412 replies to this topic

[Hotwheels]

Thoughts on this ?

 

My 2 bits : 

 

1) New President will want to look as if he is more open to change

2) They will not agree in writing that any mistake was made

3) Masi will not be RD , but will not be fired. He may resign at some point.

4) Merc will seek to control more - but this will be push backed by other teams.

 

All in all , little will change. 

 

Don't wait to exhale. 

[CharlesWinstone]

Nothing else to do Hotwheels?

[Hotwheels]

Nothing else to do Hotwheels?

No

 

It's Sunday - there would be a race on the Telly now . 

Oh wait - there is always Netflix....

[Bloggsworth]

I see Bernie is back in place...

[AlexPrime]

They will promote Masi to other post in FIA and will create overtime rules for SC. That's what I believe will happen.

[Myrvold]

They will promote Masi to other post in FIA and will create overtime rules for SC. That's what I believe will happen.

Overtime rules and no refueling. Sounds like something the FIA would do.

[FLB]

Overtime rules and no refueling. Sounds like something the FIA would do.

And penalize those who don't have enough fuel left in their tank for sampling at the end of the race (EX: Vettel in Hungary)...

[AnR]

they have to be able to view these engines, to complex and in a freezed frame suddenly have a 20-30 hp extra needs to be explained

[BRG]

Er, which FIA Commission is this about?  There are 29 of them.

[Myrvold]

Thoughts on this ?

 

My 2 bits : 

 

1) New President will want to look as if he is more open to change

2) They will not agree in writing that any mistake was made

3) Masi will not be RD , but will not be fired. He may resign at some point.

4) Merc will seek to control more - but this will be push backed by other teams.

 

All in all , little will change. 

 

Don't wait to exhale. 

 

My 2 bits:

 

1) Isn't this covered in the other threads?

2) Isn't the OP 4 bits, not 2?

[NoForumForOldPole]

overtime would be ok, given you can save fuel under SC.

[Rediscoveryx]

It would presumably be the team's responsibility to fuel the car to last through the overtime period. Or an overtime could come in the shape of a red flag and standing restart so as not to burn unnecessary fuel running around behind the safety car.

[smitten]

It would presumably be the team's responsibility to fuel the car to last through the overtime period. Or an overtime could come in the shape of a red flag and standing restart so as not to burn unnecessary fuel running around behind the safety car.

Why can't we just finish behind the SC?  The solution is already there in the rule book.

[IceSpeed]

Why can't we just finish behind the SC? The solution is already there in the rule book.

The rule book doesn’t matter.

What matters is a finish that will improve ratings, entertainment and a fabricated result so use that logic when thinking of solutions to this problem.

Where have you been these past few weeks? 😉

[Singularity]

Why can't we just finish behind the SC?  The solution is already there in the rule book.

Because it is always an anticlimax.

[John B]

Problem with alloting fuel for overtime is there's no way to know exactly how many laps might be run behind SC beyond the planned distance before restarting.

[Huffer]

The rule book doesn’t matter.

What matters is a finish that will improve ratings, entertainment and a fabricated result so use that logic when thinking of solutions to this problem.

Where have you been these past few weeks?

 

Quite. Apparently, we can just throw the rule book out because the stewards don't understand that the Race Director having absolute authority on the decisions of the COTC is not the same as having absolute authority to change the rules on a whim. Section 2.1 of the sporting code specifically states that all race officials must follow the regulations. They don't get to disobey them, change them, or make them up as they see fit.

 

I have to wonder though, exactly how long is this thread going to go on before we have any sort of report from the FIA? No immediate date as been promised, only that some sort of BS excusing the FIA of any wrong doing (probably) will appear before the start of the next season. Which could mean we'll be waiting for quite a few months. It seems quite premature to close the other Abu Dhabi last lap thread in favour of this thread.

Edited by Huffer, 19 December 2021 - 22:52.

