"The FIA has brought back the rule allowing lapped cars to pass the
safety car.
The rule was last used in F1 in 2009. It proved problematic because of
the large amount of time lapped cars needed to pass the safety car and re-join the train, as most F1 tracks are over five kilometres long.
As a result the rule was enforced inconsistently as the race director occasionally chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the safety car, in order to prevent the safety car being kept out for too long."
<https://www.racefans.net/2011/12/07/lapped-cars-allowed-pass-safety-car-2012/>
"The FIA has brought back the rule allowing lapped cars to pass the
safety car.
The rule was last used in F1 in 2009. It proved problematic because of
the large amount of time lapped cars needed to pass the safety car and re-join the train, as most F1 tracks are over five kilometres long.
As a result the rule was enforced inconsistently as the race director occasionally chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the safety car, in order to prevent the safety car being kept out for too long."
<https://www.racefans.net/2011/12/07/lapped-cars-allowed-pass-safety-car-2012/>
On 13/12/2021 14:36, Brian Lawrence wrote:
"The FIA has brought back the rule allowing lapped cars to pass the
safety car.
The rule was last used in F1 in 2009. It proved problematic because of
the large amount of time lapped cars needed to pass the safety car and
re-join the train, as most F1 tracks are over five kilometres long.
As a result the rule was enforced inconsistently as the race director
occasionally chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the safety car, in
order to prevent the safety car being kept out for too long."
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
cars to pass the saety car...'
Of course Charlie had a perfectly valid/acceptable reason for doing--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
that! I forget who said it, but most likely it was Eddie Jordan on the
BBC yesterday - in my day if we pestered Charlie during a race he'd
tell us to sod off.
<https://www.racefans.net/2011/12/07/lapped-cars-allowed-pass-safety-car-2012/>
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 13/12/2021 14:36, Brian Lawrence wrote:
"The FIA has brought back the rule allowing lapped cars to pass the
safety car.
The rule was last used in F1 in 2009. It proved problematic because of
the large amount of time lapped cars needed to pass the safety car and
re-join the train, as most F1 tracks are over five kilometres long.
As a result the rule was enforced inconsistently as the race director
occasionally chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the safety car, in >>> order to prevent the safety car being kept out for too long."
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
cars to pass the safety car?
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32Of course Charlie had a perfectly valid/acceptable reason for doing
that! I forget who said it, but most likely it was Eddie Jordan on the
BBC yesterday - in my day if we pestered Charlie during a race he'd
tell us to sod off.
<https://www.racefans.net/2011/12/07/lapped-cars-allowed-pass-safety-car-2012/>
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>> cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
(and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
(similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
(and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
(similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been thrown. There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and others) to
change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to justify it on any grounds, I would think.
Otherwise, I agree that either your second or third options would have
been perfectly fine and completely justifiable under the existing rules
(as I understand them) and in line with precedent.
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the
race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow
unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all*
lapped cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on
access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and
will try to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing
the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at
the end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to
take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
(similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams and the race director that any safety car period near the end of the race would
be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the general agreement that
F1 races would be ended under green flag conditions whenever possible.
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
-a-a-a <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>> cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
(and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
(similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just
that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and*
rushing the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single
sprint lap at the end of the race.
Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams
and the race director that any safety car period near the end of
the race would be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the
general agreement that F1 races would be ended under green flag
conditions whenever possible.
Do you have the specific agreement for this race and/or a copy of
the general agreement?
In any case, I don't see how that makes a difference to the fact that
he deviated from the norm. For example, the precedent-supported move
of bringing in the safety car without moving any of the backmarkers
would have met that requirement in full.
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>>> cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the >>>> SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
(and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
(similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
I agree with everything you say, Mark.
On 2021-12-14 4:31 a.m., Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before
2010, the race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally
chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not
all* lapped cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is
yes. Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and
depends on access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of
things filed away, and will try to do more research when I
can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just
that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers and
rushing the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single
sprint lap at the end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was
much less likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority
to do that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the
last lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly
given some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a
conscious (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based
on clear rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director
has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is
not in question (for most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken
to get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent
and would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
(similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really
don't think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like
the RD and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You can't fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required
to allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the
race the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing
some laps of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst
would have been to bring the safety car in without any cars
unlapping and letting them get on with it. The (distant)
third-least-worst would have been to leave it under the safety car
as that would have been consistent with precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
There was a specific agreement between the teams and the race
director that any safety car period toward the end of the race should
end as quickly as possible AND a long-standing agreement that
whenever possible, F1 races should end under green.
