ban jewelry because of the potential for it to be snagged, but F1 has different safety concerns.
You want to take a simple safety rule that has been in place all along (before Hamilton ever entered F1), and complicate it further by having it tailored individually to consider each individual driver.
Good luck.
The jewelry one I believe has a case because we can look back at grosjean having his hands burned in 2020 and since he was wearing a watch and his ring we can imply is had some effect on the safety of the fire suit as his hands ended up burning as if his gloves area was compromised. I have not found much about his jewelry affecting the crash but I did read somewhere that they had to cut off the ring from it burning his finger. As for the nose stud and earrings I believe the fia is trying to set a zero tolerance policy that, unlike the cars, doesn’t have a loophole to be exploited and can set a standard through the league
there's absolutely 0 chance they let him in that car with his watch on 😂
It was the design of the gloves and they have since tested and implemented a new design
@@ClashwithCurtis he had a red watch on, it’s like a g shock watch but he had a watch on during that crash
@@ClashwithCurtis there is 100% chance they let him in that car with his watch on. There was never a question about whether he had a watch on, there are plenty of videos and photos showing it, and interviews where Grosjean outright states he always wore his ring and watch. Now he wears it while racing Indy.
We can't *infer* that his watch and ring had some effect on the safety of the fire suit. If it did, that would have been pointed out in the investigation of the crash, and they would have started enforcing that rule immediately.
And the FIA is not setting a zero tolerance policy when they immediately turn around and said they would allow wedding rings.
This type of rule (on safety grounds) has been around for many years now, and not just in F1, having seen this thru years of my brother racing open wheelers here in OZ.. so the real issue is why wasn't it enforced before this? Beyond that, it appears politics has once again raised its head in what Murray Walker called "the piranha club" that is F1, so nothing new there, but..with teams stripping paint off these new, HEAVIER cars to get them down to the actual weight limit, id have thought that they'd be the first to demand that all excess bling is a no go.. odd.
Drivers are subject to a minimum weight of 80kg, most drivers weigh below 70kg so that 10kg comes from ballast. Lewis for example with his racing gear weights 73kg so he’s got space for either 7kg of ballast or jewellery 🤣.
It was being enforced all this time, just some douches were trying to skirt around the rules and were given leniency but are now kicking up a fuss that it's being clamped down on.
@@KingSvenDeluxe DO YOU LIVE ON PLANET EARTH !!!
@@muhammadad1943 I guess they do this to avoid giving a huge advantage to drivers that are tiny.
@@SuperNyz yup otherwise every team would be hiring a Yuki sized racer for weight benefits and athletes would be starving themselves for the sake of gaining a few tenths which would inevitably end up being a safety risk
This is SO ridiculous. Why should Vettel and Ham have different treatment? These are the rules, period. They want to advocate? They should become lawyer or political activists. No wonder why Russel's beating him; he's focused on racing, instead of making statements about garments, etc.
I can understand the argument for cracking down on underwear - so much work has gone in to fireproofing the race suits.
I don't think it's too much to ask the drivers to wear certain fabrics for their underwear, if that helps fireproofing efforts without needing tons of extra work improving the race suits.
But the jewellery one seems a little excessive to me - the theoretical injuries that could be sustained from ear and nose rings are very minor. Burns on near-extraneous parts of the body (nose and ear lobes).
Especially if there's an exception for rings... In the wrong circumstances, your finger could be degloved if you're wearing a ring. That's going to be excruciating and potentially career-ending.
The jewellery rules don't seem consistent for these reasons.
Imagine, Hamilton pecker and nose get mutilated because they had to remove piercings with force in the hospital because of his Ego. Good luck with that Mr Ham.
I wonder if the inconsistencies with jewelry is why the rule wasn't seriously enforced previously.
The nose stud explicitly interferes with MRI and CT scans of the head.
The fact it can't be removed easily actually amplifies that risk.
@@pondracek Except Lewis's nose ring is titanium and wouldn't actually interfere. He's had MRIs with them in.
