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

[Starkblood80]

They're not doing it to strip Max of his title, they're doing it to get rid of Masi. I think we should all applaud that as the man is not fit for purpose - his application of the rules has been so hit and miss over the last two years that even the drivers not involved in the title fight don't like him.

If we try and leave the emotions of sunday out of it, I think he has an unworkable situation. With every incident he has at least 2 teambosses shouting in his ear preventing him from doing his job. Brawn already stated that they will change that next season. Apart from that, a lot of the inconsistancy is to be blamed on the stewards I think. For me it is hard to understand how somebody with little racing experience can judge extremely capable drivers like Hammi and Max. It is like the biggest names in the NHL or NBA. They have a logic of their own on what is right and what not and if you never operated on that level you simply don't understand. Put Raikonen in a seat and he'll know instinctively and immediately the proper cause of action.

Without due to considration for the job that needs to be done under duress, people can shout for the head of the man incharge. It's easy to do, when an individual has zero experience of being in such situations. This is no different than media and people in Italy that keeps calling for heads from Ferrari and they kept doing it. It has become a norm for some. There will always be tricky situations where a decision maker cannot get it 100% right, which people sitting on couch think, it's as easy as watching Youtube videos in slow motion. Masi hasn't got everything right, but I don't think another person will either. With that experience, one can expect him to be in better situation to manager similar situations, than to put another Cat in the water and then when that struggles, shout for it's head.

So Toto, the team principal of Mercedes has zero experience of “being the man in charge?”
The mental gymnastics you and other posters are displaying in order to defend masi’s decision making because your preferred driver won is quite spectacular to watch.

[DChemTech]

a question: wasn't it RB who pressured Masi to let those lapped cars through for MV? just saying, if that is true, are RB and therefore MV culpable?

And MB tried to pressure Masi in not doing that, tried to 'pressure' not to deploy an SC when it was not even under consideration, and has been applying pressure in many other situations (and arguably with more success than RB). "Blaming" RB for pressuring Masi into a decision now while leaving MB free of blame for similar antics is ridiculous. The problem here is that such influencing is done in the first place, not that any particular team makes use of it in a particular case.

Edit: We made it, 150! Eat that Silverstone!

[TimW]

I think the pressure of the teams constantly protesting is a big factor in the shaky decisions. And I think they should ban it. E.g. I find rugby far more enjoyable to watch than football, simply because of the lack of the constant whining to the referee (or schwalbes and stuff to influence the decisions). And I also find that the decisions are generally better in rugby, which I think is helped by the ref feeling less pressure.

In some sports you get a limited number of protest / right to review options, they should do the same in F1. I'd say limit the teams to 1 free protest per season (which includes technical stuff). Additional protests cost you 10% of your current championship points. The free protest or the championship points get returned if the protest is awarded. That will stop the whining about all the small 'we were treated unfairly' stuff.
And also a limit on criticizing in the media.

[El Scorchio]

Yup. They shouldn't be allowed to talk to Masi- or at least their talking shouldn't be broadcast. My feeling is yet again that was done for the 'drama' and 'the show' but it's clear BOTH teams have been trying to exert pressure on him all season and are both entirely as guilty.

However, in terms of Masi, as far as I'm concerned his position is now untenable following the AD race, and a whole litany of other bizarre or inconsistant decisions in the last season or so. If that's because of teams putting pressure on him, then he's too weak to be in that position of power. Even if it's not, then how can any team going forward now trust he's going to stick to the regulations of the sport and not make things up on the fly given his staggering inconsistent decision making? You can't decide how to approach any race if the rules might change on a whim during said race. His comment about Styria 2020 which has come to light is just all the more damning for his credibility considering his actions on Sunday. His comments following Brazil mean the 'rules of engagement' for wheel to wheel racing are even less clear than they ever have been. None of the drivers seem to now know what they can or can't do.

He's made the sport demonstrably worse and harder to logically understand and given all the teams, drivers and viewers absolute uncertainty about how 'racing' has and is going to be conducted.

For me, he's got to go.

