A superb penultimate f1 race in store , or , maybe not !!
- Thread starter 304frp
- Start date
As far as I'm aware, it's not against the rules - the cars are allowed a maximum of 100Kg of fuel, and it's normal practice to put in less than that if they think they can complete the race on less fuel. The scrutineers need to be able to draw a minimum 1L sample after the race for testing - this is what led to Vettel's DQ in Hungary.Nanu said:
RB wouldn't have wanted Perez to run dry on track as it could have led to another/extended safety car
Super Max 
Shame it ended the way it did but if hammy hadnt punted max into a wall in Silverstone none of this would have mattered. The best man won.
Looking forward to George smashing hammy next year
Loving the lewis fans..
Shame it ended the way it did but if hammy hadnt punted max into a wall in Silverstone none of this would have mattered. The best man won.
Looking forward to George smashing hammy next year
Loving the lewis fans..
I disagree, not because it's likely to change the result but it may get the FIA to enforce rules 'as they are written'DPG said:
At the moment the FIA is effectively saying that Masi doesn't have to follow the FIA F1 Sporting Regulations - if the Race Director doesn't have to follow them, what the hell are they written for?
PerryGunn said:
Needs to go down as a “bad ref” decision then, same as in football. It shouldn’t change the result but the ref should be sanctioned. Pretty sure the appeal court are not going to allow the result to change, the damage it would do to the FIA’s reputation would be horrific.
I have no doubt that the FIA panel (the next stage of appeal) won't rock the boat but I think you can then expect Mercedes to take it to CAS for an independent assessment of the case - they are the ultimate arbiters and can overrule the FIA - that'll be when the FIA may come to an agreement regarding the Race Director having the ability to be 'flexible' with the rulessp3ctre said:
PerryGunn said:
The daft thing is this is just one of the FIA cock ups that is under the microscope because it affects the final race. If you were to be really fair you would be investigate all the dodgy decisions going back across the season.
Personally I just want to move on. Would be a shame for the winner of the season not to be able to enjoy it (would say the same for either of them btw). Love him or loathe him, he is blimmen fast!
Roll on 2022!
Agreed. As DC said; without Max, Lewis would have won about 6 races ago, which is pretty boring (even for us Lewis fans).sp3ctre said:
If next season is a level playing field (which is questionable), then it should still be Lewis V Max. I don't think young George quite has the fighting spirit of those two. Bring it on.
The cars will look weird with 18 inch wheels, though.
PerryGunn said:
Like it was at Silverstone...
This sport is still run by human beings and Masi had a choice to make with no time to make it, devil he did devil he didnt, he made the call in the interests of motoracing which is why all teams are there. No one wants to see a title decided by a safety car, his decision was to let both drivers have a last lap run so it ended in the appropriate manner and the interests of the sport in the fraction of time he had, the only fly in the ointment was RB out smarted Merc, tough, thats sport. Shoot Masi if you want but the guy is human. Merc are pissed they didn't go with the soft tyre gamble. I say again would they be crying so much if Masi made the same call and RB hadn't stopped for softs...? I'd very very much doubt it, so they need to take it on the chin.
Not really, IIRC the Silverstone decision was made by the stewards (as required by the rules) not by Masi, he'd have had no say in it.john-e89 said:
The stewards rule on racing incidents, applicable penalties, technical infringements etc. They may communicate their decisions via the Race Director/Clerk of the course but he has no say in those decisions.
The Race Director is not a steward, he's in charge of how practice, qualifying and the race itself is run along with safety (safety cars, virtual safety cars, red flags) etc. and the restarts after SC/VSC/RF but he's supposed to do so according to the FIA regulations.
The stewards view of an incident may come down to opinion & interpretation of a racing incident but the Race Director is supposed to follow the rules as written - some of those rules do allow for judgement calls but most of those are safety related e.g. 'If in the opinion of the Race Director it is unsafe to...."
You cant just make a decision as a ref that is against the rules in the interest of a more enjoyable race,if this was football going to end in a 0-0 draw do we allow the ref to add an extra 20 mins to wait for a goal.if a boxing match is going to points do we allow the fighters to take the gloves off and carry on ( I wish) but this race just felt wrong at the end.