@@pondracek The worst part about this entire discussion is that people like you are weighing in when they don't actually know what they're talking about. I have nose and ear piercings and have had both MRIs and CT scans on my head and neck without issue.
I agree with removing loose jewelry such as earrings, rings, chains etc for driving as they could snag and cause further injury, or cause further burns from fire. But a flat nose ring that Lewis has? That poses no safety risk
It's a safety risk for the poeple who would help him in an accident such as doctors.
Put him in an MRI with it ;)
@@fabiandialer1715 lol how is a nose ring on a patient a safety risk?
These guys race F1 cars for a living.. and they're trying to micro manage arbitrary risk factors? 😂
@@scroopynooperz9051 it can get caught in the drivers fire proof headprotection and injure him further.
It would be when he is in the hospital. Some procedures such as CT scan, MRI require you to remove metal objects. You don’t want to wear a nose ring near a giant magnet. And taking that off will also mean wasting time in a emergency situation.
I don't generally like Hamilton's tantrums but I find him to be right in this case. The FIA is Chaired by a man who comes from a notoriously religious nation where even construction staff of a particular faith are exempted from wearing safety gear as seen when the Saudi F1 track was being built. Where was FIA safety policy when the track near a bombing site less than a couple of months ago ?!
"notoriously religious nation" .. welcome to the zone of stereotyping everybody, enjoy your stay
@@tariqhabaybeh4937 You'll have to excuse these type of people. They love to preach 'tolerence' and 'acceptance' yet they actually have zero tolerence for anything that is different from their world view.
@@tariqhabaybeh4937 Well…a quick google:
*How religious are people in UAE?*
Islam is both the official and majority religion in the United Arab Emirates followed by approximately 76% of the population.
Followed by Christianity (14%), Hinduism (9%), and Buddhism (2%).
Which totals 100% of people.
You can't get any more religious than that for a country!
@@tariqhabaybeh4937 So religious in fact that they can't stand any constructive comments either. It always has to be religion first...😏
I think they should change the rule to make it easier to clampdown on. Something like "Jewellery must be approved for safety compliance". That would still give the FIA authority over what is and isn't allowed, while giving them flexibility over the situation.
They have already got this as the rule in practice, since they make exemptions for certain items, so why not just make it the rule. The longer this goes on, the more embarrassing it will be for F1 when they lose on this one, and they will lose.
They can't perform emergency MRI if you have metal on your body. Makes sense. I'm on FIA side this time.
Don't think this is weird rule, at my job i'm also not allowd to wear any watches, rings and chains
I can get behind both rule changes, the underwear part first, wearing synthetic underwear can melt around your body making more burn wounds, that being said underwear made out of natural products, such as cotton or wool tends to just burn away and when extinguished not cause any more harm. Now on to the jewellery, it can also melt in case of a crash making it deformed and perhaps causing more burn wounds than necessary. But it also makes rescue harder, it can get stuck behind objects and tear out meaning you again get unnecessary problems, it can also get stuck to the overalls making immediate operations harder to perform. Yet I think drivers who made the choice to wear these specific items, should also than just live with the consequences. So attending drivers on the danger okay, prohibiting is in my book a step too far
There is no increased risk to others or competitive advantage to be gained by the drivers who accept to wear these items and the risks associated with them.
Wearing wedding rings or religious items is allowed because of their meaning. Maybe Lewis is opposed to the ban for the sake of showing race drivers don't always look the same.
So I agree with you comment 100%
Lewis Hamilton has spoken about this today .. he said its his teams fault 🤣🤣
It's a Monkey Paw's moment for Lewis. If they wanted the FIA to be more strict about enforcing their rules and going by the book -- that means they also gotta be strict for even things that almost seem trivial to the drivers themselves.
Rocket strikes and cars bursting into flames? i sleep
Lewis having underwear with flamable paint? real shit.
