Given that Mercedes got the constructors, one might suggest they had marginally the better car (assuming the Bottas isn’t significantly better than Perez), making Verstappen marginally the better driver.
But one might equally argue that’s an obvious but simplistic assessment.
Remember to factor in the effect of Silverstone, Hungaroring and Baku into the points equation
I think David Croft summed it up perfectly. A mistake was made but it wasn’t a fix or manipulated.
Masi had too much happening and too many decisions to make so his role needs to be restructured to have a (pair of?) assistants/deputes who also know the rules inside out and can come to a correct decision within 30 seconds.
Also a new rule of no safety car within say 5? laps of the finish and instead have a red flag and restart.
Personally I’d say the way out of it would’ve been to radio the lapped cars to say they have to immediately let Max past before turn 1 but obv that can raise other issues.
Masi shouldn’t be sacked, the rules confirm it’s his call. Lots of armchair experts trying to say otherwise.
That Crofty interview was interesting - have to say I agree entirely with him now the dust has settled a bit. Not a fix, a mistake and I don’t think Mercedes should or will pursue the appeal. Although I wanted Lewis to win, Max is a worthy champion and it’s a shame it got tarnished like that.
It wasn’t a fix, for sure, just a case of doing the wrong thing. There were two ways to do the right thing and at least one way to do the wrong thing. Masi was trying to do what he thought was the right thing, even though he’d initially said he was doing one of the actual right things, but he’d been persuaded by Horner that the right thing was the wrong thing and he should do the right thing (namely one of the wrong things), so he then did the actual wrong thing. The thing about the wrong thing was that it carried with it a near-certain race result, but then doing one of the right things carried a high risk of swinging to that result too. Awkwardly, the other right thing guaranteed a different race result, so whichever right thing was chosen was always going to be the wrong thing in someone’s eyes, but it really should have been obvious that what he (and Horner) thought was the right thing was the wrongest of them all.
I think he was thinking I must do anything I can to get this race restarted so there can be a little battle between Max and Lewis. But he should not be thinking in those terms at all.
I believe the majority of motorsport fans want to see them race hard, but fairly, and whoever wins would be a worthy champion.
I think that’s right. Though a minority clearly don’t, they just want their way - however it has to happen.
Sadly “hard, but fairly” wasn’t what we got.
The most remarkable thing for me personally was just how Max managed, each and every time I though he’d annoyed me as much as he could, he then went and made it worse.
After the farce of a restart, and the almost inevitable overtake for the lead, he then zigzags his way down the straight, side to side to side. What an arse.
A true achievement.
You're not wrong Bez.
I’m not Crofty’s biggest fan but that is as good a summing up as you will hear. If the casual observer is confused or put off by the ending yesterday what on earth will they make of it if after appeals the first man across the line turns out not to be the winner after all.
If the casual observer is confused or put off by the ending yesterday what on earth will they make of it if after appeals the first man across the line turns out not to be the winner after all.
As a casual observer - less confused by that than by the fact a bloke can build up a 12 second lead, which is then magicked away by a creative interpretation of the regs while simultaneously allowing his opponent to take advantage of the situation to get a fresh set of better tyres - and then they're put on track for one lap and told it's a fair and reasonable situation, now go and race.
Masi shouldn’t be sacked, the rules confirm it’s his call.
Where do the rules say that?
Lots of armchair experts trying to say otherwise.
Me included. Why did Masi make a thing of leaving the SC out longer than many thought necessary in last years Eifel GP? Because, as he said, that's the rules.
Where do the rules say that?
I think the logic is that the race director applies the rules therefore what the race director does becomes the rules at that moment. Its basically the same logic that Dick Cheney used to defend American torture mixed in with the four lions bear shoot.....
I think the logic is that the race director applies the rules therefore what the race director does becomes the rules at that moment.
That makes it impossible for teams to strategise and, as in this instance, can tip the balance of a race completely unfairly.
