Formula 1 Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 2021Formula 1

[andrea]

Damn this compilation is fire 🔥 🔥

 

[andrea]

Campione campione ole ole ole

Drunk max is gonna just sit down on the stage and tell us everything lol

 

[BrainsBush]

Great words of Max and he showed also great respect for Lewis. He matured. And he is only mid twenties. Chapeau!

 

[Famine]

Damn this compilation is fire 🔥 🔥

Grosjean showed up?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I did read your third paragraph. Are you a implying that the race director 'banned' Lewis because he 'doesn't like him'?

Any means necessary would have meant not releasing the safety car at all. They released the safety car, cleared the track safely and let those lapped cars through who would have otherwise interferred with the result.

They removed the cars that would affect the battle between the cars in positions 1 and 2, which aren't the only cars racing on the track. If they didn't want any interference there, they should've only started Max and Hamilton for the race.

I'm afraid I don't know who this kid is - likely a karting champion - but this has to be deliberate:



He looks right at Verstappen and still doesn't say his name.

Edit: He is Kean Nakamura Berta, 2021 FIA Karting World Champion/OK Junior. And an ice cold killer.

Probably someone that wants to beat Max to a championship.

 

[McLaren]

Any means necessary would have meant not releasing the safety car at all. They released the safety car, cleared the track safely and let those lapped cars through who would have otherwise interferred with the result.

Interesting that lapped cars would interfere with the results despite that 1: they would all get blue flags & 2: they don't get to interfere with Max & Lewis, but they get to interfere with everyone else.

But, making up a decision that basically decides who gets to be winner? No, not interfering at all....

I get that not everyone liked the result, but I think they did the best they could under the circumstances and wasn't unfair.

It was the worst they could do & it certainly wasn't fair at all to other drivers.

Either way, it was a poor analogy.

Your ability to comprehend it is your issue much as your apparent ability of taking things literally.

If I expect someone to do whatever they can to finish a task, it doesn't mean I actually expect them to accomplish that task regardless of what happens. Teams can expect Masi to do whatever he can to finish a race under green, but not if it certain things happen to prevent that.

This doesn't even hold any weight to begin with. The ability to finish the race under green was already an option to begin with before Masi decided how to play it out.

 

[andrea]

Ross Brawn always looks like he smoked a good blunt.

 

[Imari]

I get that not everyone liked the result, but I think they did the best they could under the circumstances and wasn't unfair.

In no way was this the best that could have been done under the circumstances. It's at the bottom of a long list of options, primarily because it fails to treat all racers equally (ie. is unfair) and secondarily because it has no precedent in the sport and therefore there's no way for the teams to reasonably account for it in their strategy. Strategy becomes impossible when you don't know what the rules are, or the rules change in the middle of the race.

The rules as they have traditionally been implemented allow for perfectly good solutions to the situation. Finish under the safety car, restart without allowing lapped cars to pass, or red flag the race and do a standing restart. All of those are better and fairer than what Masi chose to do.

 

[CarreraGT]

In no way was this the best that could have been done under the circumstances. It's at the bottom of a long list of options, primarily because it fails to treat all racers equally (ie. is unfair) and secondarily because it has no precedent in the sport and therefore there's no way for the teams to reasonably account for it in their strategy. Strategy becomes impossible when you don't know what the rules are, or the rules change in the middle of the race.

The rules as they have traditionally been implemented allow for perfectly good solutions to the situation. Finish under the safety car, restart without allowing lapped cars to pass, or red flag the race and do a standing restart. All of those are better and fairer than what Masi chose to do.

I think in hindsight a red flag probably would have been the best option, but I guess it didn't really warrant it other than to allow a race to the finish.

It's also hard for the race director to know how long it will take to clear an incident.

At least a red flag would have allowed Hamilton to take new tyres.

 

[DJShadesUK]

 

[DJShadesUK]

restart without allowing lapped cars to pass,

This is, according the the Sporting Regulations, not actually possible and I've not seen any evidence that it has ever actually happened (at least not since cars have been allowed to unlap themselves)

 

[WiisardNic]

This is, according the the Sporting Regulations, not actually possible and I've not seen any evidence that it has ever actually happened (at least not since cars have been allowed to unlap themselves)

Here you go

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 teams via the official messaging system.

