2509 replies to this topic

[lykaschufan]

That is the area of the Trulli-Chankdok accident. Green flag correctly waved to indicate the area was clear after the SC pulled in to the pits.

[lykaschufan]

And just to confirm, I saw the end of the race again. MS doesn't overtake before the SC line.

[DaleCooper]

A bit sad, the outcome, but I don't think there is much to argue about.

It was nobody's fault, not Hill's, not Alonso's, not Schumacher's and not Brawn's, it's the fault of the rules and implementation, as that is what makes for confusing scenarios.

I understand fully that the FIA don't want racing on the last lap while the safety car is deployed. And I realize that they don't want the race to finish behind the safety car as that would ruin the photo finish. They want a pretend finish to a pretend-a-race (as Sunday surely was, the most boring race in many years). But why oh why, do they wave the green flags ??? They should have kept waving yellows, that is it, no major change, but huge to a driver that is still aching for a chance. It is understandable that this would lead to confusion.

Hence they should have done the right thing, classified Schumacher 7th, Alonso 6th, and changed the rules (to keep the track yellow) to eliminate this confusion in the future. Why give Schumacher such a harsh penalty? It makes no sense, this approach will only kill racing. Do they want the drivers to search through the rulebook the next time they contemplate a pass?


Cooper

[lykaschufan]

I don't think there is any doubt what was intended, strike that I genuinely don't know what Race Control intended.

The rule is that 40.13 should be implemented and no one argues with that. I don't think Race Control implemented 40.13 correctly, with the other rule in mind and this led to the mess.

That, and 40.13 needs to have a proper protocol written up with respect to flags and other communication.

[cheapracer]

So lets get this into pictorial fact...

1. MS after madly preparing takes a wide line in preparation....



2. MS rounds the bend and clearly see's a green light and is on it....



3. Alonso sees MS and responds getting wheelspin and sideways....



4. Alonso crosses the new SC line ahead of MS



5. After succussful pass MS goes towards the S/F line with greens showing all the way..



6. Randomly picked spectators say they approve of MS's move ...

[cheapracer]

Just as a matter of interest, while this was all going on MS kinked sharply left just after the SF line to ensure he didn't break the rule of crossing over the pitlane line...

[Messi10]

and MS was the only driver out of 26 who did this.. obviously to some this indicates that he is right and 25 other driver are wrong.. Brilliant..

[Tolyngee]

and MS was the only driver out of 26 who did this.. obviously to some this indicates that he is right and 25 other driver are wrong.. Brilliant..

1) There weren't 26 cars running at the end.

2) The lead car wouldn't have had the chance to care, as he was leading... No one to pass...

[Messi10]

1) There weren't 26 cars running at the end.

2) The lead car wouldn't have had the chance to care, as he was leading... No one to pass...

nice, you just increased the chance of one driver getting it right by .01 %

[cheapracer]

and MS was the only driver out of 26 who did this.. obviously to some this indicates that he is right and 25 other driver are wrong.. Brilliant..

Yeah like the time in that race that Brawn and MS figured 4 pitstops would win when no one else did, or that time they could do their 'stop and go' on the finishing lap winning within the rules - idiots.

Oh hang on .......

FWIW, Brawn is the same rule interpreter who carried off the 2009 WDC and WCC and a few of the Ferrari years with his "brilliant" loophole knowledge.

Edited by cheapracer, 19 May 2010 - 04:17.

[Tolyngee]

nice, you just increased the chance of one driver getting it right by .01 %

Your understanding of basic math and logic skills is worse than I would have ever believed.

[Messi10]

Yeah like the time in that race that Brawn and MS figured 4 pitstops would win when no one else did, or that time they could do their 'stop and go' on the finishing lap winning within the rules - idiots.

Oh hang on .......

is different because the Ferrari was only driven by 2 drivers, everyone else had a different car so if you've watched F1 long enough you would know that what works for one team does not necessarily work for others.

This rule is universal for all of the drivers/teams.

Edited by Gareth, 19 May 2010 - 08:56.

[Messi10]

Your understanding of basic math and logic skills is worse than I would have ever believed.

so how many drivers were there if it was not 26 ?..

[Messi10]

FWIW, Brawn is the same rule interpreter who carried off the 2009 WDC and WCC and a few of the Ferrari years with his "brilliant" loophole knowledge.

you mean the same Brawn who got it all wrong this year and can't even calculate the correct timing of when to sent his drivers during Q3 to avoid traffic..

