72 replies to this topic

[Tenmantaylor]

Pretty simple hypothetical question to counter the Lewis defending thread.

 

I don't think he would have.

[New Britain]

Of course he wouldn't have done the same thing in a 'normal' race.

 

The interesting question is: assuming that he remains in the job, what will he do next time?   

[f1kent83]

Would Masi have restarted the race the same way without Horner on the radio? I personally think Masi starts the race within the rules and the lapped cars stay in place.

Edited by f1kent83, 03 January 2022 - 01:16.

[pdac]

Of course he wouldn't have done the same thing in a 'normal' race.

 

The interesting question is: assuming that he remains in the job, what will he do next time? 

 

I'm sure he will stay in his job. The Stewards and the FIA backed his decision(s). They are all happy with the outcome (apart from the unfathomable reaction from the media and the fans, of course).

[w1Y]

So he hasn't been removed from his role yet?

[Tenmantaylor]

They are all happy with the outcome

Obviously, they wanted it to happen and made it happen.

[New Britain]

I'm sure he will stay in his job. The Stewards and the FIA backed his decision(s). They are all happy with the outcome (apart from the unfathomable reaction from the media and the fans, of course).

I agree. If the FIA were to remove him, that would be a tacit admission that the Abu Dhabi racing decisions were not allowed by the regulations and the stewards' report was a cover-up. The FIA now probably have a greater motive to keep him in the job than if AD had been a normal race.

[RPM40]

Of course not. Never in the history of the sport has just the cars between the first and second car unlapped themselves. This was obviously used to create a certain outcome.

[Singularity]

Pretty simple hypothetical question to counter the Lewis defending thread.

 

I don't think he would have.

It is not a hypothetical question at all, it has already been reported that Masi and the teams had agreed that a potential restart would get special treatment.

[f1kent83]

It is not a hypothetical question at all, it has already been reported that Masi and the teams had agreed that a potential restart would get special treatment.

Is there actually any details about this agreement? I have only seen it mentioned by Masi which he is obviously trying to use it as a defence to justify what he did. What sort of agreement was it? If an agreement was in place did it mention breaking rules?

[Bliman]

It is not a hypothetical question at all, it has already been reported that Masi and the teams had agreed that a potential restart would get special treatment.

Where did they say they would choose this special treatment? All I heard was that they rather not end the race under the safety car if they could, nothing more. I never heard that they would cut corners to do that.

[Bliman]

About the question itself. I think there is little chance he would do the same thing.

[shure]

I'm sure there was extra pressure to make sure that the season didn't close off behind a SC.  That in itself isn't an issue necessarily, it's more the execution than the intention that's at fault here I feel

[Singularity]

 never heard that they would cut corners to do that.

I never said that. Funny that you appear to disagree while you at the same time confirm what I just said.

[Tenmantaylor]

I never said that. Funny that you appear to disagree while you at the same time confirm what I just said.

"Where possible"

Clearly had Latifis car been stuck on the track still at the start of the final lap the race wouldn't have restarted.

Or maybe it would, as the race director can now pick and choose which regulations to follow.

[Singularity]

"Where possible"

Clearly had Latifis car been stuck on the track still at the start of the final lap the race wouldn't have restarted.

Or maybe it would, as the race director can now pick and choose which regulations to follow.

That is not the question in your poll. As to Latifi's car not being cleared fast enough - I'm pretty sure Masi would have thrown the red flag. I also happen to think that is what he should have done immediately after the crash, but I guess the time estimate for getting the car removed was too optimistic-

[Bliman]

I never said that. Funny that you appear to disagree while you at the same time confirm what I just said.

I don't get it. What is this special treatment then? Because I have never seen it stipulated what corners they would cut. Or what do you mean by special treatment?

[Tenmantaylor]

I'm sure

Hi, I'm tenman.

[Singularity]

I don't get it. What is this special treatment then? Because I have never seen it stipulated what corners they would cut. Or what do you mean by special treatment?

It basically means "we will not treat a late safety car as we would in any other race". And they didn't. 

