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

[PlatinumZealot]

I am still dumbfounded from the decision made in that race. I am even considering to stop watching Formula 1 again if this is how they want to operate. And by that I mean narrating the proceedings of a race for entertainment value like the WWE or a reality show.

I am not going into discussing Masi's decision anymore. It was clear he made a mistake and broke the rules for some reason only he and God knows why. To make the thread more productive, I think we should be focusing on what the investigation by the FIA (yeah a body investigating itself right!) will reveal, if anything, and what decision they will make to address any problems found.

[Alexf1]

I am still dumbfounded from the decision made in that race. I am even considering to stop watching Formula 1 again if this is how they want to operate. And by that I mean narrating the proceedings of a race for entertainment value like the WWE or a reality show.

I am not going into discussing Masi's decision anymore. It was clear he made a mistake and broke the rules for some reason only he and God knows why. To make the thread more productive, I think we should be focusing on what the investigation by the FIA (yeah a body investigating itself right!) will reveal, if anything, and what decision they will make to address any problems found.

Agree, my expectation is that FIA will introduce slow zone at crash site so unlapping of cars can start as soon as a crashed car is removed from the track. That way marshalls can clean the track safely. At AD for example this would have meant start of unlapping mid lap 55.

[PlatinumZealot]

That sounds like you are suggesting a way to shorten safety car periods but I don't think that is relevant to the investigation. They were rules in place and the rules were broken not by a driver or team but by the leading official.


The investigation will be on clearly identifying and confirming Michael Masi's actions, then interviewing Michael about what happened and why he made decisions he did, stewards will also be cross examined. The written policies, procedures, directives and even any laws surrounding his actions and that scenario.

Everything will be deeply analysed. All that will also be put through another evaluation on how the stakeholders were affected. There are millions in sponsorship and viewership riding on this and possible legal action against the FIA so it's critical to have this investigation completed and problems resolved before winter testing begins.

[Alexf1]

That sounds like you are suggesting a way to shorten safety car periods but I don't think that is relevant to the investigation. They were rules in place and the rules were broken not by a driver or team but by the leading official.


The investigation will be on clearly identifying and confirming Michael Masi's actions, then interviewing Michael about what happened and why he made decisions he did, stewards will also be cross examined. The written policies, procedures, directives and even any laws surrounding his actions and that scenario.

Everything will be deeply analysed. All that will also be put through another evaluation on how the stakeholders were affected. There are millions in sponsorship and viewership riding on this and possible legal action against the FIA so it's critical to have this investigation completed and problems resolved before winter testing begins.

No, they will explain you how they see things were handled within the rules, how they have come up with improvements and move on: https://www.fia.com/news/statement-fia- ... rt-council

[Alexf1]

That sounds like you are suggesting a way to shorten safety car periods but I don't think that is relevant to the investigation. They were rules in place and the rules were broken not by a driver or team but by the leading official.


The investigation will be on clearly identifying and confirming Michael Masi's actions, then interviewing Michael about what happened and why he made decisions he did, stewards will also be cross examined. The written policies, procedures, directives and even any laws surrounding his actions and that scenario.

Everything will be deeply analysed. All that will also be put through another evaluation on how the stakeholders were affected. There are millions in sponsorship and viewership riding on this and possible legal action against the FIA so it's critical to have this investigation completed and problems resolved before winter testing begins.

No, they will explain you how they see things were handled within the rules, how they have come up with improvements for the future and move on: https://www.fia.com/news/statement-fia- ... rt-council

[Jolle]

That sounds like you are suggesting a way to shorten safety car periods but I don't think that is relevant to the investigation. They were rules in place and the rules were broken not by a driver or team but by the leading official.


The investigation will be on clearly identifying and confirming Michael Masi's actions, then interviewing Michael about what happened and why he made decisions he did, stewards will also be cross examined. The written policies, procedures, directives and even any laws surrounding his actions and that scenario.

Everything will be deeply analysed. All that will also be put through another evaluation on how the stakeholders were affected. There are millions in sponsorship and viewership riding on this and possible legal action against the FIA so it's critical to have this investigation completed and problems resolved before winter testing begins.

No, they will explain you how they see things were handled within the rules, how they have come up with improvements for the future and move on: https://www.fia.com/news/statement-fia- ... rt-council

The statement you linked was from December. The statement put out this January, from Mohammed Ben Sulayem, is totally different and basically says “I’m not pleased and the people involved won’t return”.

[PlatinumZealot]

No, they will explain you how they see things were handled within the rules, how they have come up with improvements and move on: https://www.fia.com/news/statement-fia- ... rt-council

That was old news as said by Jolle. That was hopefully a remnant of the old currupt way of brushing things aside to save face. That was the same statement that deflected any wrongdoing and cast the viewers as being confused (aka too dumb to know the rules and too dumb to know whats good for them).