[sportyskells]

Well, let's get Christmas and New year out of the way 1st as I think the report might be after the new year but just in time for any changes before the Bahrain grand prix

[alg7_munif]

Hopefully the commission will let the public know why only the race between Max and Lewis is given an extraordinary treatment in which the rules in article 48.12 has intentionally been overridden and other drivers behind were denied the opportunity to race to the flag on the last lap.
https://www.tokyvide...-on-team-radios

[Gravelngrass]

Thoughts on this ?

 

My 2 bits : 

 

1) New President will want to look as if he is more open to change

2) They will not agree in writing that any mistake was made

3) Masi will not be RD , but will not be fired. He may resign at some point.

4) Merc will seek to control more - but this will be push backed by other teams.

 

All in all , little will change. 

 

Don't wait to exhale. 

2) No mistake was really made. A good explanation of the reasoning is here: https://racingnews36...ercedes-protest, if you haven't seen it before. They interpreted a rule to make a racing end to the WDC possible. Normally fans are clamoring for the SC to get out of the way sooner to allow for more racing but when it affects F1's longest standing monopoly, a fanbase accustomed to winning easy and a loud team principal, things suddenly change. I think most fans are grateful that the final race of such a close championship ended under a green flag and that race control can make these types of decisions that, ultimately, are in favor of racing.  

[alg7_munif]

2) No mistake was really made. A good explanation of the reasoning is here: https://racingnews36...ercedes-protest, if you haven't seen it before. They interpreted a rule to make a racing end to the WDC possible. Normally fans are clamoring for the SC to get out of the way sooner to allow for more racing but when it affects F1's longest standing monopoly, a fanbase accustomed to winning easy and a loud team principal, things suddenly change. I think most fans are grateful that the final race of such a close championship ended under a green flag and that race control can make these types of decisions that, ultimately, are in favor of racing.

So denying the drivers behind Max from having the same opportunity to race wasn't a mistake but instead a deliberate attempt to let just just the front two runners to go for it with full knowledge that one of the cars is on the fastest tyres (new softs) while the other is on the slowest tyres (40 laps hards)?

[ClubmanGT]

So denying the drivers behind Max from having the same opportunity to race wasn't a mistake but instead a deliberate attempt to let just just the front two runners to go for it with full knowledge that one of the cars is on the fastest tyres (new softs) while the other is on the slowest tyres (40 laps hards)?

 

Should whatever tyres each driver is on factor into the decision in any way? Because that would seem like a recipe to play favourites. Isn't that bad? 

[Bliman]

Should whatever tyres each driver is on factor into the decision in any way? Because that would seem like a recipe to play favourites. Isn't that bad? 

I think you have answered his question without you realizing it I think,

[Rediscoveryx]

Problem with alloting fuel for overtime is there's no way to know exactly how many laps might be run behind SC beyond the planned distance before restarting.

I think it would need to be defined in advance. Like ”maximum two laps, red flag if that is not possible”.

NASCAR has this green/white/chequered thing that’s a similar concept.

[Huffer]

Hopefully the commission will let the public know why only the race between Max and Lewis is given an extraordinary treatment in which the rules in article 48.12 has intentionally been overridden and other drivers behind were denied the opportunity to race to the flag on the last lap.
https://www.tokyvide...-on-team-radios

 

Given the linguistic hoops I've seen people jumping through on this forum to justify what happened, it should be amusing to see how the FIA themselves justify it. Let me be clear, I'm not expecting the FIA to find Masi guilty of any wrong doing at all, or that any rules were ever breached. I'm just expecting some long winded explanation which boils down to "we can do what we want".

Edited by Huffer, 20 December 2021 - 06:24.

[Hotwheels]

Given the linguistic hoops I've seen people jumping through on this forum to justify what happened, it should be amusing to see how the FIA themselves justify it. Let me be clear, I'm not expecting the FIA to find Masi guilty of any wrong doing at all, or that any rules were ever breached. I'm just expecting some long winded explanation which boils down to "we can do what we want".

