FIA Thread

[oT v1]

I wouldn't be suprised if some of Masi's poor decisions were the outcome of the Owners wanting a 'spectacle' and entertainment. So before people rush into celebrations, let's see how next year pans out. If we see similar trends, then we might need to question on how much artificial entertainment the sport needs.

his 2020 imola and istanbul screw ups where all about the show/spectacle at the expense of safety.

I think the general public’s reaction, at the very least raising an eyebrow all the way to the fiery Twitter stuff, might dissuade something so blatant. The new rule set and hopefully a shifting of the running order will be enough…

[Wouter]

If Masi had recieved death threats we would have known by now in the main stream media...please post sources/link for it.

Direct quote from peter bayer doesnt talk about death threats, what u are posting is unquoted inpressions by the editor.
So please post sources/link for it.

So death threats was for Latiffi, not for Masi. Masi getting hate comments... there no direct quote from peter bayer about death threats to masi. If u could find one i am happy to stand corrected.

So until then please stop with the nonsense about death threats to Masi. Stop changing things to suit ur agenda.

.

Huh? I am changing things to suit my agenda?

So you're claiming that the death threats are only the truth if Bayer says so and not
if the writer repeats the words from that Die Presse article?

https://gp33.nl/michael-masi-geraakt-do ... lton-fans/

.

Christian Horner reveals Michael Masi received death threats after F1 controversy in Abu Dhabi

Last Updated: 25/02/22 3:34pm

Horner on treatment towards Masi:
"The lack of support that was shown to Michael was disappointing, especially at a time when mental health is so prevalent.

To hear that his family and he received death threats is not right."

"I have had an exchange with Michael to wish him well. But the whole experience was very, very tough for him."

............................
............................

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -abu-dhabi

[AeroDynamic]

Horner says nobody but him in London meeting offered support for Masi.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull- ... i-support/

I wonder why that is

[Big Tea]

Horner says nobody but him in London meeting offered support for Masi.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull- ... i-support/

I wonder why that is

Feeling remorse?

[AeroDynamic]

No demolition for show reasons

In response to Abu Dhabi, the FIA ​​replaced the staff in race control, but failed to reform the safety car rules. Supposedly there should only be a little reform that shortens the process before the restart by one lap.

The FIA ​​took its time with its analysis of the controversial safety car phase at the end of the season finale in Abu Dhabi. This raised expectations of the consequences. As a first step, FIA boss Mohammed Ben Sulayem announced personnel and structural changes. Niels Wittich and Eduardo Freitas replace Michael Masi as race director, with Herbie Blash as the gray eminence in the backcourt.

In addition, there is a control center in Paris. The video referee in football was the model. The team bosses hope that the doubly secured system will lead to more reliable and plausible decisions.

But that could be a fallacy. People make mistakes no matter what their name is. Especially when you have to make quick decisions. In motorsport you don't have the time you have in football. And what is reliable is always in the eye of the beholder. From a participant's point of view, the quality of a judgment depends on whether one is a victim or a beneficiary.

End under safety car five times
The world association still owes a reform of the safety car procedure. Although it is the silent wish of the teams to complete a race under the green flag, those involved could not agree to write exactly that into the rules.

As things stand today, there will be no abort with a restart if a safety car is used late in the race. Not even if there is a risk of crossing the finish line under yellow.

The FIA ​​provided the teams with statistics according to which only five Grands Prix have ended behind the safety car in the last 20 years. Formula 1 has to be able to live with that, it was said in the group. Instead, they are working on measures to shorten a safety car phase.

The gift of rounding back should remain
There aren't many options. You could save the most time if the lapped drivers dropped behind the field. "You could do that at any time during the safety car phase without jeopardizing safety. There were plans for those who were lapped to drive a lap through the pit lane and then line up again at the back. But that fails because the timekeeping is not able to give everyone who is lapped a lap," explains Aston Martin sporting director Andy Stevenson.

The gift of the round should remain, although many fans find that unfair. This means that rounding back can only begin when the scene of the accident has been cleared. However, the FIA ​​​​intends to do without an extra lap waiting time in the future, which is normally inserted between the back lap and the restart. This is exactly what Masi had done without in Abu Dhabi and thus provoked a protest from Mercedes.


Source: AMuS

[AeroDynamic]

so from the above article, it sounds like it was a bit mixed about how to improve the use of the safety car? if I understand correctly, cars will likely continue to have to unlap themselves by overtaking and completing a lap to reach the leaders. They will not be able to do so until the scene of the accident is cleared. On the other hand, the FIA want to shorten the safety car period by doing what Masi did in Abu Dhabi: bringing the safety car in the same lap it ends?

so, in short, if there's something they are unhappy about with Masi's actions, from the FIA point of view, it was the partial uncapping of the cars (which was the key aspect to what unfolded, as much as the safety car not completing a following lap after ending)

[Wouter]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... te-flagge/

A quote from the AMuS article about the SC procedures.

The gift of the round should stay, although many fans find that unfair.
This means that rounding back can only begin when the scene of the accident has been cleared.
However, the FIA ​​intends to do without an extra lap waiting time in the future, which is normally inserted between the back lap and the restart.
This is exactly what Masi had done without in Abu Dhabi and thus provoked a protest from Mercedes.

Niels Wittich and Eduardo Freitas replace Michael Masi as race director, with Herbie Blash as the gray eminence in the backcourt.

In addition, there is a control center in Paris. The video referee in football was the model. The team bosses hope that the doubly secured system will lead to more reliable and plausible decisions.

If I understand correctly, Masi was allowed to make his own decisions during the SC if he had a good reason to do so. He did.
Mercedes has protested against this and now the FIA itself says that they will also apply the rule that Masi applied for the future.
So they agreed with what Masi did. Nevertheless, Masi was fired.

They also indicated that Masi had far too many tasks to perform. Those duties are now significantly divided, but Masi was fired nonetheless.
Why not divide those tasks much earlier so that Masi could stay RD? FIA

[AeroDynamic]

I think from whats coming out, The FIA's position is that abandoning the extra lap in an effort to resume racing is desirable and safe. But maybe they share a dim view of the shortcut he took in instructing only some cars to unlap instead of all.

They think its ok to finish under safety car. It seems Masi tried to force a resumption of the race under green at all costs, and expense of the regulations.

the question is, do the FIA agree he should have done that without the rules officially written that way? and do they take a dim view on his approach to only selectively allowing some cars to unlap themselves.

if Masi instructs all cars to unlap themselves instead of just 5, does the race finish under safety car or does it resume, if it resumes, how much track would be left to race to the flag?

should Masi be deviating from the rules, even if they are good ideas, without them being officially and clearly explained in the rules that teams use as their reference to build decisions and strategy around reasonably predictable actions from the RD? If they are not clearly in the rules, maybe they should've been passed and made official by the Motorsport Council, like the FIA is doing now. Perhaps by not employing this part of the process, he made a mistake.

[Big Tea]

If there is to be alternating directors there must be a hard and fast, clearly written rule for all things like this.
If it is left to the duty director to implement it as he sees it there could still be a 'pot-luck' element in there.
All written spec. have to conform to this to be accepted by the accrediting body, why would it be any different for F1? It removes the perception and accusation of personal bias.

[izzy]

I think from whats coming out, The FIA's position is that abandoning the extra lap in an effort to resume racing is desirable and safe. But maybe they share a dim view of the shortcut he took in instructing only some cars to unlap instead of all.

They think its ok to finish under safety car. It seems Masi tried to force a resumption of the race under green at all costs, and expense of the regulations.

the question is, do the FIA agree he should have done that without the rules officially written that way? and do they take a dim view on his approach to only selectively allowing some cars to unlap themselves.

if Masi instructs all cars to unlap themselves instead of just 5, does the race finish under safety car or does it resume, if it resumes, how much track would be left to race to the flag?

