96 replies to this topic

[Michael Ferner]

The point is...those are NOT the rules...the rules state that "any" lapped car may pass to go back to the lead lap, not "some"...and that the race re-starts only once they are all lined up behind the leader, and Masi did not wait for that as that would have required one more lap, i.e. the final one.

 

That's the "did this ever happen before?" thing.  Not a misinterpretation of something that happened on track or of a technical device, but a deliberate flouting of the rules by the referee.  I recall Dean Delamont nodded BlackJack's bobtail through as a British GP entry as a 2.2l because its 1.8l was too small for the formula, but that was to give a hard-trying Aussie a bit of a boost, knowing he was not going to threaten the top half.

 

There was no minimum F1 engine capacity in the fifties - so much for your knowledge of F1 rules.

 

And what you're suggesting, even if it was true what you say about the rules (I have no way of, and no interest in checking), is that because of a mere technicality they should all follow the safety car to the finish line just to make sure your golden boy will be champion again? And you talk of the title as a "debased epithet"

[Stephen W]

I always wonder why it isn´t possible to install a kind of limiter in each car which limits the speed at for example 80 km/h and can be activated by one central button operated by the race organisation?

 

All the cars are fitted with a PIT LANE LIMITER - all the FIA has to do is instruct all the teams to switch their cars over to the pit lane limiter after 30 seconds. This would allow them time to let their drivers know what was happening. The FIA can monitor this and anyone not switching over at the planned time will recieve a penalty. 

[guiporsche]

The best thing that came out of all this, is that it made many journalists, presenters, writers, posters, you name it, come up displaying their true colours. Mercedes have had it well for so many years with the sporting authorities, since the 2013 Pirelli tests, that this whole bedlam just makes me laugh. And I stand with CpBell, in no way is this a topic fitting of what TNF should be about. 

[Roger Clark]

I don't often agree with the Daily Mail but Martin Samuel has it spot on here:    https://www.dailymai...des-appeal.html

[ensign14]

No, of course not. That's like asking Sergio Perez to try and keep Hammy from overtaking on fresh tyres for a full lap. Oh, wait...

You know Perez had DRS from the cars ahead? Not available to Hamilton.
 

There was no minimum F1 engine capacity in the fifties - so much for your knowledge of F1 rules.

 
There must be some reason why it was listed as a 2.2l engine though...
 

And what you're suggesting, even if it was true what you say about the rules (I have no way of, and no interest in checking), is that because of a mere technicality they should all follow the safety car to the finish line just to make sure your golden boy will be champion again? And you talk of the title as a "debased epithet"

 

It's not a "mere technicality". It's the rule.  Ideally I would not have the safety car at all, either VSC or a red flag.  But given there is a safety car, the rules under it are simple.  Lapped cars are allowed, if the director permits, to unlap themselves (which itself is an insult to sporting integrity and I have no idea whose stupid idea that was), or none of them; it has to be all or nothing.  And, if they do, they have to line up behind the rest of the field before it can go green.

 

The FIA ignored both provisions so that it could put a car on fresh tyres right behind a car on old tyres for a one-lap shootout.  Literally everyone watching knew the result of that.  And even if Masi were ignorant enough not to know, Christian Horner told him.

 

I cannot see any alternative but to find that appalling - indeed I think it is literally (in the literal sense) criminal, I could certainly knock up a decent prosecution case under English law.  I think it is the worst thing any sporting authority has ever done.  Referees make mistakes of perception, it's frustrating but it's the price we pay for the game.  But to ignore the rules of the game to favour one competitor?  It throws the entire sport, not just into disrepute, but into question.  How can I trust anything that has happened this season?  What other rules has the FIA ignored? 

 

And I ask again, which was the point of the thread: how many other times in motor racing history has this happened?  I'm really struggling to recall.  Maybe the ACF kicking Lotus out au Mans or the ACM disqualifying all non-French cars finishing in front of a French car?  Even those were probably interpretations of the regulations rather than changing them during the event.  I think it could be literally (again strictu sensu) unprecedented.

