All cars drive into the pit lane in race order.(note, nobody actually pits)
Set up timed lights at the top of the pit lane. \
You aren’t allowed over the line until your light goes.
Pit lane speed limit still applies.
How do you restart 4 cars that are within 2s of each other?
I think we are getting a bit bogged down in the SC stuff. Yes, it's not perfect but by and large it works pretty well because everyone knows how it works and what to do ,they accept there is a random element or chance in the timing but that is the same for everyone.
The problem here isn't that an SC was called but that one team (Merc) made a strategic call based on the assumption that the procedure would be followed and understandably feel aggrieved that it wasn't.
Whatever SC rules we come up with will inevitably favour some teams or drivers at some times and others at other times but as long as the rules are followed and everyone can see that it was fair then they accept the element of chance. It's the changing the rules mid race which is the issue, not whatever those rules happen to be.
RB are not at fault here (yes, they were on the radio to Race Control but that is allowed so they will do it, they broke no rules) Merc broke no rules, and were also on the radio arguing their corner. The issue is not to do with what the rules are, the issue is to do with just making up new ones whenever they feel like it. That is simply unacceptable and heads must roll.
I disagree, the SC is still stupid as someone with a two minute lead can lose it completely, how is that fair? It often isn't such a big issue because everyone pits for new tyres and retains their position. More racing on circuit is needed rather than undercuts and strategy
It doesn’t even need to be the PL, it could be the starting grid. Just a way of preserving the pre-SC time gaps.
And when the last car away was also just about to be lapped, your idea starts to get dangerous
Yeah, agree the SC isn't really the problem here. Yes it does generally penalise the leader more than anyone else but if you've got different drivers vying for the lead at different GPs it should even itself out over the course of a season.
The issue was the race director deciding he didn't want the title race ending behind the safety car (which it would have done at any other race) so changed the rules but in doing so (possibly) inadvertently almost guaranteed Max the win (whereas until the SC he had almost no chance of a win, it would have needed Hamilton to have a mechanical/crash for Max to have caught/passed him).
If Max had have been closing fast enough that he would have caught Hamilton then it would have made a lot more sense to do what Masi did as finishing the race behind the SC would have prevented an inevitable on-track battle but the reality was Lewis had won bar a mechanical issue (or crashing himself).
I disagree, the SC is still stupid as someone with a two minute lead can lose it completely, how is that fair?
Because everyone knows that is a possibility and will think accordingly. I'm not saying it's perfect, just saying that consistency and following the rules is probably more important than tweaking those rules, no point having any if the RD can just make up new ones
Well Bernie said on R4 this morning that the results should stand apparently.
So that’s all right then.
dc1988
Free MemberI disagree, the SC is still stupid as someone with a two minute lead can lose it completely, how is that fair? It often isn’t such a big issue because everyone pits for new tyres and retains their position. More racing on circuit is needed rather than undercuts and strategy
It’s just the least bad option. Little delay to the race and the marshalls get to recover the car(s) and clean up the track in safety as everyone is in one spot.
Well Bernie said on R4 this morning that the results should stand apparently.
Which cements his position as chief dick in my mind.
It waould be quite easy to have a rule which says you can't finish the race under a safety car. If it looks like that is waht is going to happen then the race gets red flagged. You could even have a minimum number of laps to be raced after the race restarts. Job done.
Personally I think the results should stand. Does anyone want to see the WDC decided in court?
But the FIA should admit to their failings and either issue clarifications or change the safety car procedure. Automatic red flag after a set percentage of race distance (85 or 90% for example) is a good suggestion.
I'm still in disbelief over yesterday result.. Lewis did everything right and deserved the title and to be robbed in that manner! The way in which it was done was purely for TV entertainment regardless of the drivers... Like giving a boxer who is on the ropes after been knocked down several times to have a free shot and knockout.. crazy!!
Race should have finished under the safety car but that doesn't make for good TV
From Autosport forum:
AMuS is reporting Ross Brawn saying that next year the team principle-to-race director radio communication will be cancelled. So not just the broadcast, but the actual communication. It leads to too much pressure on the race director.
https://forums.autosport.com/topic/218801-michael-masi/page-18#entry9722957
someone with a two minute lead can lose it completely, how is that fair?
It’s not fair. Like it’s not fair when Bottas skittles everyone in a wet start. Or when a tyre fails when you’re leading the race Or when someone triggers a yellow flag in Q3 when you’re on a pole lap. Or a million other things. Welcome to motorsport!
But everyone accepts it’s not fair and deals with it, because it’s out in the open and agreed and on the whole better than the alternatives.
