The fiasco surrounding the Formula One Championship

[AbsolutSurgen]

Why Masi's latest marginal call has left F1 with a sour taste

WWW.MOTORSPORT.COM

---

When FIA president Jean Todt tweeted a congratulatory message about Formula 1's Abu Dhabi season finale, the responses to it said everything about the scale of unease about Sunday's events.

Quote

While Todt praised "all those who made it possible", many fans could not hide their anger at what they felt had been a shambolic running of the final F1 race of the season.

Pouring through the messages, accusations of the FIA having rigged the event, manipulated its own rules and put the desire for a Hollywood-style finish over sporting fairness were rampant.

But, in a year when F1 social media comments have been perhaps more extreme than ever, it was equally telling that many of these opinions were shared within the sport too.

Williams driver George Russell himself felt that the way the late safety car restart had been handled – which ultimately decided the race in favour of Max Verstappen – was not right.

"Max is an absolutely fantastic driver who has had an incredible season and I have nothing but huge respect for him, but what just happened is absolutely unacceptable," wrote Russell. "I cannot believe what we've just seen."

Safety car decision

The controversy revolves around the manner in which F1 race director Michael Masi handled the safety car that had been called out for Nicholas Latifi's crash five laps from the finish.

The procedure had appeared to be pretty normal as the pack formed up behind the Aston Martin, and track officials moved quickly to remove the stricken Williams.

But then things deviated from the norm when Masi informed teams: "Lapped cars will not be allowed to overtake."

That decision meant that, if the race restarted, then Max Verstappen on his fresh soft tyres would need to clear five backmarkers before he could have a shot at snatching the lead, and with it the title, from Lewis Hamilton.

But shortly after a delayed radio message was played from Red Bull boss Christian Horner to Masi, urging him to clear the backmarkers, convention was again broken as on the penultimate lap only a select few cars were told to unlap themselves.

Then, to further compound the confusion, Masi elected to restart the race at the end of that same lap, and not at the end of the following lap as the sporting regulations dictate.

With Verstappen on fresh softs, and Hamilton on well-used hards, it was obvious which man held the clear advantage once battle resumed.

The U-turn on the backmarkers being allowed to unlap themselves, the decision to then only let a few move forward, and then the rushed restart, all came together to leave F1, the FIA and Masi facing a barrage of criticism over what happened.

Ultimately, the circumstances meant Masi played God in being the man who decided which way the championship went, as it depended entirely on that restart call.

And that was perhaps exacerbated by the tyre strategy differences between the top two cars.

If the race had run under the safety car to the finish, then Hamilton was champion. If it resumed, it was obvious that Verstappen had such a tyre advantage that he would move to the front and take the crown.

While the decision-making process of the F1 race director should be completely independent of consideration for the fortunes of individual competitors – as they should all be treated equally – what does not sit easy with a lot of people is the way that the rulebook appears to have been overruled to make things happen.

This was not a case of procedure being followed to the letter, and Hamilton and Mercedes simply being unlucky with how things turned out. Instead, things seem to have been out of the ordinary.

The first message that lapped cars may not overtake was abnormal, because standard procedure is to say nothing until the first instruction comes through about backmarkers unlapping themselves.

So, when the subsequent call was made shortly afterwards to shift a few of the lapped cars out of the way – only those in front of Verstappen and not those between the Dutchman and Carlos Sainz behind him – it pointed to a U-turn.

Then, as Mercedes and its QC Paul Harris argued with the stewards later amid their protest push, Article 48.12 states that the safety car restart can only come at the end of the 'following lap' after backmarkers have been told to unlap themselves.

In the Abu Dhabi case, with the lapped cars being moved on the penultimate lap, then the race should not have been able to get going before the end of lap 58, which was the final lap of the race. So the race should have been timed out.

The rules on this point are explicit, and the FIA accepted that they had not been applied 'fully'. However, the stewards concluded that other regulations overruled this demand, so it was not a breach.

It cited Article 15.3 that states the Race Director shall have "overriding authority" for the safety car. So, when he decided it was coming in, then that is all that matters.

And once the decision was taken to bring the safety car in, which is covered in Article 48.13, then that meant the safety car had to come in that lap – so this overruled 48.12.

Rulebook precedent

This interpretation of certain regulations overruling others – and of the race director having complete free reign over the safety car and other aspects of the race weekend – could set an alarming precedent for the future.

Article 15.3 gives him control over the starting procedure, for example. So does this now mean, in an extreme case, he could start the race when only three lights are shown, and not after the five that separate rules dictate?

This carte blanche approach from the stewards in handing power to the race director means that there is potential for races to be influenced even more by the decisions of the regulator in ways that are not laid down in the rulebook.

Teams ultimately can only operate and prepare themselves in ways where they try to follow the regulations. But if the rules don't count because the race director has authority to override them, then how can that be judged as fair and equal in sporting terms?

Such a concern comes off the back of unease within the F1 paddock about the FIA playing fast and loose with decisions this year, such as the 'play on' mentality of incidents like Verstappen/Hamilton in Brazil or yellow flags being withdrawn quickly in qualifying if cars run off track.

Furthermore, a lack of consistency over penalties this year, allied to confusion from drivers about racing rules, has led to discomfort about the role race control is having in deciding the outcomes of races.

As Red Bull team boss Christian Horner said on Sunday night when asked if the FIA could learn lessons from this year: "I think there's always lessons that you can learn as a team, and in life generally.

"We felt that the decisions at the beginning of the race went against us. We obviously felt that the decision at the end of the race was right. It's been a season like that.

"There's been marginal calls. Some we've benefited from, the majority of which we've lost out from."

Red flag solution

Another justification for what Masi did on Sunday was that he was eager to get the racing rolling again.

During the stewards' hearing Masi said "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)."

While finishing the race under the safety car would likely have triggered criticisms from the Red Bull camp, what makes little sense is why Masi painted himself into a corner over having to make a call on such a safety car restart in the first place.

Ff the desire to get the race finished under green was so important, then it could have been done in a much fairer and more transparent way with a red flag and then a complete fresh restart.

Just a week on from Hamilton feeling uneasy about the need for a red flag to level things up in Saudi Arabia after Mick Schumacher crashed, a race stoppage a few laps from home in Abu Dhabi would have been much more equitable from a sporting perspective.

With both Hamilton and Verstappen allowed to start on fresh tyres, a simple shoot out over one or more laps would have left the competition being decided on track on equal terms – with no outside interference.

It would have been edge-of-your seat entertainment, and would have marked a spectacular end to an amazing season.

Instead, F1 heads in to a winter now facing the prospect of an Appeal Court hearing, and, on what should have been grand prix racing's greatest day, accusations from the public that the sport is rigged.

There is also an element that it is deeply unfair on Verstappen too that, after a season where he driven brilliantly and ended as a worthy champion, that there will forever be a cloud over the circumstances that helped him win in Abu Dhabi.

It said much that, as he took in the bizarre ending to the race on Sunday, Hamilton had his own theories about what had played out.

Speaking on team radio just a few corners from the chequered flag, with a message that was not broadcast by F1 on its international feed, Hamilton said: "This race has been manipulated, man."

Judging by the response of many fans after Sunday night's events, he is far from alone in that view.

The end of the race on Sunday was one of the most unsatisfying conclusions to a sporting season I have ever experienced.

As a fan of Motorsport, you are forced to recognize that externalities (i.e. like tire and engine failures, crashes by other competitors) have a material impact on results.  Teams have to plan for these.

In the case for this race, Latifi crashed with ~5 laps remaining, and a safety car came out.  Hamilton was leading by ~12 seconds at the time, and would have won the race.  Mercedes had to make a call "do we think that the race will end in a safety car?" -- if the answer was "yes", you pit and put on new tires (and surrender the race lead), if the answer was "no" then you stay out and remain in first place.

They gambled on "yes".  When you are the second place car, your only realistic way to win is to "do the opposite" of the first place car.  So Verstappen pitted and took on a set of soft tires.  If racing resumed, Verstappen would be able to pass Hamilton easily in any of the two passing zones.

Normally, when a safety car ends, all of the lapped cars are allowed to "unlap" themselves and go to the end of the train (which extends the safety car by a lap, so they have a chance to get to drive around the track).  The rules do, however, allow the race director to not allow cars to unlap themselves.

If the race director had followed either of these scenarios, Hamilton wins.

If the race director wanted to force a head-to-head race, he should have red-flagged the race, which lets both drivers put on new tires and given them 2-3 laps to duke it out.

 

What he chose to do is unfathomable.  He created his own rules -- he allowed "some" of the unlapped cars to pass, and didn't give them a full lap to catch up to the back of the pack.  This put Verstappen directly behind Hamilton with much faster tires.  That gifted the race to Hamilton.

 

If the Safety car had legitimately ended before the end of the race, people would have shrugged and said "that's motor racing".  However, when the rules are made up on the fly?

[CayceG]

So, I watched the race. 

 

I'm a Hamilton fan so far as I love seeing the best racing driver on the grid do what he does best with the best team behind him. I also truly love the competition between him and another very good driver in a very good team. Them being tied in the points going into this race was just icing on the cake. 