[New Britain]

It is not a hypothetical question at all, it has already been reported that Masi and the teams had agreed that a potential restart would get special treatment.

Evidence, please?

 

AFAIK, the only thing already reported was Masi's claim to the AD stewards that 'it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible it was highly desirable for the race to end in a "green" condition (i.e., not under a Safety Car)'.

 

Ergo: 'highly desirable' is not mandatory, 'where possible' is conditional on the physical circumstances, and there is no mention of 'special treatment', which, if that had been previously agreed, we can be certain that both Masi and the Stewards would have mentioned.

[New Britain]

Hi, I'm tenman.

In this case, would it not be 'Thenman'?

[Bliman]

It basically means "we will not treat a late safety car as we would in any other race". And they didn't. 

So all bets are off? He can do anything as he pleases with regard to safety and fairness and such. I never knew that was agreed upon.

[Tenmantaylor]

That is not the question in your poll. As to Latifi's car not being cleared fast enough - I'm pretty sure Masi would have thrown the red flag. I also happen to think that is what he should have done immediately after the crash, but I guess the time estimate for getting the car removed was too optimistic-

If he want to resume racing he should have thrown a red flag. Absolutely no one, not even Red Bull, would have thought that was manipulating the race. It wouldn't have even been breaking any rules. There was carbon and fire extinguishant all over the racing line (unlike at Jeddah which was red flagged only after Merc had pitted strangely but I digress).

The poll and the intent for the thread was to get to the nub of Masi's (don't want to give him any credit here) "decision" making.

Ultimately, as I suspected, people so far mostly believe like I that he acted as he did to try and ensure the title ended under green flag conditions. That's looking at it kindly to say the least.

The fact that very few people don't believe he would have done the same thing at any other race during the season is extremely damning. Basically, he handed Max the title. Because, ipso facto, if it wasn't the title decider he wouldn't have done it and Lewis would be champion.

[Tenmantaylor]

In this case, would it not be 'Thenman'?

It's a bit close to Tim Henman. No one wants to be him.

[New Britain]

It basically means "we will not treat a late safety car as we would in any other race". And they didn't. 

We know what the words mean. What we do not know (and, with respect, you too seem not to know) is whether that agreement was actually made. If it had been agreed, do you not think that Masi, or Red Bull, or the AD stewards would have brought it up at some point?

 

Even if it had been made, it is not clear why the teams and Race Director would have been entitled to flout the official written regulations, rather than working to change them.

[Singularity]

Evidence, please?

 

AFAIK, the only thing already reported was Masi's claim to the AD stewards that 'it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible it was highly desirable for the race to end in a "green" condition (i.e., not under a Safety Car)'.

 

Ergo: 'highly desirable' is not mandatory, 'where possible' is conditional on the physical circumstances, and there is no mention of 'special treatment', which, if that had been previously agreed, we can be certain that both Masi and the Stewards would have mentioned.

That is the same thing, is it not? They do not make those agreement for any race, they treated this race in a "special" way because it was a title decider. Finish the race on green in case of SC was high, maybe even highest, priority. In normal race it is only desirable. This shouldn't even be worthy if a discussion since the actual events proves that what they agreed upon, that was not something they'd do in a normal race, was also what they did.

[New Britain]

It's a bit close to Tim Henman. No one wants to be him.

Good point, although I seem to recall that back when he was British #1 there was a queue of women who aspired to get to know him, so perhaps it would not have been so bad to swap places with him, if only temporarily.

[New Britain]

That is the same thing, is it not? They do not make those agreement for any race, they treated this race in a "special" way because it was a title decider. Finish the race on green in case of SC was high, maybe even highest, priority. In normal race it is only desirable. This shouldn't even be worthy if a discussion since the actual events proves that what they agreed upon, that was not something they'd do in a normal race, was also what they did.

If Masi said that this 'highly desirable' objective that should be pursued 'where possible' had 'long been agreed', then it wasn't special for Abu Dhabi, was it?

[Tenmantaylor]

That is the same thing, is it not? They do not make those agreement for any race, they treated this race in a "special" way because it was a title decider. Finish the race on green in case of SC was high, maybe even highest, priority. In normal race it is only desirable. This shouldn't even be worthy if a discussion since the actual events proves that what they agreed upon, that was not something they'd do in a normal race, was also what they did.