Nicely put Bez, can easily add a dozen more things like that onto your list too
Personally I think the results should stand. Does anyone want to see the WDC decided in court?
I would prefer it was decided fairly and I don't believe the result yesterday was fair so yes – I would prefer it was decided in a court (and not just an FIA hearing).
because it’s out in the open and agreed
However the decision made on the fly yesterday that effected the outcome of the Championship was not agreed.
AMuS is reporting Ross Brawn saying that next year the team principle-to-race director radio communication will be cancelled. So not just the broadcast, but the actual communication. It leads to too much pressure on the race director.
Good. I said it a few pages back, having arguments and whining and, in one case, a debate on what position the driver would like in the restart is just insane. TP's should be concentrating on their driver and team strategies, RD should be concentrating on the safety and fair play of the race. Not arguing back and forth on radio and certainly not on a publicly broadcast channel.
Automatic red flag after a set percentage of race distance (85 or 90% for example) is a good suggestion.
Yep with a set of rules on how to manage the end of the race. If (say) <3 laps to go, result stands as at that time. If 3-6 laps then a 1 lap race, grid start using the positions at the time of the flag. If 6-10 laps then a 3-lap race, grid start using the positions at the time of the flag. Teams can change tyres while under red flag. For example.
Although that does bring out the option that someone might "accidentally" pile it into a wall to trigger a race stop, fresh tyres and a grid start again - imagine if LH is out in front by 8 seconds, MV is chasing but his tyres are going off rapidly. Ask Perez to just bounce off a wall, race stops, brand new tyres for MV and he gets to line up right alongside LH for a final 1 lap shootout. I can certainly see some issues with policing all that!
It waould be quite easy to have a rule which says you can’t finish the race under a safety car. If it looks like that is waht is going to happen then the race gets red flagged. You could even have a minimum number of laps to be raced after the race restarts. Job done.
You'd have cars running out of fuel with any extra laps
They use a lot less fuel behind the safety car.
Anyway, it would be a good test of fitness if all the drivers had to push their cars to the finish... hell, I'd watch that.
I remember Mansell trying to do it
Bez
Full Member
someone with a two minute lead can lose it completely, how is that fair?It’s not fair. Like it’s not fair when Bottas skittles everyone in a wet start. Or when a tyre fails when you’re leading the race Or when someone triggers a yellow flag in Q3 when you’re on a pole lap. Or a million other things. Welcome to motorsport!
Bez all your examples are uncontrollable whereas the SC is rule that could be changed to be more fair.
Makes you wonder if they short fuelled Perez not with the intention of slowing Hamilton in the middle of the race, but with the intention of having him run out of fuel toward the end, thus triggering a safety car in the event they were trailing in second...The scenario would've played out similar to how it did in the race. If you don't need it you simply retire the car and no-one is any the wiser. They'd already pretty much given up on the constructors championship.
I’ve heard a lot of folks saying MV deserves to be champion, but it was unfair the circumstances that he won it. That’s surely a bit contradictory
Surely the only way he would deserve to be champion is if he had fairly accumulated more points than Lewis over the season, something which he would have failed to do if not for the intervention of the race director in highly dubious circumstances
I'd have been happy with MV as champion had he actually won the race yesterday, but he didn't, he was gifted it by a purposefully skewed application of the rules. It doesn't seem right. It doesn't sit right.
ctk
Full Member
Bez all your examples are uncontrollable whereas the SC is rule that could be changed to be more fair.
Yet not one suggestion so far has showed fairness, all they've shown is swapping a rule that favours one party for one that favours another
Nothing wrong with the current SC rules, it adds to the racing in some cases and has worked for years. As others have said, the issue is that the SC rules were not applied to the letter of the law. Unless Lewis crashed or had a mechanical, he would have won the race and the title. Red Bull know that, Verstappen knows that, everyone knows that.
The only way things could change is if there was interference. Yes, a SC is an interference, but had the rules been applied as they should have been (and have probably been at every other race with the current SC rules) the result is the same. Lewis wins. To change the outcome of the race through an in-race rule change/amendment is not right.
A red flag would have given the potential for the same outcome; yes it would still be harsh on Lewis, but at least he/Mercedes would have been able to prepare for it and the playing field is levelled in the fairest possible manner. As far as I see it, that's the two options Masi had; Red Flag and standing start ala Baku earlier this year or stick with the SC and finish the race under it as per the written regs.
What Masi seems to fail to see is that he cannot make everyone happy. Charlie knew that and he said it as it was and acted accordingly. Either of those eventualities I outlined before, someone is going to peed of with so much as stake. Accept that, stick the rule book to the letter and don't let the teams have a direct line through to yourself during the race.
Bez all your examples are uncontrollable whereas the SC is rule that could be changed to be more fair.
Yes, but that’s why I said “it’s out in the open and agreed and on the whole better than the alternatives” rather than “it’s just another uncontrolled variable”. In a way it’s like Churchill said of democracy: the worst form of government, apart from all the others we’ve tried.
Anyway, don’t forget that the SC results from an equally uncontrollable events, and some other examples could be made more “fair” anyway: lost your Q3 lap? Halt the session and you can have another go. But those alternatives don’t really work. They’re mostly wildly impractical for various reasons, and they all have secondary effects that just transfer the unfairness to some other, perhaps less visible, target.
I’ve heard a lot of folks saying MV deserves to be champion, but it was unfair the circumstances that he won it. That’s surely a bit contradictory
Not really, because, again, motorsport. Did he deserve to be sent to the wall in Baku? Did he deserve to get taken out in Hungary? Points are about luck as well as achievement, and while achievement is about deserving it, luck isn’t (at least in the “random chance” sense rather than the “you make your own luck” sense). He’s absolutely a deserving champion, but had it not been for a very controversial and unorthodox—which “a lot of folks” clearly see as “unfair”—set of decisions by the race director, he would not have been champion.
Yet not one example so far has showed fairness, all they’ve shown is swapping a rule that favours one party for one that favours another
Luck/chance/random events/etc are fair a always been part of sport. Yes, they benefit some more than others, all kinds of weird stuff happens, remember that protester running about on the track and costing Hakkinen a win or the advertising hording which fell on Alesi (I think) or Montoya and Barrachello being taken out by a drain cover, all kinds of weird stuff.
The point is they are chance events, the event might favour one driver or another but the system does not. What happened on Sunday was different, that was not Luck or chance but a contrived event by the officials.
Should the result stand? I don't know, and TBH I'm not sure I care any more. LH was robbed but through no fault of MV's and further messing with the results will do the sport no good at all, even if to correct a perception of injustice. The only thing which should definitely happen is that we get a new RD. This isn't an isolated example of him making a dogs breakfast of things, just the most high profile
What Masi seems to fail to see is that he cannot make everyone happy.
Furthermore it's not the job of the Race Director to make people happy. It doesn't matter if he makes everyone unhappy providing he runs the race in accordance with the regs.
The point is they are chance events, the event might favour one driver or another but the system does not. What happened on Sunday was different, that was not Luck or chance but a contrived event by the officials.
Absolutely, and the odd thing is that if he'd just given the free pass right away there'd barely be a discussion. But what we've got is a leader that flip-flops under pressure..... Michael Masi is Boris Johnston?!
My worry for next year is that the the comms go away - good - but Masi is now in charge but under an increased veil of secrecy. He'd have to do a near perfect job next season for that to work out well for F1
Interesting tweet taken from the Autosport Forum link above...
https://mobile.twitter.com/Jon_Startin/status/1470337713933017091
Can I take a moment to congratulate one winner that seems uncontentious at least.
Vettel was this year’s overtaking champion. Which as he puts it means he underperformed in qualifying.
What happened on Sunday was different, that was not Luck or chance but a contrived event by the officials.
This sums it up for me
I posted a few pages back:
I believe the majority of motorsport fans want to see them race hard, but fairly, and whoever wins would be a worthy champion.
What we don’t want is another event, where it’s decided on by the stewards/incidents making everything look like a farce as it did in Saudi.
Seems like we had another Saudi...
If we shuffled the races around, and the Abu Dhabi race had been earlier in the season, would the same decisions have been made?
Assuming all was fair before Sunday then no, Verstappen didn't deserve the title as he wasn't the best driver. I guess the reason why people's say Verstappen deserves it is because it hasn't been fair all season for either Lewis or Max, they both arguably deserve it but it's a shame we have to go back and add up all the times each driver had some bad luck and compare with each other. I would have preferred a red flag and two lap race for the title with fresh tyres.
"Makes you wonder if they short fuelled Perez not with the intention of slowing Hamilton in the middle of the race, but with the intention of having him run out of fuel toward the end, thus triggering a safety car in the event they were trailing in second…The scenario would’ve played out similar to how it did in the race"
There is simply no other explanation.
Mind that he would have had to have deliberately run out of fuel, park the car on the track and make sure it was in a position thats hard to recover so they don't just throw the VSC. Seems like people might be reaching a bit with that theory....
There is simply no other explanation.
After the race, Sergio Perez revealed why Red Bull retired his car at the end of the Abu Dhabi race. Perez was 3rd and hence many wondered why Red Bull relinquished a podium place. But Perez admitted that his engine was on the limit and hence had his engine failed at the end of the race, which would have extended the safety car and prevented Max’s last-lap pass on Lewis.
