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

[mclaren111]

The stewards aren't involved in the SC procedure decisions. That's solely down to Masi.

I am not well aware, but I will take this.

The issue is that his over-riding primary concern seems to be that the race shouldn't finish behind the safety car. His secondary issue seems to be, from his own admission, that he wanted the two leading drivers to fight for the win. That's fine, but it wasn't a fight, it was a mugging. If he didn't want a SC finish and he did want a fight to the end, he should have red flagged the race and then restarted with a two lap dash to the lights. That would have been thrilling and equitable.

Why is it mugging? Mercedes had the option to pit and take the new set of tyres, like RB did. They didn't and RB did. Had Mercedes did that and taken the new softs and RB would have done the reverse to stay on track, it would have been Lewis doing what Max did. Why call missed calculation a mugging and blame FIA?

Totally agree...

[siskue2005]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... d-in-court

Lawyer warns FIA Abu Dhabi GP decision could be overturned in court
Duncan Bagshaw says FIA ‘marking its own homework’
‘It is quite likely Mercedes will take it to a court of arbitration’

It's just one person's opinion, but I agree with it.

I can't see that Daimler will want this to drag on, they no longer have a controlling interest but they still have a third say and this will be damaging to their brand.

It's interesting what Ola has to say. Haven't heard anything from Daimler.

As for the lawyer's warning. What is the meaning of "overturning" here? What is the "overturned" position of a SC restart decision of a concluded race looks like. Surely, it can't be the order of 57th lap of a 58 lap race. That in itself a legally arguable case against such a decision. Why would the other party accept a shortned race's decision? The other party has to right to go ask for going back to the circuit and restart the race once again, from the point of the crash. It sounds weird, but anything can happen in a courtroom. Defendents can push for all sorts of arbitrations.

The last lap cannot be a green flag racing according to the rule... so it has to be a yellow flagged lap, so any positions gained in that lap is invalid and illegal.. .. hence the position gained by Max will revert back to the one he had on lap 57. So there is no shortening for the race, only changing finishing order which is perfectly possible

[Hoffman900]

The stewards aren't involved in the SC procedure decisions. That's solely down to Masi.

I am not well aware, but I will take this.

The issue is that his over-riding primary concern seems to be that the race shouldn't finish behind the safety car. His secondary issue seems to be, from his own admission, that he wanted the two leading drivers to fight for the win. That's fine, but it wasn't a fight, it was a mugging. If he didn't want a SC finish and he did want a fight to the end, he should have red flagged the race and then restarted with a two lap dash to the lights. That would have been thrilling and equitable.

Why is it mugging? Mercedes had the option to pit and take the new set of tyres, like RB did. They didn't and RB did. Had Mercedes did that and taken the new softs and RB would have done the reverse to stay on track, it would have been Lewis doing what Max did. Why call missed calculation a mugging and blame FIA?

As been stated hundreds of times, they did not have the option, because under no previous precedent would they have gone back green with the remaining laps left. So they would have lost track position and the race finished under yellow.

Max could pit and not lose track position, and if it went green, great, but based on the rules as written and previous precedent, it was very unlikely going to, and if it did, he would have to go through lapped cars. They changed the rules to create a scenario that has never existed, and by rules can’t exist, and Mercedes or anyone had thought was possible.

This isn’t rocket science.

[DChemTech]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59631665

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: 'Max Verstappen's win decided by a questionable call'

By Andrew Benson
Chief F1 writer
Last updated on12 December


The questions over the rules
What followed was unprecedented.

Race director Michael Masi initially said lapped cars would not be allowed to overtake, which would have left five cars between Hamilton and Verstappen for the one lap of racing that it looked like would be left.

That's against normal protocol, so Red Bull complained.

Masi changed his mind and let those five cars overtake - but not the other three. This put Verstappen and Hamilton together but left two lapped cars between third-placed Carlos Sainz's Ferrari and Verstappen and one between Valtteri Bottas' Mercedes and Yuki Tsunoda's Alpha Tauri.

This is also against normal protocol. So Mercedes complained, to no avail.

The race was restarted with one lap to go and the inevitable happened. Verstappen, with so much extra grip, passed Hamilton into Turn Five. Hamilton tried to get him back down the two subsequent straights, but was never likely to.

The world championship had changed hands - as a result of a questionable call from the race director.

George Russell, a Mercedes driver next year, said: "Max is an absolutely fantastic driver who has had an incredible season and I have nothing but huge respect for him, but what just happened is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot believe what we've just seen."