Now, this is a "considers" remit, so.. it does leave that as up to the RD/CotC's discretion.

 

[OutlawQuadrnt]

It's also hard for the race director to know how long it will take to clear an incident.

Which is likely why Masi initially put out that no lapped cars could overtake as allowing lapped cars to overtake would've taken much longer. Now, an interesting point is Regulation 48.12 states that message comes out "If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable for overtaking." I think there could be an argument to be made that the regulation actually requires the Race Director to allow lapped cars to overtake because it would not make sense to withdraw the safety car until track conditions are suitable for overtaking. Then again, how they wrote the first part of Regulation 48.12 is written in a way that one might be able to get out of it.

But even if that was allowed, Masi still had the option to get at least one green flag lap by calling in the safety car at that point with the lapped cars in place. He would've been within bounds of the regulations and he would've fulfilled that agreement on finishing under green, if possible. And yet, on the penultimate lap, Masi made a decision which - had he followed the regulations as he is required to do as Race Director - should've given him no other option except to end the race under the safety car. Why would Masi throw away a much safer and legal route that could've maximized the chances of green flag racing in the first place?

And another note. If the FIA actually believe their own arguments, then why did Masi not send the message to withdraw the safety car the instant Latifi's car was cleared from the track? Why did they even attempt to follow the safety car regulations if they are essentially saying they don't have to?

 

[WiisardNic]

Which is likely why Masi initially put out that no lapped cars could overtake as allowing lapped cars to overtake would've taken much longer. Now, an interesting point is Regulation 48.12 states that message comes out "If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable for overtaking." I think there could be an argument to be made that the regulation actually requires the Race Director to allow lapped cars to overtake because it would not make sense to withdraw the safety car until track conditions are suitable for overtaking. Then again, how they wrote the first part of Regulation 48.12 is written in a way that one might be able to get out of it.

But even if that was allowed, Masi still had the option to get at least one green flag lap by calling in the safety car at that point with the lapped cars in place. He would've been within bounds of the regulations and he would've fulfilled that agreement on finishing under green, if possible. And yet, on the penultimate lap, Masi made a decision which - had he followed the regulations as he is required to do as Race Director - should've given him no other option except to end the race under the safety car. Why would Masi throw away a much safer and legal route that could've maximized the chances of green flag racing in the first place?

And another note. If the FIA actually believe their own arguments, then why did Masi not send the message to withdraw the safety car the instant Latifi's car was cleared from the track? Why did they even attempt to follow the safety car regulations if they are essentially saying they don't have to?

Yes, its become one confusing matter. There's many things he could have done that would have met 48.12. Assuming the track was clear at the end of Lap 56 (doesn't look like it would have been cleared in time, as the marshalls hop over the wall as the safety car comes past on that lap), he could have even got two laps of green flag racing, but with lapped cars in place. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any regulation stating at which point during the lap the signal to withdraw the safety car has to be shown.

 

[Grayfox]

I can't follow a sport which cannot uphold it's own rules.

Well that rules out NASCAR then.
They do this too.

 

[kungtotte_]

Well that rules out NASCAR then.
They do this too.

From what I understand, it's written into the rules of NASCAR though? Or at least, doesn't go against the rules.

 

[Samus]

This is, according the the Sporting Regulations, not actually possible and I've not seen any evidence that it has ever actually happened (at least not since cars have been allowed to unlap themselves)

It is possible, and I'm 99% sure it happened in at least one wet race. I think Brundle mentioned it as well during comms. The regulation says "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so" then lapped cars may overtake. It doesn't say it has to happen. Just if it's deemed safe. Of course you then could argue what is deemed safe, but still, it's a human choice. Not a requirement.

 

[Grayfox]

From what I understand, it's written into the rules of NASCAR though? Or at least, doesn't go against the rules.

 

[DJShadesUK]

Here you go

Now, this is a "considers" remit, so.. it does leave that as up to the RD/CotC's discretion.

Here YOU go...


Article 48.12

Article 48.12 is solely concerned with the presence of lapped cars during a safety car deployment and details the procedure to be followed in such circumstances. It is comprised of two mutually exclusive conditional (“if”) statements; if the former is true the latter must be false and vice versa.

