FIA Thread

[basti313]

I agree to that.

Same here. I said this in one of my posts that, FIA need to fix the problem, not the person. They can't be emotional about the problem and mislead themselves by sacrificing one individual to then think, somehow it would fix the problem.

Why do some of you assume that both isn't the solution? it appears that's what they're looking at doing. Masi hasn't been 'fired' and they are changing things. The changes being discussed is addressing the issues concerning all. The final thing they may do is remove Masi specifically from the race director role, because regardless of the issue's of F1, he contributed his own weaknesses to the problem and made it a lot worse: Things were not this poor under Charlie Whiting.. Horner's comments about missing Charlie Whiting say this loud and clear.

Masi proved unfit for purpose in that role. It's not written in the rules to bend and cave to lobbying team bosses. He messed up on his own, and 'letting them race' was a mistake and philosophy he adopted under his tenure after Charlie passed. He is falling on his own sword here with his people-pleasing weakness.

I agree on the point of the people-pleasing weakness. And I think this is also the point Horner meant, Masi was/is too close and the nice guy...as said before this is his biggest error.

For the rest....I think there is a big selective memory. We also had wet races after which the full field was criticizing Charlie. Or some Ferrari drivers being angry. Also the whole mess in what is allowed and what is not was caused by Charlie under the lobby of Lauda (partial "let them race" for the Merc team).

On the other hand, "let them race" is no principle of Masi, but what Liberty and FIA developed in their concept.

[basti313]

Irrelevant to the point I was making.

Your point is irrelevant, as Formula E is irrelevant. They have a complete mess in the race control. They bring out safety cars all the time and regularly create a mess out of it...examples last season when the half field was out of power or when Audi nearly sneaked into a front position through the pits. I think FE is the worst example if you are mad about unfair safety cars, crazy penalties or wrong and inconsistent judgement of crashes...
They try to keep it together and not try not to finish under a SC.

Sorry but no.

They could have followed new precedents to show everyone that Masi wasn’t miles outside the norm. But no they followed the rules as written which just highlighted Masi even more. Kinda confirms what the FIA’s current thinking is.

I did not see them follow anything relevant. Truck in the middle of the track and no red flag??? Works while cars passing?
I also do not see any example that fits, there was no unlapping at all.

[AeroDynamic]

Same here. I said this in one of my posts that, FIA need to fix the problem, not the person. They can't be emotional about the problem and mislead themselves by sacrificing one individual to then think, somehow it would fix the problem.

Why do some of you assume that both isn't the solution? it appears that's what they're looking at doing. Masi hasn't been 'fired' and they are changing things. The changes being discussed is addressing the issues concerning all. The final thing they may do is remove Masi specifically from the race director role, because regardless of the issue's of F1, he contributed his own weaknesses to the problem and made it a lot worse: Things were not this poor under Charlie Whiting.. Horner's comments about missing Charlie Whiting say this loud and clear.

Masi proved unfit for purpose in that role. It's not written in the rules to bend and cave to lobbying team bosses. He messed up on his own, and 'letting them race' was a mistake and philosophy he adopted under his tenure after Charlie passed. He is falling on his own sword here with his people-pleasing weakness.

I agree on the point of the people-pleasing weakness. And I think this is also the point Horner meant, Masi was/is too close and the nice guy...as said before this is his biggest error.

For the rest....I think there is a big selective memory. We also had wet races after which the full field was criticizing Charlie. Or some Ferrari drivers being angry. Also the whole mess in what is allowed and what is not was caused by Charlie under the lobby of Lauda (partial "let them race" for the Merc team).

On the other hand, "let them race" is no principle of Masi, but what Liberty and FIA developed in their concept.

You're conflating what I said as "Charlie was perfect" and then accusing me of having selective memory. Let me reiterate: It was not as bad under Charlie, and Charlie got a lot more things right consistently than Masi has. Things have become a lot worse, to the point where Masi's credibility has crumbled, and along with it, the sports credibility. His position is deemed untenable by a number of teams and personal in the scene. This wasn't happening under Charlie, was it?

I'm making the point that Masi is as much as the problem last year as the FIA structure and rules have been. He compounded them in that role. If we are going to do things better, we need someone stronger with an actual spine in that role, not an empty shirt. And then with a greater structure and more stringent rules in place, things can be good.

