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

[kenshi_blind]

lol , i give up .. this is truly fascinating, guess it is signs of this century , alternative realities and whatnot

Nope you’re just looking at it from the “enormity” of the rule bending/ignoring perspective as your favourite driver has been slighted. Chemtech isn’t COMPARING the two things in “severity” but merely pointing it out that there have been multiple infractions of the rule set this season. It’s irrelevant what the severity is, the fact is it’s happened on numerous occasions

And this is why sorting the glaring inconsistencies out that have happened time and time again HAS TO BE priority No1. So everyone knows exactly where they stand (from race director to stewards to teams and to driving’s and to the larger public)

oh there we go
my point was and is that is a bad faith arguments , both title contenders were on equal footing going into the last GP and what Masi did is not comparable to whatever he is trying to compare it to, to the point of ignoring the context and using the whole season as a template .
i know things happened during the seasons that i do not agree with but again going into the last race and what happened there , they are not comparable and contrary to what you've just said He is comparing them since he said i shouldn't just talk about what happened the last race and take the whole season. again knowing what the outcome of the last race was
i guess track limits is the hill to die on so to speak ?

wasn’t it stated in the drivers meeting that track limits wouldn’t be monitored there during the race and verstappen didn’t take advantage and was just complaining on the radio until the RD changed it mid race?

That's exactly what i recall

[Phil]

Because the RD did not follow the rules as they were written down, and that's the problem! How many times do I need to repeat that.
And 3s was calculated by Jolyon Palmer; ca. 0.1s per lap, 29 laps in total.

...and RedBull could have protested the result on those grounds. Maybe you should ask them why they didn't, but it would have been in their right to do so. But there is a time window on which they can do that and they clearly didn't, so why are you still discussing this?

[KeiKo403]

The FIA should've had a quiet word with RedBull and said, quickly lodge a protest about L1/T6. We'll reopen and find in your favour. But first we'll call the last lap a sham, Hamilton will finish first but then be handed a 5s penalty and finish P2.

Is terrible as that would be, I could see myself actually being able to buy it. I think Max did take a late lunge but did Hamilton give back any advantage gained?

I know ultimately is doesn't change the outcome of the race of championship compared to what we have now but at least this would've been a way for the FIA to acknowledge their error.

I don't know...
I am a Hamilton fan btw...I know all the songs, Gotta love that Lin-Manuel fella!

[DChemTech]

Lets for arguments sake agree that Max was hard done by in Bahrain and Hamilton got the run of the green. Can we also agree that max not being punished in Brazil for running Hamilton off the track was a decision that went in his favour?

I will need to review the particular incident, but generally speaking, yes, there were probably several incidents throughout the season where warnings or penalties were in order but not given, some of which (potentially) altered a race outcome and others not. If a 'fair' outcome which was not 'handed' in one way or the other by the stewards, all should be reviewed.

I’m not sure I agree with that, I view incidents such as max running Hamilton off in Brazil or Hamilton not giving up the place on Sunday as refereeing decisions, sometimes they’re right sometimes they’re wrong but effectively happen while the game is being played and shouldn’t be reviewed afterwards.
Changing the rules of engagement in Bahrain half way through the race most likely did assist Hamilton but by how much we don’t know beyond one ex drivers estimation, so what adjustment would you apply in that situation?
It is much easier to quantify what impact Masi’s on the fly rule changing had to the outcome on Sunday so I think it is only right it should be reviewed.

In hindsight one could argue a 3s time penalty based on the estimated time gained (or 2.5, if a closer analysis yields that), but I think that would be too harsh in my mind because it would instantly hand the win to Max - while if the digressions had not been allowed in the first place, Max might have been behind Lewis sooner and might have had one or two more shots at an overtake - not a guaranteed win.

The same argument can be made for Abu Dhabi if the conclusion is that "Masi would have been in his right to let cars pass and resume immediately, but all cars should have passed" such that Sainz would be in the mix, or if the conclusion was "The race should have resumed with backmarkers in between". In both cases, a Lewis win was not a guarantee, but he would have had a better shot.