Hamilton doesn't sound the least bit upset with either letting the 5
cars go through OR the early withdrawal of the safety car...
...until AFTER he's failed to defend into turn 5 AND has run out of legitimate passing opportunities.
I find that interesting.
On 2021-12-14 4:06 a.m., Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010,
the race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose
not to allow unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not
all* lapped cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is
yes. Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and
depends on access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things
filed away, and will try to do more research when I can find
the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just
that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers and rushing
the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint
lap at the end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much
less likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority
to do that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the
last lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
-a-a-a <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
I saw it... ...while following Hamilton's in-car video on F1TV
There were literally NO COMPLAINTS about what was happening prior to
him getting passed.
I'm watching the whole sequence again, and while Hamilton is vocal
about his bad luck before he even gets behind the safety car, he
never says ONE WORD about how unfair it is that only 5 lapped cars
are being let through... ...until after he's let Verstappen get by
him.
Behind the safety car, e's completely willing to chat and complain
(including repeatedly about how fast the safety car is going for
instance). At 1:38:00, Hamilton is informed that "He's going to let 4
cars through" (even though it's actually 5) and simultaneously seems
them go past him; the last just before turn 9. Then 18 seconds later,
he's informed that the safety car will be "in this lap". Still no
comment from the guy who was happy to complain about trivia just
moments earlier. Nothing.
He doesn't complain about the situation AT ALL until afterward.
Then and ONLY then, does he suddenly complain the situation is being "manipulated".
On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:
<snip>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
(and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
-a-a clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
-a-a get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
-a-a would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
-a-a (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
-a-a think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
-a-a think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been thrown. There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and others) to
change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to justify it on any grounds, I would think.
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:31:10 -0000 (UTC), Mark wrote:A red flag a few laps earlier, when it was obvious how things were progressing'.
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the
race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow >>>>>>> unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all*
lapped cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on
access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and >>>>> will try to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing
the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at
the end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious (and
public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear rules* or
established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to
take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for most). The
question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
(similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
I agree with almost everything
option 2 would have swung the advantage to Hamilton (which considering his position before the safety car would not be un-reasonably, but as i have admited on many occasions I am totally biased).
A red flag would have given the grand finalli the organisers wanted on an even playing field & I suspect the complaints would be few either way.
On 2021-12-14 4:31 a.m., Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow
unlapped
cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>>> cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the >>>> SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
-a-a-a-a <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
(and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
-a-a clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
-a-a get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
-a-a would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
-a-a (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
-a-a think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
-a-a think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
There was a specific agreement between the teams and the race director
that any safety car period toward the end of the race should end as
quickly as possible AND a long-standing agreement that whenever
possible, F1 races should end under green.
Hamilton doesn't sound the least bit upset with either letting the 5
cars go through OR the early withdrawal of the safety car...
...until AFTER he's failed to defend into turn 5 AND has run out of legitimate passing opportunities.
I find that interesting.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams and the
race director that any safety car period near the end of the race would
be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the general agreement that
F1 races would be ended under green flag conditions whenever possible.
Do you have the specific agreement for this race and/or a copy of the
general agreement?
On 15/12/2021 7:32 am, Mark wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just
that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers and
rushing the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single
sprint lap at the end of the race.
Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams
and the race director that any safety car period near the end of
the race would be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the
general agreement that F1 races would be ended under green flag conditions whenever possible.
Do you have the specific agreement for this race and/or a copy of
the general agreement?
No, we would have to find the proof that this wasn't the case. So his
'logic' goes.
On 2021-12-14 4:06 a.m., Brian Lawrence wrote:Perhaps he had more important things on his mid at that time, such as how
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the
race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow
unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all*
lapped cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on
access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and
will try to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing
the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at
the end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
-a-a-a <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
I saw it... ...while following Hamilton's in-car video on F1TV
There were literally NO COMPLAINTS about what was happening prior to him getting passed.
I'm watching the whole sequence again, and while Hamilton is vocal about
his bad luck before he even gets behind the safety car, he never says
ONE WORD about how unfair it is that only 5 lapped cars are being let through... ...until after he's let Verstappen get by him.