Just because he's been brilliant in certain things it does not mean that he would get EVERYTHING else right..

[cheapracer]

is different because the Ferrari was only driven by 2 drivers, everyone else had a different car so if you've watched F1 long enough you would know that what works for one team does not necessarily work for others.. -

This rule is universal for all of the drivers/teams.

All rules are open for interpretation if they are not clear - clever people such as Brawn have proven this and taken advantage as with the entire 2009 season that forced all teams to go to DD boobs err, sorry, diffusers.

[Messi10]

All rules are open for interpretation if they are not clear - clever people such as Brawn have proven this and taken advantage as with the entire 2009 season that forced all teams to go to DD boobs err, sorry, diffusers.

Ross is clever I give you that but in this case he was just trying to be a smart ass and got it wrong..

[cheapracer]

you mean the same Brawn who got it all wrong this year and can't even calculate the correct timing of when to sent his drivers during Q3 to avoid traffic..

Just because he's been brilliant in certain things it does not mean that he would get EVERYTHING else right..

Rosbergs car had a problem that delayed them in Q3, old news, get with the program.

Brawn and MS are 2 of the most successful people in all the history of GP racing, your little slander campaign here or in the MS thread won't change these facts.

[Messi10]

Rosbergs car had a problem that delayed them in Q3, old news, get with the program.

and they also did not time their exits properly and were affected by traffic.. Ross said this.. look it up..

Brawn and MS are 2 of the most successful people in all the history of GP racing,

I know they are and this thread is not about that.. But you have to understand that 2 of the most successful people in the history of GP racing can also make the wrong call. If you can never entertain this idea then you must be in denial..

Edited by Messi10, 19 May 2010 - 04:38.

[baddog]

and MS was the only driver out of 26 who did this.. obviously to some this indicates that he is right and 25 other driver are wrong.. Brilliant..

How many cars typically succesfully overtake (or even make a visibly apparent overtaking attempt) when a safety car leaves the track?

1, maybe 2? Rarely more than that.

This case, only one driver making an apparent overtaking move on the safety car period ending is actually very normal for all such restarts.

Your point is invalid. Are you going to acknowledge this?

[cheapracer]

I know they are and this thread is not about that..

This is exactly part of what this thread is about, when 2 of the smartest people in F1 make an alleged wrong call theres a reason behind it and thats what the bulk of this thread is about.

I'm pleased to say it's been fairly clean and the majority have been in support of decent racing - but what this thread should not be about and is a vehicle for your hate mongering.

"My style" isn't to directly call people idiots, I let them do it all themselves and to quote Hancock, "good job".

[Messi10]

and I think you had enough for today and better take a deep breath because this so far has been a clean discussion without any personal attacks until you arrived..

[steveninthematrix]

i really cant understand how foolish or arrogant some people are...


ITS REAL SIMPLE

40:13 applies to a race ending under safety car rules/deployed

when the safety car is deployed, the track is under a full course yellow, with waved yellow flags and yellow lights

if there are no yellow flags/lights, there is no safety car deployed period....

now, the cars approach rascasse with the safety car still on the track, and we've got, waved yellows and flashing yellow lights

then, when alonso and michael, get to rascasse, webber is already over the safety car line, and the safety car has pulled off..

the safety car had already turned its lights off, and race control had told the teams, 'safety car in on this lap'

(ross brawn has confirmed, the teams were all told, 'safety car in on this lap', and most of the teams told their drivers, 'race to the finish line')

for 40:13 to have applied, the safety car should have kept its lights on, driven into the pit-lane on the last lap, under full course yellows, and drivers would have driven to the finish line.


the new safety car line, is for when a race restarts, last lap or not, when a safety car has come in, it is from there when cars can overtake....

it is soo incredibly obvious...

green lights are controlled by race control, the rules state green lights mean track clear, racing to commence

the marshall waving the green flag just before rascasse, is waving it after the safety car has gone in, i.e. TRACK CLEAR.... michael sees that green flag, which in the rules, means, TRACK CLEAR GO RACING! , and does what a racing driver does...




this is so obvious.

the race did not end under safety car conditions, as safety car conditions require a full course yellow, so rule 40:13 does not apply!

[Messi10]

How many cars typically succesfully overtake (or even make a visibly apparent overtaking attempt) when a safety car leaves the track?

1, maybe 2? Rarely more than that.