Exactly, but that appears to be the defence of Masi and the FIA.
I disagree with those that say the result should stand, Masi fundamentally changed the conditions of the race from a competition to shooting fish in a barrel. Everything that had been achieved and worked for the whole weekend changed by a decision taken by an official, so it is right and proper that is challenged in the courts if required.
I hate how organisations close ranks to self protect when they screw people over.
I'd be amazed if Toto and Mercedes in general let this go. Having worked with Germans in general and with Bavarian's specifically over the last 15 years. They're awful sticklers for the rules as they see them. ANY infringement is an affront no matter how minor some others might see it. It seems to be a cultural thing...VW seem to have found a way around that, at a senior level at least.
One of the given justifications from those that think Masi was correct (not on here necessarily, in general) is that a finish behind the SC would be an anti-climax. If the leaders were a second apart then yes, maybe it would. When one is 11 seconds up the road with no evidence of the other being able to catch him, where is the anti-climax? Even Horner knew it was game over.
If it goes to Court of Arbitration Sport then I dont see how FIA can defend the breaking of the race rules. As has been mentioned above, the F1 Eiffel 2020 race contains precedent as delivered by Masi.
"In 2020, there was a safety-car period during the Eifel Grand Prix at the Nurburgring. Both Hamilton and Verstappen complained it had been unnecessarily long.
Masi was asked about this after the race. He said: "There's a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past."
This shows that Masi knew the SC rules and that he chose to break them as RD in Abu Dhabi. Sackable offense?
Reports say it can’t go to the CAS as the teams signed up to an agreement that the FIA appeal board is the highest they can go
a board appointed by the FIA……
I doubt CAS would look at it anyway. The clue is in the name. They arbitrate on disputes in sports not manufactured entertainment.
Hadn’t previously noticed this from the stewarding document (though it must have been in the public domain since Sunday night):
“The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would “interfere” in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one that applied in this case.”
Masi clearly thinks he can (a) unilaterally decide who “the leaders” are and aren’t, (b) unilaterally invent a purpose for that rule is when it is absolutely not stated in the regulations, (c) unilaterally act to compromise the race of anyone he seems not to be one of “the leaders” and (d) unilaterally decide when articles do and don’t apply, when again that differentiation is not present in the regulations.
What an utter farce. Basically seven teams and thirteen drivers (IIRC) didn’t even exist in his mind, it was a big screw-you to them. It’s an attitude you’d expect of a simpleton whose entire experience of motor racing was to watch all of the “winner takes all” hype in the run-up to this one race. We might as well have had Don King as race director.
What's interesting to me is, did he think that or was he under pressure from outside* to make that decision for the good of the "show"?
And I don't mean from team bosses.
This shows that Masi knew the SC rules and that he chose to break them as RD in Abu Dhabi. Sackable offense?
But you're forgetting that the FIA are relying on another regulation (can't remember the number) that says, in essence, the what happens under SC is up to the race director, and that overrides anything else.
FWIW I doubt Merc will go through with the appeal, and if they do, I think they'll lose
I'd love to hear the Red Bull - Race Director radio conversation...
I think that most of us would be understandably aggrieved if we were following the rules, had previously been penalised for infraction of said rules, only for the rules to be broken/ignored/reinterpreted to engineer a different result to the one that was about to happen. I think that Mercedes and LH have every right to not be happy about the result in the same way I'm sure Red Bull would have been had the tables been reversed. If Masi had wanted to provide the spectators with a 'motor race' then it should have been a red flag, tyre changes for everyone and maybe 4-5 laps of racing. A one lap sprint finish with one car on old hard tyres and the other on brand new softs is not much of a race, more an inevitability.
If there's rules then you need to stick to them. Simple as. People base their strategy and decisions on the rules. Red Bull had nothing to loose so their decisions were easy, just do the opposite of Merc and hope.