[Vitesse2]

I recall Dean Delamont nodded BlackJack's bobtail through as a British GP entry as a 2.2l because its 1.8l was too small for the formula, but that was to give a hard-trying Aussie a bit of a boost, knowing he was not going to threaten the top half.

To clarify Michael's point - something seems to have got lost in the detail. I do recall seeing something similar to e14's claim in print somewhere. However:

 

Part of Jack building his ‘streamliner’ F1 car, involved adding 50mm to the chassis’ wheelbase to accommodate the familiar to him, 2 litre Bristol 6 cylinder lump – in place of the 1100 Climax 4. Both built with the engine behind the driver. Worth noting is that in some official entry lists the car is claimed to have a 2.2 litre Bristol. Apparently that was the intent, but not reality. It was also built devoid of lights and anything that would add unwarranted weight.

https://primotipo.co...stephen-dalton/
 

[Derwent Motorsport]

If Mercedes were to protest successfully I would not like to be a Dutch Mercedes dealer. It would damage sales for years. Quite apart for people everywhere else saying "sour grapes".  Extremely bad PR.

[ensign14]

They could take a leaf out of their history and re-name the marque Wilhelmina pro tem.

[Michael Ferner]

You know Perez had DRS from the cars ahead? Not available to Hamilton.

 

There were no cars ahead of Perez.   Are you having delusions?

[Roger Clark]

To clarify Michael's point - something seems to have got lost in the detail. I do recall seeing something similar to e14's claim in print somewhere. However:

https://primotipo.co...stephen-dalton/
 

Doug Nye said in his History of the Grand Prix Car 1945-65 that there was a minimum capacity of 2-litres.  Many years ago, I started a thread here about that but the consensus was that there was no minimum.  I think Doug posted that he couldn't remember why he wrote that.  If there was a minimum capacity, a lot of the early Cooper-Climaxes would not have complied.

[AJCee]

If Mercedes were to protest successfully I would not like to be a Dutch Mercedes dealer. It would damage sales for years. Quite apart for people everywhere else saying "sour grapes". Extremely bad PR.

Perhaps their best approach would be to couch their appeal as being firmly for a clarification of the rules and the process of their application while making clear that they accept the result of the contest. That way they may force those governing to be a bit more professional and do a service to sport. Perhaps at the same time they can remove the direct line to the race conductor, sorry, director which has all the unedifying spectacle of football players crowding the referee.

As for occurrences in the past, would Brands Hatch
1976 count? I feel bad mentioning it as I know some feel that that is ‘where the rot set in’. It was also the year that the young me started a lifelong fascination though, did I miss the boat?

Hopefully there will be a worthwhile future for those yet to come to add to the history, and nostalgia of, the sport.

[Michael Ferner]

As for occurrences in the past, would Brands Hatch
1976 count? I feel bad mentioning it as I know some feel that that is ‘where the rot set in’. It was also the year that the young me started a lifelong fascination though, did I miss the boat?

Excellent example, though I fear it will not satisfy our friend!

[ensign14]

I still think they got those DQs the wrong way around - red-flagging Brands meant the original race never happened so everyone should have been up for the restart, but the McLaren was illegal in Spain, even if it made no difference.  But if one accepts that Hunt should not have re-started at Brands, then that got corrected, although the Italian "error" over the fuel at Monza did not.

 

One other Cooper one that came to mind was that the Indianapolis car was I think too short for the regulations, but again nodded through because it was not considered a threat, merely some exotica.  Although had I been first alternate I might have been a bit ticked off. 

[Michael Ferner]

I still think they got those DQs the wrong way around - red-flagging Brands meant the original race never happened so everyone should have been up for the restart,

Wrong - that rule was only introduced in 1978, partly it seems to avoid similar disasters. In fact, this was a clear case of the CoC ignoring the rules of the sport to engineer a particular result, as per the OP. There you have it, only it's British so it probably won't count in your warped view of the world.