I would rather had seen max win leading behind a safety car than the farce at the end of this race
I would rather had seen max win leading behind a safety car than the farce at the end of this race
PerryGunn said:
I didn't say it was made by Masi Perry, my point is everything is down to how people view an incident, Silverstone went Mercs way, Hammy could easily have been disqualified after such a dangerous move, he wasn't, and today the dice went RB's way. You can't have a race director and not let him make a quick decision, may as well not have one.
By the same token, you can't/shouldn't have a Race Director that changes the rules - he's supposed to know them inside out and apply them as written. As I said earlier, it's not about the result, it's about following FIA regulations.john-e89 said:
In the case of the cars unlapping themselves, according to the regulations he only had two choices either no unlapping or all cars unlapping themselves - he chose neither and allowed selected cars to unlap themselves and there's nothing in the regulations that allows him to take that option. In addition, he also ignored the regulation that says the safety car has to complete an additional lap after the unlapping.
If he had to make a quick decision it would have been between none/all cars unlapping as those are the choices in the rulebook. If he'd decided on no unlapping, the safety car could have come in that lap and there would have been one racing lap left. Deciding to allow selected cars to unlap and then bring the safety car in immediately was obviously a considered decision to ignore the regulations in the interest of creating a last lap spectacle - but that's not within his remit!
PerryGunn said:
Very succintly put.
I had been looking forward to this race all week, only for it to be ruined by Masi's apparent inability to apply the FIA rules. :headbang:
I've always been a fan of Lewis as a racing driver but respect Max's abilities - nobody else could get near them!
I don't grudge Max his title but just wish he had won it without Masi's cock-up.
One thing's for sure, Masi and Latifi are due a huge Xmas present from Max! :lol:
Having read the full Steward's adjudication on the Mercedes protest, it's obvious that Masi got it completely wrong
From the published decision "the Race Director stated that the purpose of article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would 'interfere' in the racing between the leaders"
Unfortunately for him, the regulations say nothing like that and, even if they did, who are the 'leaders'? What about Carlos Sainz who was running in 3rd, surely he should have been given the same opportunity to challenge LH/MV and would have been right on MVs tail at the restart but only removing lapped cars between LH & MV meant that he didn't get the opportunity.
FIA may be trying to close ranks and protect themselves from an obvious cock-up and will probably reject the appeal at the next stage but I tend to think that Mercedes have a good chance of winning if the matter ends up at CAS when there will be no vested interest parties making the judgement and it will be based purely on the F1 regulations.
I don't think it'll change the result but, hopefully, it'll help prevent future contrived 'last-lap thrillers' such as this - if it doesn't then F1 might as well drop all sporting pretence and start marketing itself as 'WWF on Wheels'
From the published decision "the Race Director stated that the purpose of article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would 'interfere' in the racing between the leaders"
Unfortunately for him, the regulations say nothing like that and, even if they did, who are the 'leaders'? What about Carlos Sainz who was running in 3rd, surely he should have been given the same opportunity to challenge LH/MV and would have been right on MVs tail at the restart but only removing lapped cars between LH & MV meant that he didn't get the opportunity.
FIA may be trying to close ranks and protect themselves from an obvious cock-up and will probably reject the appeal at the next stage but I tend to think that Mercedes have a good chance of winning if the matter ends up at CAS when there will be no vested interest parties making the judgement and it will be based purely on the F1 regulations.
I don't think it'll change the result but, hopefully, it'll help prevent future contrived 'last-lap thrillers' such as this - if it doesn't then F1 might as well drop all sporting pretence and start marketing itself as 'WWF on Wheels'
I would have preferred to see Lewis win, but there is no denying that Max deserved a Championship. By winning that particular race he got his Championship.
My gripe is that he did not deserve to win that particular race.
Would it have worked out that way if the situation had occurred earlier in the season? I have my doubts.
My gripe is that he did not deserve to win that particular race.
Would it have worked out that way if the situation had occurred earlier in the season? I have my doubts.
Silverstone had a massive impact (pun intended) on the championship. Lewis gained 25 points and Max 0. Not only that but Max's engine was cracked and had to be changed at the next race, penalising him further. Retribution was due and was delivered yesterday. Congrats. to Max and Red Bull.john-e89 said:
