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

[El Scorchio]

Infact IMO, they should change that ruling and instruct the leading cars to overtake lapped cars, instead of allowing lapped cars to unlap.

This sound so obvious I guess there must be a reason we´re missing

It affects the overall lap count at the end of the race. All those cars will be shown as 2 laps down rather than 1.

Edit- it's also a lot more work and hassle with potential for comings together to make cars move back en masse but each slot into a different position rather than just have them pass everyone else and catch up. It's probably actually a more complex and time consuming procedure.

[Ryar]

Isn't it easy to ignore posts, instead of coming back at a poster and telling, "stop". Nobody does. I would appreciate people arguing on, but bossing around saying, "stop", is not acceptable. If there are points, feel free to put forward and and debate on.

Wait, you just accused a member of ignoring posts while simultaneously ignoring the majority of their post?
I’m sorry but your repeated, constant trolling and gaslighting of other forum users really should be bought under control.

Like Dans said, we should be allowed to tell Ryar and our friend from Delft (nice town, I hope I can be there early next year) that Max fans are a$$holes? Would this make the thread better?
Or just flag them and let only the Lewis fans post?

Honestly....yesterday I tried to read the thread in the evening I tried to read this thread and my browser could not load the pages as quick as Lewis fans were expressing their feelings here....of course that was expected that ringostar, scorcho and their gang will own this thread.

I can guarantee one thing that, I won't use namecalling and resort to personal abuses. Although unacceptable personally, i would let that freedom for others if they want and mods permit it.

[Bill_Kar]

Isn't it easy to ignore posts, instead of coming back at a poster and telling, "stop". Nobody does. I would appreciate people arguing on, but bossing around saying, "stop", is not acceptable. If there are points, feel free to put forward and and debate on.

Wait, you just accused a member of ignoring posts while simultaneously ignoring the majority of their post?
I’m sorry but your repeated, constant trolling and gaslighting of other forum users really should be bought under control.

Like Dans said, we should be allowed to tell Ryar and our friend from Delft (nice town, I hope I can be there early next year) that Max fans are a$$holes? Would this make the thread better?
Or just flag them and let only the Lewis fans post?

Honestly....yesterday I tried to read the thread in the evening I tried to read this thread and my browser could not load the pages as quick as Lewis fans were expressing their feelings here....of course that was expected that ringostar, scorcho and their gang will own this thread.

Yeah, the problem is since yesterday, there has not been a single real argument from Ryar et al. Just "This is racing" or "Accept it and move on" or "Remember what happened in Britain" or "DSQ Hamilton". All pointless.

I mean, yeah sure, we won't kill ourselves over what happened, we move on with our lives, but this is a discussion thread, when you monotonically repeat bollocks and you continuously avoid proper discussion like anthrax, you will be called out.

[Hoffman900]

There has been an argument made that "any" as pertaining to lapped cars does not mean "all" in an attempt to justify letting only a select few lapped cars go past. Assuming that this is part of the logic being applied, then by extension, the message in 48.12 of "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" does not have to be "all" lapped cars, and therefore the message sent to the selected 5 can be interpreted as the one implied by this article. Meaning that 48.12 actually WAS invoked as soon as that message was sent out.

Frankly, I think regardless of the wording of the rules, it seems to me that Article 48.12 is intended to come into effect if it is decided that lapped cars are overtaking, whether it be one of them, all of them, or any combination in between.

But precedent has been set in its use. Masi’s quote from last October is particularly damning. Precedent almost matters as much as the actual language.

[Andres125sx]

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

Arbitrarity from a Steward wich harms several competitors

- Lewis obviously as with a normal (legal) procedure the race would have finished under SC, wich is what they logically assumed when SC was deployed with 5 laps to go and a car crashed into the track with pieces all around, so they decided to do not stop to keep track position as the scenario looked like a finish under SC. But then normal (legal) procedure was modified on the go to let only some cars to unlap, and quickly restart the race with one lap to go. Basically they moved the goalposts after Mercedes made their decision based on normal (legal) procedures. Like it or not that is not fair as is not how Stewards are suppossed to act

- Sainz as they left two lapped cars between Verstappen and himself, so he couldn´t try a pass.