I'm surprised that you seem satisfied with that!

[Alexf1]

No, they will explain you how they see things were handled within the rules, how they have come up with improvements and move on: https://www.fia.com/news/statement-fia- ... rt-council

That was old news as said by Jolle. That was hopefully a remnant of the old currupt way of brushing things aside to save face. That was the same statement that deflected any wrongdoing and cast the viewers as being confused (aka too dumb to know the rules and too dumb to know whats good for them).

I'm surprised that you seem satisfied with that!

No, I'm just still convinced the FIA is too proud, they will say they have some bits they will improve in the future but that nothing was done against the rules in AD. They have probably spoken already at length with the stewards and RD of AD and got a more detailed explanation from them on when what why things were done (with the best intentions). Sure I'm not satisfied about only letting the majority of the lapped cars through but I'm more critical of the fact that after the crane left the track mid lap 55 race control wanted to wait with the unlapping till the marshalls were done sweeping the track just because 1 driver raced past a crash site in the past (Lance in Imola 2020). Race control should have let unlapping start at that point (mid lap 55) and warn the teams that if their driver was not going very slow through turn 14 there would be a servere penalty. That way you're ready to go racing as soon as the marshalls are ready. It's rediculous not being able to rely on the unlapping cars to go very slow on the inside side of a corner while the sweeping marshalls are on the outside if that corner.

[El Scorchio]

Unlapping cars while marshals are on the track has NEVER been a thing, and for good reaso. Why should it have happened at AD?

[Alexf1]

Unlapping cars while marshals are on the track has NEVER been a thing, and for good reaso. Why should it have happened at AD?

It was done many times, and there is no problem with it. It should just be done in a safe matter. So at same speed as when SC passes that point. Wouldn't it be great if a SC period doesn't take longer than needed?

[El Scorchio]

Unlapping cars while marshals are on the track has NEVER been a thing, and for good reaso. Why should it have happened at AD?

It was done many times, and there is no problem with it. It should just be done in a safe matter. So at same speed as when SC passes that point. Wouldn't it be great if a SC period doesn't take longer than needed?

I don't recall it happening- and it's certainly not safe on a narrow bit of track between two walls/fences. No-one has anywhere to go or get out of the way if there's any mistake.

Interesting about the longer than needed. Yes it would be, but the safety car period in question was not longer than needed at all with procedures completed properly. If they wanted to unlap cars it should have been up to the end of lap 58. End it on lap 57 but ALL the lapped cars must stay where they are. Masi just wanted to rush it for non-sporting reasons and abandoned/made up rules to do so.

[Alexf1]

Unlapping cars while marshals are on the track has NEVER been a thing, and for good reaso. Why should it have happened at AD?

It was done many times, and there is no problem with it. It should just be done in a safe matter. So at same speed as when SC passes that point. Wouldn't it be great if a SC period doesn't take longer than needed?

I don't recall it happening- and it's certainly not safe on a narrow bit of track between two walls/fences. No-one has anywhere to go or get out of the way if there's any mistake.

Interesting about the longer than needed. Yes it would be, but the safety car period in question was not longer than needed at all with procedures completed properly. If they wanted to unlap cars it should have been up to the end of lap 58. End it on lap 57 but ALL the lapped cars must stay where they are. Masi just wanted to rush it for non-sporting reasons and abandoned/made up rules to do so.

I have even mentioned an example of this in my post (Imola 2020) were cars unlapped themselves while marshalls were sweeping the track. I prefer racing over SC periods so I'm looking at the possibilities to have a short and safe SC period

[El Scorchio]

It was done many times, and there is no problem with it. It should just be done in a safe matter. So at same speed as when SC passes that point. Wouldn't it be great if a SC period doesn't take longer than needed?

I don't recall it happening- and it's certainly not safe on a narrow bit of track between two walls/fences. No-one has anywhere to go or get out of the way if there's any mistake.

Interesting about the longer than needed. Yes it would be, but the safety car period in question was not longer than needed at all with procedures completed properly. If they wanted to unlap cars it should have been up to the end of lap 58. End it on lap 57 but ALL the lapped cars must stay where they are. Masi just wanted to rush it for non-sporting reasons and abandoned/made up rules to do so.

I have even mentioned an example of this in my post (Imola 2020) were cars unlapped themselves while marshalls were sweeping the track. I prefer racing over SC periods so I'm looking at the possibilities to have a short and safe SC period

Fair enough if that happened- I ceratinly don't recall it- but as i said, that part of the Yas circuit is incredibly confined. No run off. I don't think it's safe to be allowing unlapping while marshals are on the track at that part of the circuit at all and I am sure that would be the conclusion of those in charge. The rules mustn't be foresaken for entertainment. End of. I wouldn't necessarily question the length of a lot of safety car periods as once it's deployed there is a checklist of things that need to be done in specific safe order and it takes as long as it takes. In this case without abandoning that it would have lasted until the end of the race and that's how it should have played out.