It had nothing to do with finishing under the safety car. Masi's original decision not to unlap the lapped cars was exactly to make sure it could finish under green, because that meant he could legally save a lap of SC.

Of course since then FIA/F1/their tame media have tried to make out it was about that, but it never was. He made the correct call, then 4 minutes later he changed it, and it wasn't to finish with a racing lap or to follow the rules or any reason whatsoever that they dare to admit.

[izzy]

If there is to be alternating directors there must be a hard and fast, clearly written rule for all things like this.
If it is left to the duty director to implement it as he sees it there could still be a 'pot-luck' element in there.
All written spec. have to conform to this to be accepted by the accrediting body, why would it be any different for F1? It removes the perception and accusation of personal bias.

I think the rules were quite clear really: if the lapped cars are unlapped, the SC must stay out until the end of the following lap. The stewards were only able to save the situation at the time by pretending 15.3 means something it obviously doesn't, ie that the race director can do whatever he likes instead of what it's really about - having the final word with the clerk of the course.

But it wasn't personal bias, Masi had no reason to change his decision from right to wrong did he? It was F1 who wanted the extra money from Max WDC. Michael's bosses, and the stewards' bosses.

[Big Tea]

If there is to be alternating directors there must be a hard and fast, clearly written rule for all things like this.
If it is left to the duty director to implement it as he sees it there could still be a 'pot-luck' element in there.
All written spec. have to conform to this to be accepted by the accrediting body, why would it be any different for F1? It removes the perception and accusation of personal bias.

I think the rules were quite clear really: if the lapped cars are unlapped, the SC must stay out until the end of the following lap. The stewards were only able to save the situation at the time by pretending 15.3 means something it obviously doesn't, ie that the race director can do whatever he likes instead of what it's really about - having the final word with the clerk of the course.

But it wasn't personal bias, Masi had no reason to change his decision from right to wrong did he? It was F1 who wanted the extra money from Max WDC. Michael's bosses, and the stewards' bosses.

There is still room for the insertion of words like Only/every or No/all and When not if in a few places to make it plain it is not a choice, this is what YOU do (You being the person in that position)

[Wouter]

But it wasn't personal bias, Masi had no reason to change his decision from right to wrong did he?

It was F1 who wanted the extra money from Max WDC. Michael's bosses, and the stewards' bosses.

.
Could you maybe explain what you mean by this?

[izzy]

I think the rules were quite clear really: if the lapped cars are unlapped, the SC must stay out until the end of the following lap. The stewards were only able to save the situation at the time by pretending 15.3 means something it obviously doesn't, ie that the race director can do whatever he likes instead of what it's really about - having the final word with the clerk of the course.

But it wasn't personal bias, Masi had no reason to change his decision from right to wrong did he? It was F1 who wanted the extra money from Max WDC. Michael's bosses, and the stewards' bosses.

There is still room for the insertion of words like Only/every or No/all and When not if in a few places to make it plain it is not a choice, this is what YOU do (You being the person in that position)

Yes fair enough, it could always be made a bit harder to dodge! But it's a lesson for me how the media can be used to tell a completely false story like this, that it was in order to finish with a racing lap. Well, in a dark corner of my mind I suppose I did suspect. Bernie set it up from the start with controlling the accreditation...

[izzy]

But it wasn't personal bias, Masi had no reason to change his decision from right to wrong did he?

It was F1 who wanted the extra money from Max WDC. Michael's bosses, and the stewards' bosses.

.
Could you maybe explain what you mean by this?

F1 has gained a lot from a new, fresh WDC with different appeal hasn't it. Lots of new fans, clicks, follows, subscriptions, fans from DTS and wherever, who identify more easily with a young white guy who's pretty straightforward, into hard racing, boxing and all that. And the change is just adding appeal on its own, instead of boring old Lewis and Mercedes for the 6/8th time in a row.

So you can imagine how the F1 money people were looking at the situation: Max right there but just with those lapped cars, and then omg Michael says they won't unlap!! Frick!! And there are those tempting, tempting 3-4 minutes while they clear the track...