- Same with Bottas with 1 lapped car in front of him

- Ricciardo as the last lapped car alowed to unlap was Vettel who was in front of him, so he was deprived of an opportunity to pass at the restart

4 drivers were harmed with the decision wich by itself is something very questionable from a Steward, then the championship...


I think Max was the best driver of the season, but the title was decided by an arbitrary Steward decision. I say arbitrary to do not assume intentionality, but we all know when there´s huge amounts of money involved this things are anything but unintended.

I must admit I´m a bad person, as I´m even a bit pleased of this. Now Lewis knows how Alonso felt in 2007

The title was not decided by a single decision. It was decided, amongst other factors, by several decisions over the course of the season, some of which played out in favor of MB. Claiming that this was the single ultimate decisive factor is absurd reductionism. The decision was poor yes, but it's a sign of a bigger issue of poorly written, hard-to-interpret and hard-to-enforce rules and regulations, that has led to more controversy already. As I indicated before, the title was already tainted by such decisions, regardless of who won, regardless of how this last race played out.

True. If Max would have been disqualified in previous GP because of the brake test, as any sensible stweard would have done, the title wouldn´t have been so exciting, it was certainly tainted even before this last GP

[Tizz]

Ross Brawn already stated that next season teambosses no longer will have the possibility to directly speak to Masi. For every incident there are at least two of these that will wanna talk to Masi while he surely would want to spent these stressfull moments on solving the issue at hand. It is not difficult to imagine that this may have led to a number of poor decisions so the sooner they change this, the better for everybody including us.

[Bill_Kar]

There has been an argument made that "any" as pertaining to lapped cars does not mean "all" in an attempt to justify letting only a select few lapped cars go past. Assuming that this is part of the logic being applied, then by extension, the message in 48.12 of "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" does not have to be "all" lapped cars, and therefore the message sent to the selected 5 can be interpreted as the one implied by this article. Meaning that 48.12 actually WAS invoked as soon as that message was sent out.

Frankly, I think regardless of the wording of the rules, it seems to me that Article 48.12 is intended to come into effect if it is decided that lapped cars are overtaking, whether it be one of them, all of them, or any combination in between.

But precedent has been set in its use. Masi’s quote from last October is particularly damning. Precedent almost matters as much as the actual language.

Even if by some magic reason you are allowed to handpick the cars that can unlap themselves, if the article 48.12 was indeed invoked, Cooken you forget that in the same article there is a sentence saying that the SC will return to the pits in the "following lap", i.e. the race is finished behind SC. It's really that simple.

[KeiKo403]

Isn't it easy to ignore posts, instead of coming back at a poster and telling, "stop". Nobody does. I would appreciate people arguing on, but bossing around saying, "stop", is not acceptable. If there are points, feel free to put forward and and debate on.

Wait, you just accused a member of ignoring posts while simultaneously ignoring the majority of their post?
I’m sorry but your repeated, constant trolling and gaslighting of other forum users really should be bought under control.

Like Dans said, we should be allowed to tell Ryar and our friend from Delft (nice town, I hope I can be there early next year) that Max fans are a$$holes? Would this make the thread better?
Or just flag them and let only the Lewis fans post?

Honestly....yesterday I tried to read the thread in the evening I tried to read this thread and my browser could not load the pages as quick as Lewis fans were expressing their feelings here....of course that was expected that ringostar, scorcho and their gang will own this thread.

Mercedes are lobbying to take the FIA to task on their poor decisions. I know they initially protested Maxs’ overtake under the safety car but I do think that was to let the FIA take that as an easy way out and hand the title to Hamilton.

Mercedes no longer seem to care about that Verstappen incident. What they (Mercedes) and we (Hamilton fans, Mercedes fans or General F1 fans) take issue with is how the rules around the use of the safety car and letting some lapped cars unlap were implemented in yesterdays race.

Masi has previously clarified that the rule is to allow all lapped cars to overtake because they’re the rules. Then yesterday he about turns and declares he can interpret them differently in the interests of sport.

Life isn’t fair, but life doesn’t have a rulebook - society does but life doesn’t*
F1 however that does have a rulebook, multiple in fact!