If I may don my tinfoil hat, I thought it very odd where Giovanazzi chose to park up.
If I may don my tinfoil hat, I thought it very odd where Giovanazzi chose to park up.
Wasn't he coasting and ended up somewhere near a gap? Difficult to do much else with no drive
I'm all for wheel to wheel racing but with Verstappen it always seems to be nose to side panel, wheel to helmet, weave and brake check.
Constantly driving straight at your opponent is not racing. Verstappen could have won this championship driving clean. By giving him so much latitude the race director and the stewards have done both the sport and Verstappen himself a disservice.
pondo
Full MemberIf I may don my tinfoil hat, I thought it very odd where Giovanazzi chose to park up.
pfft, Latifi is pissed off that Russell is going to Mercedes and he's not. Therefore as a middle-finger to Mercedes he deliberately reversed parked in an awkward place.
that his engine was on the limit
of consuming all of its fuel? 😉
"But Perez admitted that his engine was on the limit and hence had his engine failed at the end of the race, which would have extended the safety car and prevented Max’s last-lap pass on Lewis."
So it wasn't lack of petrol then, I stand corrected.
So the plan was for Perez to have an engine failure towards the end of the race thus causing a safety car, and /or run out of petrol.
Only Ant and Dec know the answer....
Wasn’t he coasting and ended up somewhere near a gap? Difficult to do much else with no drive
D'you know, I'm not sure - all I can find is his radio transmission, the team tell him not to shift, then tell him to park it and turn it off, but it sounds like it still has drive when he talks back. It was the team's call to stop, not his.
"You can just go and pluck something out of the air and say yep, that's what will now apply, because I think that would make a mockery of the policing of the championship."
Anyone want to guess who said that on Friday?
But to have finished yesterdays race under the safety car whilst people were unlapping themselves would have been criticised as an anticlimax.
...but if Latifi had broken his leg and the race finished undert the SC there would have been no criticism.
Therefore as a middle-finger to Mercedes he deliberately reversed parked in an awkward place.
And Verstappen's girlfriend is Kelly Piquet, sister of Nelson Piquet Jr who famously orchestrated a crash at Singapore to let Alonso win. Makes you think.... 😀
Let's just say Red Bull had all the bases covered shall we...
And Verstappen’s girlfriend is Kelly Piquet, sister of Nelson Piquet Jr who famously orchestrated a crash at Singapore to let Alonso win. Makes you think…. 😀
Makes me think that her ex is Daniil "Torpedo" Kvyat... 😀
And Verstappen’s girlfriend is Kelly Piquet, sister of Nelson Piquet Jr who famously orchestrated a crash at Singapore to let Alonso win. Makes you think….
Well, Nelson was the willing patsy; the orchestrator was Flav, notorious also for the 1994 Benetton team that was the subject of fairly substantial allegations of cheating, whose drivers were Michael “park it at Rascasse, drive into the nearest Williams, whatever it takes” Schumacher and one Jos Verstappen 😉
I know everyone has already been arguing this for 24 hours already, but I've been busy.
I'm gutted for Hamilton, well as gutted as you can be for someone who's no doubt onboard his private jet for a nice holiday somewhere.
I'd heard all the arguments for pitting under the safety car and not, it's far from ideal, but everyone knows and accepts the rules. It was like a bolt from the blue for RBR, whatever LH did, they only had to do the opposite to get a decent chance of winning.
What I find hard to accept is the RD decision, convention says he should have allowed all the backmarkers to unlap, which would have no doubt resulted in a anticlimactic end, or he could have no allowed any of them to unlap themselves and Max would have had 6 cars to pass as they threw themselves out of his way under flashing blues, but deciding to just move a couple of cars out of the way of Max when he's on a brand new set of Softs and qualifying fuel level, gave Lewis no chance, ESPECAILLY given Max's attitude to sportsmanlike passing and a couple of DNFs meant he won anyway. HTF is Mercedes not going to appeal that?
one Jos Verstappen
The same Jos Verstappen who in '94 got flambaed with a fuel rig that Flav's Benetton filched filters from for faster fuelling? 🙂
Indeed. 94 was a proper train wreck of a season.
Anyone want to guess who said that on Friday?
I'm guessing someone at Red Bull?
I think we're all agreed that Masi gifted the win to Max on the basis that Max had fresh tires. I'd be a little less pissed off if Lewis and Max had both raced that last lap on the old tyres (Max's "compensation" being that he'd reduced his time defecit by catching Lewis under the SC).