 

The last little bit of the race was purely perfect from an entertainment standpoint. I was kinda confused about the calls for the lapped cars not to pass the safety car at first, but then the lapped cars between Max and Lewis to go ahead and pass. But that allowed us one lap of green flag racing in a sprint to the finish between two very good drivers. 

 

 

 

Two things: part of the gamble was that Hamilton didn't get new soft tires--like you said. 

 

The other thing is that the race director CAN kinda do whatever the hell he wants (making rules up on the fly) with regards to the safety car procedures:

 

 

 

 

So the way I see it, the issue of 'they should have red flagged it' isn't all that important. That gained steam on twitter because it's just more intuitive. But it isn't unfathomable to have ended it the way it did--it's in the rules that Masi can just do whatever he wants. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The Ringer's take:

 

Max Verstappen’s Formula 1 Championship Was the Perfect Encapsulation of a Wild F1 Season

WWW.THERINGER.COM

---

A neck-and-neck battle with Lewis Hamilton ended in controversy. At least it made for great television.

[TwinIon]

The best encapsulation of the race I've come up with is that Lewis deserved to win the race, but Max is still a deserving champion.

 

I was personally rooting for Lewis, and he was obviously faster in this race. Even if they made him give the place back at the beginning (which they probably should have), I think it's clear he would have had the pace to overtake Max. By not making him give the place back, the stewards kinda let Hamilton run away with the race.

 

When Latifi crashed at the end, it should have ended under safety car or they should have to red-flagged the race ASAP. If this was any race other than a title defining finale, I think it's obvious the race ends under safety car, but they were clearly scrambling to figure out how to get the race to finish under green with a real racing lap. If they red flag it, they can clean up the order, Max and Lewis both end up on new softs, and we get something like 4-5 laps of them battling it out on mostly equal footing for the championship while also preserving safety, and while not taking too much time.

 

The way they ended up doing it was just about the stupidest possible way they could have accomplished their goals. The came up with the only solution where they finish under green and the racing isn't competitive at all, gifting Max the championship with a race where he was unlikely to ever finish above Hamilton.

 

Of course, plenty of F1 races finish in some absurd fashion because of late crashes and red flags and fortunate safety cars, so it's not like this was some kind of anomaly. It's just such a shame that, after one of the best seasons of all time, that a clearly deserving champion will always have the stewards poor decision making hanging over him.

[AbsolutSurgen]

4 hours ago, CayceG said:

So, I watched the race. 

 

I'm a Hamilton fan so far as I love seeing the best racing driver on the grid do what he does best with the best team behind him. I also truly love the competition between him and another very good driver in a very good team. Them being tied in the points going into this race was just icing on the cake. 

 

The last little bit of the race was purely perfect from an entertainment standpoint. I was kinda confused about the calls for the lapped cars not to pass the safety car at first, but then the lapped cars between Max and Lewis to go ahead and pass. But that allowed us one lap of green flag racing in a sprint to the finish between two very good drivers. 

 

 

 

Two things: part of the gamble was that Hamilton didn't get new soft tires--like you said. 

 

The other thing is that the race director CAN kinda do whatever the hell he wants (making rules up on the fly) with regards to the safety car procedures:

 

 

 

 

So the way I see it, the issue of 'they should have red flagged it' isn't all that important. That gained steam on twitter because it's just more intuitive. But it isn't unfathomable to have ended it the way it did--it's in the rules that Masi can just do whatever he wants. 

I guess we'll have to differ on whether that last lap was entertaining or not.  I really didn't think there was any chance for Hamilton to defend the position.

 

WRT to 15.3 e), I am sure that is what Reb Bull argued, and what the stewards eventually decided.

 

Another interpretation, and what most people assumed was the case, was that Section 48 outlined how the process of how his directions should be implemented.  And the race director had the authority to order the safety car period to begin, whether it was safe to let lapped cars overtake, and when it was safe to end the period, but not to change the overall process for a non-safety related reason.

 

48.12 gives guidance on how the safety car should allow unlapped cars to pass.

Quote

48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.

This will only apply to cars that were lapped at the time they crossed the Line at the end of the lap during which they crossed the first Safety Car line for the second time after the safety car was deployed. Having overtaken the cars on the lead lap and the safety car these cars should then proceed around the track at an appropriate speed, without overtaking, and make every effort to take up position at the back of the line of cars behind the safety car. Whilst they are overtaking, and in order to ensure this may be carried out safely, the cars on the lead lap must always stay on the racing line unless deviating from it is unavoidable. Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap. If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable for overtaking the message "OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED" will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system.

