Redbull has won many races by leaving Max out on old tires, many teams have won that way. Thats not the reason this thread is 74 pages long.
The script was Lewis 8 times world champion. Everything was on rails until the glorious Latifi crashed few laps before the end. Usually Mercedes is very good on strategy but this time they failed plain and simple. Masi isn’t the best race director we have seen in this sport but Lewis blind lowers are way too harsh with him. Bad luck and wrong strategical choices are the main culprits.
dont be silly he hasnt been sacked apparently...... lol. his job just got split up into two roles, and he didnt get one of them and now doesnt even work in F1, but he wasnt sacked.
But if they pitted and gave up the lead, then this wouldnt have been said to Masi “Why aren’t we getting these lapped cars out of the way?” asked Horner. Masi responded that he was more concerned with clearing Latifi’s car. “We only need one racing lap,” said Horner. Red Bull’s sporting director, Jonathan Wheatley then radioed to Masi: “Those lapped cars, you don’t need to let them go right the way around and catch up with the back of the pack,” he said. “You only need to let them go, and then we’ve got a motor race on our hands.” “Understood,” Masi replied and he went on to take the course of action that Red Bull requested." Then the safety car wouldnt have come in earlier than should have, so Merc would have screwed up. Merc cant plan for RedBull and Masi arranging to alter the rules to favour them.......
Had the rules been observed after the Latifi crash, the race would have been ending under yellow, because there was not enough laps left to observe the rules and go green. Everybody knew that, Mercedes included. Masi took it upon himself to accelerate this scenario by not acting the release of lapped cars correctly, and calling the safety car one lap early to have a green flag at all cost, for only one lap, for Christ's sake !!!!. Masi didn't observe the rules. The objection of many isn't that Hamilton lost a championship or Verstappen got his by default, but rather than Masi, the FIA race director decided the outcome of a race by not respecting the rules. That's the reason Masi's position came under scrutiny, and why he lost his job. It's not too harsh to ask for his scalp. When you f*** up, you should pay the price ! I am quite OK with Max being WDC; he deserved it anyway. Just too bad if Hamilton didn't get his 8th title. But F1 was tainted with controversy, and that's not good. Can you imagine what an outcry it would be if (hypothetically) Leclerc lost the title to Max at the last race of the season, because of the race director's intervention? I don't think you and the tifosi would take that kindly !!!!!!
The official version is that he is not a FIA employee anymore. But he got a job with an Australian series, back home.
Truth is all the tifosis would blame the team for not pitting Charles. No one prevented Mercedes to pit Lewis. They were in absolute control on pace with older tyres. Do you imagine Lewis on fresh softs against Max on old mediums ? They failed and Masi is « la victime expiatoire pour leur arrogance «
Yep. Mercedes and their fans needed a villain, someone to deflect blame from their own bad strategy call(s). Regarding the so-called "sacking": I've fired many engineers in my career for poor performance, and i've never once quickly followed the "sacking" with a statement about a wide-open door, to hire them back in the SAME position!! No matter. I'm fine with the FIA's validation of Verstappen as 2021 WDC, I'm also fine with the FIA's rule change to eliminate multiple valid interpretations ... and I'm fine that the FIA is leaving the door wide-open for Masi's return to F1 as a Race Director As i wrote earlier .. i seriously doubt that many Hamilton fans can say the same.
I would love to see Ferrari with the same political power as Mercedes. Being able to change the rules mid season like this year. Being able for not being never investigated for their technical dominance during eight years.. Yes I confess this dear KTU ..
What rule has been changed? People keep saying this, but no one can show what rule that is... Its also hypocritical seeing as you are fine with rules being changed on the last lap of a race.
Let me repeat - cars that could not or were not allowed to unlap did NOT GET THE SAME MOTOR RACE OPPORTUNITY. So selective was MASI LOL. Its not about Max or LH but how the rules and series were denigrated by the IDIOT and selective employment of the so called Race Director. Much to the input of RedBull's input at the time. Yeah REDBULL's. SO are the intelligentsia here forget ALL ABOUT THAT. Mr Wheatley and his idiotic input to the race director who himself was as grandiose and idiotic. Discriminating against the OTHER CARS/COMPETITORS LOL. HE was a MORON of the highest order. Did REDBULL care about all the OTHER COMPETITORS LOL?????????????????? Masi is gone. He did this to himself and overall it was the damage to the F1 circus that got him parked out of a job. He failed to employ the safety car as he clarified a year earlier. Period. ON record and he 'screwed' the other competitors who SHOULD HAVE UNLAPPED. Its not about MAX or LH. His overall control was ABYSMAL LOL!!!
