Formula 1 Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 2021Formula 1

[O604]

I think F1 has unintentionally tarnished their own title records.

I feel it's now impossible to see Hamilton and Schumacher as equals tied at 7. I think history will remember it as 7 vs. 7 + the 2021 season.

 

[Fat Tyre]

I think F1 has unintentionally tarnished their own title records.

I feel it's now impossible to see Hamilton and Schumacher as equals tied at 7. I think history will remember it as 7 vs. 7 + the 2021 season.

Exactly how I feel. But in my mind Lewis has 8 titles... I know the record books say 7 bit that's due to him being robbed and I can't consider those last laps to be true. They hold no meaning. And now if he does stay in F1 and wins another title that won't fix it either. It'll feel as if he has 9. Same happens to me with Alonso's race wins, I can't believe people count 08's Singapore.

 

[OJBrit]

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

I have never ruled in NASCAR.
I'm glad some people enjoy it but it's not for me.
This just gives me more reason to ignore it.

 

[GroupB]

NASCAR has been allowing fake cars since 1998, crowning fake champions since 2004, and running fake races since 2017.
If you’re looking for authenticity, there are probably better choices.

 

[WiisardNic]

NASCAR has been allowing fake cars since 1998, crowning fake champions since 2004, and running fake races since 2017.
If you’re looking for authenticity, there are probably better choices.

Once Marcos Ambrose left, I lost all interest in NASCAR

 

[BrainsBush]

The auto reply of my wifes phone while she is driving 😂😂

 

[DJShadesUK]

Not necessarily, because the AND changes the loops.

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:

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

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.

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.

I think you maybe missing the significance of the comma in that bit of 48.12. It basically means what follows is a new instruction that must first be completed before progressing, its not really a question like "if is it safe?". It basically means (in pseudo-programming code)...

if [x] is true {
    do [y];
    do [z];
}

Not...

if [x] and [y] is true {
    do [z];
}

That may not seem significantly different at first but if, for instance, you tried one or the other when coding a computer program there is a 50/50 chance you'd 100% get something you weren't expecting!

The problem is the Sporting Regulations appear to have been written by lawyers who understand the significance a comma can have when interpreting the meaning of something and, unfortunately, we (or rather the FIA) are asking former drivers (not necessarily the sharpest bunch outside of a car) and people who studied marketing (cough - Michael Masi - cough) to decipher the actual meaning of something that is written in a quite legalese way. Heck, I've seen actual 500-page legislation (real laws) that are somewhat easier to decipher than the F1 Sporting Regulations! As far as I'm aware there is not even a professional accreditation system for being a Race Director / Clerk of the Course / Steward to ensure they know exactly what they are doing and that they understand the regulations inside and out.

I guess it could be argued "but the stewards said/confirmed...", but they would, wouldn't they? Michael Masi is one of them and they're all working for, or contracted to, the FIA so its not a "them Vs him" situation. The stewards circled the wagons to save Masi's skin!

A flow diagram for how 48.12 should work, and the relationship between it and 48.13, would look something like this:

(there is a few procedural elements missing in there but they're fairly insignificant to the overall flow of 48.12)
(Anyone know a good image host that I don't have to register with that works with GTP so I can post bigger, and clearer, images?)

To address the solution you posit to "fix" the rules, it could itself cause problems.

As you point out, unlike other elements of 15.3, 15.3.e does not itself include the proviso “in accordance with the Sporting Regulation” which some have interpreted to mean the RD can use the safety car not in accordance with the Sporting Regulations (“God Mode” ). The most reasonable explanation, and likely intention, for why the proviso in not included in 15.3.e could be to afford the RD with just enough flexibility to deal with any unforeseen circumstances for which no prescribed regulatory procedures exist.

And since you brought 15.3 up, I may as well include this...

Taken literally, as some have argued, 15.3.e affords the RD with almost God-like powers to use the safety car however he sees fit, however this literal interpretation is patently absurd.

Can the RD decide that the safety car can stop at the side of the track and the race continue before the safety car line? Can the RD decide to deploy the safety car because he likes its flashing lights?

The answer is, of course, no. The only way this answer could ever be yes is if there were no prescribed regulatory procedures concerning the use of the safety car. Since prescribed regulatory procedures do exist the intention of 15.3.e merely serves to establish who (between two functionaries who's roles significantly overlap - the Race Director and Clerk of the Course) has higher authority over when to use the safety car rather than how to use the safety car.