[Ryar]

If we try and leave the emotions of sunday out of it, I think he has an unworkable situation. With every incident he has at least 2 teambosses shouting in his ear preventing him from doing his job. Brawn already stated that they will change that next season. Apart from that, a lot of the inconsistancy is to be blamed on the stewards I think. For me it is hard to understand how somebody with little racing experience can judge extremely capable drivers like Hammi and Max. It is like the biggest names in the NHL or NBA. They have a logic of their own on what is right and what not and if you never operated on that level you simply don't understand. Put Raikonen in a seat and he'll know instinctively and immediately the proper cause of action.

Without due to considration for the job that needs to be done under duress, people can shout for the head of the man incharge. It's easy to do, when an individual has zero experience of being in such situations. This is no different than media and people in Italy that keeps calling for heads from Ferrari and they kept doing it. It has become a norm for some. There will always be tricky situations where a decision maker cannot get it 100% right, which people sitting on couch think, it's as easy as watching Youtube videos in slow motion. Masi hasn't got everything right, but I don't think another person will either. With that experience, one can expect him to be in better situation to manager similar situations, than to put another Cat in the water and then when that struggles, shout for it's head.

So Toto, the team principal of Mercedes has zero experience of “being the man in charge?”
The mental gymnastics you and other posters are displaying in order to defend masi’s decision making because your preferred driver won is quite spectacular to watch.

Hope @hollus is paying attention to this kind of direct attacks on posters. I had an interesting chat with him about my posts. So, hopefully, this one will come up too.

[jz11]

I agree that having the team shouting in his ear is wrong. Shouldn't happen.

He has made a number of calls that have made teams unhappy both this year and last year. Think about the big shunt after the safety car last year - that was specifically down to him making a call about safety car procedure.

I think all that talk to teams back and forth had a lot to do with his last decision, that message to Toto "this is motorsport", I think he means - "you wanted "let them race", you'll have it"

I already tried to explain what led to Lewis having 44 lap old hards on his car as opposed to having much younger hards or even softs, his team strategy led to it, which he did question during the race, couple times he asked why they didn't pit him under VSC and SC, and got told they'll lose position, but that was only due to them cutting the medium stint much too short, hadn't they done it - he would have had a much better chance in the final lap

Hamilton fans wanted it to end under the SC, understandable, that would guarantee the result they wanted, but they have selective memory loss when they see the problem just in Masi, I think Lewis deserved a better chance defending there, and he 100% could have had it if not the usual, predictable, poor Mercedes strategy, I think I even saw few posts here as they pitted Lewis the first time - crying out "why??!", I wanted Max to win, and at that time I thought - good, this will make things easier for RB, even before the Perez defense, simply because Lewis had a decent gap there with no signs of slowing down, I bet he could increase the pace on those mediums if he needed to to prevent possible undercut from Max on new hards

Masis motivation IMO is very clear - not let a season like this end under SC at all cost, I even wonder, considering how confused he seemed last race during the horse trading with places (when Ocon got the lead), that he 100% knew that Max had new softs on, because his main focus of attention would have been on clearing the track and having enough time to let the lapped cars unlap themselves, because that would be the normal thing to do in such conditions, red flag would be preferred, but I wonder if there are any rules-directions as to when it should/shouldn't be done, when I saw that Latifi crash, I immediately thought - this is going to end under SC... and I think Masi had solely focused on not letting that happen, more so than ensuring Max would win

so, at the end, had Latifi crashed 2-3 laps earlier, the outcome, fully according to the written rules, would be exactly the same, because Lewis had no chance to pit and Max did, all because of that first stint they cut short to prevent a (very unlikely) undercut, then these Hamiltons fans would blame it all on the full SC when VSC would have been enough, and same argument about red flags etc

[PlatinumZealot]

This was a decision that favored a certain outcome.

So what? I don't have a problem with the outcome, and if Mercedes-Benz are good sports who "welcome competition" they shouldn't be fussed either.

You know. I don't even think it was gifted to Max as much as it was taken away from Lewis.