For the purposes of this post each conditional (“if”) statement in Article 48.12 shall be referred to as 48.12a and 48.12b respectively when necessary. When the article is considered as a whole it shall be referred to using its original 48.12 designation.

(48.12a) 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.

(48.12b) 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.

48.12 is effectively a “closed loop”, with only one exit clause (in 48.12a) which has two possible exit paths (if the safety car is still required or not). We know this because it is simply not possible to jump from the application of 48.12b directly to 48.13.

This is because not only are the prerequisites for 48.12a and 48.13, for all intents and purposes, identical (“If/When the clerk of the course considers/decides it (is) safe”) but also there is a requirement in 48.12a to allow lapped cars to unlap themselves (“any cars that have been lapped by the leaders are required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.”) which itself gives 48.12 precedence over 48.13.

48.12a: 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. [...]

48.13: When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP" will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system and the car's orange lights will be extinguished. This will be the signal to the Competitors and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap. [...]

Therefore, if it is safe enough to withdraw the safety car then, by definition, it must also be safe enough to allow lapped cars to unlap themselves and a preceding application of 48.12b creates the very condition (lapped cars still behind the safety car) where the requirement of 48.12a, to allow lapped cars to unlap themselves, must be satisfied to continue.

In essence we must therefore iterate through the 48.12 until such time as 48.12a becomes true:

 

[Samus]

It can be unsafe to allow lapped cars to pass but still go green in some circumstances, usually when it's wet. Unsafe not in regard to there being any remaining hazard on the track that brought the SC out but just that cars driving 2x the speed of the cars behind the SC with poor visibility could lead to accidents. So it'd be safter to let them all get up to race pace and get out of the way then.

As I say I'm pretty sure this has happened but I've not looked back through all races yet.

It would be a moot point though because I can't see any reason it'd have been unsafe in Abu Dhabi, no rain and no corners with poor visibility.

Besides, what the FIA are arguing is that article 15.3 gives Masi carte blanche to do whatever he wants, screw the 48.x rules.

15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race
Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may
give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:

e) The use of the safety car

 

[WiisardNic]

Here YOU go...


Article 48.12

Article 48.12 is solely concerned with the presence of lapped cars during a safety car deployment and details the procedure to be followed in such circumstances. It is comprised of two mutually exclusive conditional (“if”) statements; if the former is true the latter must be false and vice versa.

For the purposes of this post each conditional (“if”) statement in Article 48.12 shall be referred to as 48.12a and 48.12b respectively when necessary. When the article is considered as a whole it shall be referred to using its original 48.12 designation.

48.12 is effectively a “closed loop”, with only one exit clause (in 48.12a) which has two possible exit paths (if the safety car is still required or not). We know this because it is simply not possible to jump from the application of 48.12b directly to 48.13.

This is because not only are the prerequisites for 48.12a and 48.13, for all intents and purposes, identical (“If/When the clerk of the course considers/decides it (is) safe”) but also there is a requirement in 48.12a to allow lapped cars to unlap themselves (“any cars that have been lapped by the leaders are required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.”) which itself gives 48.12 precedence over 48.13.


Therefore, if it is safe enough to withdraw the safety car then, by definition, it must also be safe enough to allow lapped cars to unlap themselves and a preceding application of 48.12b creates the very condition (lapped cars still behind the safety car) where the requirement of 48.12a, to allow lapped cars to unlap themselves, must be satisfied to continue.

In essence we must therefore iterate through the 48.12 until such time as 48.12a becomes true:

View attachment 1099909

Not necessarily, because the AND changes the loops.

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 means both conditions have to be met to let uncapped cars past. That’s why there is the addendum at the end stating what should happen if these conditions aren’t met:

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.

Furthermore, 48.13 outlines the procedure for what happens when the RD calls the safety car back in.

When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP" will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system and the car's orange lights will be extinguished. This will be the signal to the Competitors and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap.

The easiest way to close the loop, in terms of what happened at the Abu Dhabi GP, is situated in 15.3 as below, with my additions in bold.

