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

[Andres125sx]

I must admit I´m a bad person, as I´m even a bit pleased of this. Now Lewis knows how Alonso felt in 2007

I know why you're referencing Alonso there, but the real comparison should be with Massa in 2008. He'd "won" the title for half a lap before the last corner pass by Hamilton to gain the necessary extra place. That's effectively what Lewis had on Sunday. He'd "won" the title until the last lap.

2007 was nothing like the 2021 season. 2016 maybe was if you want to press the idea that the "team and team mate robbed him" angle.

Note: I don't think 2016 was a team robbing a driver of the title. It was unfortunately a single extra DNF that could easily have been the other way round.

I know what you mean, and agree with that point of view. But I was thinking about the political aspect, loosing a title because of biased decisions from people in charge who is supposed to be neutral. To me this is the same Alonso lived in 2007

[kenshi_blind]

I am amazed by patience some of you guys have , i can't engage with people with bath faith arguments and who keep moving the goalpost every time they find themselves cornered .. now the race direction made a compromise ? lmao i would have seen it all

[etusch]

Feel free to respond with data and not vitriol.

Easy:

Verstappen [Red Bull Racing - Honda] 10 wins, 18 podiums, 10 poles, 6 fastest laps
Hamilton [Mercedes-Benz] 8 wins, 17 podiums, 5 poles, 6 fastest laps

Red Bull's lead driver matched or outperformed Mercedes' lead driver in all major statistics in the 2021 season. QED.

Can you deny that there was manipulation by the regulator?

Letting lapped cars overtake was the right thing to do. It was important that the different tyre strategies the teams had decided on could play out, and that the race finished under green flag. Ideally, all 8 lapped cars would've been allowed to overtake so as to not disadvantage Sainz & Ricciardo (etc), but the Race Director had to make a compromise.

This wasn’t a compromise, unless you meant it’s “a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason”. There weren’t two sides negotiating mutually beneficial agreement. This was a decision that favored a certain outcome.

They didn't put ham to p 3d and vers to 1st. They just pull out of the way the cars not in fight. You can think that they are blue flagged under sc. Ham was at front and he has chance to fight. If he has disadvantage with tyres, that was genious bono or toto.

In the other hand somehow ham was able to drive as fast as max with so much old tyres. Somehow he could fight withe Redbull when they are on new softs.
There are too many strange things. How so much old tyres can go as fast as a car which is your main rival and had a faster car at least half of season? its not normal and it is not being polite on tyres.
why you don't talk about first lap? It has zero resamblence with brasil.
Some people just see fia unfair when fia's/steward's decision against them and see them quite fair otherwise by not looking what happened. When you are looking things in that way how you can try to convince us unfairness of the decision. If it is good for me it is right. this should be ok with your logic.

[PlatinumZealot]

I don’t think Merc aim is to overturn the result, it’s just bad all round. They will just drag the FIA through the mud and bring out all the inconsistencies. All fans have been united on the FIA’s lack of consistency, just remove the idea of overturning the result and no one would want to race under the current system. Yesterday it was gifted to Max but next time it could be Alonso over Max.
But I doubt it’s going to get that far, the FIA will promise changes and Masi will leave/they will restructure after some back room dealing.

You know. I don't even think it was gifted to Max as much as it was taken away from Lewis. Thinking about it today, I realize Max was just a side act. There are deeper histories in the FIA. Take note of the recent movements at the top of the FIA and you will understand.

[mwillems]

This may have already been posted:



Massi after the Eifel GP in 2020: "There's a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave ALL the lapped cars past."

Just one season earlier and this was his opinion.

[Roo]

I must admit I´m a bad person, as I´m even a bit pleased of this. Now Lewis knows how Alonso felt in 2007

I know why you're referencing Alonso there, but the real comparison should be with Massa in 2008. He'd "won" the title for half a lap before the last corner pass by Hamilton to gain the necessary extra place. That's effectively what Lewis had on Sunday. He'd "won" the title until the last lap.

2007 was nothing like the 2021 season. 2016 maybe was if you want to press the idea that the "team and team mate robbed him" angle.

Note: I don't think 2016 was a team robbing a driver of the title. It was unfortunately a single extra DNF that could easily have been the other way round.

I know what you mean, and agree with that point of view. But I was thinking about the political aspect, loosing a title because of biased decisions from people in charge who is supposed to be neutral. To me this is the same Alonso lived in 2007

Whereas I’d say it’s worse because it implies nothing was learnt, if 2007 was as you say

[cooken]

Another good discussion by Peter Windsor.

[f1jcw]

Easy:

Verstappen [Red Bull Racing - Honda] 10 wins, 18 podiums, 10 poles, 6 fastest laps
Hamilton [Mercedes-Benz] 8 wins, 17 podiums, 5 poles, 6 fastest laps

Red Bull's lead driver matched or outperformed Mercedes' lead driver in all major statistics in the 2021 season. QED.




Letting lapped cars overtake was the right thing to do. It was important that the different tyre strategies the teams had decided on could play out, and that the race finished under green flag. Ideally, all 8 lapped cars would've been allowed to overtake so as to not disadvantage Sainz & Ricciardo (etc), but the Race Director had to make a compromise.

This wasn’t a compromise, unless you meant it’s “a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason”. There weren’t two sides negotiating mutually beneficial agreement. This was a decision that favored a certain outcome.