The best driver won:

Max 10 wins
Lewis 8 wins

But Spa, if Monza? I don't care.

It seems bias precludes some from being able to appreciate a Race Director merely getting lapped cars out of the way to the best of their ability. Both drivers had good fortune (e.g., Hamilton crashed at Imola and still scored 2nd place) and bad fortune (Hamilton locked up from the lead at Baku, throwing away an easy win, after Verstappen had a tyre failure). Sometimes one benefitted from safety cars and red flags, and sometimes the other did. It mostly evens out and is all part of motor racing.

Then there are reactionary calls to eliminate bunching under the safety car, eliminate lapped cars getting laps back, and convert red flagged races to aggregate time to optimise "fairness", yet the same posters didn't find this a priority just one Grand Prix beforehand!

As for the stats. 10 wins is more like 8. Spa was not driven and was gifted. And abudhabi was also gifted. These 2 had nothing to do with luck. Just pure regulator interference.

They will race again. But i suspect Something has to work out in the courts for Hamilton and the team for being robbed.

Hamilton did more amazing things in his car this year and i think reminded most fans that his racing tool set is more complete.

This is bias in the extreme. Apparently Verstappen dancing the car between the walls at Monaco to a dominant win is without talent, while Hamilton who has heavily outqualified by Bottas and then stuck behind Aston Martins & Alpha Tauris around Monte Carlo apparently showed more skill?

We can list them, but he hasnt really driven any amazing races. I think he performed as expected

Mercurial wins by Verstappen at circuits like Zandvoort are apparently discarded?!

You keep looking through the microscope. Leave Max out of this because this is not driver versus driver if you look at the evidence - we all know how it would have ended without the illegal manipulation of the safety car rules, so the drivers competition between each other in races has nothing to do with the match fixing. It wouldn't matter if Lewis had pitted or not if he had fresh tyres in second and Max on old hards, I am 100% sure the race would finish behind the safety car. The fact is, that the FIA saw an opportunity to NOT make Lewis the champion again for reasons ($$$ - the show!, and other reasons...) that can be discussed in another thread.

I have nothing against Max. I don't think he is the "true" champion if we go by the rule book, but he is the FIA designated Champion and we must accept this unless the FIA rule otherwise. I would like to think Lewis accepted this too. Lewis is mature enough to know there would not be any F1 or Lewis or Max without the FIA, and his father Anthony recognizes that this was not Masi's own doing. Think about Michael Masi the human being for a for little... going by other persons' accounts of him, he is just not that type of guy to manipulate the race at the last minute. In Jeddah we saw a safety car released by lightly tapped barrier as is normal, then at the last minute a red flag was waved. In Abu Dhabi we saw Masi issue the normal "no cars allowed to overtake" and then he changed it at the last minute, obviously the the effect of deciding the race result. This is not like Masi, if we go by he past tendencies, he likely had other instructions from above.

I remember being a staunch defender of how he did things last year - a good man just doesn't turn bad all of a sudden.

[Roo]

a question: wasn't it RB who pressured Masi to let those lapped cars through for MV? just saying, if that is true, are RB and therefore MV culpable?

And MB tried to pressure Masi in not doing that, tried to 'pressure' not to deploy an SC when it was not even under consideration, and has been applying pressure in many other situations (and arguably with more success than RB). "Blaming" RB for pressuring Masi into a decision now while leaving MB free of blame for similar antics is ridiculous. The problem here is that such influencing is done in the first place, not that any particular team makes use of it in a particular case.

Edit: We made it, 150! Eat that Silverstone!

It’s not about power it’s about inventing a rule.

[JordanMugen]

Masis motivation IMO is very clear - not let a season like this end under SC at all cost

Yes, and it would have been a shame if the different tyre strategies of the top two runners couldn't play out under a green flag finish, so it all turned out quite well I reckon!

As the Race Director said:

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)

I think everyone can agree it all worked out quite well on that front! No one would like to see lapped cars in the way or a safety car finish, just because of some procedural technicality [unless for some reason they *don't* want the tyre strategies to play out ]. That's not entertaining motor racing.