Let's apply a "logical extension" to this notion of "fairness" ... with a hypothetical: We're late in a race, where a car or two have been lapped 3 times by the field (not crazy, several instances in F1 history where cars have been lapped twice). Accident happens, followed by the safety car. The question is: how many safety car laps should be added, after all danger has been removed, to allow the cars lapped multiple times to re-join the lead lap? In this scenario, should the race risk a yellow finish, just to give the multiple-lapped cars a "fair fighting chance" ... a chance they probably won't get anyway, because of a yellow finish? OR, should the lead-lap cars be allowed to race for another lap or two at the end ... even if it means denying a car already lapped twice (at least) a chance to race for the win? ---> I know where Mercedes comes down on this very point, in a statement written years ago about the "spirit" of unlapping Of course, we also know how the stewards at Abu Dhabi would vote on this hypothetical question of "fairness" ...
Very easy. The race director has the decision to allow lapped cars to pass the safety car but this comes with the penalty of taking more time to complete it properly. OR……I cannot stress enough that it is not ‘and’ Leave lapped cars in place which saves time allowing for less safety car laps Each option is fully supported by rule and precedent regardless of who it advantages AND treats all the drivers equally by the rules.
So ... no matter how many laps behind a car is, you either: - add as many laps under yellow as necessary, to get that lapped car on the lead lap ... even if it means ending the race under yellow <or> - allow zero cars to unlap One car is 6 laps behind, barely limping along, and a couple cars are 1 lap behind ... it's all or nothing, right? Even near the end of the race, where the "all" option would mean a yellow finish ... those couple cars only one lap behind don't get to race, because of that lone straggler. That lone straggler drags everyone down. That's your definition of "fair"? Everyone gets promoted to the lead lap, no matter how far behind they are ... or no one gets promoted to the lead lap? A couple cars get a "one lap" promotion, but all drivers on the field must wait for a single car to get a "six lap" promotion. Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Abu_Dhabi_Grand_Prix Messy Masi Messed Up..as a result there in a humungous asterix against the WDC 2021 ,and it will not be erased any time soon. It will forever be Max won it 2021 BUT.... As for Masi making a return to F1 ..that is hilarious ROFL
To answer your question: YES if the decision is taken to allow lapped cars to pass then the clearly defined rules of allowing them the time to come to the back of the field regardless of the time it takes needs to be observed. The other option is to allow zero cars to un-lap which permits for a speedier re-start. Why is this 'fair'? It is fair because it is a ruling that treats all drivers equally and does not place arbitrary decision making in the hands of the referee (in this case the race director). It is the job of the race director to apply the rules NOT to combine multiple rules in a single ruling that treats some drivers differently to others. Speaking to werewolf, I have deduced from your many posts that you believe that circumstances can allow for rules to be applied differently to how they are written. As per your previous post it can be inferred that someone who is multiple laps down is 'less important' than the race leaders so they should be held to different standards. Believing that is a very slippery slope and requires very clearly defined operational parameters to prevent an individual from having too much power to decide the outcome of an event based on what 'they' feel is right.
You're still missing the point, i think, and not allowing for a variety of "fairness" doctrines. Out of respect, i'll offer a simple scenario to better illustrate the point, with a simple choice, by a Race Director: SCENARIO: close to the end of the race, three cars are one (1) lap down, and one car is six (6) laps down. Accident occurs, safety car deployed. Near the end of the safety car period, Race Director wants the cars to race for a lap or two ... safety concerns certainly allow it, in this scenario, and the paying fans would love it ... but he recognizes that there's just not enough time/laps remaining to get ALL cars to the lead lap. So the director has a CHOICE: OPTION A: Race Director announces: "To the cars that are one lap down, we would like to PROMOTE you by ONE lap to join the lead lap, and still have two laps of racing. BUT, there's just not enough time/laps remaining to get that lone straggler, six laps down, to the lead lap ... so, no one will be allowed to unlap." OPTION B: Race Director announces: "There's enough time/laps remaining in the race to PROMOTE EVERYONE by ONE lap, and still finish with a green lap or two. EVERYONE gets the SAME one-lap promotion, putting all but one car back on the lead lap." Why do you consider OPTION B to be "unfair"? Everyone gets the SAME promotion, even though not everyone ends up on the lead lap. Why would that lone straggler, who struggled to compete at all, "deserve" a BIGGER promotion than any other driver? Why does that lone straggler, maybe not even trying that hard to compete, DEPRIVE the other drivers who are one lap down from joining the lead lap? Is that 'fair", to all of the other drivers ... and the fans, who paid to watch the cars race? Honestly, anyone familiar with racing understands that scenarios such as this are why the rules give (or, gave) the Race Director authority and discretion over the use of the safety car. It's impossible for the rules to anticipate each and every scenario that can happen during a race, and someone must have the authority to make that tough call, in the heat of the moment .... a tough call which is both safe and fair, and still allows the cars to race.
That's you opinion. Also, those who have political power often worked hard to obtain it. It's obvious that teams like Mercedes and Red Bull that had the same leadership for many years must look more convincing to the FIA than Ferrari with its ever changing management. The results also show that: all the WDC and WCC titles since 2010 have be won by these 2 teams. Are you then surprised that they have more weight during discussions behind closed doors?