However, where was Bottas when all this was going on? Why wasn't he within 20-25 seconds of Max prior to the Latifi crash? Surely Red Bull would not have pitted for new tyres under the SC if they lost track position to Bottas?
So, I think Bottas is the real villan here as his under-performance played into Red Bulls hands.
Or do I have this all wrong?
Nope, the 2nd driver is invaluable if he is close enough to stop the 2nd place rival from pitting
The same Jos Verstappen who in ’94 got flambaed with a fuel rig that Flav’s Benetton filched filters from for faster fuelling? 🙂
Oh that’s a good FIA cover up too. Benetton chucked out the filters but it had nothing to do with the fuel spill. The FIA needed to blame someone though and, obviously, not themselves so…..
Villain is a bit strong tho. Max and Lewis were, at times, 20 seconds ahead of everyone else. Bottas is just a mete mortal- a good, but not great driver surrounded by other equally talented drivers. Sometimes you just have to accept that Max and Lewis make the rest of the field look mediocre
Rumour mill is that Lewis is pushing for Merc to drop their appeal.
I believe the majority of motorsport fans want to see them race hard, but fairly, and whoever wins would be a worthy champion.
What we don’t want is another event, where it’s decided on by the stewards/incidents making everything look like a farce as it did in Saudi.
Spot-on. I may be a Hamilton fan and not like Max but if Max outdrove Lewis over the course of the season fair and square then I would have no hesitation in applauding that. I wasn't a Schumacher fan back in his Ferrari years but watching his skill and the team's brilliance was amazing and rightfully applauded. Watching him do 20-odd consecutive qualifying-level laps at Spa to make a strategy work is one of those things that stays with you, every lap I was shocked at how hard he was pushing the car and every time the next lap would be faster and even more unbelievable. When you see championships won with that level of skill, regardless of your preferences you are a happy fan. When you see stuff like what happened on Sunday you question why you invested 22 weekends and most of the year in following an unfolding story only to have it manipulated in the final few minutes. With Max and Lewis having an initially cordial relationship this year and both driving incredibly well I was hoping for another '98-99, where Schumacher and Hakkinen slogged it out with the utmost respect and on the edge all year. That went up in smoke post-Silverstone.
D’you know, I’m not sure – all I can find is his radio transmission, the team tell him not to shift, then tell him to park it and turn it off, but it sounds like it still has drive when he talks back. It was the team’s call to stop, not his.
Classic sign of a hydraulic issue, gear selection actuators and clutch are the first to go followed by the hydraulic valve actuators. It means you have drive but very little power so the safest thing to do is drive off the circuit and stall the engine with the brakes or kill switch. You can't always do this right by a marshall point so maybe he had no choice about where he stopped.
“You can just go and pluck something out of the air and say yep, that’s what will now apply, because I think that would make a mockery of the policing of the championship.”
Anyone want to guess who said that on Friday?
PLEASE let that be a direct quote from Karen Horner.
Rumour mill is that Lewis is pushing for Merc to drop their appeal.
He doesn't want his 8th title to be tainted, rightfully so. I hope that it all plays out by the FIA admitting they royally ****ed it up, the rules get tightly rewritten, Massi gets the boot and that's the end of it. If Mercedes get that result then they will be content. To not appeal it and let it set a dangerous precedent is bad for F1.
The appeal has been heard and the result is a penalty to Manchester United.
Well it might as well be. Makes as much sense as anything else that happened yesterday.
Rumour mill is that Lewis is pushing for Merc to drop their appeal.
Being a total cynic. Lewis comes out smelling of roses as he looks to be the consomethinge good loser whilst Merc push ahead and the record books show an 8x WDC.
That is being a total cynic. I actually agree that he probably is for all fg3 right reasons 🙂
I’m guessing someone at Red Bull?
PLEASE let that be a direct quote from Karen Horner.
10/10
That went up in smoke post-Silverstone.
Understandably sadly.
Hamilton chucked it up the inside and Verstappen came out of it feeling robbed.
Verstappen then spent the rest of the season chucking it up the inside any time Hamilton was about.
Who was better over the season? Don’t know.
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.
You’d love to see them do a few races both in the same car at any given race but swapping which car between the races.
Never going to happen.
You’d love to see them do a few races both in the same car at any given race but swapping which car between the races.
Never going to happen.
Race of Champions? Didn't Haiki Kovalinen beat Michael Schumacher there?
Race of champions is a bit novelty.
I was thinking more take the Mercs to Silverstone, the Red Bulls to Spa, the Mercs to Suzuka, and so on.
Like I said never going to happen.
Race of champions is a bit novelty.
Ah, not a 'proper' race, just staged for the TV cameras? Can't have that!
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.