And what source of yours says it was all on F1 for 'let them race' and nothing to do with Massi? it was a policy he adopted after being pressured by certain drivers, and we all know which one was leading that cause for his own agenda.

Similarly, he [Masi] also discussed the general shift to the ‘let them race’ attitude adopted of late, and how he – in tandem with the drivers – decided this was the best route, before discussing his relationship with the drivers specifically.

When a stronger leader in the sport is working with the teams and drivers, he will not start breaking rules to please them. He didn't even keep to his little 'black/white flag' compromise. he was actually terrible and the stewards and drivers have been more confused and inconsistent as ever since he ran things. This was proven when the drivers discussed Brazil with him, and he had informed them 'you may get penalised in some place for that and not in others'

[basti313]

You're conflating what I said as "Charlie was perfect" and then accusing me of having selective memory. Let me reiterate: It was not as bad under Charlie, and Charlie got a lot more things right consistently than Masi has. Things have become a lot worse, to the point where Masi's credibility has crumbled, and along with it, the sports credibility. His position is deemed untenable by a number of teams and personal in the scene. This wasn't happening under Charlie, was it?

I totally disagree on the consistency. All the driving each other off the track and then the moving under breaking stuff lasted under Charlie for several races/years. There was not a glimpse of consistency.

The BIG difference is that we did not have over many years:
- Two drivers from different teams fighting for the title with methods "till the first blood"
- Races being cancelled completely due to rain
- Everything made worse in the external communication by transmitting team principals shouting at the race director

So the question "This wasn't happening under Charlie, was it?" does not make much sense, he was never in such a situation and every time it was remotely close like Vet vs. Alo it also had controversial decisions.
Or the Ver vs. Vet or Ham vs. Vet examples when these guys stretched the rules a bit. Ended quite emotional...just with the difference that the teams did not openly lobby against Charly. But technically I see no difference to the stuff we saw this season.

I'm making the point that Masi is as much as the problem last year as the FIA structure and rules have been. He compounded them in that role. If we are going to do things better, we need someone stronger with an actual spine in that role, not an empty shirt. And then with a greater structure and more stringent rules in place, things can be good.

I agree. Still I doubt that only the head would have changed anything in the last season and that giving the Ham fans the head of Masi as an apology will bring them peace and us better racing.

And what source of yours says it was all on F1 for 'let them race' and nothing to do with Massi? it was a policy he adopted after being pressured by certain drivers, and we all know which one was leading that cause for his own agenda.

No. We are talking about a million dollar business with a clear "show" target. It is just naive to think a small guy in this show is playing his own agenda.
This fits directly again to the partial overtaking of back markers, of course this scenario was in the drawer before the race and discussed at higher levels.

This was proven when the drivers discussed Brazil with him, and he had informed them 'you may get penalised in some place for that and not in others'

I am still surprised that this falls on Masi. Can you explain this better? According to the appeal that was filed Masi gave the scene to the stewards and the stewards took no action, what is obviously nonsense. This is exactly what I mean with that the flaw is in the rules and not in the person.

[AeroDynamic]

You can cite where it wasn’t consistent. I didn’t say it was great enough under Charlie, but it was better than what’s been going on since. Masi set up this situation for himself.

Keep doubting the head changing would’ve fixed it, I agree with you, it isn’t just Masi. I never addressed anyone suggesting everything will be fine without Masi, I quite clearly suggested the head needs to change along with better rules and structure in place: both.

It’s not naive, it was reported on and described by Masi in his own interviews. He himself sat down with teams and drivers and certain drivers lobbied ‘let them race’ under the understanding that what Vettel did in Canada 19 was permissible. Naturally, drivers like those in RBR had an agenda because they had been complaining for years about ‘killing racing’ and took the direction of this relaxed rules in their own way which meant basically ‘let them crash eachorher’.

Massi agreed with this with teams and drivers. But clearly the only driver who wasn’t surprised to what and where the sport was allowed to go, was the RBR driver. Everyone has been surprised starting with Leclerc in Austria 19, and everyone since Brazil ‘21 which they wanted Masi to explain and make clear but he made it as ambiguous and confusing as ever.

So it’s nothing to do with F1 coming in and telling Masi what to do, it was divised by Massi and certain drivers who felt penalties were handed out too easily. So it was very much on him because he is responsible for making the rules of engagement clear on the sport and he lost control of it completely and started to u-turn after Brazil. The stewards were wildly inconsistent in Brazil yes, under Masi’s tenure and ‘let them race’ ethos that he lost control of.

He was a flop in this role.

[Jolle]

Weathley is quoted from a podcast in this news article on the Dutch version of motorsport.com stating that the decision of broadcasting the communications between the FIA and teams was a wrong one.

https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... v/7799466/

Is if just me or does that sound like a “sorry we got caught” type of explanation of what took place?

[Wouter]

This is really not normal anymore. Is this necessary?!

Translated by DeepL.

Michael Masi 'touched' by online hatred from Lewis Hamilton fans.

Fans of the seven-time world champion see Masi as the culprit: he is the one who robbed Hamilton of his eighth world title. Verstappen is being called a 'fake champion' on social media, but Masi is even getting death threats from TeamLH, as Hamilton fans call themselves.

Peter Bayer, the new boss of the single seaters at the FIA, has now reacted to the online hatred that Masi has to deal with. According to the Austrian, Masi does not have social media himself, but he does get this, of course, which touches him terribly.

“The hate and reactions on social media have become unbearable. People have no brakes. Just look at the death threats against Nicholas Latifi, for example. Michael Masi doesn't have an account himself, but the hate he receives really touches him.
I have assured him that we will support him if he needs that support." Bayer told Die Presse.

[basti313]

It’s not naive, it was reported on and described by Masi in his own interviews.

I guess his Italian roots came through. Proud man...

He himself sat down with teams and drivers and certain drivers lobbied ‘let them race’ under the understanding that what Vettel did in Canada 19 was permissible. Naturally, drivers like those in RBR had an agenda because they had been complaining for years about ‘killing racing’ and took the direction of this relaxed rules in their own way which meant basically ‘let them crash eachorher’.

I think the biggest anger of the drivers came when two drivers were allowed to crash and the rest was not.
I do not understand the Vettel example here, I did not see anyone defending this. If anything we can talk about Austria, but if we follow the Merc examples in Austria it is also hard to see a change but same rules applied....

He was a flop in this role.

I think we agree on the "was"

[nzjrs]

I'm going to have to call PETA and report you all for beating dead horses

[basti313]

I'm going to have to call PETA and report you all for beating dead horses

I do not think so. Masi is gone...or not....

The question is what happens in the next close battle? Maybe next season?
Do we have Ham vs. Rus and they are allowed to crash at will again? Or do we have Ver vs. Ham again stretching the **** out of the rules?
I do not think that the head of Masi will change the anger in the latter situation. My clear fear is that exactly nothing changes in stewarding.

[AeroDynamic]

I'm going to have to call PETA and report you all for beating dead horses

shock horror.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm going to have to call PETA and report you all for beating dead horses

If the horse is already dead, PETA won't care. No PR mileage in an already dead horse...

[kalinka]

Weathley is quoted from a podcast in this news article on the Dutch version of motorsport.com stating that the decision of broadcasting the communications between the FIA and teams was a wrong one.

https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... v/7799466/

Is if just me or does that sound like a “sorry we got caught” type of explanation of what took place?

It's not just you. If anything can moderate these comms is publicity. I mean not in the heat of the moment, but what's said once it can't be undone. It will haunt them forever, so better think twice. This is not solution to the problem - it's putting it back under the carpet.

[Just_a_fan]

Weathley is quoted from a podcast in this news article on the Dutch version of motorsport.com stating that the decision of broadcasting the communications between the FIA and teams was a wrong one.

https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... v/7799466/

Is if just me or does that sound like a “sorry we got caught” type of explanation of what took place?

Exactly so. What he is saying is that they're annoyed that the public got to hear them lobbying for a favourable outcome. They'd have loved to have it all going on behind closed doors and then the result would have been an "OMG, how did they pull that off?!!" without the disgraceful behaviour that we witnessed from a number of very senior people in F1.

What we actually got was a disgrace that showed that F1 is not, in fact, the pinnacle of motorsport, but actually a combination of political comedy and farce that Shakespeare would have been proud of authoring.

[Wouter]

Three Tweets from the President.