When I had to go into factories, I was made to remove all rings, watches and even ties. It was a safety thing. If I did not do so then I did not get in to do my work. Either enforce all rules or remove them from the regulations.
but imagine you had been going to work for 16 years wearing jewellery and no one had ever stopped you, then one day they tell you that you cant wear jewellery any more because they were going to start enforcing existing rules.
You would be pretty pissed and if you were in a position to protest, you would.
Im only on Lewis's side because of that. They should never have allowed him to wear the jewellery in the first place but they have for 16 years and so they cant really start now.
@@bipolarminddroppings
Things like that aren't exactly uncommon in the work place, especially when there is a boss/manager change.
@@bipolarminddroppings Mercedes and Hamilton were the loudest to demand that rules must be followed. Now they got what they asked for and it's suddenly bad...
@@KAMiKAZOW it s not a hamilton thing, hé speaks for the grid
@@Karincl7 Well, he should have read the rules before making polar opposite demands regarding following the rules within only a few months. It's not like "the grid" made a suggestion for rule overhauls during the winter break either. He's just speaking up because suddenly a rule negatively impacts him and it is a good way to distract from his bad performance compared to Russell.
I think what teams/drivers feel the issue is is that they want consistent rule enforcement, but the rules that are being stressed (underwear, jewellery) feel like they should be way down the list VS what the teams were likely talking about when they asked for this clamp down.
2021 ended in a super messy way, regardless of who you supported and they need to avoid that when they are trying to appeal to a larger audience and generate growth.
Just enforce the rules no excuses.
Rules are there to be implemented.
Teams, managers, and drivers, professional as they are, all agreed to follow the rules even before they enter and join the sports.
I don't understand why is this even an issue.
The problem is these rules were not enforced for many years and the backlash to due to them trying to enforce them when they weren't originally. It's the lack of consistency that is the problem and the FIA have no one to blame but themselves so they should pipe down or enjoy being public enemy number 1 like Max Mosley was.
@@kizzagt
That is not a problem.
FIA have a new administration who is obviously trying to correct the errors and the bad practices of the previous ones.
The drivers and teams themselves had asked for a stricter rule enforcement last season.
They got what they wished for.
So I don't understand why some personalities are making a huge drama out of it.
@@gelmir7322 I doubt that considering they've continued on from where previous administrations have left off in many examples. The FIA needs an almighty flushing of the organisation to the point it's not recognised from what it was previously.
It's obvious to me they have major problems with communication clarity and must accept brutal scrutiny from everyone in question.
Well if they can just make up rules to hand Max a drivers championship why enforce them to the letter now?
2 guys adored for their social engagement telling young drivers to f*ck the safety rules because your self expression is more important.
how about save your self-expression after office hours 🤡it’s F1
FIA: " We care about your safety, so no more dangerous jewelry "
Also FIA: Jedah
7:00 this perfectly sums up how I feel about this discussion. They 'cracked down' on all existing rules, not just specifically this rule, let alone specifically aimed at one person. Hell, they even changed rules and made them stricter, like the new safety car restart rule. It's a logical result from Grojean's accident and the drama last year over the way Massey applied the standing rules.
Yet they couldn't cancel the Saudi race a few km away from actual missiles...... Gtfoh w that bullshit man
Yeah, F1 is focusing on skivvies and earrings when drivers are asking for tech pro barriers in Miami and we see how that request went nowhere f1ast.
🙄 this whataboutism nonsense doesnt make the rule irrelevant.
Hamilton last year: the FIA didn't follow the rules, this is unfair
Hamilton this year: the FIA are following the rules it's unfair.
These rules should of been enforced years ago, but allowing wedding rings undermines the whole process.
De Totonator might have to get involved , put black villain suit on, and stick up again for his little baby "Run Lewis, get to da choppah!"
People seem to want to pick and choose which of these explanations is valid - it's not just risk of burns, or imaging, or snagging, or ingesting. It's all of them. If any metal under fireproof clothing increases risk of burns injury, burn injury is more critical if it is around the neck or on the head (and much less critical for a ring on the finger). It's not being petty, or trying to attack 'individuality'. They don't rule on what the drivers wear outside of competing. No wonder this is resurfaced under a new race director, with cars designed to prevent another Grosjean style fireball. Masi was pretty lenient and people didn't like his way of doing things. OK, so stop whining now.