15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:
a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable
and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedure in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
e) The use of the safety car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.

By adding this in, it ties the Race Directors discretionary powers to what is already in the regulations. Meaning the only times they can use their discretionary powers is when the term “considers” shows up in those 48.XX clauses.

 

[PeterJB]

People are starting to make a thing out of Hamilton unfollowing F1 on Instagram...

 

[DJShadesUK]

It can be unsafe to allow lapped cars to pass but still go green in some circumstances, usually when it's wet. Unsafe not in regard to there being any remaining hazard on the track that brought the SC out but just that cars driving 2x the speed of the cars behind the SC with poor visibility could lead to accidents. So it'd be safter to let them all get up to race pace and get out of the way then.

Logically that makes no sense whatsoever. If its not safe enough to allow cars to unlap themselves then its not safe enough to allow them all to go thundering round a track at 170/180mph after having been bunched back up by the safety car.

As I say I'm pretty sure this has happened but I've not looked back through all races yet.

I've seen this claim time and time again all across the internet, from Twitter to Facebook to Reddit and the comment sections of many different motorsport websites, but strange how the combined power of the internet has yet to pull this particular evidential rabbit out of the hat, isn't it? A politician can make a gaff today and the internet will pull out a clip from 20 years ago to prove how the politician is wrong, but the evidence of this thing that people are "remembering" in F1 is nowhere to be found.

To play Devil's Advocate, if it has happened before then I'd have to see the video (or at least a detailed account) and the regulations from that particular year too, to tally what happened then with what was in the regulations then, and then compare that with the 2021 Regs.

It could very well be that what some commentators are "remembering" something that "happened" 15 years ago (for example) and the regulations were different to what they are today and bear little to no relevance to what occurred in Abu Dhabi.

 

[JV82]

OT
Meanwhile...Abu Dhabi Test...testing new 18 rims (and tyres).

 

[AshenGraey]

In other news, there might be consequences for Lewis not attending the prize giving ceremony, I'm very curious as to what those consequences will be. Apparently it is writing in the regulations that the top 3 drivers MUST attend the ceremony. Has there been a time when that has not happened before?

 

[Samus]

Logically that makes no sense whatsoever. If its not safe enough to allow cars to unlap themselves then its not safe enough to allow them all to go thundering round a track at 170/180mph after having been bunched back up by the safety car.

Like I said, it'd be about the speed differential, not overall speed. You do not want a fast car unlapping itself hitting a slow car that is weaving to warm their tyres because they didn't see them in the spray, that's how you get airplane accidents. That wouldn't happen under full racing speed where there wouldn't be any very slow moving, potentially weaving traffic.

I've seen this claim time and time again all across the internet, from Twitter to Facebook to Reddit and the comment sections of many different motorsport websites, but strange how the combined power of the internet has yet to pull this particular evidential rabbit out of the hat, isn't it? A politician can make a gaff today and the internet will pull out a clip from 20 years ago to prove how the politician is wrong, but the evidence of this thing that people are "remembering" in F1 is nowhere to be found.

To play Devil's Advocate, if it has happened before then I'd have to see the video (or at least a detailed account) and the regulations from that particular year too, to tally what happened then with what was in the regulations then, and then compare that with the 2021 Regs.

It could very well be that what some commentators are "remembering" something that "happened" 15 years ago (for example) and the regulations were different to what they are today and bear little to no relevance to what occurred in Abu Dhabi.

It may never have happened but like I said it'd be moot anyway if it did, because a) Abu Dhabi wasn't unsafe and b) the FIA says that Masi can do whatever he wants anyway. So if he wanted to leave the lapped cars there, he could.

 

[WiisardNic]

Logically that makes no sense whatsoever. If its not safe enough to allow cars to unlap themselves then its not safe enough to allow them all to go thundering round a track at 170/180mph after having been bunched back up by the safety car.

I've seen this claim time and time again all across the internet, from Twitter to Facebook to Reddit and the comment sections of many different motorsport websites, but strange how the combined power of the internet has yet to pull this particular evidential rabbit out of the hat, isn't it? A politician can make a gaff today and the internet will pull out a clip from 20 years ago to prove how the politician is wrong, but the evidence of this thing that people are "remembering" in F1 is nowhere to be found.