Agreed

It will be a lawyer worded document which will mean nothing.
Pity - as the FIA has a new President - and he could hv taken this opportunity to say in my watch it will be much better and put some definate do and donts in the rules

[Tenmantaylor]

Overtime rules and no refueling. Sounds like something the FIA would do.

Or make new rules then not follow them.

[gillesfan76]

There’s no need to speculate, the language in the FIA”s statement about the commission is already patently clear.

 

1. “Nothing to see here, move right along” didn’t work, so we’ll open an investigation to understand why everyone else misunderstood us.

2. The reputation of the FIA and the legitimacy of Max’s championship has been tarnished, but only because everyone else has misunderstood, so we need to investigate and spit & polish so we can bring our self-perceived shine back on our tarnished reputation.

3. The new FIA president Mohammed bin Sulayem has already said that it’s likely Lewis will be punished for missing the FIA gala because, in his exact words “rules are rules”. On the face of it, that is one of the most hypocritical mealy mouthed statements possible, but the messaging is clear. We will not even act in the slightest bit contrite or in a way that reflects our guilt, and instead we will double down and pretend that there was no error, no mistake, no foul, no corruption, no problem on our part by getting on the front foot and enforcing that rules are rules.

It is unfortunately, a bit like the policeman who applies to work in the child sexual assault division, himself putting away pedophiles only to cover up for the fact that he is one himself. This isn’t a hypothetical, it’s occurred many times. Recently an investigative journalist who used to chase after and harass pedophiles on camera for their behaviour was himself caught and convicted as a pedophile. It’s a common tactic, pretend to stand against the very problem that you yourself are guilty of in order to work perception towards your favour. Rules are rules.

 

Nothing will come from this commission. It is worse than lip-service or a token gesture. It is intended to temporarily appease Mercedes, Lewis and the broader public while it will seek to attempt to wash away the stains it caused rather than truly attempt to prevent the staining that its hands caused in the first place. Rinse and repeat.

[gillesfan76]

Should whatever tyres each driver is on factor into the decision in any way? Because that would seem like a recipe to play favourites. Isn't that bad? 

 

You mean like preventing only the lapped drivers behind Max from unlapping themselves? The pivotal position of Max’s P7 position - all ahead Go, all behind No. Now that sounds not just like a recipe to play favourites, but a fully baked result. Isn’t that bad? Not for you, no doubt.

[FullOppositeLock]

You mean like preventing only the lapped drivers behind Max from unlapping themselves? The pivotal position of Max’s P7 position - all ahead Go, all behind No. Now that sounds not just like a recipe to play favourites, but a fully baked result. Isn’t that bad? Not for you, no doubt.

 

Quite the logical fallacy to assume that because a poster finds that statement A (race control should not consider which tyres respective cars are on when making decisions about the use of the safety car) is true, they must also find that completely unrelated, nay almost opposite statement B (race control should remove only the backmarkers between cars in p1 and p2 and not other backmarkers) is also therefore true.

[gillesfan76]

Quite the logical fallacy to assume that because a poster finds that statement A (race control should not consider which tyres respective cars are on when making decisions about the use of the safety car) is true, they must also find that completely unrelated, nay almost opposite statement B (race control should remove only the backmarkers between cars in p1 and p2 and not other backmarkers) is also therefore true.

 

My apologies, I’m glad that both you and ClubmanGT are consistent and accept that race control played favourites by removing only the select number of backmarkers and that you think it’s bad. 

Edited by gillesfan76, 20 December 2021 - 11:26.

[Casey]

We need more topics on this !

[Eyeshield]

Status Quo for the foreseeable future.

[FullOppositeLock]

My apologies, I’m glad that both you and ClubmanGT are consistent and accept that race control played favourites by removing only the select number of backmarkers and that you think it’s bad.