Common sense doesnt apply in 2022
@CleanPipes Because metal conducts heat? So if there is fire on the suit, it doesn't stop that heat being transmitted and doing extra damage.
Grosjean still had burns on his hands despite the gloves.
@CleanPipes ye the suits arent 100% fireproof, realistically it only gives a few extra minutes to get out the car. he had burns on his wrists because of the gap between glove and sleeve. he also had burns on his hands when he had to hold onto the halo to pull himself out the car
@CleanPipes Nomex is still going to get hot if it's in a fire isn't it? It just won't melt as quickly as other materials, or catch fire.
So if the nomex is next to your skin, and the nomex gets hot, you are still going to get burns.
It's not magic.
If the jewellery is up against the nomex, it will conduct that heat faster, and make the burn worse.
Burns lead to swelling, which you especially don't want around your airway or chest.
So while burns on your extremities are fucking annoying, it's not as serious as your head or torso. The big problem with burns is loss of fluid. For serious burns it can become impossible to get fluids into someone quick enough to compensate for the tissue swelling.
I understand the hazard of neckchains, and that metal conducts heat (in case of fire) but when it comes to earring etc., just make the drivers sign a waver and get on with the racing.
And if they're wearing flame retardant suits, why does it matter if their undies are fireproof or not?
because it doesnt take direct contact with flames for a material to catch fire. sufficient heat can cause materials like silk and nylon to spontaneously combust, and while the suits are flame retardant, i highly doubt they can shield the body from all of that heat from the fire.
In a Emergency say after bad crash and a fire the hospital have to put the driver in a MRI machine and something metal anywhere on his body isn't visible let's say because it's melted into his skin ?? That bit could go true some vital Body organ and kill him... I believe Hamilton said he can't take out his nose ring without help . So it's a hazard. Simple fellow the rules your getting 1 m a race you dick just do it .
valid points. burning fuel would be enough heat to melt the skin itself and then metal will be stuck in it.
This push for this set of regulations, with the carve outs for different types of jewelry, just has a Mormon / overtly religious feel to it. Drivers have to wear certain underwear, jewelry that shows marriage and or religious views are fine but having piercings are not.
anyone remember when vet went from 20-2? that was my first year watching f1, love these 2 guys i just wished more drivers would join them ^_^
FIA: We Race For Safety
Also FIA: Bombs dropping near track is not a safety issue, underpants are
100%
Having the drivers sign a waiver to remove responsibility from the FIA for any injuries caused by jewelry in the event of a crash seems like the best way to resolve this. So natually that's not what will happen...
I get you, but it would still look bad on them.
I don't think the FIA are too concerned about responsibility(in this case) and more the image of the sport and making safety optional, is a very bad look.
For example, would it be OK if they signed a waiver to not have to ware anything at all or make harnesses optional.
I work in construction and the waiver idea is often brought up by trades people, but it's just not an option. You could still take legal action if you were injured under a waiver agreement.
As a diehard F1 fan, this is quite inexcusable.
@@tingstrap hi tingstrap. 🙏
The behavior of the drivers filters all the way down the series to karting.
I disagree, if the worst were to happen the FIA and the sport would still be on the end of bad PR (At best) regardless of a waiver being in place. The FIA could even be held as negligent for allowing a practice it knows to be unsafe.
Seb and Lewis bright and bold as usual
Bright and bold to behave like I did when I was 9 years old?
Pathetic.
They cry.
@@Cloxxki And yet there was a Max Verstappen rule for being a dangerous driver
@@Wolfywolf7 Tell that to Kimi Raikonen and Seb Vettel when he dive bombed them
@@Wolfywolf7 Hungary... Spa.. Singapore.. Bahrain I can go on
I really dont get the fuss about the underwear thing. Do You want your testicles to burn in a crash? And do F1 and the FIA want to deal with the publicity desaster following an injury that, following the rules, shouldnt have happened? I dont think so.
