2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix - Yas Marina, Dec 10 - 12

[Tom145145]

Why should a race director not try and implement restart procedures? How would leaving the lapped cars in between the leading cars in a SC car period makes for the correct restart procedure? That doesn't make sense.

It's in the regulations as an option, and and in many series over the last several decades it's how it's been done.

What we have now in F1 and in other series is just an artificial situation to keep young fans engaged.

It's a well known fact that younger people don't care nearly as much about cars as previous generations, So to keep them engaged and shelling out money, garbage like this has been contrived.

Exercising Race Director's discretion is also available in the regulations, which Masi did. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work. He and his team of stewards were under immense pressure and took a decision that seemed right, not to mention the unwanted pressure from the team principals. I wish there were robots sitting making data based decision, but it's not and it is what it is.

Why do you only quote/know the rules that benefit you. The argument you are using is flawed, you follow the rules and precedent, this is not an odd event that one needs to think on their feet it’s the SC. It is literally the easiest option with a safety car, they have always been black and white rules so if followed no one could take issue.

[Hoffman900]

It's in the regulations as an option, and and in many series over the last several decades it's how it's been done.

What we have now in F1 and in other series is just an artificial situation to keep young fans engaged.

It's a well known fact that younger people don't care nearly as much about cars as previous generations, So to keep them engaged and shelling out money, garbage like this has been contrived.

Exercising Race Director's discretion is also available in the regulations, which Masi did. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work. He and his team of stewards were under immense pressure and took a decision that seemed right, not to mention the unwanted pressure from the team principals. I wish there were robots sitting making data based decision, but it's not and it is what it is.

Why do you only quote/know the rules that benefit you. The argument you are using is flawed, you follow the rules and precedent, this is not an odd event that one needs to think on their feet it’s the SC. It is literally the easiest option and with a safety car they have always been black and white rules so if followed no one could take issue.

Also,

48.13:
“When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message “SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP” will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system and the car’s orange lights will be extinguished. This will be the signal to the Competitors and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap.
(rest of 48.13 dictates how the lead car becomes the SC when the SC pulls in)

So the FIA in their verdict on Mercedes' protest I think wrongly asserted 48.13 supersedes 48.12 in a way to absolve themselves.

Masi, accidentally / incompetently, has boxed the FIA into a corner that the lawyers are going to pounce on.

[Ryar]

It's in the regulations as an option, and and in many series over the last several decades it's how it's been done.

What we have now in F1 and in other series is just an artificial situation to keep young fans engaged.

It's a well known fact that younger people don't care nearly as much about cars as previous generations, So to keep them engaged and shelling out money, garbage like this has been contrived.

Exercising Race Director's discretion is also available in the regulations, which Masi did. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work. He and his team of stewards were under immense pressure and took a decision that seemed right, not to mention the unwanted pressure from the team principals. I wish there were robots sitting making data based decision, but it's not and it is what it is.

Why do you only quote/know the rules that benefit you. The argument you are using is flawed, you follow the rules and precedent, this is not an odd event that one needs to think on their feet it’s the SC. It is literally the easiest option and with a safety car they have always been black and white rules so if followed no one could take issue.

I don't get benefited personally by any rules. I wish, but I genuinely don't. When you say "your" argument is flawed, you are essentially talking in front of a mirror here. We all do. While you think it's easiest option, I think that's the most difficult situation for any option. We can have different perspectives, which is normal. Neither of us can be 100% right. I stand with the opinion that, the stewards and RD tried their best here, which probably wasn't enough.

[Ryar]

Exercising Race Director's discretion is also available in the regulations, which Masi did. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work. He and his team of stewards were under immense pressure and took a decision that seemed right, not to mention the unwanted pressure from the team principals. I wish there were robots sitting making data based decision, but it's not and it is what it is.

Why do you only quote/know the rules that benefit you. The argument you are using is flawed, you follow the rules and precedent, this is not an odd event that one needs to think on their feet it’s the SC. It is literally the easiest option and with a safety car they have always been black and white rules so if followed no one could take issue.

Also,

48.13:
“When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message “SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP” will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system and the car’s orange lights will be extinguished. This will be the signal to the Competitors and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap.
(rest of 48.13 dictates how the lead car becomes the SC when the SC pulls in)

So the FIA in their verdict on Mercedes' protest I think wrongly asserted 48.13 supersedes 48.12 in a way to absolve themselves.

Masi, accidentally / incompetently, has boxed the FIA into a corner that the lawyers are going to pounce on.

OK.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/full ... t/6878858/

Race Director's Evidence

The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that
would "interfere" in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one
that applied in this case.

The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible
it was highly desirable for the race to end in a "green" condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car).

Conclusions of the Stewards:

The Stewards consider that the protest is admissible.

Having considered the various statements made by the parties the Stewards determine the following:

That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.

That although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning
to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message
"Safety Car in this lap" has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end
of that lap.

That notwithstanding Mercedes' request that the Stewards remediate the matter by amending the
classification to reflect the positions at the end of the penultimate lap, this is a step that the
Stewards believe is effectively shortening the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate.

Accordingly, the Protest is dismissed. The Protest Deposit is not refunded.