It appears logic is not your strong suit so maybe you should try to limit your use of it. Acknowledging that the race director should not consider the tyres used or remove backmarkers only between p1 and p2 does not equal concluding that race control player favourites. “Playing favourites” goes to intent, which without a statement testifying to it by the executing party is the realm of speculation, not logic.

[gillesfan76]

It appears logic is not your strong suit so maybe you should try to limit your use of it. Acknowledging that the race director should not consider the tyres used or remove backmarkers only between p1 and p2 does not equal concluding that race control player favourites. “Playing favourites” goes to intent, which without a statement testifying to it by the executing party is the realm of speculation, not logic.

 

Your logic flawed. Why are you assuming that if the race director did consider the respective tyres, that would automatically equate to playing favourites?

 

You can’t have it both ways, buddy. Maybe next time have a pop at your friend there who was claiming that the RD factoring tyres into the decision means he’s playing favourites. Of course you wouldn’t dare do that. 

 

Should whatever tyres each driver is on factor into the decision in any way? Because that would seem like a recipe to play favourites. Isn't that bad? 

 

Edited by gillesfan76, 20 December 2021 - 11:58.

[alg7_munif]

Your logic flawed. Why are you assuming that if the race director did consider the respective tyres, that would automatically equate to playing favourites?

You can’t have it both ways, buddy. Maybe next time have a pop at your friend there who was claiming that the RD factoring tyres into the decision means he’s playing favourites. Of course you wouldn’t dare do that.

If tyres were not considered, I wonder why he thought that Sainz would not be attacking for P2 at the restart and didn't need the lapped cars to be removed between him and the choosen one.

[gillesfan76]

The reality is that there are a whole bunch of people, including the FIA themselves, that are desperately seeking to legitimise what happened. Just like they did for Spa 2008, yet as bad as that was, this is just another thing altogether. I’ve now spoken with a number of lawyers who I know follow F1, and funnily enough on balance majority were actually hoping for Max to win the title because of the quality of most of his drives and to have a different title winner. Yet not one, not a single one could justify Masi’s call as being within the Sporting Regulations. All said that if Mercedes was able to take it to an external court, it would be a cut and shut win and in fact would never get there in the first place as it would be settled under instruction from the defendant’s counsel.

 

https://medium.com/@...ve-571ca3810060

 

The FIA commission is not going to find any contravention on itself. It will attempt to protect itself, and in doing so further taint the sport. It’s going to be interesting to see Hamilton’s next move, I don’t think this mess caused by the FIA is over, not by a long way.

[Huffer]

The reality is that there are a whole bunch of people, including the FIA themselves, that are desperately seeking to legitimise what happened. Just like they did for Spa 2008, yet as bad as that was, this is just another thing altogether. I’ve now spoken with a number of lawyers who I know follow F1, and funnily enough on balance majority were actually hoping for Max to win the title because of the quality of most of his drives and to have a different title winner. Yet not one, not a single one could justify Masi’s call as being within the Sporting Regulations. All said that if Mercedes was able to take it to an external court, it would be a cut and shut win and in fact would never get there in the first place as it would be settled under instruction from the defendant’s counsel.

 

https://medium.com/@...ve-571ca3810060

 

The FIA commission is not going to find any contravention on itself. It will attempt to protect itself, and in doing so further taint the sport. It’s going to be interesting to see Hamilton’s next move, I don’t think this mess caused by the FIA is over, not by a long way.

 

Thanks for linking to that article - it provides a very clear explanation of the regulations that have been discussed to death, and what is more, an actual interpretation from a legal perspective. Rather than the ridiculous linguistic flim flammery that has been thrown about in a desperate attempt to make the final lap and result of Abi Dhabi to appear to be anything other than a farce. 

 

Of course, it helps that the article, written by an actual lawyer, matches my own views on the intent of the rules, especially 15.3 which I have always understood to set out the reporting structure for the COTC, and not some "hand of god" for the Race Director absurdity. 

Edited by Huffer, 20 December 2021 - 17:15.

