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

[ringo]

Yes but that is not unfair. technical clarifications usually involve mutual agreement and discussion and involvement of the FIA before they are decided, and mostly they are made to improve fairness of competition.
Random rule change during a race does the opposite. Or are you saying you are Okay with this?

[Stu]

Yes but that is not unfair. technical clarifications usually involve mutual agreement and discussion and involvement of the FIA before they are decided, and mostly they are made to improve fairness of competition.
Random rule change during a race does the opposite. Or are you saying you are Okay with this?

Technical clarifications are usually sought by a team (or teams) that feel a different interpretation by another team has provided a performance benefit. In other words, lobbying of the regulatory body by a competitor. That is not the same thing as mutual agreement and discussion…
It has been like this for decades.

[DChemTech]

Yes but that is not unfair. technical clarifications usually involve mutual agreement and discussion and involvement of the FIA before they are decided, and mostly they are made to improve fairness of competition.
Random rule change during a race does the opposite. Or are you saying you are Okay with this?

First, as Stu says, it's not.
Second, there is a major difference between TDs that clarify rules and that change them. Introducing a new test to test an existing margin is different from changing the margin.

And no, I have said a thousand times I am not ok with mid-race rule changes, did you even try reading? But I am not ok with in season rule changes either! They are just as much competition falsification because they will always affect some teams more than others.

Just imagine if DAS was suddenly banned a few races into the season because the FIA judged it went against their intentions. All the resources that went into development gone, plus the requirement to redevelop parts - even worse now with a budget cap. And as said before, imagine Brawns inventive car being deemed illegal on such grounds. That would be a whole season ruined for them, much more than a single race. (But hey, the TD is equally valid for all teams! - sure, but that doesn't mean they are equally affected). Well, that is the door that is opened when you allow TDs with mid-season rule changes, that make things illegal that were not illegal by the rules as initially written down.

So, I reiterate.
A) write clear, objectice and quantitative rules to begin with.
B) If things are illegal on basis of those rules, penalize.
C) if things are not as intended within the rules but not illegal, props to the team that designed it.

No meddling with rules during a season or race.

[Ryar]

...

No what gifted him the win was race control not following their own rules he doing something illegal.

It is strange people are so in favour of this if it benefits them and against driver they hate.

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't. The rules are vague and ambiguous, which is not his fault. Rules also gave him overriding authority to execute those ambigous rules, in a manner that suits the situation. Period. Mercedes read the situation wrong and didn't pit when they could, which was their fault. They "assumed" race will complete behind SC, which is why they lost the race. Red Bull were in a situation to capitalize on a tricky race situation, which they did, as they did throughout the year. Twisting it in any different way is not going to change the truth.

[Csmith1980]

...

No what gifted him the win was race control not following their own rules he doing something illegal.

It is strange people are so in favour of this if it benefits them and against driver they hate.

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't. The rules are vague and ambiguous, which is not his fault. Rules also gave him overriding authority to execute those ambigous rules, in a manner that suits the situation. Period. Mercedes read the situation wrong and didn't pit when they could, which was their fault. They "assumed" race will complete behind SC, which is why they lost the race. Red Bull were in a situation to capitalize on a tricky race situation, which they did, as they did throughout the year. Twisting it in any different way is not going to change the truth.

Article 48.12
The message “lapped cars may now overtake” has been sent to ALL competitors.
Rule breach 1

“Once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING LAP
rule breach 2.

Pretty unambiguous if you ask me
It’s not even worth addressing the rest of your post.

[f1jcw]

<...>

No what gifted him the win was race control not following their own rules he doing something illegal.

It is strange people are so in favour of this if it benefits them and against driver they hate.

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't.

Have you being asleep for the last 2 months?
Why do you think their is such controversy still going on. It is cause he didn't follow the rules.

You know that, so not sure why come and make that statement when you know it is utterly false.

[Ferry]

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't. The rules are vague and ambiguous, which is not his fault. Rules also gave him overriding authority to execute those ambigous rules, in a manner that suits the situation.

The way I see it that is the only explanation that can be given to defend what happened. If Masi has overriding authority, then fine. He overrode the normal rules, and did it legally.
But then why investigate it? Just defend your position, pointing to the overriding authority. No need to spend weeks and months to investigate anything. It's either within the rules, or it's not. If within the rules, move on. If not, fix the wrongdoing.
The stewards hade several hours to look at the issue. They could easily overturn the results if the rules weren't followed. If they now find out 2 months later it was a breach of the regulations, I would also certainly use words like "vague" and "ambiguous". The only way out of this mess is now is to make a vague and ambiguous report.