As for the 'reinterpretation' of what the rules say or intend to mean, where does that leave us now? 10 teams looking at all the previously accepted rules to see how they might reinterpret the meaning as it appears that their application for the past 20 years in a consistent manner means nothing.
I know this is actually what they all do in anyway, but now that the word 'any' can mean; any, all, some, none what leeway does that afford on any other rule or reg). 'You can't have any additional engines' now could be interpreted that you can have some, as long as it's not 'all' the additional ones you want 🙂
Masi clearly thinks he can (a) unilaterally decide who “the leaders” are and aren’t, (b) unilaterally invent a purpose for that rule is when it is absolutely not stated in the regulations, (c) unilaterally act to compromise the race of anyone he seems not to be one of “the leaders” and (d) unilaterally decide when articles do and don’t apply, when again that differentiation is not present in the regulations.
And let's be honest there was only one leader of that race. By doing what he did he bought Max back into the race.
I think Masi just crumbled under the pressure. Based on the rules, the race/season was going to finish under the SC, and he couldn't handle this and shat his pants. I suspect we've all done this at some point...
That being said, the interesting part is what the FIA will do about it now, given that we have a big turd on the floor and it stinks...
I’d love to hear the Red Bull – Race Director radio conversation…
@pondo - it was broadcast at the time. it went something like - "all we want is one lap of clear racing - that's all we're asking for - lets go racing".
EDIT - This was of course after Max had pitted and closed the gap to ensure Lewis couldn't pit and still be ahead of him.
The deed has been done and no amount of indignation will change it. I have been watching F1 for about 62 years and this was a travesty.
I don't know if I can be bothered any more. Sunday was a sad day for fairness and sport.
It's time to move on and do something productive.
now that the word ‘any’ can mean; any, all, some, none what leeway does that afford on any other rule or reg
As I understand it, the thing about "any cars doesn't mean all cars" was Red Bull's submission to the stewards in response to Mercedes' appeal, NOT part of the stewards' reasoning for rejecting the appeal
Yeah, I heard that bit, and Masi sounded quite testy, said he was dealing with stuff? I'd be quite sure there's more to it, love to hear it if there was.
I doubt Merc will go through with the appeal, and if they do, I think they’ll lose
This is a tricky one. I don’t think Mercedes and/or Hamilton particularly want the WDC overturned in their favour, nobody wants to win it like that. But I do think they, and probably all the teams (even Red Bull, whatever they say in public they know this was a **** up), want the FIA brought to task for the way this year in particular has been run. If they don’t pursue every avenue are they not accepting that what happened was allowed, and so let the FIA off the hook. I agree they aren’t likely to win, but it’s more about the principle of forcing the FIA to sort themselves out I think.
it went something like – “all we want is one lap of clear racing"
It was actually "all we NEED..." which is arguably worse!
But you’re forgetting that the FIA are relying on another regulation (can’t remember the number) that says, in essence, the what happens under SC is up to the race director, and that overrides anything else.
You're thinking of 15.3 (e)
The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement: e) The use of the safety car.
The following is quoted from Reddit:
The FIA has interpreted 15.3 to mean the following:
(15.3) allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.
In context however, it's clear that 15.3 is meant only to relate to the RD's authority to override decisions made by the clerk of the course. Neither 15.3 nor any other article of the sporting code say that the RD in any way "controls the use of the safety car", nor is there any clause granting the RD plenary authority to override any regulation or article of the sporting code. Again, 15.3 only allows the RD to override the clerks decisions regarding deployment or withdrawal of the SC. The clerk and RD's decisions must be compliant with the sporting code, but the decisions are not the sporting code itself.
Yep, agree with all that, Greatape
It won't happen but imagine if Mercedes took their bat and ball home - including no longer supplying engines to other teams!
It was actually “all we NEED…” which is arguably worse!
Indeed. I was quite startled by that exact phrasing at the time. Even more so than by Toto’s “please, no safety car” earlier on.