[AnR]

Toto is really starting to look like the bad looser he is now, either you get on with all this court talk or not, he's been talking about court rooms for two years now over different matters.

 

"Almost certain", than try it and stop whine so much.

 

If FIA should really try to understand something it's time to have a look at the "spicy engine" saga, or we will have new engines every race next year.

[Gravelngrass]

So denying the drivers behind Max from having the same opportunity to race wasn't a mistake but instead a deliberate attempt to let just just the front two runners to go for it with full knowledge that one of the cars is on the fastest tyres (new softs) while the other is on the slowest tyres (40 laps hards)?

He made the decision that was going to allow a finish under green. Could there have been a better one, like, for example, showing the red flag and restarting? Maybe. But, IMO, and apparently for many other fans including the ones that are neither HAM's nor VES's, what happened was better and more worthy of the season and racing in general, than finishing under SC. Mercedes seem to be trying to cover up what ended up being a mistake by blaming race control for something that was not against the rules but ended up working against their interests. Don't you think that Ham, with the rocket Mercedes engine, would have had a great shot at passing VES with the same tyres in the last laps? They bet safe and they lost, but they can't take it...

[Bliman]

Toto is really starting to look like the bad looser he is now, either you get on with all this court talk or not, he's been talking about court rooms for two years now over different matters.

"Almost certain", than try it and stop whine so much.

If FIA should really try to understand something it's time to have a look at the "spicy engine" saga, or we will have new engines every race next year.

how many times should someone tell that it would not have given Mercedes anything if they had gone through with it. That doesn't mean that no injustice have been done. How would you feel if you have undergone injustice and you can't do anything about it? I don't think you would feel great about it.

[Bliman]

He made the decision that was going to allow a finish under green. Could there have been a better one, like, for example, showing the red flag and restarting? Maybe. But, IMO, and apparently for many other fans including the ones that are neither HAM's nor VES's, what happened was better and more worthy of the season and racing in general, than finishing under SC. Mercedes seem to be trying to cover up what ended up being a mistake by blaming race control for something that was not against the rules but ended up working against their interests. Don't you think that Ham, with the rocket Mercedes engine, would have had a great shot at passing VES with the same tyres in the last laps? They bet safe and they lost, but they can't take it...

so you want a show and not a sport. That is not for me. I want a sport and not a show.

[FullOppositeLock]

The reality is that there are a whole bunch of people, including the FIA themselves, that are desperately seeking to legitimise what happened. Just like they did for Spa 2008, yet as bad as that was, this is just another thing altogether. I’ve now spoken with a number of lawyers who I know follow F1, and funnily enough on balance majority were actually hoping for Max to win the title because of the quality of most of his drives and to have a different title winner. Yet not one, not a single one could justify Masi’s call as being within the Sporting Regulations. All said that if Mercedes was able to take it to an external court, it would be a cut and shut win and in fact would never get there in the first place as it would be settled under instruction from the defendant’s counsel.

 

https://medium.com/@...ve-571ca3810060

 

The FIA commission is not going to find any contravention on itself. It will attempt to protect itself, and in doing so further taint the sport. It’s going to be interesting to see Hamilton’s next move, I don’t think this mess caused by the FIA is over, not by a long way.

 

 

Thanks for linking to that article - it provides a very clear explanation of the regulations that have been discussed to death, and what is more, an actual interpretation from a legal perspective. Rather than the ridiculous linguistic flim flammery that has been thrown about in a desperate attempt to make the final lap and result of Abi Dhabi to appear to be anything other than a farce. 

 

Of course, it helps that the article, written by an actual lawyer, matches my own views on the intent of the rules, especially 15.3 which I have always understood to set out the reporting structure for the COTC, and not some "hand of god" for the Race Director absurdity. 

You guys never fail to crack me up. A blog post from "Geoff" who likes to write inane ramblings about some orchestra or how a person can never have enough mugs - a slight dig to his 9 (!) followers?