You continue to ignore the whole premise of this back door shady "agreement", if it even existed in any official sense, that it quite clearly would have only ever considered in a legal sense.

Like me saying where possible I will always get to work as quickly as possible. By speeding AND running red lights.

[Bliman]

That is the same thing, is it not? They do not make those agreement for any race, they treated this race in a "special" way because it was a title decider. Finish the race on green in case of SC was high, maybe even highest, priority. In normal race it is only desirable. This shouldn't even be worthy if a discussion since the actual events proves that what they agreed upon, that was not something they'd do in a normal race, was also what they did.

But why cut corners with regards to safety and fairness? Surely the teams and Masi would not agree to compromise those. Where is that stated that they would compromise those things? Because I would be very surprised if they would argue for this just not to end under a safety car. Even then you have the option of a red flag. That way you also don't end under a safety car.

[PlayboyRacer]

**** no

[shure]

If he want to resume racing he should have thrown a red flag. Absolutely no one, not even Red Bull, would have thought that was manipulating the race. It wouldn't have even been breaking any rules. There was carbon and fire extinguishant all over the racing line (unlike at Jeddah which was red flagged only after Merc had pitted strangely but I digress).

The poll and the intent for the thread was to get to the nub of Masi's (don't want to give him any credit here) "decision" making.

Ultimately, as I suspected, people so far mostly believe like I that he acted as he did to try and ensure the title ended under green flag conditions. That's looking at it kindly to say the least.

The fact that very few people don't believe he would have done the same thing at any other race during the season is extremely damning. Basically, he handed Max the title. Because, ipso facto, if it wasn't the title decider he wouldn't have done it and Lewis would be champion.

I don't think it's damning, necessarily.  If it had been discussed with the teams beforehand that they would try their hardest not to end on a SC, then basically he was just doing what had been agreed, not coming up with some nefarious plan of his own to hand anyone the title.  Without knowing the specifics it's hard to condemn him, but assuming he's not lying (and I feel on something that basic the teams would have denied it by now), then he was just carrying out the agreed on plan.  Perhaps not the specifics, but certainly the fact that they had all discussed treating the final race differently does at least spread some of the burden of blame around, at least inasmuch as motivation is concerned

[Singularity]

We know what the words mean. What we do not know (and, with respect, you too seem not to know) is whether that agreement was actually made. If it had been agreed, do you not think that Masi, or Red Bull, or the AD stewards would have brought it up at some point?

 

Even if it had been made, it is not clear why the teams and Race Director would have been entitled to flout the official written regulations, rather than working to change them.

Look, I am discussing from the context of the question in the poll and the OP, not from the point of view of what is right or wrong. There are other threads for that. Maybe you're hung up on the phrase "special treatment"? If so, consider the abstract meaning of it. 

[PlayboyRacer]

I'm sure there was extra pressure to make sure that the season didn't close off behind a SC

That in itself is a huge problem. It shouldn't matter. If circumstances mean it finishes under a SC, so be it. This is sport, not the circus. It's a really, really lame excuse.

[Bliman]

I don't think it's damning, necessarily.  If it had been discussed with the teams beforehand that they would try their hardest not to end on a SC, then basically he was just doing what had been agreed, not coming up with some nefarious plan of his own to hand anyone the title.  Without knowing the specifics it's hard to condemn him, but assuming he's not lying (and I feel on something that basic the teams would have denied it by now), then he was just carrying out the agreed on plan.  Perhaps not the specifics, but certainly the fact that they had all discussed treating the final race differently does at least spread some of the burden of blame around, at least inasmuch as motivation is concerned

Why would a race director ever compromise safety and fairness when he has other options to not end the race under the safety car if this was what teams wanted? That to me makes no sense. Even if pressured by the teams those things cannot be agreed upon.

Edited by Bliman, 03 January 2022 - 02:39.