This case, only one driver making an apparent overtaking move on the safety car period ending is actually very normal for all such restarts.

Your point is invalid. Are you going to acknowledge this?

not totally but you have a point.. the only difference I see here is that when the race resumes in most cases there is still a lot of racing going on, in this case this was it - the SF line was only a few meters away, so I would assume that you would see more cars attempting to overtake ..And if a driver is told that he can overtake and does nothing while the guy in front is just cruising then he is incompetent..

[steveninthematrix]

and MS was the only driver out of 26 who did this.. obviously to some this indicates that he is right and 25 other driver are wrong.. Brilliant..

he was the only one got who his car turned in more sharply .... other drivers might have tried it, but failed... your logic is incredibly flawed -

safety car periods require full course yellows

the rules state green flags mean - track clear, go racing

the race did not end under safety car periods according to the rules,as green flags and lights came on, the moment the safety car came in,

for 40:13 to have applied, the safety car should have left its lights on, and full course yellow should have been displayed

[Messi10]

he was the only one got who his car turned in more sharply .... other drivers might have tried it, but failed... your logic is incredibly flawed -

but the fact that we did not see other drivers attempt to pass is not the ONLY indicator that they disagree with Ross. Some teams also told their drivers to not overtake..

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

The real problem here is that ONCE AGAIN we as F1 fans are busy debating technicalities and rules, instead of RACING.

Poor Michael. He comes back, and tries to provide what he is known for - racing to the hilt - but no - a technicality says YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY RACE THE LAST LAP????????


F1 is screwed up. It's an anachronism masquerading as "cutting edge" while at the same time not fulfilling it's basic premise - to provide RACING ENTERTAINMENT.

It's frakking gone insane. I used to love F1 for it's coherence and sanity - then something happened around... 2005? The Indy debacle?

Fly in to one race in North America, can't find a venue for another??? The big news at the race is that they let Flavio back in the paddock, despite bringing the sport into disrepute? They're going to make the engines smaller, they already made the front tires smaller, what next, "no flashy paint jobs"?

WTF is going on? Why must the world be so messed up these days?

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

"40.13 ending, while the marshals implement 40.11."


WHAT THE FRAKKING FRAK?????? This thread sounds like a forum discussing TCP protocols or bylines to the Kyoto agreement! STOPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHrghhh..........!

/ I remember F1

[Craven Morehead]

i really cant understand how foolish or arrogant some people are...


ITS REAL SIMPLE

40:13 applies to a race ending under safety car rules/deployed

when the safety car is deployed, the track is under a full course yellow, with waved yellow flags and yellow lights

if there are no yellow flags/lights, there is no safety car deployed period....

now, the cars approach rascasse with the safety car still on the track, and we've got, waved yellows and flashing yellow lights

then, when alonso and michael, get to rascasse, webber is already over the safety car line, and the safety car has pulled off..

the safety car had already turned its lights off, and race control had told the teams, 'safety car in on this lap'

(ross brawn has confirmed, the teams were all told, 'safety car in on this lap', and most of the teams told their drivers, 'race to the finish line')

for 40:13 to have applied, the safety car should have kept its lights on, driven into the pit-lane on the last lap, under full course yellows, and drivers would have driven to the finish line.


the new safety car line, is for when a race restarts, last lap or not, when a safety car has come in, it is from there when cars can overtake....

it is soo incredibly obvious...

green lights are controlled by race control, the rules state green lights mean track clear, racing to commence

the marshall waving the green flag just before rascasse, is waving it after the safety car has gone in, i.e. TRACK CLEAR.... michael sees that green flag, which in the rules, means, TRACK CLEAR GO RACING! , and does what a racing driver does...




this is so obvious.

the race did not end under safety car conditions, as safety car conditions require a full course yellow, so rule 40:13 does not apply!

Exactly. I am disappointed that MBGP decided not to press the issue, I think they would have been successful.

[seahawk]

Again only 40.07 says that you can overtake from the SC line on, when the SC comes into the pits. 40.11 does not say this. 40.7 descroibes when overtaking is allowed when the SC is deployed, so technically the SC is still deployed when the Green flag comes out and only ends with the crossing of the finishing line by the drivers.

Face it the rules are not clear. The move MSC was great. He should keep 6th place and the FIA shoulöd clarify their rules.