 

The sad bloke evidently can't read, which is seemingly a prerequisite in some parts to be considered a "lawyer". The article 15.13 he references no less than three times doesn't exist. Assuming he means 15.3, the next bit is beyond slapstick:

 

"Taken literally, the result would mean that the Race Director can do what he wants with regard to the safety car. Arguably, this produces an absurdity. (...) Can the race director decide to deploy the safety car even though there has been no accident? The answer is no."

 

Euhhhh mate, the answer is yes. There doesn't have to have been an accident for the race director to have permission to bring out the safety car. There needs to be "immediate physical danger on or near the track" as we've seen many times before in motorsport.

 

Maybe Geoff is better off informing his 9 followers about orchestra's or mugs again next time. This piece wasn't even worth the server storage space it resides on.

[Gravelngrass]

so you want a show and not a sport. That is not for me. I want a sport and not a show.

Racing the last lap is more a sport than finishing under SC...F1 stopped being a sport a long time ago, if it ever was.  Changing engines, for example, went against the spirit of the rules...
Making the necessary adjustments to end a great championship racing in a *racing* sport seems much better than allowing it to end under something that, in the end, should be the last resort in... a race.

[Bliman]

Racing the last lap is more a sport than finishing under SC...F1 stopped being a sport a long time ago, if it ever was. Changing engines, for example, went against the spirit of the rules...
Making the necessary adjustments to end a great championship racing in a *racing* sport seems much better than allowing it to end under something that, in the end, should be the last resort in... a race.

if they give an advantage to one driver and all the drivers are not treated equal than to me that is not a sport but a show. There were enough opportunities to have a fair lap.

[NewYorkF1]

There’s no need to speculate, the language in the FIA”s statement about the commission is already patently clear.

1. “Nothing to see here, move right along” didn’t work, so we’ll open an investigation to understand why everyone else misunderstood us.
2. The reputation of the FIA and the legitimacy of Max’s championship has been tarnished, but only because everyone else has misunderstood, so we need to investigate and spit & polish so we can bring our self-perceived shine back on our tarnished reputation.
3. The new FIA president Mohammed bin Sulayem has already said that it’s likely Lewis will be punished for missing the FIA gala because, in his exact words “rules are rules”. On the face of it, that is one of the most hypocritical mealy mouthed statements possible, but the messaging is clear. We will not even act in the slightest bit contrite or in a way that reflects our guilt, and instead we will double down and pretend that there was no error, no mistake, no foul, no corruption, no problem on our part by getting on the front foot and enforcing that rules are rules.
It is unfortunately, a bit like the policeman who applies to work in the child sexual assault division, himself putting away pedophiles only to cover up for the fact that he is one himself. This isn’t a hypothetical, it’s occurred many times. Recently an investigative journalist who used to chase after and harass pedophiles on camera for their behaviour was himself caught and convicted as a pedophile. It’s a common tactic, pretend to stand against the very problem that you yourself are guilty of in order to work perception towards your favour. Rules are rules.

Nothing will come from this commission. It is worse than lip-service or a token gesture. It is intended to temporarily appease Mercedes, Lewis and the broader public while it will seek to attempt to wash away the stains it caused rather than truly attempt to prevent the staining that its hands caused in the first place. Rinse and repeat.

Haha you never fail to crack me up. I love that you are so self absorbed that you truly believe that anyone who has a different opinion than you must be acting in malice. That is a great strategy, before the commission has come to a conclusion already make the point that if they come to a different conclusion than the one you made up, it is because they are corrupt. It can’t be that you yourself are wrong.

And then the pedophile analogy 😂. I am calling it early, before we reach page ten someone is going to do a Godwin.

[Huffer]

You guys never fail to crack me up. A blog post from "Geoff" who likes to write inane ramblings about some orchestra or how a person can never have enough mugs - a slight dig to his 9 (!) followers?