The jewellery thing is the same to me: In sports class in school it was simple. You want to participate? Okay, take your earrings off, the teachers dont want to be responsible for these really nasty injuries. Full stop. The rules are there, you have to follow them. I think it is as easy as that.
The issue is they weren't enforced for many years hence the backlash. Lack of consistency which is ironically part and parcel with the FIA creates this situation so they should own it like an adult or continue acting like children.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with what they are wearing. Nomex against skin isn't comfortable, it's bearable against arms, legs, torso but delicate areas it most certainly isn't. Under their race suits, helmet, gloves and boots they have a balaclava, long sleeved top, long John's & socks all fireproof, the balaclava is tucked into the neck of the suit and even at amateur level the top is tucked into the long John's which are tucked into the socks to create a barrier. How is adding fireproof pants under all that going to help other than be uncomfortable, if the existing fireproof garments under their race suit aren't going to do a good enough job and God forbid there is a serious incident involving prolonged fire, what is the point of only having having that small area of their person remaining intact? Cotton or polyester pants under fireproof layers aren't going to heat up disproportionately to skin/organs or spontaneously combust.
The piercings removal I believe should be enforced fully.
@Krjen No a rule that isn't enforced doesn't exist practically speaking so the teams and drivers should not only disregard the FIA but relentlessly mock them and bring up numerous examples of their sheer incompetence and inconsistency to the point the FIA submits and humbles itself into being a credible respectable organisation or enjoy being public enemy number 1.
So why are wedding rings allowed?
@@outoftheburrough They forbid synthetic underware because of burning issues....and I know those issues are very severe when the synthetic material melts into your skin. That's the first thing which happens when in a crash like Grosjean....I suppose he was NOT wearing synthetic underwear..
Much less of a problem is soft wool as underwear of pure cotton. I cannot see how the FIA has forbidden that material for drivers. At least it was not mentioned in the video. And those material will not melt into your skin.
Metal gives other problems...especially with MRI scans. But also metals is very good at transporting heat.
Also when coming into a 51 G accident (Max in Silverstone) any piece of metal will be 51 times more heavy than normal....a sport watch of 100 grams will pull to your wrist with 5.1 kilograms. How strong ar your ears when those piercings will gain 51 times more weight?
The helmet is not an issue with weight increase because that thing is also fixed to the chair.
When I should be driving in F1 (or doing any other speed sport as downhill skying I would never wear any of those items....with or without a rule about those. In other words...no gopro camera on my helmet.
Also on race rowing boats (I used those for >50 years and have my own training skiff) I would never wear anything which can get me trapped when the boat gets upside down....in otherworsds...no chains around wrist, neck, no loose ribbons at my clothes. There atre no rules for those...just a matter of healthy thinking.
If anything, rings are more likely than any other type of jewelry to cause problems in the event of an emergency. Injured fingers can swell to the point where a ring becomes extremely difficult to remove, and unlike piercings, necklaces, or watches, they cannot be cut without a significant risk of injuring the fingers.
Two has-beens making a fuss about nothing, when they should be focused on upping their performance on the track.
To look at these two veterans sticking together like this there's nothing that makes me happy and see that. These guys are at each other when they're racing for championships against each other you can tell the respect between them now my God how wonderful.
The Fia said after they where forced to sack massi they would be cracking down on rules this year and quite rightly so, also Lewis can easily afford to pay all the fines he gets for the rest of the year from 1 possibly 2 races of the season just from his Mercedes pay
He'll be blocked for next race if he doesn't follow the rules. I'm certain he wont like collecting points
I find it that the drivers and people are making it way too much of an issue. Especially when you consider that folks have been complaining before about rules not being followed.