Verstappen obviously expressed the opposing view. "Everything [on track] was clear," he said, "so why would you do another lap behind the safety car?"

Disinterested observers - drivers and team members - were baffled. What happened is not the way things are normally dealt with, and one driver told BBC Sport he believed that had this been any other race, it would simply have ended behind the safety car.

The problem is the rule that deals with allowing lapped cars to overtake leaves room for manoeuvre. It says: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message 'lapped cars may now overtake' has been sent to all competitors, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car."

But that message was not displayed, a different one was, ordering only some cars through, and this eventuality is not in the regulations.

However, Masi had acted contrary to another part of the same article, 48.12 of the sporting regulations.

This says: "Once the last lapped car has passed the leader, the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."

But that's not what happened - the following lap was the last lap, and the cars were released to race at the start of it, when the rules appear to say they should not have been.

There's another rule that says the race director shall have "overriding authority" on a number of matters, including the safety car.

The stewards used this as part of their justification for throwing out Mercedes' appeal after the race. But does the rule mean Masi can decide to do whatever he wants in such situations, or that he has the ultimate authority in the correct application of the rules?

The stewards' other argument for rejecting the protest was that article 48.13 - the very next clause - overrules 48.12 because it says: "Once the message 'safety car in this lap' has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap."

This seems to suggest the FIA's own rules regarding the safety car contradict themselves.

Still, all of this implies that this was the only questionable call that fully decided the season. That is not true. There have been questionable calls in other races, and in regulation changes, that have had their (potential) impact. The notion that both drivers started with equal points did not somehow mean all of these other incidents were negated, and I think Peter Windsor said it right by noting that MB mainly dropped the ball in the early season. No matter how problematic the quirks of the FIA were this year, the championship depended on more than just this decision in this race.

[jz11]

the more I think about this (no doubt trying to justify the outcome), the more I see this is indeed a Mercedes strategy blunder:
1st stint, Maxes softs falling off, Lewis has no problem maintaining his speed or even increasing his pace slightly, Max was 4-5sec behind, Max pits, now he is about 28-30 behind
Lewis stretches his stint, VSC comes out, he pits, loses about 14sec, now his fresh hards are already younger than Maxes (who might have stayed out, and probably would have, since going in gives him nothing really) - and the most important thing - Perez doesn't come into play at all!
2nd stint - Max is on slightly used hards, Lewis in new ones, gap is around 14sec, Lewis has choice now to either extend the gap or maintain, I'm quite sure they would extend it to 20, maybe even full pitstop - 24-25sec, (Maxes pace on the hards showed that they couldn't really do much on those tires, hence my argument that Lewis could extend the gap)
now the SC comes, gap is 14+sec - this is a nobrainer any more for Mercedes - red flag or not, they tell Lewis to pit, new softs on and he is ready to defend, at this stage, had Max indeed been competitive on those hards through the 2nd stint AND he would have somehow gained the lead from Lewis pitting (highly unlikely), Lewis would be in a perfect position to do whatever

but sadly we need a Rick with a portal gun to alternate universe where Merc strategists are good to test my theory

[DChemTech]

The stewards aren't involved in the SC procedure decisions. That's solely down to Masi.

I am not well aware, but I will take this.

The issue is that his over-riding primary concern seems to be that the race shouldn't finish behind the safety car. His secondary issue seems to be, from his own admission, that he wanted the two leading drivers to fight for the win. That's fine, but it wasn't a fight, it was a mugging. If he didn't want a SC finish and he did want a fight to the end, he should have red flagged the race and then restarted with a two lap dash to the lights. That would have been thrilling and equitable.

Why is it mugging? Mercedes had the option to pit and take the new set of tyres, like RB did. They didn't and RB did. Had Mercedes did that and taken the new softs and RB would have done the reverse to stay on track, it would have been Lewis doing what Max did. Why call missed calculation a mugging and blame FIA?

As been stated hundreds of times, they did not have the option, because under no previous precedent would they have gone back green with the remaining laps left. So they would have lost track position and the race finished under yellow.

Max could pit and not lose track position, and if it went green, great, but based on the rules as written and previous precedent, it was very unlikely going to, and if it did, he would have to go through lapped cars. They changed the rules to create a scenario that has never existed, and by rules can’t exist, and Mercedes or anyone had thought was possible.

This isn’t rocket science.

If they paid any attention towards how races were stewarded last year, a restart was much more likely than a SC-finish. And with the pace MB had, losing track position (which required Max to stay out on 20ish lap hard tires) was not a huge issue if the race was restarted. They did have a harder decision to make than RB, for sure, but it was not like they didn't have the option. They gambled and lost.