And yeah, that's basically the problem. There's not really a satisfactory solution in hindsight. Such errors should be avoided, by writing clear (SMART) rules and living up to them consistently - above all, I hope that is the lesson for the FIA.

[holeindalip]

Because the RD did not follow the rules as they were written down, and that's the problem! How many times do I need to repeat that.
And 3s was calculated by Jolyon Palmer; ca. 0.1s per lap, 29 laps in total.

...and RedBull could have protested the result on those grounds. Maybe you should ask them why they didn't, but it would have been in their right to do so. But there is a time window on which they can do that and they clearly didn't, so why are you still discussing this?

Because I just looked up the event notes

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... s%20_0.pdf

21.1. Times were only deleted during qualifying not during the race….

[DChemTech]

Because the RD did not follow the rules as they were written down, and that's the problem! How many times do I need to repeat that.
And 3s was calculated by Jolyon Palmer; ca. 0.1s per lap, 29 laps in total.

...and RedBull could have protested the result on those grounds. Maybe you should ask them why they didn't, but it would have been in their right to do so. But there is a time window on which they can do that and they clearly didn't, so why are you still discussing this?

Phil, I agree with you on that, with the possible caveat that only in hindsight it can truly be judged as a potential championship deciding moment. I was bummed that it wasn't protested, but I can imagine a team being more reluctant to do so in the first race, than in the last (imagine the outrage if the season started with such a controversy).

The problem for me is with the narrative that is being pushed that poor rule interpretation is a singular issue that 'robbed' Hamilton from the title. Regardless of whether it can still be corrected, both sides can push the narrative that the championship was negatively influenced by stewarding decisions.

[kenshi_blind]

Because the RD did not follow the rules as they were written down, and that's the problem! How many times do I need to repeat that.
And 3s was calculated by Jolyon Palmer; ca. 0.1s per lap, 29 laps in total.

...and RedBull could have protested the result on those grounds. Maybe you should ask them why they didn't, but it would have been in their right to do so. But there is a time window on which they can do that and they clearly didn't, so why are you still discussing this?

Phil, I agree with you on that, with the possible caveat that only in hindsight it can truly be judged as a potential championship deciding moment. I was bummed that it wasn't protested, but I can imagine a team being more reluctant to do so in the first race, than in the last (imagine the outrage if the season started with such a controversy).

The problem for me is with the narrative that is being pushed that poor rule interpretation is a singular issue that 'robbed' Hamilton from the title. Regardless of whether it can still be corrected, both sides can push the narrative that the championship was negatively influenced by stewarding decisions.

i have read this thread from the day it was created until now and i can't recall users pushing that narrative you've just alluded to . if anything , i read post from people on both side and neutrals alike acknowledged that things happened prior to the race ,that Masi has been a --- show all year but that what happened last sunday was just over the top.

[DrDejan]

lol , i give up .. this is truly fascinating, guess it is signs of this century , alternative realities and whatnot

Nope you’re just looking at it from the “enormity” of the rule bending/ignoring perspective as your favourite driver has been slighted. Chemtech isn’t COMPARING the two things in “severity” but merely pointing it out that there have been multiple infractions of the rule set this season. It’s irrelevant what the severity is, the fact is it’s happened on numerous occasions

And this is why sorting the glaring inconsistencies out that have happened time and time again HAS TO BE priority No1. So everyone knows exactly where they stand (from race director to stewards to teams and to driving’s and to the larger public)

Yes, everyone wants to achieve less ambiguous regulations and consistent application in practice. There’s consensus on that.

There is a clear regulation about the safety car and lapped cars, there is a recent precedent, and there is a quote from the race director to emphasize the clarity. Lapped cars can unlap themselves and the safety car will be brought into the pits at the end of the next lap.
Everyone knew where they stand. No ambiguity, no misunderstandings.