I got booked for speeding yesterday. I've been speeding down that road for years, and nobody's ever booked me before, so I'll just keep doing it
The thing is there is a point to the rules. You can't, for example, have an MRI with metal in your body... it could be ripped out. Therefore causing extreme delays in diagnosis and treatment.
In amateur and hobbyist racing clubs the same bans are there, especially in accordance with non-compliant underwear, I'd have to check my rule book if there's anything really about jewelry because I don't wear any so it doesn't matter. However, the point stands that the pros should have to follow those rules too.
I competed professionally and no one had to remove earrings or piercings. They even allowed drivers to wear glasses inside the helmet. The fia was the governing body of the championship. Their only condition was to have a new helmet and a flame-proof suit.
@@dvlad2693 Yea, I was just flipping through and there isn't anything about jewelry here either. It's funny you mention glasses because I actually wear glasses in my helmet haha
These rules are there for other sports as well. It is very valid for contact sports like mma, football, basketball, etc. I am assuming its validity is not contested there.
But non-contact sports can't enforce such rules without making such a spectacle because the objective of the rule is open for debate and interpretation
Plenty of venues demand jewellery to be taken off. Because the medical institutions advise to do so.
Objectivity of any academic institution can be argued, one could even argue objectivity itself is an illusion. From a philosophical angle I would agree, from a practical angle I would disagree.
The FIA has to make practical rules and follows practical advice. Replying philosophical makes things terribly complicated.
@@valkenburgert I think part of the problem of the jewelry rule is how much of a wide term jewelry is. I believe Stirling Moss used to race with multiple rings and drivers used to race with watches... which is definitely a safety hazard. I don't think the same can be said about earing though.
@@erza.1119 “If Massa had worn earrings or any other facial jewelry, the emergency responders would have struggled to get his helmet and balaclava off at the time of the accident. This could have delayed their efforts to stabilize him just enough to cause lasting brain damage or even death. At the very least, their actions could have injured him even more.”
No need to go way back in time. Anything on the head is vastly different than on other body parts because the brain is quite a vital organ and is, as I’m sure you know, located in the head.
Discussing rings and watches is all good with me. Directly life threatening piercings however should be managed by experts. Including the definitions of their opinions if they are not clear enough, which in this case they are.
People wear necklace all the time in football. Why the hell would you want to wear jewelry in MMA or basketball? You points make zero sense. It's completely different than sitting in a car.
This sudden fixation on jewelry is odd. Apparently they're going to allow wedding rings so I think accommodations can be made for other items. A metal necklace wouldn't be an issue in any scenario, neither would a nose stud
Absolutely a metal necklace would be an issue. It will conduct heat and thus increase risk and severity of burns. A piiecing which goes through the flesh can also conduct heat and is worse than jewelry which does not go through the flsh because it conducts the heat to areas which may be more prone to burn damage than the skin which may increase the severity of burns.
In addition metal jewelry can conduct electricity which poses a further risk with these hybrid cars.
I mean if they put him in an mri with that nose ring on or in him after a crash it would be pretty spectacular 🤣
@@sammerry7706 is platinum. Non magnetic
And the wedding ring exemption makes sense from the medical care perspective. Emergency personnel expect wedding rings with severe trauma, while other piercings are a surprise. And if Lewis's nose got mangled, that piercing would almost certainly be missed because it wouldn't be immediately noticed.
It's not so odd if you look into religious beliefs surrounding men and jewelry. That it's not just about wearing it in the car but also in the paddock is quite telling.
But when drivers request tech pro barriers for their safety, they turn a blind eye...
Great video Scott!
Yes, the rule seems a bit silly, but also its probably the easiest rule ever to follow.
Unless ur nose ring is permanent cause it grew in. Its b.s. and i dislike lewis but think he's right here as the rule hasnt been enforced EVER
@@captaintoyota3171 CaptainToyota, Hamilton and Vettel had been involved in those eye to eye contacts since 2008.
I've worked on many sites erecting steel, where no rings, bracelets, or chains were allowed. One guy argued that a ring didn't matter if your wearing gloves. He was banned from site. So no one should be above the rules.