[Hoffman900]

It’s not a strategic blunder because under no previous scenario would this have gone green with Max on his tail. ONLY way it could have is if Max had to start behind the lapped cars.

You can’t strategize when the rules are changed on the fly. That is the issue.

[radosav]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59631665

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: 'Max Verstappen's win decided by a questionable call'

By Andrew Benson
Chief F1 writer
Last updated on12 December


The questions over the rules
What followed was unprecedented.

Race director Michael Masi initially said lapped cars would not be allowed to overtake, which would have left five cars between Hamilton and Verstappen for the one lap of racing that it looked like would be left.

That's against normal protocol, so Red Bull complained.

Masi changed his mind and let those five cars overtake - but not the other three. This put Verstappen and Hamilton together but left two lapped cars between third-placed Carlos Sainz's Ferrari and Verstappen and one between Valtteri Bottas' Mercedes and Yuki Tsunoda's Alpha Tauri.

This is also against normal protocol. So Mercedes complained, to no avail.

The race was restarted with one lap to go and the inevitable happened. Verstappen, with so much extra grip, passed Hamilton into Turn Five. Hamilton tried to get him back down the two subsequent straights, but was never likely to.

The world championship had changed hands - as a result of a questionable call from the race director.

George Russell, a Mercedes driver next year, said: "Max is an absolutely fantastic driver who has had an incredible season and I have nothing but huge respect for him, but what just happened is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot believe what we've just seen."

Verstappen obviously expressed the opposing view. "Everything [on track] was clear," he said, "so why would you do another lap behind the safety car?"

Disinterested observers - drivers and team members - were baffled. What happened is not the way things are normally dealt with, and one driver told BBC Sport he believed that had this been any other race, it would simply have ended behind the safety car.

The problem is the rule that deals with allowing lapped cars to overtake leaves room for manoeuvre. It says: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message 'lapped cars may now overtake' has been sent to all competitors, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car."

But that message was not displayed, a different one was, ordering only some cars through, and this eventuality is not in the regulations.

However, Masi had acted contrary to another part of the same article, 48.12 of the sporting regulations.

This says: "Once the last lapped car has passed the leader, the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."

But that's not what happened - the following lap was the last lap, and the cars were released to race at the start of it, when the rules appear to say they should not have been.

There's another rule that says the race director shall have "overriding authority" on a number of matters, including the safety car.

The stewards used this as part of their justification for throwing out Mercedes' appeal after the race. But does the rule mean Masi can decide to do whatever he wants in such situations, or that he has the ultimate authority in the correct application of the rules?

The stewards' other argument for rejecting the protest was that article 48.13 - the very next clause - overrules 48.12 because it says: "Once the message 'safety car in this lap' has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap."

This seems to suggest the FIA's own rules regarding the safety car contradict themselves.

so Masi tried do rectify unjustice made to red bull because he didn't let right away lapped cars unlap themself, which would go in hands of max verstapen, but did it to late, and didn't make it by the rule?
so if he did it by the book at the start of safety car, max would be in an advantage anyway?

[Ryar]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... d-in-court

Lawyer warns FIA Abu Dhabi GP decision could be overturned in court
Duncan Bagshaw says FIA ‘marking its own homework’
‘It is quite likely Mercedes will take it to a court of arbitration’

It's just one person's opinion, but I agree with it.

I can't see that Daimler will want this to drag on, they no longer have a controlling interest but they still have a third say and this will be damaging to their brand.

It's interesting what Ola has to say. Haven't heard anything from Daimler.

As for the lawyer's warning. What is the meaning of "overturning" here? What is the "overturned" position of a SC restart decision of a concluded race looks like. Surely, it can't be the order of 57th lap of a 58 lap race. That in itself a legally arguable case against such a decision. Why would the other party accept a shortned race's decision? The other party has to right to go ask for going back to the circuit and restart the race once again, from the point of the crash. It sounds weird, but anything can happen in a courtroom. Defendents can push for all sorts of arbitrations.

The last lap cannot be a green flag racing according to the rule... so it has to be a yellow flagged lap, so any positions gained in that lap is invalid and illegal.. .. hence the position gained by Max will revert back to the one he had on lap 57. So there is no shortening for the race, only changing finishing order which is perfectly possible

Race Director's decision overrides all rules. So it's a legal decision and stands. Then what is the next argument in court?