Seems it worked for them, though… they got their one lap of racing. No-one else on the track got it, but Red Bull did.
I think there is zero chance of the result being changed. I do think that merc should still speak as there needs to be accountability and a consistent set of rules and their interpretation. Given the number of lawyers involved I’m amazed the rules have any wiggle room in them
One of the upsides of Max winning is that apparently we will finally get to see the number 1 on a car again next year. Welcome back, old friend! 🙂
I think Masi just crumbled under the pressure. Based on the rules, the race/season was going to finish under the SC, and he couldn’t handle this and shat his pants.
Yeah, that's pretty much the only explanation I can come up with. I used to have some sympathy for him, it's a very tough job, but this was pathetic.
One idea I've seen on Twitter is for Merc to appeal and ask for the result to be annulled. That would still give Max the title, but would make the point that the race was mismanaged.
Daffy
Full Member
it was broadcast at the time. it went something like – “all we want is one lap of clear racing –that’s all we’re asking for – lets go racing”.
EDIT – This was of course after Max had pitted and closed the gap to ensure Lewis couldn’t pit and still be ahead of him.
I've got no issue with the teams attempting to call Masi - they problem is that he needs to grow a spine and tell them to * off. They were behind the safety car at the time so he will have known there's only one reason they'd be calling. Toto's cringe call was under green flag conditions, so fair to take the call but then when realising the subject matter its time to tell him to * off and stop wasting his time.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Masi. I don't think he's the right person for the job, but the teams obviously know this too and kept pushing. Could even say Mercedes are also complicit in this and it just so happens they are the ones that got bitten. I wonder if anyone's got stats on how many times each team called him over the season......
My CEO is a big F1 fan - he's been to many races over the years all across the world.
He reckoned the result would stand but that Massi would be out of a job next year. He was similarly aghast at the way the race was run, said he'd enjoyed it up until that point.
One idea I’ve seen on Twitter is for Merc to appeal and ask for the result to be annulled. That would still give Max the title, but would make the point that the race was mismanaged.
Which would work for RB/Merc, LH/MV but would for instance put Sainz behind Norris in the standings? It would Tsunoda of his best ever result.
Buggering about with a result has all kinds of consequences
Maybe call it a joint race win and give LH/MV 21.5pts each, then MV wins by the FL point?
One idea I’ve seen on Twitter is for Merc to appeal and ask for the result to be annulled. That would still give Max the title, but would make the point that the race was mismanaged.
I think that would be about as good and fair an outcome as could be possible.
Edit - ah, except for
Which would work for RB/Merc, LH/MV but would for instance put Sainz behind Norris in the standings?
, what a mess they've made for themselves!
He reckoned the result would stand but that Massi would be out of a job next year.
My guess is that this is what Merc are really pushing for. They know that overturning the result would make things even worse, they just want some public acknowledgement that this was not acceptable.
It comes back to that point that trying to be “fair” is impossible because there are always secondary effects.
The fact is that what’s done is done, a worthy champion took the title, but the way it happened was a debacle. The way to deal with it is not to try to meddle with the past—which can only be an indignity for all parties—but to fix the future and ensure that from now on the rules and regulations are clear, robust, and adhered to under the control of competent and respected individuals.
In other words the result should stand; the FIA should publicly acknowledge that it failed hard; there should be an overhaul of the regulations around safety cars, VSCs, red flags, team radios and so on; and—even if he’s in some ways just a patsy—Masi likely needs to be replaced.
Back to my point about referees and consistency vs judgement and discretion. The only way to be fair to all parties at all times, is to apply the laws as they are written. As I said I'm not a F1 afficionado but if they unlap all cars in previous situations, so should they do here.
now that the word ‘any’ can mean; any, all, some, none what leeway does that afford on any other rule or reg). ‘You can’t have any additional engines’ now could be interpreted that you can have some, as long as it’s not ‘all’ the additional ones you want 🙂
I'd like to see that tested just for shits and giggles next year