[Tom145145]

Exercising Race Director's discretion is also available in the regulations, which Masi did. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work. He and his team of stewards were under immense pressure and took a decision that seemed right, not to mention the unwanted pressure from the team principals. I wish there were robots sitting making data based decision, but it's not and it is what it is.

Why do you only quote/know the rules that benefit you. The argument you are using is flawed, you follow the rules and precedent, this is not an odd event that one needs to think on their feet it’s the SC. It is literally the easiest option and with a safety car they have always been black and white rules so if followed no one could take issue.

I don't get benefited personally by any rules. I wish, but I genuinely don't. When you say "your" argument is flawed, you are essentially talking in front of a mirror here. We all do. While you think it's easiest option, I think that's the most difficult situation for any option. We can have different perspectives, which is normal. Neither of us can be 100% right. I stand with the opinion that, the stewards and RD tried their best here, which probably wasn't enough.

It’s not a matter of opinion, did they follow the SC rules as laid out in the Sporting Code and precedent. As I am arguing in a mirror I will answer…No, No it wasn’t.

[Marty_Y]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... d-in-court

Lawyer warns FIA Abu Dhabi GP decision could be overturned in court
Duncan Bagshaw says FIA ‘marking its own homework’
‘It is quite likely Mercedes will take it to a court of arbitration’

It's just one person's opinion, but I agree with it.

I can't see that Daimler will want this to drag on, they no longer have a controlling interest but they still have a third say and this will be damaging to their brand.

[Hoffman900]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... d-in-court

Lawyer warns FIA Abu Dhabi GP decision could be overturned in court
Duncan Bagshaw says FIA ‘marking its own homework’
‘It is quite likely Mercedes will take it to a court of arbitration’

It's just one person's opinion, but I agree with it.

I can't see that Daimler will want this to drag on, they no longer have a controlling interest but they still have a third say and this will be damaging to their brand.

It won’t be damaging to their brand. It will be damaging to F1’s brand. This needs to be resolved because any manufacturer looking to get in needs to known it’s a fair and impartial playing field, otherwise their investment’s success is hinged on officials making wildcard decisions.

My lawyer friends, Max / Lewis / indifferent fans are having fun with this and all agree that the FIA messed up and are boxed into a legal corner.

[Ryar]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... d-in-court

Lawyer warns FIA Abu Dhabi GP decision could be overturned in court
Duncan Bagshaw says FIA ‘marking its own homework’
‘It is quite likely Mercedes will take it to a court of arbitration’

It's just one person's opinion, but I agree with it.

I can't see that Daimler will want this to drag on, they no longer have a controlling interest but they still have a third say and this will be damaging to their brand.

It's interesting what Ola has to say. Haven't heard anything from Daimler.

As for the lawyer's warning. What is the meaning of "overturning" here? What is the "overturned" position of a SC restart decision of a concluded race looks like. Surely, it can't be the order of 57th lap of a 58 lap race. That in itself a legally arguable case against such a decision. Why would the other party accept a shortned race's decision? The other party has to right to go ask for going back to the circuit and restart the race once again, from the point of the crash. It sounds weird, but anything can happen in a courtroom. Defendents can push for all sorts of arbitrations.

[Just_a_fan]

Why should a race director not try and implement restart procedures? How would leaving the lapped cars in between the leading cars in a SC car period makes for the correct restart procedure? That doesn't make sense.

It's in the regulations as an option, and and in many series over the last several decades it's how it's been done.

What we have now in F1 and in other series is just an artificial situation to keep young fans engaged.

It's a well known fact that younger people don't care nearly as much about cars as previous generations, So to keep them engaged and shelling out money, garbage like this has been contrived.

Exercising Race Director's discretion is also available in the regulations, which Masi did. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work. He and his team of stewards were under immense pressure and took a decision that seemed right, not to mention the unwanted pressure from the team principals. I wish there were robots sitting making data based decision, but it's not and it is what it is.

The stewards aren't involved in the SC procedure decisions. That's solely down to Masi.

The issue is that his over-riding primary concern seems to be that the race shouldn't finish behind the safety car. His secondary issue seems to be, from his own admission, that he wanted the two leading drivers to fight for the win. That's fine, but it wasn't a fight, it was a mugging. If he didn't want a SC finish and he did want a fight to the end, he should have red flagged the race and then restarted with a two lap dash to the lights. That would have been thrilling and equitable.

I'm surprised that they don't appear to have carried out some brainstorming of such situations ahead of time. It would be obvious to anyone given 5 minutes of clear headed thought, that a safety car that close to the end of the race would end up being contentious either by finishing behind the SC or by having some odd scramble at the end. So it should be thought about and planned for, not dealt with in a mad scramble on the hoof whilst being shouted at by various people.

Then there is no pressure on the RD in such situations - you just run the playbook that you pre-planned for such an event. Red flag. Everyone in the pits. Cars / tyres sorted. 2, 3 or 4 laps of knife-fighting racing to the flag. Now that would have been a fitting end to this season. That would have been a season for the ages. In the end we have a title that, in the eyes of many, is questionable for various reasons and all of those reasons revolve around the FIA and decisions of its team during the season, be that penalties given / not given, red flags helping / hindering drivers, etc.