[Just_a_fan]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... d-in-court

Lawyer warns FIA Abu Dhabi GP decision could be overturned in court
Duncan Bagshaw says FIA ‘marking its own homework’
‘It is quite likely Mercedes will take it to a court of arbitration’

It's just one person's opinion, but I agree with it.

I can't see that Daimler will want this to drag on, they no longer have a controlling interest but they still have a third say and this will be damaging to their brand.

It's interesting what Ola has to say. Haven't heard anything from Daimler.

The team is a separate legal entity to Daimler, and Toto is CEO of the team and holds a 33% stake in it. He could just go for it anyway.

[banibhusan]

How I wish Bottas was running 3rd or 4th and within 14s behind Verstappen (a pit stop window under SC/VSC) or had Hamilton overtaken Perez on the same lap instead of losing 9s. None of this would have happened and everyone would be sleeping peacefully now.

Just wishful thinking anyways.

[Hoffman900]

I am not well aware, but I will take this.
Why is it mugging? Mercedes had the option to pit and take the new set of tyres, like RB did. They didn't and RB did. Had Mercedes did that and taken the new softs and RB would have done the reverse to stay on track, it would have been Lewis doing what Max did. Why call missed calculation a mugging and blame FIA?

As been stated hundreds of times, they did not have the option, because under no previous precedent would they have gone back green with the remaining laps left. So they would have lost track position and the race finished under yellow.

Max could pit and not lose track position, and if it went green, great, but based on the rules as written and previous precedent, it was very unlikely going to, and if it did, he would have to go through lapped cars. They changed the rules to create a scenario that has never existed, and by rules can’t exist, and Mercedes or anyone had thought was possible.

This isn’t rocket science.

If they paid any attention towards how races were stewarded last year, a restart was much more likely than a SC-finish. And with the pace MB had, losing track position (which required Max to stay out on 20ish lap hard tires) was not a huge issue if the race was restarted. They did have a harder decision to make than RB, for sure, but it was not like they didn't have the option. They gambled and lost.

Like this time:
https://www.planetf1.com/news/michael-m ... afety-car/

Masi:

. “There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars passed,” he said.

“So from that point it was position six onwards that were still running. Between 10, 11 cars had to unlap themselves.

“And therefore the Safety Car period was a bit longer than what we would have normally expected.”

This flip flop is pretty damning.

[diffuser]

As Alonso fan i had terrible 2007, 2010 and 2012 ends of seasons, it took really long time to accept the result, so i understand Hamilton fans.
They have to be satisfied with eight years of Merc domination , Toto too has to admit that things went they way more during this era, especially with such a dominant engine, Merc had a such a huge input on creating engine rules of this era and already having ready engine that had to be run in idle mode whole first season.

The one one saving grace for 2007 was that neither driver won. It went to Kimi.

[Hoffman900]

It's interesting what Ola has to say. Haven't heard anything from Daimler.

As for the lawyer's warning. What is the meaning of "overturning" here? What is the "overturned" position of a SC restart decision of a concluded race looks like. Surely, it can't be the order of 57th lap of a 58 lap race. That in itself a legally arguable case against such a decision. Why would the other party accept a shortned race's decision? The other party has to right to go ask for going back to the circuit and restart the race once again, from the point of the crash. It sounds weird, but anything can happen in a courtroom. Defendents can push for all sorts of arbitrations.

The last lap cannot be a green flag racing according to the rule... so it has to be a yellow flagged lap, so any positions gained in that lap is invalid and illegal.. .. hence the position gained by Max will revert back to the one he had on lap 57. So there is no shortening for the race, only changing finishing order which is perfectly possible

Race Director's decision overrides all rules. So it's a legal decision and stands. Then what is the next argument in court?

It absolutely doesn’t. You would get laughed out of any court with that interpretation.

[Ryar]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... d-in-court

Lawyer warns FIA Abu Dhabi GP decision could be overturned in court
Duncan Bagshaw says FIA ‘marking its own homework’
‘It is quite likely Mercedes will take it to a court of arbitration’

It's just one person's opinion, but I agree with it.

I can't see that Daimler will want this to drag on, they no longer have a controlling interest but they still have a third say and this will be damaging to their brand.

It's interesting what Ola has to say. Haven't heard anything from Daimler.

The team is a separate legal entity to Daimler, and Toto is CEO of the team and holds a 33% stake in it. He could just go for it anyway.

My question is from a brand perspective for Daimler, who are also equal party in the holding rights and ofcourse INEOS. Are they all in unison with Toto or Toto acting on his own without consulting his equal partners. He may have right to act on his own being the CEO, but is that acceptable Daimler. May be, may be not, but only they can tell.