[Tom145145]

I agree that having the team shouting in his ear is wrong. Shouldn't happen.

He has made a number of calls that have made teams unhappy both this year and last year. Think about the big shunt after the safety car last year - that was specifically down to him making a call about safety car procedure.

I think all that talk to teams back and forth had a lot to do with his last decision, that message to Toto "this is motorsport", I think he means - "you wanted "let them race", you'll have it"

I already tried to explain what led to Lewis having 44 lap old hards on his car as opposed to having much younger hards or even softs, his team strategy led to it, which he did question during the race, couple times he asked why they didn't pit him under VSC and SC, and got told they'll lose position, but that was only due to them cutting the medium stint much too short, hadn't they done it - he would have had a much better chance in the final lap

Hamilton fans wanted it to end under the SC, understandable, that would guarantee the result they wanted, but they have selective memory loss when they see the problem just in Masi, I think Lewis deserved a better chance defending there, and he 100% could have had it if not the usual, predictable, poor Mercedes strategy, I think I even saw few posts here as they pitted Lewis the first time - crying out "why??!", I wanted Max to win, and at that time I thought - good, this will make things easier for RB, even before the Perez defense, simply because Lewis had a decent gap there with no signs of slowing down, I bet he could increase the pace on those mediums if he needed to to prevent possible undercut from Max on new hards

Masis motivation IMO is very clear - not let a season like this end under SC at all cost, I even wonder, considering how confused he seemed last race during the horse trading with places (when Ocon got the lead), that he 100% knew that Max had new softs on, because his main focus of attention would have been on clearing the track and having enough time to let the lapped cars unlap themselves, because that would be the normal thing to do in such conditions, red flag would be preferred, but I wonder if there are any rules-directions as to when it should/shouldn't be done, when I saw that Latifi crash, I immediately thought - this is going to end under SC... and I think Masi had solely focused on not letting that happen, more so than ensuring Max would win

so, at the end, had Latifi crashed 2-3 laps earlier, the outcome, fully according to the written rules, would be exactly the same, because Lewis had no chance to pit and Max did, all because of that first stint they cut short to prevent a (very unlikely) undercut, then these Hamiltons fans would blame it all on the full SC when VSC would have been enough, and same argument about red flags etc

He could have done it within the rules and ended without a safety car. We don’t need any hypothetical situations this isn’t about ifs and buts. I don’t know how you can take issue with the Mercedes strategy, he was winning at a canter. If the SC was earlier they would have reacted differently as would red bull, they don’t leave this up to chance they will have a cut off for when you expect the race to restart based on the rules. If the regulator decides to change that in race, you can’t well blame the strategic choices.

[DChemTech]

a question: wasn't it RB who pressured Masi to let those lapped cars through for MV? just saying, if that is true, are RB and therefore MV culpable?

And MB tried to pressure Masi in not doing that, tried to 'pressure' not to deploy an SC when it was not even under consideration, and has been applying pressure in many other situations (and arguably with more success than RB). "Blaming" RB for pressuring Masi into a decision now while leaving MB free of blame for similar antics is ridiculous. The problem here is that such influencing is done in the first place, not that any particular team makes use of it in a particular case.

Edit: We made it, 150! Eat that Silverstone!

It’s not about power it’s about inventing a rule.

Like pressuring the FIA into inventing a new pitstop rule that mostly harms your direct opponent mid-season? Or pressuring into new wing load rules because of qualitative visual observations made by you with respect to your direct opponent? Whether it's about 'new' rules or selective interpretation of existing ones doesn't matter. The issue is the same.

[JordanMugen]

It’s not about power it’s about inventing a rule.

Like pressuring the FIA into inventing a new pitstop rule that mostly harms your direct opponent mid-season? Or pressuring into new wing load rules because of qualitative visual observations made by you with respect to your direct opponent? Whether it's about 'new' rules or selective interpretation of existing ones doesn't matter. The issue is the same.

Exactly! If nothing else, the FIA are consistently inconsistent.