It's a shame for Max, more than anything, because it took the shine off what should have been a thrilling first title. It's absolutely not his fault. Nor the fault of Hamilton. Both have had stellar performances and both have had less good performances. To end such a season in this way just feels like unfinished business.

Hopefully next year we can have a re-run and include some others in the mix too. A season where we have lots of winners such as 1982 or 2012 would be a nice way to start the new car era.

[Hoffman900]

It’s not shortening the race, by rules, the order from lap 57 should have been maintained to lap 58.

[dans79]

OK.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/full ... t/6878858/

Race Director's Evidence

The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that
would "interfere" in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one
that applied in this case.

The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible
it was highly desirable for the race to end in a "green" condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car).

Conclusions of the Stewards:

The Stewards consider that the protest is admissible.

Having considered the various statements made by the parties the Stewards determine the following:

That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.

That although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning
to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message
"Safety Car in this lap" has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end
of that lap.

That notwithstanding Mercedes' request that the Stewards remediate the matter by amending the
classification to reflect the positions at the end of the penultimate lap, this is a step that the
Stewards believe is effectively shortening the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate.

Accordingly, the Protest is dismissed. The Protest Deposit is not refunded.

Problem is the races directors argument is BS. lapped cars interfered with Sainz's ability to race with other leaders, unless you are going to claim P3 is no longer considered a leading position even though it's a podium position!

[Marty_Y]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59631665

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: 'Max Verstappen's win decided by a questionable call'

By Andrew Benson
Chief F1 writer
Last updated on12 December


The questions over the rules
What followed was unprecedented.

Race director Michael Masi initially said lapped cars would not be allowed to overtake, which would have left five cars between Hamilton and Verstappen for the one lap of racing that it looked like would be left.

That's against normal protocol, so Red Bull complained.

Masi changed his mind and let those five cars overtake - but not the other three. This put Verstappen and Hamilton together but left two lapped cars between third-placed Carlos Sainz's Ferrari and Verstappen and one between Valtteri Bottas' Mercedes and Yuki Tsunoda's Alpha Tauri.

This is also against normal protocol. So Mercedes complained, to no avail.

The race was restarted with one lap to go and the inevitable happened. Verstappen, with so much extra grip, passed Hamilton into Turn Five. Hamilton tried to get him back down the two subsequent straights, but was never likely to.

The world championship had changed hands - as a result of a questionable call from the race director.

George Russell, a Mercedes driver next year, said: "Max is an absolutely fantastic driver who has had an incredible season and I have nothing but huge respect for him, but what just happened is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot believe what we've just seen."

Verstappen obviously expressed the opposing view. "Everything [on track] was clear," he said, "so why would you do another lap behind the safety car?"

Disinterested observers - drivers and team members - were baffled. What happened is not the way things are normally dealt with, and one driver told BBC Sport he believed that had this been any other race, it would simply have ended behind the safety car.

The problem is the rule that deals with allowing lapped cars to overtake leaves room for manoeuvre. It says: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message 'lapped cars may now overtake' has been sent to all competitors, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car."

But that message was not displayed, a different one was, ordering only some cars through, and this eventuality is not in the regulations.

However, Masi had acted contrary to another part of the same article, 48.12 of the sporting regulations.

This says: "Once the last lapped car has passed the leader, the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."

But that's not what happened - the following lap was the last lap, and the cars were released to race at the start of it, when the rules appear to say they should not have been.

There's another rule that says the race director shall have "overriding authority" on a number of matters, including the safety car.

The stewards used this as part of their justification for throwing out Mercedes' appeal after the race. But does the rule mean Masi can decide to do whatever he wants in such situations, or that he has the ultimate authority in the correct application of the rules?

The stewards' other argument for rejecting the protest was that article 48.13 - the very next clause - overrules 48.12 because it says: "Once the message 'safety car in this lap' has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap."

This seems to suggest the FIA's own rules regarding the safety car contradict themselves.

[Ryar]

The stewards aren't involved in the SC procedure decisions. That's solely down to Masi.

I am not well aware, but I will take this.

The issue is that his over-riding primary concern seems to be that the race shouldn't finish behind the safety car. His secondary issue seems to be, from his own admission, that he wanted the two leading drivers to fight for the win. That's fine, but it wasn't a fight, it was a mugging. If he didn't want a SC finish and he did want a fight to the end, he should have red flagged the race and then restarted with a two lap dash to the lights. That would have been thrilling and equitable.

Why is it mugging? Mercedes had the option to pit and take the new set of tyres, like RB did. They didn't and RB did. Had Mercedes did that and taken the new softs and RB would have done the reverse to stay on track, it would have been Lewis doing what Max did. Why call missed calculation a mugging and blame FIA?

[Hoffman900]

Exactly. By not making it equitable for everyone, which is the intent of the rules. Ferrari and Mclaren would have an easy case here saying they are being heals to a different interpretation of the rule set , but they won’t.

[radosav]

Toto Wolf will calm down and they will not go to court, he has to do his angry show, it is his job not to let it easy righ away