They won't be reprimanded. We're not in the golden days when manufacture involvement motorsports was so deep, that if one got mad and left, another was right behind them to talk their place. In 2005 we had like, 7 engine makes dumping tons of money into F1. Now, we're down to 4. Mercedes spends a ton of money in F1 with their engines, and promotion of the sport. The FIA do not want to run them off, and Mercedes understand and take full advantage of it. Even worse, Hamilton is the golden boy. Gives the viewers in the UK something to cheer about, as they watch a British driver set records on cruise control. Lewis understands the politics of this as well, and that's why he doesn't fear reprimand for things like cutting the course and running into other drivers. 99% of the time he gets away with it. Stewards remember the firestorm they created when they gave him a time penalty in Spa in 08', and the British media attacking the entire sport. If I blame the FIA and Masi for anything, it's for feeding an entitlement complex in Mercedes and Hamilton, where they would feel entitled to go on a smear campaign against the sport as soon as an official ruling didn't go their way. Frankly, I feel like I'm just saying what many others are thinking.
Sorry cannot let you get away with that one. Only on the "Use of the safety car" it does not and he cannot override Regulation 48 at a whim. Tony PS I dont give a monkeys either way who won the WDC,
Well said above^^ - I think Zak Brown below has a good picture of things as well. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/abu-dhabi-pantomime-proves-f1-and-fia-needs-reform-brown/7360442/ Abu Dhabi 'pantomime' proves F1 and FIA needs reform - Brown By: Jonathan Noble Jan 17, 2022, 8:44 AM McLaren CEO Zak Brown urges Formula 1 chiefs and the FIA to be stronger in moving control away from teams, as fallout from last year's Abu Dhabi Grand Prix continues. Image Unavailable, Please Login F1 and its governing body have found themselves on the receiving end of a wave of criticism for the way in which the 2021 season ended in controversy after the way a late-race safety car restart was handled at the final race. While an FIA investigation into the events of Abu Dhabi and questions over F1's decision-making process is ongoing, Brown says the lessons of 2021 show that change is needed. He says that the arrival of new FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem offers a great opportunity for a much-needed new approach that could avoid the kind of 'pantomime audition' scenes that F1 descended in to last season. Writing on McLaren's website, Brown said: "It is clear that some of the rules and their governance are not acceptable as things stand. No one is happy with the inconsistency in the policing of the regulations, but which has been habitually exploited by teams for competitive advantage. "I have said before that the teams have too much power and it needs to be reduced. We have a significant role in the drafting of the regulations and governance of Formula 1 and that influence is not always driven by what is best overall for the sport. "Yes, teams should be consulted, and their informed perspectives considered, particularly on long-term strategic issues. But at times it has seemed the sport is governed by certain teams. "Let us not forget that we, the teams, have contributed to the inconsistencies in the policing of the regulations as much as anyone. It is the teams who applied the pressure to avoid finishing races under a Safety Car at all costs. "It is the teams who voted for many of the regulations they have complained about. It is the teams who have been using the broadcasting of radio messages to the race director to try to influence penalties and race outcomes, to the point where an over-excited team principal plays to the gallery and pressurises race officials. "This has not been edifying for F1. At times it's felt like a pantomime audition rather than the pinnacle of a global sport."
What hapened was strange, but not even close as farcial as elton win in canada 2019. Let alone his title in 2008 after the Singapore gate.
I don’t think that was the case. Hamilton was a sitting duck on 40-lap hards vs new softs for Max, so I don’t believe he saw things that way. I truly believe his intent was to a) finish under green and b) I don’t actually recall a situation in since the rules changed where a green restart happened without lapped cars being made to unlap so he c) chose to unlap only those that would most impact the championship, because he was running out of time to bring in the safety car. It was all happening very quickly. I think that because the crash happened so close to the end of the race, it magnified all aspects of the decision. Merc, if they knew the race would finish under green no matter what, made a mistake to not pit Hamilton. However, they were also playing against the thought that RBR would do the opposite of them and cede the lead of the race with the possibility it ends under safety car (as races had in the past, like SPA). The proverbial rock-and-a-hard-place. Had they pitted, it would have been Wolf pushing Horner’s message and vice-versa. And THAT is the problem with thr inconsistency of ruling and team lobbying identified by Brown (and Leclerc, and Ricciardo et al). Nobody knows what to expect and that affects decision teams make. Because there is no consistency, everything is an argument or lobbying opportunity
I don't think you realize that we are in agreement on 15.3. The SC rules have been consistant and upheld in the past. As you stated above, 15.3 gives the race director the authority to break these rules. Thats what Masi did.
So to stop the Abu Dhabi farce happening again, don’t we just need two simple rule changes:- 1. Ban teams from lobbying the race director 2. If there is a safety car or vsc within 5 laps of the end of a race then mandate a red flag and get everyone ready for a final sprint session after the cleanup.
