He already is. Some rules (like 48.13) over-ride others (like 48.12) ... that's not Masi saying that, by the way. That's the stewards. But yes, Masi is fully on-board Agreed: No single rule stands in isolation. ALL rules must be considered, together. Next?
Now i'm confused When the stewards write that "48.13 over-rides 48.12" (direct quote) ... are the stewards saying that 48.13 is "breaking the rules"? One rule "breaks" the others, if that rule over-rides other rules? I'm just looking for clarification ... please note, this question has nothing to do with Masi.
Yes. You will get the same result if you override, break or whatever. Masi was the one who made the call, so your latest trick to exclude Masi is a joke.
Sorry, i can't agree that rule 48.13 "breaks" any other rules, simply because the stewards recognize that it over-rides 48.12. And we were doing so well together! Oh well Maybe the cease-fire needs a better moderator? I'm still open
As much as the idea of a ceasefire was, it's a shame KTU spoils that party. I've no interest debating him any further. He'll argue with himself if he has to.
First and foremost I am indifferent to who won the championship. I think that both Lewis and Max were worthy champions based on excellent performances over the balance of the season. Just as I am bothered that it was taken from Lewis I am equally bothered that Max's title is currently tainted by all the controversy. IMHO any argument that tries to justify what happened by pointing to previous actions as justification or leveling the scales of justice is prone to incredible bias and is fraught with problems. In addition any discussion regarding strategy and who should have done what is a SEPERATE discussion to the actions of the FIA (namely Masi). There also seems to be a real divide among people as to the interpretation of the regulations in determining if Masi was allowed to do what he did. I do not agree with the immediate findings of the stewards nor do I think their opinion is impartial. This happens all the time in the real world where a police officer does something, their department backs them up, but a subsequent court case finds fault. I think the only way to be sure is for the situation to have been judged outside of the FIA and in this arena I'm fairly confident that Mercedes would have triumphed. Even so, that would be a little like having a third party determine that your boss did something wrong and then you return to the same job with the same boss. Either way Mercedes was screwed and they knew it. I can also admit that while moving only some of the cars 'probably' did not affect the outcome, that decision was fruit of a poisonous tree. Masi was so fixated with finishing the race under green that he cut procedural corners in order to achieve it. I've said it before and I'll say it again the real irony is that leading up to the race the FIA made a big production of wanting to end the race in a sporting way and it was the FIA's actions that put the sporting value of the result in question. The shame is that it was not necessary as ending the race under green was always in the cards. Masi could have ordered lap cars to move earlier or left them in place as was his original decision. Neither decision could be questioned by anyone (except conspiracy theorists that question everything regardless) and it would have been a sporting result regardless of who was advantaged or won.
We have to wait for the FIA's decision, and until then, it would be good for everybody to hold fire. We are not going to solve anything by a slanging match. A lot has happened in 2021 that raised eyebrows, cuminating in the Abu Dhabi fiasco. The FIA will give its verdict only 2 days prior to the kick-off of the season. This itself is weird. Hopefully some changes will come. In between, we will become acquainted to the new cars during their presentations. The rumour mill fuelled by the media will not stop.
Funny thing ... i was recently accused of keeping this argument going (single-handedly, somehow, as if i haven't been defending endless accusations against Masi, and against the rules themselves), told to stop repeating the same old arguments (even though i've introduced more new data, and more structured arguments from different angles, than anyone), told to give up and go away ... And yet, ktu has 76 posts in this thread ... whereas i only have 67 Imagine that As I said earlier, the Hamilton fanboys are quite a delusional bunch!
Safety car: Why can't we neutralise the laps during the safety car period, and add them at the end? I know that would mean the team planning for more fuel, which means adding weight, etc ... a complete anathema in F1. I have seen this applied in some series (BTCC, national GT3 championships, bikes series, etc ...) and seems to work reasonably well. Not all the laps get added. A board is shown to warn the drivers/riders when the race is resumed. That also prevent races to finish behind a safety car. I recognise that in these series, there are no tyre changes.
Honestly, i've often wondered the same thing. Not a bad idea, at all. True, more fuel is a concern ... but at safety car speeds, fuel consumption is quite a bit less. Tire wear is also dramatically reduced at safety car speeds too, of course. I'm sure i'm missing some other concerns ...
More thoughts ... Let's say that, at safety car speeds, fuel and tire wear are 1/4 that of full race speed (i'm guessing). One hot lap could then be subtracted from every circuit, to "allow for" one typical safety car interval (which averages 4 laps) ... with essentially no fundamental changes to tire and fuel strategies. The real point, i think, is that there is a "workable" solution to your proposal at least one safety car interval could be allowed-for, i think, without "taking away" from planned race laps.
Why are we discussing possible SC changes if Abu Dhabi was a flawless, non confusing, and honorable performance by Masi and the stewards?
You've got it backwards (as usual). If Masi "went rogue" and broke the rules, as you keep complaining ... over and over and over ... page after page after page ... why would the rules need to be changed? The only thing that would need to change would be that dishonorable, devil-incarnate Masi ... if your narrative were true. The discussion of changes to the rules actually exonerates Masi, rather than implicating him. And it's a discussion that i, and others, clearly, are more than happy to entertain How about you?
Yeah, looking threw these threads shows all 818 post were me arguing with myself. Let me explain to you again. Look at the above suggestions that you participated in. Abu Dhabi was flawless according to you. So why are you engaging in the conversation of changes?
I never said Abu Dhabi was flawless ... all i've ever said was that Masi had full authority to act as he did, and that both the letter and spirit of the rules were followed. Try to keep up. I'm always open to discussing how the rules can be changed, for better (or safer) racing ... but such discussions don't mean that i'm in agreement about existing rules having been "broken". Quite the opposite, really ... if the problem was that rules were "broken" by a terrible, dishonest director ... as you continue to claim, over and over ... why would the rules themselves need to change?