[Henrytheeigth]

Indeed it was a great move and not only should it have been allowed, but the MBGP driver should of been awarded with an MBE from the Queen for his guts and glory move lol

[VresiBerba]

for 40:13 to have applied, the safety car should have left its lights on,

But fact is that in for instance Australia last year the safety car extinguished its light, and even the message 'Safety Car in this lap' was displayed on both the TV-screens and on the timing monitors, and it would be hard to argue that 40.13 was not in use in Australia 2009.

[pgj]

Is this the last lap or do we go around again?

[Ruf]

40.13 If the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed it will enter the pit lane at the end of the last lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking.

Its quite explicit and makes no reference to any circumstance that may invalidate it.

All I see is "If the race ends whilst the SC is deployed [then some stuff happen]". I still fail to see where does it say that "if SC is deployed at the start of last lap then the race automatically ends [and some stuff happens].

Edited by Ruf, 19 May 2010 - 07:50.

[Clatter]

All I see is "If the race ends whilst the SC is deployed [then some stuff happen]". I still fail to see where does it say that "if SC is deployed at the start of last lap then the race automatically ends [and some stuff happens].

That's exactly what I see as well. This rule does not work due to the moving of the SC line and the procedures followed by RC.

[Gareth]

The reason I bring it up is because that was too a huge, HUGE misunderstanding, or how can you have forgot. McLaren didn't try to cheat Trulli out of anything any more than Mercedes tried to cheat Alonso. We're still talking about positions gained and lost, points were at stake in both cases. Both cases involved a safety car finish of the race. To disqualify Lewis but GIFT Shumi back his 7th position is crazy alright.

Hamilton's penalty wasn't for passing behind the SC - his pass was actually perfectly legal. It was for his, and McLaren's, lying. I think there's a huge difference between deliberately not telling the truth to try and gain a position and genuinely misunderstanding what is a very confusing rule situation in order to try and gain a position.

Or what about Trulli's initial penalty, was that crazy harsh.

Not when it was thought that he overtook without genuine reason to do so. On that assumption, it was appropriate as there was nothing for him to misunderstand. Without that assumption, it wasn't just harsh - it was wrong.

But if you dislike the example, I present you; Belgium 2008. Crazy harsh. no. Same penalty, same kind of misunderstandings, same consequences. Drive through for Lewis. Say if we go about your suggestion, would a 0.629 second penalty be a fitting penalty for Lewis in Belgium. I guess Ferrari would have loved that, just as much as they would have loved Shumi getting it.

Teams would protest, appeal and make war in mere nano-seconds if such penalties were given out.

I think Ferrari would have accepted a penalty that would have moved Schumacher back to 7th. I think most people would understand the fairness and appropriateness of that move and the exceptional circumstances that led to it.

Forcing the stewards to choose between reprimand, 20s penalty or nothing in all situations is, IMO, like telling a judge he can either imprison someone for 10 years or give them community service for all crimes ranging from graffiti to murder.

[z2z]

I dunno why Mercedes are seeking the moral high ground ..not this way you win championship!

[pgj]

Why didn't RC make its intentions clear to drivers, teams, and spectators?

[as65p]

I dunno why Mercedes are seeking the moral high ground ..not this way you win championship!

Simple, it's a red herring. They try to make the best of it by pretending to back down for the greater good of the sport. Yeah, right...

If there was any chance that their appeal would succed they would have gone ahead, but now that they realized there is no chance they try to save face as much as possible.

[Augurk]

The more I think about it, the more I get p-ed off. The stewards have decided the race has apparently ended under 40.13, yet Race Control was then in clear breach of the FIA regulations.

As viewers (and spenders on merchandise, race tickets, etc.) we are stakeholders in this as well. If we cannot judge the condition and regulations based on the information that is provided on our screens (no yellow lap counter, green flags at all outposts, green lights, and green status indicator at the timing monitors), at the track (flags and lights), how are we supposed to understand wtf is going on? By this decision of the stewards not only MGP is made to look stupid, so are we. They are pretending we massively misinterpreted the rules, whilst covering up the fact that they were in clear breach of their own regulations and the fact that in their stupidity they altered 40.7 without considering the effect this had on 40.13.

Is there any way we, as stakeholders, can request or demand clarification of the FIA on the following mysteries:

• The fact that the SC can be deployed when its not actually deployed;
• The fact that green flags and track clear status can be used at the time the safety car is deployed;
• Why 40.4 offers no exceptions on the yellow flags and SC boards if the above is true;
  

  40.4 When the order is given to deploy the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR DEPLOYED" will be displayed on the timing monitors and all marshal's posts will display waved yellow flags and "SC" boards for the duration of the intervention.