 

The sad bloke evidently can't read, which is seemingly a prerequisite in some parts to be considered a "lawyer". The article 15.13 he references no less than three times doesn't exist. Assuming he means 15.3, the next bit is beyond slapstick:

 

"Taken literally, the result would mean that the Race Director can do what he wants with regard to the safety car. Arguably, this produces an absurdity. (...) Can the race director decide to deploy the safety car even though there has been no accident? The answer is no."

 

Euhhhh mate, the answer is yes. There doesn't have to have been an accident for the race director to have permission to bring out the safety car. There needs to be "immediate physical danger on or near the track" as we've seen many times before in motorsport.

 

Maybe Geoff is better off informing his 9 followers about orchestra's or mugs again next time. This piece wasn't even worth the server storage space it resides on.

 

Is that the best you can do? Pointing out an incorrect rule numbering and an ad hominem attack? I suppose the latter is par for the course though. 

 

Regardless of your personal views on the author, rule number typos aside, it provides a hell of lot more substance than some whacky interpretation of "absolute authority" whilst ignoring the context of the rule that it is mentioned in. 

Edited by Huffer, 20 December 2021 - 18:32.

[jjcale]

So who is on the Commission ... and will it be called the Hamilton Commission Part 2?

[FullOppositeLock]

I have a few other observations with regards to the rules that I can't quite wrap my head around but seem to be taken for granted by those who are of the opinion that Masi does not have the overriding authority with respect to the use of the safety car, but should have followed the rules under article 48 to the letter:

 

1) I believe the Sky commentary team made the point, and have seen it repeated countless times on here, that the race director would have been permitted to restart the race on the final lap with the backmarker cars left in place. Which article/specific text handles this? I have read article 48.12 countless times, but I cannot for the life of me see any line that gives the race director a choice between these two options as keeps being suggested, or even leave lapped cars in situ after the clerk considers it safe to release them. Can anyone point it out to me?

 

2) the arguments that all (any) lapped cars should be allowed to overtake the safety car and that the last lap should have been run under the safety car is derived from article 48.12. How do people who argue that article 15.3 should not necessarily be taken "as written" reconcile this with they themselves taking all (any) cars and the end of the following lap as written even though in this particular case the cars (that were released) were obviously no longer going to interfere with the battle between the leaders considering only one race lap was remaining? Do you want the regulations to be applied literally or not? I can understand wanting to be article 48.12 applied literally and in full, but why not extend the privilege to 15.3?

 

3) article 48.13 makes no reference to article 48.12 or any other condition that needs to be met except for one thing. All it requires to be activated is that the clerk of the course (with the agreement of the race director as we know from 15.3) "decides it is safe to call in the safety car". Since there are no other conditions and it was evidently safe to call in the safety car, why should the clerk of the course, with the express agreement of the race director, not be permitted to call in the safety car at the end of lap 57?

 

Even aside from the overriding authority of the race director the alternative proposed by the media and some posters (point 1), and the legal basis for the protest itself (points 2 and 3) is not exactly as strong as some would have us believe.

 

I hope the FIA commission will shed further light on these matters, both in terms of the legal position of what Masi was permitted to do using the regulations provided (which can hopefully be limited and clarified going forward), and in terms of the motivation from Masi at the time to act as he ended up doing (which can hopefully be remedied by replacing him with someone better able to cope with the demands of the role).

[ClubmanGT]

You mean like preventing only the lapped drivers behind Max from unlapping themselves? The pivotal position of Max’s P7 position - all ahead Go, all behind No. Now that sounds not just like a recipe to play favourites, but a fully baked result. Isn’t that bad? Not for you, no doubt.

 

As posted in a previous thread: I'm a Ferrari fan, I don't actually care. 

 

And no, Max wasn't P7. He was P2.

 

E: Also, I'm not sure what you're expecting. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, there is no simple or viable remedy to this, short of re-racing the entire event. 

Edited by ClubmanGT, 20 December 2021 - 19:45.