At the last race that was thrown out of the window. Race director decided to do what he wanted to do. He stomped on the regulations - my way or the highway, I’ll do what I want to do.

Is that the way the races will be run in the future? Is that the level of clarity they want to promote?

This is not about driver’s championship only. It’s about the sport, fairness, and at the end of the day, rules of engagement in the pursuit of money. The race director influenced the Max vs Lewis outcome, but more importantly he influenced how the teams ranked this year, thus affecting the prize money division. That has to stop if we want the teams to survive, continue to invest, and lure new teams and manufacturers into the fold.

[Starkblood80]

Because the RD did not follow the rules as they were written down, and that's the problem! How many times do I need to repeat that.
And 3s was calculated by Jolyon Palmer; ca. 0.1s per lap, 29 laps in total.

How did Palmer come to that conclusion though and how under review would you be able to prove he gained 0.1s per lap specifically from running wide at that corner?
Lastly up until lap 29 there was nothing stopping Verstappen from running wide at the same corner so it can’t be argued that Hamilton was given an advantage that Verstappen wasn’t himself Allowed to exploit.

It doesn't matter. Hamilton was likely gaining some form of advantage otherwise he wouldn't be consistently running wide. Whether that's a lap time advantage or a tyre preservation advantage or both, an advantage was likely gained.

0.5s or 3.0s, doesn't matter. I agree with DChemTech on this. So that's a Ham fan and a Max fan agreeing on something

However, in Masi's defence (again, I'm a Hamilton defending him here) at least he took a bold step with trying to tackle track limits. Charlie never did except in extreme circumstances.
And, I'll also add Masi can't be the only person held responsible for track limit infringements, the stewards are empowered to investigate off their own backs without the RD raining something to them.

With regards to track limits Masi isn't wholly to blame, in fact I think he's brave for trying to enforce it at all, however inconsistent it may be.

For those 29 laps that same advantage was available to max and every other driver. Allowing Hamilton run wide was not an advantage only he was privy too

[Tom145145]

Because the RD did not follow the rules as they were written down, and that's the problem! How many times do I need to repeat that.
And 3s was calculated by Jolyon Palmer; ca. 0.1s per lap, 29 laps in total.

...and RedBull could have protested the result on those grounds. Maybe you should ask them why they didn't, but it would have been in their right to do so. But there is a time window on which they can do that and they clearly didn't, so why are you still discussing this?

Phil, I agree with you on that, with the possible caveat that only in hindsight it can truly be judged as a potential championship deciding moment. I was bummed that it wasn't protested, but I can imagine a team being more reluctant to do so in the first race, than in the last (imagine the outrage if the season started with such a controversy).

The problem for me is with the narrative that is being pushed that poor rule interpretation is a singular issue that 'robbed' Hamilton from the title. Regardless of whether it can still be corrected, both sides can push the narrative that the championship was negatively influenced by stewarding decisions.

I suppose that’s the best way to put it and I can see your point. I just don’t think it has a bearing on the current situation with regard to the legal avenue Merc may go down. If it’s a review of the decisions over the season then yes it has to be included.
I take issue with the mixing of the two subjects; 1) The Mercedes Appeal 2) Fair application of the rules over the season.

[Big Tea]

...and RedBull could have protested the result on those grounds. Maybe you should ask them why they didn't, but it would have been in their right to do so. But there is a time window on which they can do that and they clearly didn't, so why are you still discussing this?

Phil, I agree with you on that, with the possible caveat that only in hindsight it can truly be judged as a potential championship deciding moment. I was bummed that it wasn't protested, but I can imagine a team being more reluctant to do so in the first race, than in the last (imagine the outrage if the season started with such a controversy).