*except the rule of if you live then you must, at some point, cease to live

[Ryar]

Infact IMO, they should change that ruling and instruct the leading cars to overtake lapped cars, instead of allowing lapped cars to unlap.

This sound so obvious I guess there must be a reason we´re missing

It affects the overall lap count at the end of the race. All those cars will be shown as 2 laps down rather than 1.

In the grand scheme of things, it's still a better solution. When they let the lapped cars unlap, which they do at a full speed, they gain a bit of advantage of heating up the tyres better than those in front of them in standings, after coming at the back of the pack, they stand a better chance at restart. It's ok to let them carry a bit more fuel due to being one or two laps shorter, which they anyway would have under normal circumstance. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if a car is 1 lap down or 2. So, it's a much safer, easier and sensible option to let the lapped cars slip back or rather, leading cars overtake lapped cars.

[DChemTech]

Arbitrarity from a Steward wich harms several competitors

- Lewis obviously as with a normal (legal) procedure the race would have finished under SC, wich is what they logically assumed when SC was deployed with 5 laps to go and a car crashed into the track with pieces all around, so they decided to do not stop to keep track position as the scenario looked like a finish under SC. But then normal (legal) procedure was modified on the go to let only some cars to unlap, and quickly restart the race with one lap to go. Basically they moved the goalposts after Mercedes made their decision based on normal (legal) procedures. Like it or not that is not fair as is not how Stewards are suppossed to act

- Sainz as they left two lapped cars between Verstappen and himself, so he couldn´t try a pass.

- Same with Bottas with 1 lapped car in front of him

- Ricciardo as the last lapped car alowed to unlap was Vettel who was in front of him, so he was deprived of an opportunity to pass at the restart

4 drivers were harmed with the decision wich by itself is something very questionable from a Steward, then the championship...


I think Max was the best driver of the season, but the title was decided by an arbitrary Steward decision. I say arbitrary to do not assume intentionality, but we all know when there´s huge amounts of money involved this things are anything but unintended.

I must admit I´m a bad person, as I´m even a bit pleased of this. Now Lewis knows how Alonso felt in 2007

The title was not decided by a single decision. It was decided, amongst other factors, by several decisions over the course of the season, some of which played out in favor of MB. Claiming that this was the single ultimate decisive factor is absurd reductionism. The decision was poor yes, but it's a sign of a bigger issue of poorly written, hard-to-interpret and hard-to-enforce rules and regulations, that has led to more controversy already. As I indicated before, the title was already tainted by such decisions, regardless of who won, regardless of how this last race played out.

True. If Max would have been disqualified in previous GP because of the brake test, as any sensible stweard would have done, the title wouldn´t have been so exciting, it was certainly tainted even before this last GP

That is true, although I disagree with your evaluation of that particular event (but I will not put that up for discussion here), that race has been riddled with controversial incidents. As many races prior, as well as rule changes, with 'political games' played on both sides. None of the events can be singled out as being decisive. But if one is fought over in court, well, then so should the rest.

[cooken]

There has been an argument made that "any" as pertaining to lapped cars does not mean "all" in an attempt to justify letting only a select few lapped cars go past. Assuming that this is part of the logic being applied, then by extension, the message in 48.12 of "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" does not have to be "all" lapped cars, and therefore the message sent to the selected 5 can be interpreted as the one implied by this article. Meaning that 48.12 actually WAS invoked as soon as that message was sent out.

Frankly, I think regardless of the wording of the rules, it seems to me that Article 48.12 is intended to come into effect if it is decided that lapped cars are overtaking, whether it be one of them, all of them, or any combination in between.

But precedent has been set in its use. Masi’s quote from last October is particularly damning. Precedent almost matters as much as the actual language.

Oh I agree - just trying to state in a different way, that 48.12 can't really be dismissed. I don't mean to construe that all cars shouldn't have to overtake, just that it is false reasoning for thinking 48.12 didn't apply.

[Ryar]

Wait, you just accused a member of ignoring posts while simultaneously ignoring the majority of their post?
I’m sorry but your repeated, constant trolling and gaslighting of other forum users really should be bought under control.