[Tenmantaylor]

I don't think it's damning, necessarily. If it had been discussed with the teams beforehand that they would try their hardest not to end on a SC, then basically he was just doing what had been agreed, not coming up with some nefarious plan of his own to hand anyone the title. Without knowing the specifics it's hard to condemn him, but assuming he's not lying (and I feel on something that basic the teams would have denied it by now), then he was just carrying out the agreed on plan. Perhaps not the specifics, but certainly the fact that they had all discussed treating the final race differently does at least spread some of the burden of blame around, at least inasmuch as motivation is concerned

So why did he initially say the race would restart without cars unlapping? It came on the screen. It was official.

I assume that was to get the race restarted as quickly as possible to ensure a green flag finish as time was running out to unlap cars within the laps remaining. A restart of that nature wouldn’t have been illegal either and no one had grounds to be aggrieved or hard done by. Just RB and Max weren't getting their payout on their gamble to pit, their last throw of the dice.

Then Horner gets on the blower to Masi asking a) to get lapped cars out of the way [of Max] and states b) "you [Masi] only need 1 racing lap".

And then the rule breaking begins...

[Singularity]

Like me saying where possible I will always get to work as quickly as possible. By speeding AND running red lights.

You have 'always' in your sentence, so it is definitely not like that since the agreement was about an exception. If you want your example to work, you need to get a call from work and agree that you'd do the utmost to be there at X o'clock and then you would do whatever you can to meet that agreement. If that would involve speeding and running red lights is up to you and how you measure the urgency.

Was there really an agreement? I was not there, but I have read at several places that Masi claims it was. I'd assume Wolf would let himself be heard if Masi invented that agreement after the fact.

[shure]

That in itself is a huge problem. It shouldn't matter. If circumstances mean it finishes under a SC, so be it. This is sport, not the circus. It's a really, really lame excuse.

I don't think it is, tbh.  I mean, it doesn't excuse the unlapping fiasco, to be clear, but I can understand they would want to take extra care to ensure the final race didn't end up behind a SC.  I don't think that in isolation is an issue

[Singularity]

But why cut corners with regards to safety and fairness? Surely the teams and Masi would not agree to compromise those. Where is that stated that they would compromise those things? Because I would be very surprised if they would argue for this just not to end under a safety car. Even then you have the option of a red flag. That way you also don't end under a safety car.

Did you read the OP and the poll question at all? Seems pointless to have threads when all of them is filled with "But, was it RIGHT?" 

[Tenmantaylor]

You have 'always' in your sentence, so it is definitely not like that since the agreement was about an exception. If you want your example to work, you need to get a call from work and agree that you'd do the utmost to be there at X o'clock and then you would do whatever you can to meet that agreement. If that would involve speeding and running red lights is up to you and how you measure the urgency.

Was there really an agreement? I was not there, but I have read at several places that Masi claims it was. I'd assume Wolf would let himself be heard if Masi invented that agreement after the fact.

The plot thickens, so this agreement to break the rules to finish under a green flag was just for AD? Or just for title deciders?

Or did it no agreement to break the rules exist?

[Bliman]

I don't think it is, tbh.  I mean, it doesn't excuse the unlapping fiasco, to be clear, but I can understand they would want to take extra care to ensure the final race didn't end up behind a SC.  I don't think that in isolation is an issue

But he had many other options to not end behind the safety car and he didn't take those.

[shure]

So why did he initially say the race would restart without cars unlapping? It came on the screen. It was official.

I assume that was to get the race restarted as quickly as possible to ensure a green flag finish as time was running out to unlap cars within the laps remaining. A restart of that nature wouldn’t have been illegal either and no one had grounds to be aggrieved or hard done by. Just RB and Max weren't getting their payout on their gamble to pit, their last throw of the dice.

Then Horner gets on the blower to Masi asking a) to get lapped cars out of the way [of Max] and states b) "you [Masi] only need 1 racing lap".

And then the rule breaking begins...

I was referring to the damning as outlined in your OP.  If the teams - and I'm assuming the "if" here, to be clear - had discussed avoiding ending the race under the SC, as Masi claimed, then they were all onboard with treating this race differently, if only from the perspective of pushing harder than usual to get the track green again.   That specific point is not damning IMO.