Yep, if any race should've been voided, it's Singapore 2008. But then, Ferrari looked at it from the POV that mistakes by Massa in Silverstone and Malaysia, and engine failures in Hungary and Australia cost them the title, and that they put themselves in a position for an outside variable to be the death nail to their title hopes. If Hamilton fans were honest they'd do the same, and acknowledge not just Hamilton's mistakes, but the amazing luck he had to even be in position for the last race. Hamilton was lucky to not go down a lap at Imola after his off in the race. Baku was an outright brain fart, and Monaco was just a poor performance. Those were things within Ham's control, and he didn't control them. He was lucky that only Max was crashed out of the race in Silverstone, then of course Bottas knocked out both RB's, and that cost Max two podiums, without Mercedes having to pay any price at all. Those two things particularly were Mercedes being allowed to ram into their competition with nothing but a slap on the wrist 10 second penalty for Ham, and that is exactly why Hamilton ever even had a shot at the title, and Mercedes ended up winning the constructors. The stats and the media buzz ignore how sloppy and lucky Hamilton was in his title ran last year, frankly.
Clean, clear and simple. The funny things is, I’ve been heralding how well run everything was under Whiting, but reading Zac Browns comments, he ran a dictatorship. The teams felt he was too strong-handed in his rulings. Masi was supposed to bring a democratic change where teams had more input into decisions, but things have run amok there as well. I think we all have identified the access of teams as being a real problem (though too much finger-pointing at Merc or RBR vs the entire structure). some things should be easy to fix, like SC rules or the Spa debacle. The challenge will be around racing penalties…with cars better capable of passing, they need to make up their minds on what’s a racing incident vs penalty. If they don’t, this season will be a bigger headache. (I just want to say again, while I believe Masi is probably in trouble, I think he was doing as instructed. I don’t place all of the blame on him by any measure. He was a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself)
Mercedes should've been able to see the Latifi's crash was a very minor impact, and could be cleaned up quickly. 5 laps left and there being only some minor debris, should've immediately clicked to them that the race had a better chance of going back green than not. Hell, Masi could've gone green the lap before. But, hindsight is 20-20. They had 2/3's of the race to strategize for a late race safety car. Not pitting under the VSC was the dumbest call Mercedes ever made. Tires that were 20 laps old vs 40 could've held Max off.
Thanks for posting these articles, some of us may have missed. I know it upset some folks on this forum.
Three things should change. 1. Team principle radio ban for obvious reasons. 2. Closing the pits under safety cars, so that people can't use it to gain tire grip advantages, and it's not playing a part in the race. 3. Limit teams to a cap on how many engines may be used per season, before points are deducted from the constructors title, so teams can't use "unreliable but fast" as an engine strategy.
If there is an incident or VSC within 5 laps of a race, a red flag can be called, as likely more than 3/4 of the race has be run at that point, and the positions then can be taken as result.
What about what's considered a FULL RACE??? Que Spa-Francochamps 2021!!!! 2 laps behind a safety car??? No refunds.....nothing, nada, zilch.
I agree with 1 and 2. Re 3; In case of engine change over the number allowed, I am OK with the team being penalised by having points deducted; But I believe that the driver shouldn't be punished by a grid penalty. Reliability issues are not the driver's fault, IMO.
And you're wrong. What article is 48 ? "Safety Car". What does article 15.3 say Massi has overriding authority over? "e)Use of Safety Car". I don't know how much more clear you want the regulations to be, and how many stewards have to uphold Massi for you to concede that was Massi did was legal. Also, notice something in the regulations. It constrains Massi to within the outlined Sporting Regulations in a), b), and d), but it does not constrain Massi in the use of the safety car and starts/restarts. This is because the regulations have always given the Race Director broad control over starts, restarts, and safety car procedure, while leaving the stewards to have control over the racing sessions and individual cars and infractions.
If the weather conditions are as bad as they were at Spa, the race should simply be cancelled and the tickets fully refunded. The FIA should have contengency plans for these cases of "force majeure", like most major events like concerts, football matches, etc ... Even the boycotted F1 race at Indianapolis (run with 6 cars) got refunded. What happened in Belgium was simply a disgrace
I believe they should have to start from the pitlane after each engine change, after so many are used in a season. That's frankly the fair thing to do. Otherwise, why shouldn't every front team just change an engine every race? Not fair to midfield teams to be up against brand new engines every week if it gets out of hand.
So true, The Brazil episode with the new magical ICE for Lewis was a clear demonstration of this grey area.
If the teams that go over their allocation get reduced enough points, I think they will think twice before using that tactic. The points penalty could even nullify the advantage completely. But the driver should, in my view, only be penalised for the driving errors he commits, not the unreliablity of his engines..
He has authority on the "use" (eg deployment) of the safety car, not how its controlled or implemented under 48. All the clauses under 48 cannot be overridden by the RD, they are there to be adhered to. They just police the rules, not make them up as they go along, otherwise just have one rule. a ) The race director can do and say what he wants on the day! But its up to you how you want to interpret the rules. 15.3 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: a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations. ie BAD WEATHER FOR INSTANCE? b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations. ie BLACK FLAG FOR INSTANCE c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out. ie BAD WEATHER d) The starting procedure. ie FALSE START e) The use of the safety car. ie ITS DEPLOYMENT & USE Best Tony
There's the key word. 'Use' means the entire safety car deployment procedures, and that the Race Director may override them. It is not unheard of for chief stewards or starters to have broad and total discretion in these matters. In fact, it's typical. Indycar, NASCAR, ACO, etc, all have similar provisions for broad authority in these and other matters, and the FIA series are no different. The stewards agreed with this interpretation, and I'm sure Masi is well enough informed of their perspective and being with Whiting, that he was told he had this authority. He didn't just pull this interpretation out of his butt, I'm sure. It's over, done, and final, and should be a closed matter already.