Like Dans said, we should be allowed to tell Ryar and our friend from Delft (nice town, I hope I can be there early next year) that Max fans are a$$holes? Would this make the thread better?
Or just flag them and let only the Lewis fans post?

Honestly....yesterday I tried to read the thread in the evening I tried to read this thread and my browser could not load the pages as quick as Lewis fans were expressing their feelings here....of course that was expected that ringostar, scorcho and their gang will own this thread.

Yeah, the problem is since yesterday, there has not been a single real argument from Ryar et al. Just "This is racing" or "Accept it and move on" or "Remember what happened in Britain" or "DSQ Hamilton". All pointless.

I mean, yeah sure, we won't kill ourselves over what happened, we move on with our lives, but this is a discussion thread, when you monotonically repeat bollocks and you continuously avoid proper discussion like anthrax, you will be called out.

You chose to pay attention to the posts that you wanted to pay attention to, then you can consider yourself correct. You are not the only one. I have posted content on various aspects so far, if you would like. But that's not the pain here, I guess.

[Andres125sx]

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

Arbitrarity from a Steward wich harms several competitors

- Lewis obviously as with a normal (legal) procedure the race would have finished under SC, wich is what they logically assumed when SC was deployed with 5 laps to go and a car crashed into the track with pieces all around, so they decided to do not stop to keep track position as the scenario looked like a finish under SC. But then normal (legal) procedure was modified on the go to let only some cars to unlap, and quickly restart the race with one lap to go. Basically they moved the goalposts after Mercedes made their decision based on normal (legal) procedures. Like it or not that is not fair as is not how Stewards are suppossed to act

- Sainz as they left two lapped cars between Verstappen and himself, so he couldn´t try a pass.

- Same with Bottas with 1 lapped car in front of him

- Ricciardo as the last lapped car alowed to unlap was Vettel who was in front of him, so he was deprived of an opportunity to pass at the restart

4 drivers were harmed with the decision wich by itself is something very questionable from a Steward, then the championship...


I think Max was the best driver of the season, but the title was decided by an arbitrary Steward decision. I say arbitrary to do not assume intentionality, but we all know when there´s huge amounts of money involved this things are anything but unintended.

I must admit I´m a bad person, as I´m even a bit pleased of this. Now Lewis knows how Alonso felt in 2007

- Sainz was on old hard tires. Attacking Max???
- Bottas was overtaken by two Torro Rosso in the last lap although two lapped cars were in between.
- No unlapping car reached the end of the pack, so Riccardo vs. Vettel would have ended exactely the same.

You should watch the race and not post nonsense here.

If any driver was harmed then this was Tsunoda and Gasly who could not have a go at Sainz.

I´m not going to discuss with you what drivers were harmed, first because of your offending attitude, second because the name of the harmed drivers are irrelevant, I don´t care if it was Sainz or Tsunoda, but you´re accepting some drivers were harmed with this arbitrary Steward decision, wich was the point, so basically you´re agreeing with my argument despite you don´t even notice

[dfegan358]

I’m a new fan to f1 and watched this season and both Lewis and max were incredible all year and both deserving of the title but the way this panned pot just isn’t right.

Either the lapped cars not allowed to unlap and we resume or all cars are allowed to unlap. Masi says he wanted to go racing: why was Sainz denied the same opportunity that verstappen was given. It’s not right and ended up in a farce to be honest.

[Tom145145]

This sound so obvious I guess there must be a reason we´re missing

It affects the overall lap count at the end of the race. All those cars will be shown as 2 laps down rather than 1.

In the grand scheme of things, it's still a better solution. When they let the lapped cars unlap, which they do at a full speed, they gain a bit of advantage of heating up the tyres better than those in front of them in standings, after coming at the back of the pack, they stand a better chance at restart. It's ok to let them carry a bit more fuel due to being one or two laps shorter, which they anyway would have under normal circumstance. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if a car is 1 lap down or 2. So, it's a much safer, easier and sensible option to let the lapped cars slip back or rather, leading cars overtake lapped cars.

It is also irrelevant as it’s isn’t a rule and therefore is not a part of this discussion other than to distract from the relevant points.