 

I agree there are problems with the execution, and I also think the partial unlapping, and Masi apparently getting influenced, raises questions that need answering.  But that wasn't what I was answering

[Bliman]

Did you read the OP and the poll question at all? Seems pointless to have threads when all of them is filled with "But, was it RIGHT?" 

Yes I read it. I don't think he would have acted the same way if it wasn't the title decider. I think he cut some serious corners because it was the title decider. Otherwise he would have acted very differently I think and I certainly hope so.

[shure]

But he had many other options to not end behind the safety car and he didn't take those.

I don't think he had "so many," but agree he did at least have one alternative, which was to stick with his original plan.  But my answer should be seen in the context of the question.  I'm not suggesting he did nothing wrong, but was talking about whether him taking extra care to ensure the final race didn't end under a SC was itself a problem.  If, for example, he would have kept his original plan and not allowed cars to unlap themselves, that would have been unusual and different to the norm, but would it have been a problem?  I don't see that, personally.  That's just a technicality, whereas the partial unlapping farce took things too far.  The two things need to be looked at as separate IMO

[Singularity]

The plot thickens, so this agreement to break the rules to finish under a green flag was just for AD? Or just for title deciders?

Or did it no agreement to break the rules exist?

 

I know nothing about an agreement to break the rules. I don't even know if any rules were broken, Mercedes decided not to put them to a test. I've hear FIA will, or might, investigate anyway, but as far as I know, no one knows. No one outside this forum of course, in here many seem to know but it is unclear where that knowledge comes from. Or if it is even knowledge. Maybe knowledge does not exist?

[Bliman]

I don't think he had "so many," but agree he did at least have one alternative, which was to stick with his original plan. But my answer should be seen in the context of the question. I'm not suggesting he did nothing wrong, but was talking about whether him taking extra care to ensure the final race didn't end under a SC was itself a problem. If, for example, he would have kept his original plan and not allowed cars to unlap themselves, that would have been unusual and different to the norm, but would it have been a problem? I don't see that, personally. That's just a technicality, whereas the partial unlapping farce took things too far. The two things need to be looked at as separate IMO

but why not a red flag? I don't get it. Does it happen more often that we have a crane like the one that killed Bianchi on track while other drivers go full speed? I thought those days were over.

[Bliman]

I know nothing about an agreement to break the rules. I don't even know if any rules were broken, Mercedes decided not to put them to a test. I've hear FIA will, or might, investigate anyway, but as far as I know, no one knows. No one outside this forum of course, in here many seem to know but it is unclear where that knowledge comes from. Or if it is even knowledge. Maybe knowledge does not exist?

maybe knowledge doesn't exist . I like that.

[Tenmantaylor]

but why not a red flag? I don't get it. Does it happen more often that we have a crane like the one that killed Bianchi on track while other drivers go full speed? I thought those days were over.

The onboard footage of one of the Alpha Tauris being told to drive full gas two corners before a debris littered track full or marshalls was horrifying.

This is the other dicing with death potentially scandalous outcome that could have occurred in this Horner endorsed rush to get his racing lap (now he had the right tyres on Maxs car).

[Tenmantaylor]

maybe knowledge doesn't exist . I like that.

The post truth era finally lands in F1.

Trump to replace Masi.

[New Britain]

Look, I am discussing from the context of the question in the poll and the OP, not from the point of view of what is right or wrong. There are other threads for that. Maybe you're hung up on the phrase "special treatment"? If so, consider the abstract meaning of it. 

 

 

It basically means "we will not treat a late safety car as we would in any other race". And they didn't. 

You have said that it was 'reported' that there was an agreement beforehand that the Safety Car could be used or treated differently in Abu Dhabi from how it had been used in previous races.

 

I am asking you what evidence you have that there was such an agreement about Safety Car usage specific ('special') to the Abu Dhabi race. If you have got some evidence, great - I'm sure we would all be interested in it. If you don't have any evidence, then no problem, but lacking any evidence it probably does not make sense for you to get into a debate trying to justify what you think was reported somewhere.