• How teams, drivers and viewers are supposed to know the current applicable regulations if ISC Appendix H, 2.4.1

  2.4 SIGNALLING
  2.4.1 General
  In the supervision of the road, the Clerk of the Course (or his
  deputy) and the marshal posts rely largely on the use of signals to
  contribute to the drivers’ safety and enforce the regulations.

  is not used or superseded (by non-existent regulations?)
• Why, with the leniancy (reprimand or no penalty at all) in case of other breaches of regulations in hindsight, for instance the following:
  
  • Hamilton's weaving - clear breach of ISC appendix L, chapter IV rule 2b
    

    2b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried
    out on either the right or the left.
    However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
    more than one change of direction to defend a position,
    deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
    any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
    Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
    be reported to the stewards of the meeting.

  • Rubens' throwing of the steering wheel onto the racing line - in the very least a clear breach of rule 30.5 but must be in against the spirit of any safety regulations and general sanity;
    

    30.5 A driver who abandons a car must leave it in neutral or with the clutch disengaged, with the KERS shut down and with the steering wheel in place.

  • Lewis' and Fernando's overtaking with all 4 wheels over the pit entry - a clear breach of ISC appendix L, chapter IV rule 4
    

    4. Entrance to the pit lane
    a) The section of track leading to the pit lane shall be referred to
    as the “pit entry”.
    b) During competition access to the pit lane is allowed only
    through the pit entry.
    c) Any driver intending to leave the track or to enter the pit lane
    should make sure that it is safe to do so.
    d) Except in cases of force majeure (accepted as such by the
    Stewards of the Meeting), the crossing, in any direction, of the
    line separating the pit entry and the track is prohibited.
    e) Except in cases of force majeure (accepted as such by the
    Stewards of the Meeting), any line painted on the track at the
    pit exit for the purpose of separating cars leaving the pits from
    those on the track must not be crossed by any part of a car
    leaving the pits.

  • unsafe release of cars after pit stops throughout the races before Monaco - clear breach of rule 23.1j of the F1 sporting regulations
    

    23.1j) It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so.

  • and so on.
  such a draconic penalty was handed out whilst the stewards had a wide range of more suitable penalties at their disposal due to the ISC;
• Why an ex-driver, who is supposed to be an advisor on driving ethics and experience, is consulted for the interpretation of regulations;
• Why 40.13 was not amended this year, as its effect is clearly changed by the change in 40.7;
• Why the strict procedure of 40.11 (indicating the SC leaving the track because the obstruction was cleared) was followed whilst actually 40.13 [Which in the absense of any defined procedure must solely rely on 40.4 (to indicate the deployment of the safety car), 40.1, 40.3, 40.5, 40.6, 40.7, 40.8, 40.9, 40.10, 40.12 (general safety car prescriptions)] was in effect;
• Why a driver, a team (and the audience - changing the results after the race has finished) has to pay for the general mess created by the contradiction between the procedure followed by RC and the apparently executed regulations as defined in the FIA F1 sporting regulations.

Is there any way to make them explain themselves?

[Gareth]

I dunno why Mercedes are seeking the moral high ground ..not this way you win championship!

The appeal couldn't change the result, as time penalty substitutes for drive throughs are not appealable*. So the moral high ground was all there was left to win.

*we learnt this as a result of Spa 2008 and also Australia 2009, where the FIA went through the rigmarole of flying the Oz stewards over to Malaysia so they could claim it was the original session of the stewards being re-opened rather than being appealled.

[One]

The game is done, move on.

See the light coming? Schumacher can still win race.

[Tenmantaylor]

OK, lets look at it another way. Say the FIA didn't penalise Schumacher they would have had to ignore rule 40.13 all together. I think it's better the FIA enforce the rules to the letter than ignore them to cover for race control and race stewards when they make mistakes. 1 mistake is better than 2.

[Buttoneer]

The more I think about it, the more I get p-ed off. The stewards have decided the race has apparently ended under 40.13, yet Race Control was then in clear breach of the FIA regulations.
...snip...

Is there any way to make them explain themselves?

Good post Augurk, but I'd invite you to cross-post it here for general discussion on irritating stewardship as this is for the more specific incident.