 I suspect that Mercedes will argue during the appeals process that the race director does not have the authority to override 48.12 for a non-safety related reason.  [And whether they are successful or not, I agree with them.  The race director should not be in a position to unduly influence who wins the race -- he needs to be there to make tough calls on safety.  All other rules decisions should be made by the stewards.]

 

This will however, give even more ammunition for Michael Masi's critics, many of which have been calling for a new race director for much of the second half of the season.

[TwinIon]

3 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

This will however, give even more ammunition for Michael Masi's critics, many of which have been calling for a new race director for much of the second half of the season.

Certainly there is a lot of criticism around Masi, but I think he's done a generally good job. There are plenty of things that I would like improved, like stewarding consistency and maybe some more explicit rules for some of Max's maneuvers this year, but that's not on him. For the things that actually fall under his purview, I think he's done fine (other than with track limits, which are a mess).

 

That said, this whole fiasco is very much squarely on him. It's hard to escape the conclusion that if he'd just followed the normal rules and procedures we'd have a different champion.

[AbsolutSurgen]

28 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Certainly there is a lot of criticism around Masi, but I think he's done a generally good job. There are plenty of things that I would like improved, like stewarding consistency and maybe some more explicit rules for some of Max's maneuvers this year, but that's not on him. For the things that actually fall under his purview, I think he's done fine (other than with track limits, which are a mess).

 

That said, this whole fiasco is very much squarely on him. It's hard to escape the conclusion that if he'd just followed the normal rules and procedures we'd have a different champion.

I guess I see the contrast between him and Charlie Whiting.  You could be right in that Masi is "OK", but to me, he is so far behind the standards that Whiting set, that I may be jaded.

 

On a side note, interesting analysis from Scot Mansell (not related to Nigel):

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Confusion and 'manipulation': Unbroadcast team radio from the final laps in Abu Dhabi

WWW.ESPN.CO.UK

---

Lewis Hamilton believed the end of the Abu Dhabi GP had been 'manipulated' -- and he wasn't the only F1 driver confused at how the final laps played out.

Quote

In order to try to get racing back under way, Masi initially sent a message to teams saying no cars would be allowed to unlap themselves, which would have allowed racing to resume on the final lap, albeit with five cars between the two title contenders. However, after a radio message from Red Bull boss Christian Horner to race control, Masi changed the procedure to allow five select drivers - Lando Norris, Fernando Alonso, Esteban Ocon, Charles Leclerc and Sebastian Vettel - to unlap themselves.

This could get ugly.

Mercedes fail to appear for FIA Prize-Giving Gala pre-ceremony | RacingNews365

RACINGNEWS365.COM

---

Mercedes were a no-show for photo opportunities in Paris ahead of the FIA's Prize-Giving Gala on Thursday.

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

FIA proposes "clarification exercise" over final laps in Abu Dhabi

WWW.ESPN.CO.UK

---

The FIA has agreed to conduct a detailed analysis of the events that led up to Max Verstappen being crowned world champion at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix amid concerns the sport is being tarnished by "misunderstandings" and "arguments".

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Michael Masi removed as F1 race director after Abu Dhabi investigation

WWW.ESPN.CO.UK

---

Michael Masi has been removed from his position as F1 race director after the investigation into his handling of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in December.

Quote

The decision is effectively an admission by the FIA that the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix should not have been restarted in the way it was.

Earlier this week they also changed the rules so that points would no longer be awarded in races like last year's Belgian grand prix.

[TwinIon]

 

Not really sure what a virtual race control room is. Maybe someone familiar wit the way it works in football can elaborate?

 

How is it that after all this time, they just say they will assess the procedures around unlapping of cars? Shouldn't now be when they reveal the result of their assessment? It was pretty obvious the day of that they needed to look into that.

 

I really don't think the problem with the radio communications during the race was that we got to hear them.

 

I'm extremely excited for F1 this year with all the new cars, but the FiA has been so slow to address anything related to what went wrong that I'm less confident in them now than I was immediately after it happened.

[TwinIon]

It’s quite the situation in Jeddah.

 

There was a missile attack on an Aramco facility only a few miles away from the track during Free Practice 1. FP2 took place a few hours later, but then the teams and the drivers got together to discuss if they should race this weekend.

 

Just recently, after the drivers meeting concluded at 2a.m. Local time, it was decided the GP will go ahead.

 

Apparently there was a similar attack last week as well.

 

 

It’s all a situation that the sport never should have been in to start. There never should have been a race in Saudi Arabia.

 

Personally, I wouldn’t want to be at a GP sponsored by Aramco after two Aramco facilities were blown up in the same city in the last week. I don’t know much about the conflict, but it wouldn’t take all that many of these guys to decide they want to bring the world’s eye to the situation for things to go pretty poorly. 

 

[Brian]