The problem for me is with the narrative that is being pushed that poor rule interpretation is a singular issue that 'robbed' Hamilton from the title. Regardless of whether it can still be corrected, both sides can push the narrative that the championship was negatively influenced by stewarding decisions.

i have read this thread from the day it was created until now and i can't recall users pushing that narrative you've just alluded to . if anything , i read post from people on both side and neutrals alike acknowledged that things happened prior to the race ,that Masi has been a --- show all year but that what happened last sunday was just over the top.

So staying with that narrative, why was Hamilton not told on lap two to stop doing it?

[kenshi_blind]

Phil, I agree with you on that, with the possible caveat that only in hindsight it can truly be judged as a potential championship deciding moment. I was bummed that it wasn't protested, but I can imagine a team being more reluctant to do so in the first race, than in the last (imagine the outrage if the season started with such a controversy).

The problem for me is with the narrative that is being pushed that poor rule interpretation is a singular issue that 'robbed' Hamilton from the title. Regardless of whether it can still be corrected, both sides can push the narrative that the championship was negatively influenced by stewarding decisions.

i have read this thread from the day it was created until now and i can't recall users pushing that narrative you've just alluded to . if anything , i read post from people on both side and neutrals alike acknowledged that things happened prior to the race ,that Masi has been a --- show all year but that what happened last sunday was just over the top.

So staying with that narrative, why was Hamilton not told on lap two to stop doing it?

i am a bit lost here ? what narrative are you talking about ?

[Big Tea]

i have read this thread from the day it was created until now and i can't recall users pushing that narrative you've just alluded to . if anything , i read post from people on both side and neutrals alike acknowledged that things happened prior to the race ,that Masi has been a --- show all year but that what happened last sunday was just over the top.

So staying with that narrative, why was Hamilton not told on lap two to stop doing it?

i am a bit lost here ? what narrative are you talking about ?

That Hamilton 'got away with' X seconds. Had the rule been enforced (if it was there) it would not have been an issue

For clarity, most of the problems this year have come from not enforcing the rules.

[Tom145145]

So staying with that narrative, why was Hamilton not told on lap two to stop doing it?

i am a bit lost here ? what narrative are you talking about ?

That Hamilton 'got away with' X seconds. Had the rule been enforced (if it was there) it would not have been an issue

For clarity, most of the problems this year have come from not enforcing the rules.

And this is we’re I have to take issue, if you are trying to make an equivalence between the 2. In AD there wasn’t a failure to enforce a rule, it was a disregarding of a perfectly understood black and white directive leading to one competitor being advantaged.

[Roo]

...and RedBull could have protested the result on those grounds. Maybe you should ask them why they didn't, but it would have been in their right to do so. But there is a time window on which they can do that and they clearly didn't, so why are you still discussing this?

Phil, I agree with you on that, with the possible caveat that only in hindsight it can truly be judged as a potential championship deciding moment. I was bummed that it wasn't protested, but I can imagine a team being more reluctant to do so in the first race, than in the last (imagine the outrage if the season started with such a controversy).

The problem for me is with the narrative that is being pushed that poor rule interpretation is a singular issue that 'robbed' Hamilton from the title. Regardless of whether it can still be corrected, both sides can push the narrative that the championship was negatively influenced by stewarding decisions.

I suppose that’s the best way to put it and I can see your point. I just don’t think it has a bearing on the current situation with regard to the legal avenue Merc may go down. If it’s a review of the decisions over the season then yes it has to be included.
I take issue with the mixing of the two subjects; 1) The Mercedes Appeal 2) Fair application of the rules over the season.

Tom; i agree the issues shouldnt be mixed since one is about the application of subjective rules against action that has occurred historically. Whereas on Sunday, it wasn't poor interpretation of rules, there is no eveidence for that, there is clear directive on the SC proceedure and Masi has been explit about implimentation. Sunday was about creating a new framework for action in the future.

Merc appeal should be treat separtely and more seriously.

The fairness in application of rules to incidents needs looking at, perhaps rules need sharpening, they needs some standardisation meetings, and where there is brake test a clear ban.