[Augurk]

OK, lets look at it another way. Say the FIA didn't penalise Schumacher they would have had to ignore rule 40.13 all together. I think it's better the FIA enforce the rules to the letter than ignore them to cover for race control and race stewards when they make mistakes. 1 mistake is better than 2.

40.13 had to be ignored, which seemingly has been done by race control, as the requirement stated in 40.13 was not met. That would've meant no mistake at all.

[jez6363]

Exactly. I am disappointed that MBGP decided not to press the issue, I think they would have been successful.

Yesl, a sad day for F1. Anyone who bothers to read all the rules with an open mind will conclude that the stewards got it wrong, but 53 pages haven't convinced some people so that is a dead horse. Having ANY rule that says a green flag, IN THE RACE, may not mean you can overtake is patently dangerous - its a very basic drilled in reflex to race when given green - drivers are brought up with this and its drilled into them time and time again, so any rule that tries to modify that basic reaction is going to lead to dangerous situations. A dangerous precedent has been set here, and I only hope we don't see it go horribly wrong one day.

The more interesting question now though is WHY didn't MBGP appeal?

Remember the reason given - 'In the best interests of the sport'. No admission of guilt there at all.

My view of why they didn't pursue it is that MS simply didn't want the hassle. I think he views the FIA and stewards rather like a slightly stupid child, to be humoured when they do something dumb, which is regularly. If MS had wanted to pursue it, he would have, and MBGP would have supported him in it.

Also I think that Haug will still be spitting feathers at his favourite driver of all time ever being wronged like this, and I still maintain that at some point in the future revenge will be had. Even if its only Mercedes feeling so slighted they pile a huge ton of resource into F1, like Ford did with the GT40, to wipe the smirk off those that slighted them.

Or maybe the FIA have already appeased MBGP by some sort of back room deal to make things right, to avoid having to admit they got it wrong, and further, to avoid having to admit the decision was biased. Maybe there is some blood on the floor that we haven't seen yet (3 stewards and a rule writer for example). Think how long it took us to find out about the secret Ferrari arrangement with the FIA.

[Augurk]

Good post Augurk, but I'd invite you to cross-post it here for general discussion on irritating stewardship as this is for the more specific incident.

Posted it there as well, perhaps to cluster the replies in 1 place my post in here could be deleted?

[Mr2s]

See the light coming? Schumacher can still win race.

Only if we have safety cars bunching the pack up and Alonso stats from the pit lane again. Not very good odds.

[Ruf]

OK, lets look at it another way. Say the FIA didn't penalise Schumacher they would have had to ignore rule 40.13 all together. I think it's better the FIA enforce the rules to the letter than ignore them to cover for race control and race stewards when they make mistakes. 1 mistake is better than 2.

But they didn't enfore their rule to the letter. The rule to the letter is if the race ends whilst SC is deployed. That means is SC is deployed at the end of the last lap. The SC was deployed indeed at the start of the last lap but not at the end.

They did actually make two mistakes: 1) if they wanted to end the race while keeping the SC on track they ignored their own rules and screwed the procedure and 2) penalty for Schumacher who did nothing wrong, just following their own instructions.

[Buttoneer]

Posted it there as well, perhaps to cluster the replies in 1 place my post in here could be deleted?

Nah, it's a good post. Love a rant.

[as65p]

The more I think about it, the more I get p-ed off. The stewards have decided the race has apparently ended under 40.13, yet Race Control was then in clear breach of the FIA regulations.

As viewers (and spenders on merchandise, race tickets, etc.) we are stakeholders in this as well. If we cannot judge the condition and regulations based on the information that is provided on our screens (no yellow lap counter, green flags at all outposts, green lights, and green status indicator at the timing monitors), at the track (flags and lights), how are we supposed to understand wtf is going on? By this decision of the stewards not only MGP is made to look stupid, so are we. They are pretending we massively misinterpreted the rules, whilst covering up the fact that they were in clear breach of their own regulations and the fact that in their stupidity they altered 40.7 without considering the effect this had on 40.13.

There is no question (I think everyone agrees about that) that the FIA has made a mess of things by first formulating nebolous rules and then making an obvious error in applying them.

At the same time, it has to be said that everyone involved must have known that the intention was NEVER for a race that had a SC on track at the beginning of the last lap to be re-opened for the last 300 metres beween the SC and the SF line.

So while one can dissect the wordings and quite rightfully bash the FIA for it's sloppiness, it's quite disingenious to pretend being unaware about the true intentions behind those poorly worded and unclear regulations.