Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps YOU fail to accept that rules weren't broken but at best, poorly written? I guess not.
So why do Bas & Kimi2007 have to continue spewing the constant crap in this thread? You have stated your position. So why continue with all the posts?
No. You miss the point. Teams don't race the FIA. They shouldn't have to strategize against he FIA. They strategize against other teams using the rule book. Teams are busy preparing the cars to compete with eachother season. Not preparing to compete against the FIA. As I said before the SC has been the one most consisitent things for years. It was not consistant Abu Dhabi. If you think the FIA investigation and all this contreversy is because of nothing, then thats your problem.
How can the SC rules be consistantly followed and well written for years, then all a sudden its poorly written?
I think people will not stop bringing up the Abu Dhabi fiasco until a) the FIA find Masi was wrong, b) Masi is sacked. Without these 2, there will be no trust in the FIA governance.
Nope. If the rules are changed, then Masi is exonerated. Why change the rules, if the "problem" was that Masi "went rogue", and broke the rules? Changing the rules won't solve any problem about "rules being broken" ... new rules can be broken too, right? How does "changing the rules" prevent the new rules from being broken too? We might indeed see a change in the rules, simply because Mercedes lost, fair & square, under the old rules ... and Mercedes has enough "clout" to change the rules, more to their "liking". Old rules were followed, Mercedes didn't like the outcome ... so they lobby to change the rules, with the expectation that new rules will be followed as well. EDIT: If I "break the rules" and drive 100mph in a 60mph zone ... how would "changing the rules" address this "problem"? (I think this example has already been offered, above). "old rules" being changed to "new rules" means that the "old rules" were followed, and the expectation is that "new rules" will be followed, too.
It will mostly mean that his position is untenable in his role at the FIA. A polite way to say: "Michael, you f***ed up ! "
I don't miss the point. I accept the fact that the safety car was poorly handled of the poorly written rules in the last race but the FIA has handled rulings and the rules inconsistently for years. Penalties have been inconsistent. The rules are inconsistent. It's a fact that the FIA has been inconsistent for a long, long time. The teams race under the FIA rules, don't be so dramatic with the "race against the FIA" nonsense. Here's an example of another nonsensical rule. Lewis getting his lap back in imola ONLY due to the red flag and getting a lot of points on a day he should have gotten 0, by the way making abu dhabi a moot point. No one came on here b*tching about the bad rule the way you have went on and on and on and on and on about, people just moved on, which you can't do. You still wont answer my question, did mercedes have a chance to take the FIA out of the equation by pitting, yes or no?
+1 The Mercedes fans don't seem to be bothered about the "inconsistency" in Lap 1, where Hamilton was allowed to gain a position off-track Mercedes knew they screwed-up, BIG TIME, by not pitting Hamilton for fresh tires ... knowing full well that the race was very very likely to end under green. You can hear it in the radio communication (long before Masi made any decisions about unlapping). The green finish was all but certain ... Hamilton and his team absolutely, 100% knew it. All this endless whining is nothing but sore losers looking for a scapegoat.
Again, the SC rules have been mostly consistent for years because FIA is more strict towards safety. Other things have been inconsistant. But not SC rules. Your question doesn't make sense. Because races can be won with or without pitting, under green or under yellow. No team should have to make a decision to "take the FIA out of the equation" They have enough stuff to focus on as is, instead of focusing on whether the FIA will change the rules or not.
Are there any pro-Hamilton posters in this thread, who keep posting the same nonsense in this thread ... over and over and over and over? Let's hear some NEW arguments, from the pro-Hamilton crowd! Are there any ... that we haven't heard since December?
"Mostly consistent" proves my argument. Thanks for that. I refuse to sit here and let you pick and choose which parts of the FIA is more consistent than others. The FIA is inconsistent, always have been, and likely will always be. The safety car rules fall under the inconsistency of the FIA. You already admitted the safety car rules aren't always consistent so you lost one of your arguments. My question makes a lot of sense and your refusal to answer tells me you know that had Mercedes pitted, they would have won. Good attempt at a politician type answer though. Not. FYI teams make decisions all the time to take the FIA out of the equation, or use them in the equation with every safety car, virtual safety car, or red flag strategy comes into play with the FIA's decisions and on this day, mercedes botched it. Simple.
This was a slightly unique situation, was it not? Ever since teams agreed on the desire to finish under green conditions, there have been very few races where an SC was out in the closing laps. The thing about unique situations is that those can expose grey areas in rules, which then can be clarified. For example, the F fuct, double diffuser, DAS and so on. The rules as they where at the time of the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP, allowed Masi to do what he did. It doesn't matter if it's a grey area or not. The fact that the grey area exists, is not Masi's fault, and it's not his problem he exposed it. Not that hard to grasp.
Tell me when the last time that it has been hand picked of certain car to unlap AND safety car called in without doing the required additional lap at the SAME TIME. This has been ridiculously consistant. And I did answer your question. You're asking me should Mercedes have had special powers to see into the future that Masi will break the rules. I think you know the answer to that.
There never was a NEED for it to happen as very rarely has there been an SC that close to the end. **** sakes, you're asking for the impossible and you know it, these aren't ''gotcha'' moments. Read what I write about grey areas. FFS it's like talking to a wall.
Well, he didn't actually gain a position, he just didn't lose one ;-) However, I agree that the rules are a complete mess in these circumstances, although the ruling was consistent with things that had happened previously. It really wasn't certain at all (in fact it wouldn't have happened had the rules been applied correctly), and you can guess anyway that had HAM pitted, VER wouldn't have, and then we would have had RB telling Massi not to restart the race, and had he restarted it, VER would likely have punted HAM off. * So it was always going to be a horrible mess. The true is that HAM dominated the race and deserved to win it (and with it the WC) and without a mechanical failure or an in-explicable mistake on his part, anything else was always going to be an injustice. But we are where we are. Let's hope the future is better. * In any event HAM wouldn't have had the same tyre advantage because VER had newer tyres even without a change.
No. If the teams agreed to finish under green, there are options to do that. 1. Red flag. 2. Allow all cars to unlap. 3. Allow no cars to unlap. What Masi did was choose another route. A route in that moment that handed one driver a advantage. The FIA and many F1 fans are not crazy for investigating this, although you seem to think so.
Tell me when it happened that close to the end of a race and while masi is having to make a decision he has toto, horner, and wheatley(and I'm sure others) in his ear. No special powers needed to keep your driver on fresh tires, and Mercedes missed that opportunity. Lewis himself was on the radio wanting to pit.
All discussed till the end of time. Not interested in debating rule 15.Whatever with you again. Come up with new information for once.