FIA "NO DRIP ALLOWED"
Lewis: "You're about to drown boys"
I can understand the regulations I feel like the jewelry probably isn’t that big of a deal but the flame retardant underwear makes perfect sense that should be mandated
...I thought drivers already didn't wear watches in the car given that normally during cooldown you often see the podium drivers putting on whichever watch they've been provided by their team sponsor after removing their gloves.
Lewis 2021: the FIA are not enforcing the rules!
Lewis 2022: Why are the FIA enforcing the rules!
Typical Lulu, Such a DRAMATIC DIVA
As a Race Driver he should know better for Safety
I miss the part where the actual reason is that in case of an after-crash MRT scan they cant quickly remove piercings, but rings are taken off easily. Can't complain about not being strict on rules last year and now try to fight them.
Actually rings are notoriously difficult to get off, especially in a trauma where the fingers could be swollen or deformed. Regardless, CT scan is the imaging of choice after a crash not an MRI (assuming that’s what you meant by MRT) in which case jewelry is irrelevant.
@@namir91 nope. Its notoriously easy.
When i was in the army we couldnt wear any jewelry because if the tank got hit and we got burned then the skin would inflate and the jewelry could cut or block your blood flow.
Sorry for any spelling mistakes im not a native english speaker
@@namir91 100% correct.
Your face might be more important than your finger.
Weird how the rules are being enforced now
But
They don’t seem to be too overbearing
that's what mercedes/Lewis wanted, suddenly they have to follow them too🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wouldn’t surprise me if LH just takes the fines until the FIA back down, he can easily afford it.
If it was a rule since 2005 and was never enforced, then we there’s nothing to discuss about, follow the rules. It like when mum comes home and yell at the kids for something they did and they answer “but dad let us do it”
I totally understand and am on the driver’s side on this.
The annoying part for the drivers is the hypocrisy in the _exception_ for wedding rings in the jewellery ban.
If it was truly for “safety” then ALL items of jewellery would be forbidden. Just banning nose piercings and then allowing wedding rings and watches just seems like a petty FIA change targeted directly at Hamilton.
Plus, the FIA have refused to put safer barriers in place at Miami on the concrete wall where Ocon had a 51G crash in practice and Sainz crashed too- even though the drivers requested it!
So… the FIA president Mohammed thinks that racing next to missile strikes and unprotected concrete walls is safe, but jewellery is too far?
I call bullshit, and I believe that the new president’s religious views are being subversively pushed onto the drivers.
Totally agree. Seems like the old guy is worried about someone having earrings in both ears, or nose rings, or necklaces - and he also seems really worried about having his grey beard airbrushed regularly - but he doesn't mind if you are married and wear a ring. I wonder why?
Exactly this. They should enforce it equally against all jewelry. There should not be an exception at all.
F1 started as crazy people doing crazy things out of the passion, and the passion is replaced with businessmen who only try to milk every single penny out of everything.
ok but what does this have anything to do with this topic? Sure lets go back to the 70s where someone dies every other Race. 🙄
@@Marcelg13 idiotic random rules, with insane financial repercussion imposed by a financial shark sniffing out every last penny... clearly nothing to do with the topic at hand.
@@kurt120032002 Why would it be so hard to follow the rule? If FIA would give them a lesser punishment than non of these petty Drivers would care to follow the rule. Lets make one thing clear. These Drivers earn huge sums of Money and the fine is pretty fair tbf. This Rule is not "Random". It is a very common Rule in Motorsport and the Drivers need to follow the Rules. Pretty simple.
FIA when applying racing regulations: "Sure the driver exceeded track limits but we'll allow it"
FIA when applying etiquette regulations: "We will not allow even the slightest infringement"
Fia, u can't wear jewlery
Also fia, carry on racing don't worry about the bomb attack just down the road
@@gavd9151 Ouch, all of you really hate Jeddah and Muslims, don't you?