[El Scorchio]

I agree that having the team shouting in his ear is wrong. Shouldn't happen.

He has made a number of calls that have made teams unhappy both this year and last year. Think about the big shunt after the safety car last year - that was specifically down to him making a call about safety car procedure.

I think all that talk to teams back and forth had a lot to do with his last decision, that message to Toto "this is motorsport", I think he means - "you wanted "let them race", you'll have it"

I already tried to explain what led to Lewis having 44 lap old hards on his car as opposed to having much younger hards or even softs, his team strategy led to it, which he did question during the race, couple times he asked why they didn't pit him under VSC and SC, and got told they'll lose position, but that was only due to them cutting the medium stint much too short, hadn't they done it - he would have had a much better chance in the final lap

Hamilton fans wanted it to end under the SC, understandable, that would guarantee the result they wanted, but they have selective memory loss when they see the problem just in Masi, I think Lewis deserved a better chance defending there, and he 100% could have had it if not the usual, predictable, poor Mercedes strategy, I think I even saw few posts here as they pitted Lewis the first time - crying out "why??!", I wanted Max to win, and at that time I thought - good, this will make things easier for RB, even before the Perez defense, simply because Lewis had a decent gap there with no signs of slowing down, I bet he could increase the pace on those mediums if he needed to to prevent possible undercut from Max on new hards

Masis motivation IMO is very clear - not let a season like this end under SC at all cost, I even wonder, considering how confused he seemed last race during the horse trading with places (when Ocon got the lead), that he 100% knew that Max had new softs on, because his main focus of attention would have been on clearing the track and having enough time to let the lapped cars unlap themselves, because that would be the normal thing to do in such conditions, red flag would be preferred, but I wonder if there are any rules-directions as to when it should/shouldn't be done, when I saw that Latifi crash, I immediately thought - this is going to end under SC... and I think Masi had solely focused on not letting that happen, more so than ensuring Max would win

so, at the end, had Latifi crashed 2-3 laps earlier, the outcome, fully according to the written rules, would be exactly the same, because Lewis had no chance to pit and Max did, all because of that first stint they cut short to prevent a (very unlikely) undercut, then these Hamiltons fans would blame it all on the full SC when VSC would have been enough, and same argument about red flags etc

It wasn't poor strategy. If it was Verstappen leading, RBR wouldn't have brought him in either, and Mercedes would have brought Hamilton in twice. You don't give up track position. It's strategy 101. Both times Verstpapen would have been told 'do the opposite of what he does' just like Hamilton would have been in second place. Every team would have run it the same way Mercedes did, and every team would have run it the same way RBR did.

And yes if the Latifi crash happened 2-3 laps earlier and the full SC procedure had time to play out as per the regs then that's just tough luck for Hamilton, but they purposely ignored the regs to expedite the process.

Also, I agree that there was no bias toward Verstappen. My feeling is the bias is just always toward 'the show' so whichever driver stands to benefit from that always does. In this case it was Verstappen. It could easily have been Hamilton in a race that Verstappen absolutely bossed It's been both of them at various points this season. But 'the show' is always at the expense of everyone and everything else, which is wrong.

It just reminds me of special order 937 in Alien.

"Priority one
Insure (sic) maximising the drama of 'the show'.
All other considerations secondary.
Drivers expendable."

[Roo]

It’s not about power it’s about inventing a rule.

Like pressuring the FIA into inventing a new pitstop rule that mostly harms your direct opponent mid-season? Or pressuring into new wing load rules because of qualitative visual observations made by you with respect to your direct opponent? Whether it's about 'new' rules or selective interpretation of existing ones doesn't matter. The issue is the same.

Exactly! If nothing else, the FIA are consistently inconsistent.

I asked a specific question about a specific incident, rather than conflating stay focused the same for the Chem guy

[JordanMugen]

It just reminds me of special order 937 in Alien.

"Priority one
Insure (sic) maximising the drama of 'the show'.

The safety car isn't called the "entertainment control vehicle" in Australian racing for nothing.