To play Devil's Advocate, if it has happened before then I'd have to see the video (or at least a detailed account) and the regulations from that particular year too, to tally what happened then with what was in the regulations then, and then compare that with the 2021 Regs.

It could very well be that what some commentators are "remembering" something that "happened" 15 years ago (for example) and the regulations were different to what they are today and bear little to no relevance to what occurred in Abu Dhabi.

I am quite certain it hasn’t happened either within the current regulations, but to me it’s quite clear that the Race Director does have the ability to.

I do recall it happening in general in the past, but like you said, I’m very positive that was because the regulations didn’t allow lapped cars to overtake at all (except for between the safety car and the leader upon first deployment, which is still in the regulations as well)

 

[Imari]

I think in hindsight a red flag probably would have been the best option, but I guess it didn't really warrant it other than to allow a race to the finish.

Right, but if we're on board with the teams agreeing to extraordinary circumstances in order to finish under green flags I think that's the sort of thing that they're referring to. Normally a red flag would not be used in that situation, but the teams would accept it as it's technically an option under the rules and allows a racing finish.

It's also hard for the race director to know how long it will take to clear an incident.

It's hard for anyone to know, and that's part of the skill of trying to formulate a strategic response to an accident like that. But the championship being on the line and Max and Lewis going at each other as they had been all season, I would hope that a competent race director would have sat down before the race and given some serious thought as to what an appropriate response would be to a crash in the last handful of laps in the race.

Particularly if the discussion has already been had earlier in the year to try and get races to finish under green wherever possible - the sensible thing to do would be sit down and map out as many likely scenarios as possible and establish appropriate responses for them. You can do this without pressure and with plenty of time to seek advice from others, and then when you meet these conditions in a race you at least have a framework upon which to structure your decision. "Crash with 5 to go, leader and contender separated only by backmarkers" should have had an established response.

And honestly, it sounded like it probably did when Masi originally said lapped cars would not be able to overtake. But it then seems like he didn't have the man berries to tell Wolff and Horner to **** off and let him run the race and instead caved to pressure. I'd say we've heard pretty much every driver on the grid tell their engineer to shut up and let them do their thing at one point or another, but the race director couldn't in the heat of the moment. That's a big problem, the person responsible for the safety of the race needs to be of staunch enough character to stand by his own decisions regardless of how many people are screaming in his ear.

Logically that makes no sense whatsoever. If its not safe enough to allow cars to unlap themselves then its not safe enough to allow them all to go thundering round a track at 170/180mph after having been bunched back up by the safety car.

Why not? On a wet and slippery track I'd rather have all the cars travelling at roughly the same racing speed than some of them going at safety car speed and trying to keep their tyres warm while some of them are overtaking through the spray. It's going to be a judgement call based on the situation, but I can absolutely see times when it would be acceptable to race but you'd prefer that the lapped cars yield under blues than try and unlap themselves. That's the trade off that you'd be making, and having half the field basically pull over on the restart sounds like an ideal situation for conditions that would be marginal.

As far as doing it in Abu Dhabi, I think the only way Masi could have worked it would be to make the call that the lapped cars wouldn't have time to get out of the way therefore it would be unsafe to let them unlap. That seems to follow the letter of the law, even if it violates the spirit and hopefully none of the teams would have been too mad having already bought into the idea of finishing under green wherever possible. It would have been ********, but it would have been technically legal ******** as Masi absolutely has the last word on what is and isn't safe.

 

[daan]

In other news, there might be consequences for Lewis not attending the prize giving ceremony, I'm very curious as to what those consequences will be. Apparently it is writing in the regulations that the top 3 drivers MUST attend the ceremony. Has there been a time when that has not happened before?

No one attended last year. I don't know how far that rule, or the prize ceremony, goes back but Jochen Rindt missed his too.

 

[Jimlaad43]

In other news, there might be consequences for Lewis not attending the prize giving ceremony, I'm very curious as to what those consequences will be. Apparently it is writing in the regulations that the top 3 drivers MUST attend the ceremony. Has there been a time when that has not happened before?

The regulations say "any", which we now know doesn't mean "all".