I don't often agree with the Daily Mail but Martin Samuel has it spot on here: https://www.dailymai...des-appeal.html

A bit late to lament about F1 being no longer a sport, it hasn't been for decades. Perhaps the whole article would have been more credible if it hadn't come after the one time Lucky Lewis drew the short straw. The same race director did everything the last few races to have Hamilton catch up on points, and now they were both given a chance to win, so what's unfair about that? It certainly wasn't "bending the rules of the game to favour one competitor", he couldn't have known that Hamilton is not as good as Pérez.

[BRG]

 It can be less argumentative than a TNF thread on Maserati chassis numbers.

   That was something to smile about in a dark and dismal few days!

 

There was no minimum F1 engine capacity in the fifties - so much for your knowledge of F1 rules.

TNF has found a new candidate for F1 Race Director! 

[uechtel]

Doug Nye said in his History of the Grand Prix Car 1945-65 that there was a minimum capacity of 2-litres.  Many years ago, I started a thread here about that but the consensus was that there was no minimum.  I think Doug posted that he couldn't remember why he wrote that.  If there was a minimum capacity, a lot of the early Cooper-Climaxes would not have complied.

 

Could it be the reason why in the latter 1950ies the British GP always included a separate F2 class, maybe to circumvene such a rule?

[Derwent Motorsport]

Did not Stirling do a bit of giant killing in a 1100cc Cooper in 1950?

[Charlieman]

To return to the OP and occasions when the FIA/FISA/CSI have intentionally ignored the rules of the sport to affect outcomes... I suggest we review the Jean Marie Balestre years because no candidate seems likely to me to have foolishly meddled to such an extent.

 

I'll start with the decision to allow sliding skirts (perhaps originating before Balestre's time with the Lotus 78?) which were clearly moveable aerodynamic devices. They were quite different from the legally defined fixed skirts used to effect by Brabham and McLaren in 1976. I've no idea why the CSI turned a blind eye to the Lotus 78 and 79, but the decision affected results. I find myself in agreement with Mauro Forghieri's objections.

 

The ground effects cars from teams like Ligier and Williams eventually forced the ban on illegal sliding skirts, with Brabham inventing an ingenious and legal system. The suspension was compressed at relatively low downforces sufficiently for the fixed skirts for ground effects to work again. The response from other teams, using hydraulics to raise and lower suspension were illegal, but again for unknown reasons, this was ignored.

 

I also feel that Keith Duckworth's objection to turbochargers has some merit. When unburnt fuel is expelled through the turbo to maintain its speed of rotation, reducing lag and generating exhaust flames, the turbine unit is acting as a combustion chamber. Whilst it is not directly to the crankshaft or transmission, the turbine is improving engine performance. The first adopters of turbo engines were JMB's allies in the FICA/FOCA/FISA wars of course. 

[Charlieman]

Could it be the reason why in the latter 1950ies the British GP always included a separate F2 class, maybe to circumvene such a rule?

Could an F2 car complete the entire 200 miles of a GP (or 180 miles or so if lapped a few times)? F1 and F2 cars from Cooper, for example, were very similar so perhaps modifications were straightforward for some. It must have been much trickier with more sophisticated cars in the 3 litre era?

[Ray Bell]

Now, what size was the engine in the Moss/Trintignant Cooper?

 

Do I hear '1960cc'?

[Ray Bell]

And was there ever a 1.8-litre Bristol engine?

[Sterzo]

Memory might be playing tricks, but I thought the fictional "2.2" engines were to persuade the race organisers to take them seriously and accept the entries.

[ensign14]

Wrong - that rule was only introduced in 1978, partly it seems to avoid similar disasters. In fact, this was a clear case of the CoC ignoring the rules of the sport to engineer a particular result, as per the OP. There you have it, only it's British so it probably won't count in your warped view of the world.

I don't have the 1976 rules so was going on a) the logic that if a race is stopped and started de novo then the original start never happened and b) Ferrari agreeing with that status by putting Regga back on the grid. 

 

Plus, the previous time such a thing had happened (Britain 1973), one car that had "retired" at the first start was allowed to take the second start.  The driver?  Lauda. 

[Michael Ferner]

I don't have the 1976 rules so was going on a) the logic that if a race is stopped and started de novo then the original start never happened and b) Ferrari agreeing with that status by putting Regga back on the grid. 

 

Plus, the previous time such a thing had happened (Britain 1973), one car that had "retired" at the first start was allowed to take the second start.  The driver?  Lauda. 

 

There is some logic to that, I agree (and the reference to Lauda in 1973 is certainly 'juicy' in the 1976 context!). But in practice it led to some very unfortunate attitudes of drivers at the start of Grands Prix. I particularly recall the start of a Canadian GP (in 1998, I think), when another Austrian driver (the insufferable Alex Wurz) made a bonehead move into the first corner, wiping out almost half the field, then nonchalantly gave interviews shrugging away the crash, whilst overworked crews prepared half a dozen spare cars and faced many hours rebuilding the wrecks, What an idiot.

 

 

EDIT: here it is on YT: 

Edited by Michael Ferner, 14 December 2021 - 13:38.

[Michael Ferner]

Interesting and thoughtful article by Martin Brundle: https://www.skysport...ilton-is-denied

[PCC]

Quite apart from the rights and wrongs, this must have been history-making in one way:

 

Lewis Hamilton is, surely, the first driver ever to win one world championship and lose another on the last lap?

[uechtel]

Which led to Piquet winding Senna up brilliantly the next year...

 

 

 

To be honest I was quite happy with the decision as at the time I didn´t like Senna for some of his attitudes. Looking back with more maturity now I think it was a severe injustice.

[Collombin]

Lewis Hamilton is, surely, the first driver ever to win one world championship and lose another on the last lap?

Must be. 1964 is the only other example I can think of, Hill losing to Surtees (I think Clark had already lost the race lead on the lap before).

[D-Type]

Re Jack Brabham's 2.2 litre Cooper-Bristol:  My understanding is that the 2-litre minimum was not a CSI rule, but an RAC regulation intended to exclude all the old ex-Formula 2 2-litre Cooper-Bristols, Cooper-Altas, Connaughts, Altas, HWMs, etc that were kicking around British club racing driven by amateurs and part-timers.

​Re Abu Dhabi 2021:  Yet another manifesttion of the current over-complex rule book and the scope for misinterpretation. Alternatively: like WWF Wrestling nowdys it's an entertainment and no longer a sport

[10kDA]

 

​Re Abu Dhabi 2021:  Yet another manifesttion of the current over-complex rule book and the scope for misinterpretation. Alternatively: like WWF Wrestling nowdys it's an entertainment and no longer a sport

WWF has changed its acronym to WWE, "World Wrestling Entertainment". Maybe "F1" should rebrand themselves as "E1". Anyway, the outcome was fairly obvious once the ref inadvertantly stepped into the path of a flying dropkick and was knocked unconscious for last few laps.

[Alan Baker]

Could an F2 car complete the entire 200 miles of a GP (or 180 miles or so if lapped a few times)? F1 and F2 cars from Cooper, for example, were very similar so perhaps modifications were straightforward for some. It must have been much trickier with more sophisticated cars in the 3 litre era?

Although in this country F2 races may have been sprints, on the continent they were usually full length Grand Prix races (e.g. Pau).

[doc knutsen]

Although in this country F2 races may have been sprints, on the continent they were usually full length Grand Prix races (e.g. Pau).

The first Grand Prix I attended was the Grosser Preis von Deutschland over a full 15 laps of the old Nordschleife, back in 1958.  I seem to remember a very young Bruce McLaren running so well in an F2 Cooper. Ferrari had an F2 version of the Dino 246, if memory serves.

Edited by doc knutsen, 15 December 2021 - 11:49.

[uechtel]

For some years the organizers of the German GP invited F2 cars as well, to present the audience more action on the track, which certainly makes sense for such a long circuit. But that doesn´t really explain, why there were F2 cars admitted in the British GP as well.

[ensign14]

To annoy statisticians, I think.  Same as timing cars to the second so that Hawthorn finished the season with a ⁹/₁₄ in his points total.

[mariner]

Two points looking at all the  AD fuss in wider context.

 

In most oval track racing yellow flags are genuinely necessary due to the track being inside two walls. So every driver knows that he/she could have big lead 5 laps from the end but a late yellow will let the second driver catch right up. Sometimes the leader has the speed to pull away again, sometimes he/she gets passed on the last lap etc. 

 

That's racing life and oval drivers have to accept it so why does F1 have to be different?

 

Secondly some people seem amazed that Christian Horner and Toto Wolf would argue via radio with the race director. 

 

At the 1963 Indy 500 Parnelli Jones was leading Jim Clark but dropping oil from the external tank. Colin Chapman and C J Agajanian were standing next to the "race director" ( Harlan Fengler?) with Chapman demanding the rules must be followed, while Aggie said no away.

 

The rules were clear, any car dropping oil would be black flagged but was a USAC official really going to black flag an American hero in the lead from a pesky new foreign team?

 

I think  Aggie argued that as the leak was clearly coming from a mounting point half way up the oil tank it would stop soon so why hand the race to Clark.

 

So bullying and arguing with the officials ls is noting new 

[Emery0323]

Two points looking at all the  AD fuss in wider context.

 

In most oval track racing yellow flags are genuinely necessary due to the track being inside two walls. So every driver knows that he/she could have big lead 5 laps from the end but a late yellow will let the second driver catch right up. Sometimes the leader has the speed to pull away again, sometimes he/she gets passed on the last lap etc. 

 

That's racing life and oval drivers have to accept it so why does F1 have to be different?

 

This aligns with my opinions also - All major oval series in the US have the rule that the pace car will pick up the leader, and the rest of the field bunches up behind the pace car.     Lapped cars can be passed as long as the running order is not changed.

 

To cite just one example: Watch the ending of the 1986 Indy 500.  When Kevin Cogan got passed by Bobby Rahal on the restart with 2 laps to go,  he admitted that he flubbed the restart.   He did not go complaining to USAC that the final caution and restart  had been engineered to give him a disadvantage.  Everyone knew those were the rules in oval racing, and they have the advantage that they're easier to enforce, and that the lead car on the track is also the leader in the scoring.

 

I explained this to a friend yesterday who is new to motorsports.   By American standards (Indycar, NASCAR, etc),  the Abu Dhabi finish would be standard operating procedure.

 

F1 has given itself an impossible task by trying to enforce overly precise timing penalties, timing/scoring intervals, regulating lapped cars under cautions, etc.,  to a degree that is probably unmanageable and unrealistic.

Edited by Emery0323, 15 December 2021 - 19:43.

[RCH]

This aligns with my opinions also - All major oval series in the US have the rule that the pace car will pick up the leader, and the rest of the field bunches up behind the pace car.     Lapped cars can be passed as long as the running order is not changed.

 

To cite just one example: Watch the ending of the 1986 Indy 500.  When Kevin Cogan got passed by Bobby Rahal on the restart with 2 laps to go,  he admitted that he flubbed the restart.   He did not go complaining to USAC that the final caution and restart  had been engineered to give him a disadvantage.  Everyone knew those were the rules in oval racing, and they have the advantage that they're easier to enforce, and that the lead car on the track is also the leader in the scoring.

 

I explained this to a friend yesterday who is new to motorsports.   By American standards (Indycar, NASCAR, etc),  the Abu Dhabi finish would be standard operating procedure.

 

F1 has given itself an impossible task by trying to enforce overly precise timing penalties, timing/scoring intervals, regulating lapped cars under cautions, etc.,  to a degree that is probably unmanageable and unrealistic.

 

Maybe, but that's oval racing in the US not F1. If the FIA were to introduce rules along those lines fine but we can only judge by the rules as they stand at the moment.

[BRG]

Two points looking at all the  AD fuss in wider context.

That's racing life and oval drivers have to accept it so why does F1 have to be different?

 

So bullying and arguing with the officials ls is noting new 

Because two wrongs don't make a right?

 

I imagine if an Indycar season was settled like this, there would be considerable disquiet.

[PCC]

I see that the incoming FIA President has shown he has his finger on the pulse of the sport by speculating on what punishment might be administered for the blatant breach of the rules that occurred.

 

Oops, it's not to Masi - it's to Lewis and Toto, for missing the prize-giving ceremony! If you thought the FIA made the sport look bad on race day, just wait for this one....

[LittleChris]

Apparently his campaign had the support of Motorsport UK despite his opponent being from the UK !

[BRG]

I see that the incoming FIA President has shown he has his finger on the pulse of the sport by speculating on what punishment might be administered for the blatant breach of the rules that occurred.

 

Oops, it's not to Masi - it's to Lewis and Toto, for missing the prize-giving ceremony! If you thought the FIA made the sport look bad on race day, just wait for this one....

I would have hoped for better than this in TNF.  bin Sulayem has said that 'rules are rules' and should be observed.  Rather than treated as optional by all and sundry.  If he actually applies this from now on, isn't that what we all want to see happen?  If Sir Lewis broke a rule, so be it.

 

Apparently his campaign had the support of Motorsport UK despite his opponent being from the UK !

As the opponent used to be head of Motorsport UK, perhaps they knew what they were doing?

Edited by BRG, 18 December 2021 - 11:20.

[PCC]

I would have hoped for better than this in TNF.  bin Sulayem has said that 'rules are rules' and should be observed.  Rather than treated as optional by all and sundry.  If he actually applies this from now on, isn't that what we all want to see happen?  If Sir Lewis broke a rule, so be it.

I will indeed welcome it, the moment it is applied consistently. That moment obviously hasn't come.

[Dick Dastardly]

Didn't former GP drivers used to be Clerks of the Course at certain GPs?   I'm thinking Jacky Ickx at Monaco and Tim Schenken at the Australian races. Were they just "celebrity figureheads" with others doing the work, or did they have the power to rule and decide matters? 

 

A good thing Sir Stirling didn't witness last weekend....here was a driver who gave up a WDC on fairness / sportsmanship grounds..  .

 

Well it is Panto time....Bonno telling Lewis "he's [Max] is behind you" with the reply being "Oh No, he's not" 

[BRG]

I will indeed welcome it, the moment it is applied consistently. That moment obviously hasn't come.

He has only been president for two days......

[PCC]

He has only been president for two days......

Yes, and both Masi's and Hamilton's transgressions occurred before he became president. Yet for the former, it would be "premature" to comment, but for the latter, "rules are rules". Does that sound consistent to you? I would have hoped for better than this from TNF.

[opplock]

Didn't former GP drivers used to be Clerks of the Course at certain GPs?   I'm thinking Jacky Ickx at Monaco and Tim Schenken at the Australian races. Were they just "celebrity figureheads" with others doing the work, or did they have the power to rule and decide matters? 

 

 

 

I'm sure it was Jacky Ickx's decision to stop the 1984 Monaco GP. Cynics thought at the time that he'd stopped the race to ensure that Prost won. Highly unlikely but it can be argued that his decision cost Prost the Championship. Based on what we now know Bellof likely to have won with Prost second. 6 points instead of 4.5. 

 

It was the wettest race I've ever attended. Vantage point was top row of a stand on roof of Hotel Miramar. Attacked by near horizontal rain from the front and the spray from cars exiting St Devote from the rear.   

[Collombin]

Based on what we now know Bellof likely to have won with Prost second. 6 points instead of 4.5.

Even third would have done it, given Tyrrell's subsequent treatment.