They are both welcome to race somewhere else. In fact they can start their own race league if they wish. Otherwise you follow the rules or accept the consequences
The FIA have killed this sport.
Why not just save the drivers time and hand a random driver a championship whilst they're at it?
I mean, the FIA literally said they'd take a stricter approach to rules this year, after the debacle of last year. This is a rule that's been on the books for near two decades, just not enforced. Can't claim that the FIA are targeting Hamilton if they're simply enforcing the rules currently on the books, which was demanded by the teams and drivers themselves. Hell, they even gave him a grace period which they technically didn't have to. Just seems like a whole lot of fuss over nothing from the drivers.
Why wedding rings aren't mention ? They don't burn in a fireball ?
@@pierrebinyom1747 Who knows. The wording of the rule is clear however. If the drivers want to debate the content of the rule, then they can do so (and I actually think if enough of the teams and the FIA agreed, they can change it even mid-season, though I'm not sure on that). But throwing a tantrum because the FIA decided to enforce a rule that's been on the books for years is just childish. We literally asked them to do this. They let all the teams know in advance this rule would be enforced. They've given Hamilton a grace period. How anyone can claim this is targeted is beyond me.
This is all just extremely silly, I understand the need for more safety and having some kind of lose accessories that might get caught or stuck in case of a emergency is a slight risk, but It should only be a suggestion and the drivers choice. People especially racers can be superstitious and these little accessories can mean a lot to them. If they can't race with it they might actually feel less protected.
I think it’s a case of a driver needing an emergency MRI. Any jewelry could be ripped out and flung around and could not be easily removed from an injured driver.
Most other sports prohibit wearing accessories and even in PE class in school this rule was applied when I went to school many many years ago.
What's silly here is that this hasn't been enforced for as long as it has.
Just remove the jewellery for the couple of hours you're in the car. They're got a totally valid point, what if you need an urgent MRA scan following and injury but first they have to remove the countless piercings?
@@mre1369 The FIA care because they are concerned about lawsuits. Lawyers for a badly injured driver would have a field day if a non-enforced rule could have saved their client from severe injury. Are the FIA concerned about the drivers? Debatable. But considering three races in 2023 will happen in the USA, the home of litigation, the risk of a lawsuit is magnified. Money talks
@@James-gx9gn Are you implying there might be more rules that one could find excessive that are not mentioned in the mainstream media (or F1 specific media for that matter)?
Mind is blown 🤯
I just watch Drive to Survive and genuinely thought I knew everything about F1 but now start to realise there might be more to it then I thought.
Lewis wears platinum jewelry. Which is a non issue doing any scans potentially needed. So there's zero argument there. Any scan needed to potentially be done can be with platinum, they would not need to remove anything. Simple research can give you that answer.
@@valkenburgert I'm implying that lawsuits are expensive to defend and even more expensive to pay out if you lose them. The FIA are probably just trying to cover themselves considering there is more racing happening in the USA next year. A case of better to be legally safe than lawsuit sorry
@@James-gx9gn Hamilton already said that he will sign whatever needs to be signed to take away responsibility from the FIA
The 3 watches were IWC advising the green and black for all merecedes mechanics and team members which I am happy about.
Very well elaborated my friend. 👍🏼
I think I would have more time for those supporting the FIA if they could explain on safety grounds why rings will get a bye from the FIA, but a nose stud wont.
It is allowed because it is hard to remove, I can understand that decision as a "for the moment" one.
I went through this when my company introduced a jewelry ban.. Wedding rings in many cases can not be physically removed and are not considered jewelry as their primary purpose is religious ( I now get flamed by non believers) Nose studs and Prince Alberts are just jewelry though no one at work volunteered to check for the latter.😁
@@bennylloyd-willner9667 So no problem to cut a nose stud out but not one on your finger? Seems any flimsy excuse for every item of jewellery except a nose stud. So briefly rings ok, religious artefacts ok, metal objects that support the driver in some way ok and anything under the suit (noting we have female drivers) as no ones going to check that.