Behind the safety car, e's completely willing to chat and complain
(including repeatedly about how fast the safety car is going for
instance). At 1:38:00, Hamilton is informed that "He's going to let 4
cars through" (even though it's actually 5) and simultaneously seems
them go past him; the last just before turn 9. Then 18 seconds later,
he's informed that the safety car will be "in this lap". Still no
comment from the guy who was happy to complain about trivia just moments earlier. Nothing.
He doesn't complain about the situation AT ALL until afterward.
Then and ONLY then, does he suddenly complain the situation is being "manipulated".
On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:
<snip>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
(and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
most). The question (as you say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
-a-a clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
-a-a get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
-a-a would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
-a-a (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
-a-a think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
regulations.
You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
-a-a think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been thrown. There was no reason --
other than allowing Hamilton (and others) to change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to
justify it on any grounds, I would think.
Otherwise, I agree that either your second or third options would have been perfectly fine and
completely justifiable under the existing rules (as I understand them) and in line with precedent.
On 2021-12-14 4:06 a.m., Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'
Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>> cars to pass the safety car?
My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)
It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.
This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
end of the race.
Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
likely.
That's what looks dubious.
Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.
Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
lap? "This has been manipulated, man."
aaa <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>
I saw it... ...while following Hamilton's in-car video on F1TV
There were literally NO COMPLAINTS about what was happening prior to him >getting passed.
I'm watching the whole sequence again, and while Hamilton is vocal about--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
his bad luck before he even gets behind the safety car, he never says
ONE WORD about how unfair it is that only 5 lapped cars are being let >through... ...until after he's let Verstappen get by him.
Behind the safety car, e's completely willing to chat and complain >(including repeatedly about how fast the safety car is going for
instance). At 1:38:00, Hamilton is informed that "He's going to let 4
cars through" (even though it's actually 5) and simultaneously seems
them go past him; the last just before turn 9. Then 18 seconds later,
he's informed that the safety car will be "in this lap". Still no
comment from the guy who was happy to complain about trivia just moments >earlier. Nothing.
He doesn't complain about the situation AT ALL until afterward.
Then and ONLY then, does he suddenly complain the situation is being >"manipulated".
On 15/12/2021 3:50 am, Darryl Johnson wrote:
On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:
<snip>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly
given some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a
conscious (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions
based on clear rules* or established precedent. That the Race
Director has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve
situations is not in question (for most). The question (as you
say) is motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
-a-a clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was
taken to -a-a get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent
and -a-a would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
-a-a (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really
don't -a-a think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like
the RD and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to
pretend that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with
all regulations.
You can't fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum
required to allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the
race the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag
allowing some laps of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been to bring the safety car in
without any cars unlapping and letting them get on with it. The
(distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave it under the
safety car as that would have been consistent with precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
-a-a think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been
thrown. There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and
others) to change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to
justify it on any grounds, I would think.
But still better than what occurred no?
~misfit~ wrote:
On 15/12/2021 3:50 am, Darryl Johnson wrote:Forget for a moment what did happen and imagine that had happened
On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:
<snip>
Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularlyI would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been
given some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a
conscious (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based
on clear rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director
has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is
not in question (for most). The question (as you say) is
motivation.
* And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
-a-a clarification process.
I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):
1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken
to -a-a get things running at all costs.
2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent
and -a-a would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
-a-a (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really
don't -a-a think this is the cause.
Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like
the RD and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.
What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to
pretend that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with
all regulations.
You can't fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required
to allow racing to the maximum extent possible.
For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the
race the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing
some laps of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst
would have been to bring the safety car in without any cars
unlapping and letting them get on with it. The (distant)
third-least-worst would have been to leave it under the safety car
as that would have been consistent with precedent.
Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
controversy.
* While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
-a-a think the second option would have been my preferred solution.
thrown. There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and
others) to change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to justify
it on any grounds, I would think.
But still better than what occurred no?
instead. It would be setting a different precedent. The red flag is
meant to be thrown on safety grounds. Using it to produce a more
exciting climax to a race would be just as controversial. It might have
been fairer but had Max won we would/could still be complaining that the
RD used his position in an unprecedented way to influence the result of
the championship. It might be easier for the FIA to defend.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 3 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 02:41:39 |
| Calls: | 136 |
| Files: | 751 |
| Messages: | 89,385 |