They didn't put ham to p 3d and vers to 1st. They just pull out of the way the cars not in fight. You can think that they are blue flagged under sc. Ham was at front and he has chance to fight. If he has disadvantage with tyres, that was genious bono or toto.

In the other hand somehow ham was able to drive as fast as max with so much old tyres. Somehow he could fight withe Redbull when they are on new softs.
There are too many strange things. How so much old tyres can go as fast as a car which is your main rival and had a faster car at least half of season? its not normal and it is not being polite on tyres.
why you don't talk about first lap? It has zero resamblence with brasil.
Some people just see fia unfair when fia's/steward's decision against them and see them quite fair otherwise by not looking what happened. When you are looking things in that way how you can try to convince us unfairness of the decision. If it is good for me it is right. this should be ok with your logic.

sorry, did you just raise a load of whataboutery that have nothing to do with the final race rigging?

[DiogoBrand]

They didn't put ham to p 3d and vers to 1st. They just pull out of the way the cars not in fight. You can think that they are blue flagged under sc. Ham was at front and he has chance to fight. If he has disadvantage with tyres, that was genious bono or toto.

In the other hand somehow ham was able to drive as fast as max with so much old tyres. Somehow he could fight withe Redbull when they are on new softs.
There are too many strange things. How so much old tyres can go as fast as a car which is your main rival and had a faster car at least half of season? its not normal and it is not being polite on tyres.
why you don't talk about first lap? It has zero resamblence with brasil.
Some people just see fia unfair when fia's/steward's decision against them and see them quite fair otherwise by not looking what happened. When you are looking things in that way how you can try to convince us unfairness of the decision. If it is good for me it is right. this should be ok with your logic.

To summarise:
1 - The FIA should've punished Hamilton for going off track to avoid a crash when Verstappen tried the divebomb of divebombs and didn't leave any space on track;
2 - The FIA did right by completely bending the rules to allow Verstappen to have an easy win on the last lap;
3 - Hamilton's car shouldn't have been able to fight Max at the last lap as much as he did on old hard tyres, which means they're probably cheating.

When I completely ignore reality your arguments almost make sense.

[DChemTech]

really simplify what happened:

Mercedes believed that there won't be a safety car restart in 5 laps so they didn't change tyres.

Red Bull believed that there will be a safety car restart in 5 laps so they did change the tyres.

Red Bull's strategy worked better thanks to a political and arguable decision from the Stewards wich ruined Mercedes predictions, and Verstappen won.

Most of the political play, and especially the successful political play, came from Mercedes and benefited Mercedes this year. If 'political play' is an issue, it's a bit a bit strange to make a big fuzz of it only now.

[cooken]

Maybe we can switch gears and rail on godlameroso for once again making himself look like a complete buffoon with his "guaranteed" tyre predictions. I guess time to work on some AC tyre model mods and calibration in the offseason.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[Hoffman900]

really simplify what happened:

Mercedes believed that there won't be a safety car restart in 5 laps so they didn't change tyres.

Red Bull believed that there will be a safety car restart in 5 laps so they did change the tyres.

Red Bull's strategy worked better thanks to a political and arguable decision from the Stewards wich ruined Mercedes predictions, and Verstappen won.

Most of the political play, and especially the successful political play, came from Mercedes and benefited Mercedes this year. If 'political play' is an issue, it's a bit a bit strange to make a big fuzz of it only now.

Like changing the rules on the floor to specifically target the low-rake cars?

Or Spa?

[DChemTech]

really simplify what happened:

Mercedes believed that there won't be a safety car restart in 5 laps so they didn't change tyres.

Red Bull believed that there will be a safety car restart in 5 laps so they did change the tyres.

Red Bull's strategy worked better thanks to a political and arguable decision from the Stewards wich ruined Mercedes predictions, and Verstappen won.

Most of the political play, and especially the successful political play, came from Mercedes and benefited Mercedes this year. If 'political play' is an issue, it's a bit a bit strange to make a big fuzz of it only now.

Like changing the rules on the floor to specifically target the low-rake cars?

Or Spa?

Changes on the floor were made last season. Whether they benefit certain philosophies or not, they were the result of a long-running discussion including all teams, and were known well ahead of the season. That's not in-season political play.
What was political play: changes to the rules about wing tolerances, changes to the pit-stop strategy. Spa, for all its flaws, I do not recollect it to be a political decision.

[Starkblood80]

Most of the political play, and especially the successful political play, came from Mercedes and benefited Mercedes this year. If 'political play' is an issue, it's a bit a bit strange to make a big fuzz of it only now.

Like changing the rules on the floor to specifically target the low-rake cars?

Or Spa?

Changes on the floor were made last season. That's not in-season political play.
What was political play: changes to the rules about wing tolerances, changes to the pit-stop strategy. Spa, for all its flaws, I do not recollect it to be a political decision.

Spa surely was the definition of a political decision, I mean there were no other reasons to justify 3 laps behind a safety car other than to have an “official” race result.

[DChemTech]

Like changing the rules on the floor to specifically target the low-rake cars?

Or Spa?

Changes on the floor were made last season. That's not in-season political play.
What was political play: changes to the rules about wing tolerances, changes to the pit-stop strategy. Spa, for all its flaws, I do not recollect it to be a political decision.

Spa surely was the definition of a political decision, I mean there were no other reasons to justify 3 laps behind a safety car other than to have an “official” race result.

Not influenced by one specific team, to my knowledge, which was the allegation at hand. It was a decision made from the perspective of 'the show must go on' by Masi.