[cooken]

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't. The rules are vague and ambiguous, which is not his fault.

Gentle reminder of what Masi's interpretation of the rules were. Established by none other than Michael Masi:

There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars passed.

[AeroDynamic]

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't. The rules are vague and ambiguous, which is not his fault.

Gentle reminder of what Masi's interpretation of the rules were. Established by none other than Michael Masi:

There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars passed.

Any don’t mean all. — Christian Horner

[Csmith1980]

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't. The rules are vague and ambiguous, which is not his fault. Rules also gave him overriding authority to execute those ambigous rules, in a manner that suits the situation.

The way I see it that is the only explanation that can be given to defend what happened. If Masi has overriding authority, then fine. He overrode the normal rules, and did it legally.
But then why investigate it? Just defend your position, pointing to the overriding authority. No need to spend weeks and months to investigate anything. It's either within the rules, or it's not. If within the rules, move on. If not, fix the wrongdoing.
The stewards hade several hours to look at the issue. They could easily overturn the results if the rules weren't followed. If they now find out 2 months later it was a breach of the regulations, I would also certainly use words like "vague" and "ambiguous". The only way out of this mess is now is to make a vague and ambiguous report.

If you read Article 15.3 in it’s entirety, it does not give the RD overriding authority over the rules, it gives him overriding authority over the clerk of the course on several matters. The Stewards took the regulation out of context and used it to justify Masi’s decision because let’s face it they were never going to rule against themselves were they.
Now that decision has caused such a controversy both within and outside of F1 the FIA have now been forced into an investigation

[Just_a_fan]

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't. The rules are vague and ambiguous, which is not his fault. Rules also gave him overriding authority to execute those ambigous rules, in a manner that suits the situation.

No they don't. They gave him authority over the use of the safety car. Note the "use" not the "rules over how it is used". What that means is that he can throw a safety car out on to the track whenever he thinks it's required. Also, he can decide when it's no longer required. It doesn't allow him to pick and choose which cars are unlapped. He can either unlap none or unlap all - that's what the rules say. And because he chose to unlap only specific cars that sat between the two title protagonists, his actions were not in accordance with the rules.

These are subtle differences but the subtle differences are important when applying rules in such circumstances.

[Just_a_fan]

Masi followed the rules. Not sure why people think he didn't. The rules are vague and ambiguous, which is not his fault.

Gentle reminder of what Masi's interpretation of the rules were. Established by none other than Michael Masi:

There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars passed.

Exactly so. If he had previously taken the position that unlapping some cars was ok, at least he would have been consistent. But he had publicly set a precedent and put it in writing and then, at the next point when it really mattered, he ignored that precedent.

[cooken]

The denial of Masi’s illegitimate decision making around the safety car and restart procedures, suggest that the max-biased fans are not sleeping well on this. It is futile to argue, if you refute them the target argument will shift to something else or they will quietly concede only to return back with the same arguments previously refuted.

The FIA investigation and concession that Mercedes had a good chance of succeeding in the courts and having the result voided (according to the FIA) doesnt hold much weight with them (supposedly)

I think In all honesty it’s only the diehard max/rb fans or those baiting for a reaction who are sticking with the “masi did nothing wrong” narrative.

Now now, we all know Wouter is absolutely positively not, in any way shape or form, a Max or RB fan.


For serious though, the us/them framing is not helpful. Just refer to them as a group by subject (denial of Masi wrongdoing) instead of team affinity. It will likely help reduce antagonism.

[Csmith1980]

The denial of Masi’s illegitimate decision making around the safety car and restart procedures, suggest that the max-biased fans are not sleeping well on this. It is futile to argue, if you refute them the target argument will shift to something else or they will quietly concede only to return back with the same arguments previously refuted.

The FIA investigation and concession that Mercedes had a good chance of succeeding in the courts and having the result voided (according to the FIA) doesnt hold much weight with them (supposedly)

I think In all honesty it’s only the diehard max/rb fans or those baiting for a reaction who are sticking with the “masi did nothing wrong” narrative.

Now now, we all know Wouter is absolutely positively not, in any way shape or form, a Max or RB fan.


For serious though, the us/them framing is not helpful. Just refer to them as a group by subject (denial of Masi wrongdoing) instead of team affinity. It will likely help reduce antagonism.

Fair enough, I would like to point out I was not only referring to members of this form with that post, I have seen the same partisanship across many forms of media.

[nzjrs]

This is getting boring now.

I think DC has been massively consistent on this point and the majority of technical and us engineering folks here that build things according to specifications (contractual re signof and practically too) in our 9-5s agree with him. You would have a better argument of you took a more Dans79 approach and argued around intent and linearity curves.