What I would question is how many safety cars, particularly those in the last 2 years, have been strictly necessary and whether a VSC would have been fine in some of those situations. No doubt Masi has triggered safety cars (and maybe even a red flag or two) with it specifically in mind that it adds more drama to a race and bunches everyone up, rather than a VSC. The man has to go because his mindset is on manufacturing artificial drama (case in point Abu Dhabi) rather than administrating a race with proper sporting integrity.

[Alexf1]

I don't recall it happening- and it's certainly not safe on a narrow bit of track between two walls/fences. No-one has anywhere to go or get out of the way if there's any mistake.

Interesting about the longer than needed. Yes it would be, but the safety car period in question was not longer than needed at all with procedures completed properly. If they wanted to unlap cars it should have been up to the end of lap 58. End it on lap 57 but ALL the lapped cars must stay where they are. Masi just wanted to rush it for non-sporting reasons and abandoned/made up rules to do so.

I have even mentioned an example of this in my post (Imola 2020) were cars unlapped themselves while marshalls were sweeping the track. I prefer racing over SC periods so I'm looking at the possibilities to have a short and safe SC period

Fair enough if that happened- I ceratinly don't recall it- but as i said, that part of the Yas circuit is incredibly confined. No run off. I don't think it's safe to be allowing unlapping while marshals are on the track at that part of the circuit at all and I am sure that would be the conclusion of those in charge. The rules mustn't be foresaken for entertainment. End of. I wouldn't necessarily question the length of a lot of safety car periods as once it's deployed there is a checklist of things that need to be done in specific safe order and it takes as long as it takes. In this case without abandoning that it would have lasted until the end of the race and that's how it should have played out.

What I would question is how many safety cars, particularly those in the last 2 years, have been strictly necessary and whether a VSC would have been fine in some of those situations. No doubt Masi has triggered safety cars (and maybe even a red flag or two) with it specifically in mind that it adds more drama to a race and bunches everyone up, rather than a VSC. The man has to go because his mindset is on manufacturing artificial drama (case in point Abu Dhabi) rather than administrating a race with proper sporting integrity.

Mad Masi has to go, yes. VSC while a crane is on track is tricky I think since cars run at higher speed at VSC than behind SC and only have to drive to a delta in a mini sector so they could drive fast at one point and slow on another in the same mini sector. Therfore in this case SC was rightfully chosen. By the way, the track is pretty wide there with car and debris on the outside and even some runoff on the inside. Slow driving unlapping cars therefore have a lot of room to keep on the inside, away from the marshalls.

[ispano6]

Even Sir Jackie Stewart says the end was not Hollywood and was pure motor racing.

The elements that contributed to align for Verstappen were:
1. Perez holding up Lewis so that Max's delta was always within a pit window.
2. Pitting under Giovinazzi VSC for fresh tires to stay within the pit window afterwards
3. Battle with Mick that left Latifi with possibly dirty tires
4. Latifi losing the rear and crashing at a part of the track with no runoff.
5. Mercedes and Lewis track position fears
6. Marshals clearing the track in the time that they did
7. Masi and stewards deeming it safe to let some cars by before calling in the safety car the same lap to allow one final lap of racing since the course was cleared. This being the controversial part since not ALL back markers unlapped thus safety car was not to be called in the following lap which would have ended the race under SC.
8. Max taking the inside corner of turn 5
9. Max protecting the inside of turns 6 and 9.

It would be interesting to see the agreement by the teams and officials to make an effort to end races with green flag conditions. Is that an article in the regulations or a gentleman's agreement? If it was discussed before then should it come as a surprise that it would influence how the safety car period was handled? I'm sure the complaint is that only the cars between Lewis and Max were allowed past but would the situation been any different if all cars were let through between turns 5 and 6? Then would the complaint be that the safety car was called in that lap?

At the end of the day if Lewis lost there would still be complaints that the race didn't end under yellow. And if Max lost there would always be complaints Lewis, Bottas and Pirelli took Max out for a total of 18+16+26 pts. Without those Max and RedBull would have won both championships. And I don't buy the "Max had points from Spa he shouldn't have had". Max earned 12.5 compared to Lewis' 7.5. Had their been a proper race Max would have netted 2pts over Hamilton in 2nd. That result played in Hamilton's favor... Then of course the flex wing threats and pitstop equipment complaints to add to that. Mercedes made many efforts to slow RedBull down which led to changes in regulations, procedures etc. According to Peter Windsor Mercedes benefitted from the modified C3 compound too.

Honestly speaking I consider it all Karma.