---

For what its worth, I'm neither a MV or LH fan. I am a Brit, so obviously I would have preferred my fellow Brit to have won (although he technically did ) , however since this whole mess happened I've purely been concerned with the analysing the regulations to ascertain what should have happened and not to support what I think/wish happened. Up until now I've purposefully avoided other peoples/commentators analysis to avoid absorbing any pre-formed opinions and developing a subconscious bias while I cut up and come at the regulations every which way from Sunday.

I'm not a legal expert but I do enjoy delving into the minutia of actual legislation/regulations to discover the truth of a particularly contentious issue (I'm the first to admit I'm a bit odd). For example, on a political level, if a party/politician does X and there is an internet shouting match about if X was right or wrong, I will go and do my own digging. Even if what I find is to the detriment of my party/politician/political persuasion I will always strive for the truth rather than regurgitating what I believe supports my political view, and vice versa. In my opinion there is far, far too much spin, truth-twisting and outright lies being accepted and regurgitated in today's world for my taste.

Nor am I'm saying I'm 100% right, and I'm not trying to blow my own horn, but my own analysis has subsequently been, more or less, confirmed by the few actual lawyers (who deal with this kinda stuff on a day-to-day basis) who have independently reviewed the regulations from a purely regulatory legal perspective too and have come to the same conclusions I have.

 

[BrainsBush]

Love the simple and to the point creativity of the (anti) social media.

I had to laugh:

 

[BrainsBush]

Ai this doesn't sound good for Lewis. Penalty incoming?

 

[pumaATTACK]

Miss a prize ceremony, BIG DEAL!! Have to penalize.

Miss a regulation and give away a championship, no problemo!

 

[Famine]

Ai this doesn't sound good for Lewis. Penalty incoming?

View attachment 1099979

Mercedes' lawyers can point to two things in the regulations.

Firstly, 6.6 doesn't state a specific year. He's already been to a prize-giving, so without specifically stating 2021 there's no reason to suggest it applies to the 2021 prize-giving.

Secondly, 6.6 states the drivers "finishing first, second and third". He's never finished third, so it doesn't apply to him. Also without the Oxford comma it looks like it's addressing the second and third drivers to tell them that it's the driver who finished in first only.


Which is what you get for pretending "any" doesn't mean "all" in 2021 but does in 2020.

 

[Liquid]

Depends if it says any or every. Or a false syllogism; any can mean all but all doesn't necessarily mean any. I don't know the exact wording.

 

[Famine]

Depends if it says any or every. I don't know the exact wording.

6.6
The drivers finishing first, second and third in the Championship must be present at the annual FIA Prize Giving ceremony.

 

[Liquid]

The plural 'drivers' unequivocally states that each individual driver should attend but the year is indeed unspecified; Jacques Villeneuve, Heinz-Harald Frentzen and David Coulthard of the 1997 championship could show up instead and be following the letter of the law.

A big fine heading Controversial Jacques' way.

 

[MatskiMonk]

1.2 These Sporting Regulations apply to the whole calendar year referred to in the title, and to the Championship taking place within that calendar year (“the Championship”).

The title "2021 FORMULA ONE SPORTING REGULATION"

 

[Liquid]

1.2 These Sporting Regulations apply to the whole calendar year referred to in the title, and to the Championship taking place within that calendar year (“the Championship”).

The tile "2021 FORMULA ONE SPORTING REGULATION"

Controversial Jacques is going to stick his neck on the line and state that Hamilton ought to have been there then.

 

[Famine]

The plural 'drivers' unequivocally states that each individual driver should attend

It could also mean any driver (or indeed all) to whom the record of finishing "first, second and third" applies. Which isn't Hamilton - he's been first and second, but never third.

 

[GroupB]

Lol suddenly the FIA is interested in following the rules.

 

[andrea]

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

It could also mean any driver (or indeed all) to whom the record of finishing "first, second and third" applies. Which isn't Hamilton - he's been first and second, but never third.

But it says in the championship, which means the driver first in the standings and the driver who is both second and third in the standings, which would be no one for the latter. But that's enough grammar shenanigans from me.

 

[OJBrit]

Ai this doesn't sound good for Lewis. Penalty incoming?

View attachment 1099979

He was punished enough for no reason by Masi. No need to hurt him further.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Lol suddenly the FIA is interested in following the rules.

Let's be serious for a moment, on any race weekend there is likely thousands of correct applications of the rules, if not more. One rule break doesn't mean they're not interesting in following the rules.

 

[Famine]

But it says in the championship, which means the driver first in the standings and the driver who is both second and third in the standings, which would be no one for the latter. But that's enough grammar shenanigans from me.

Also without the Oxford comma it looks like it's addressing the second and third drivers to tell them that it's the driver who finished in first only.

Hamilton's championship record is seven 1sts, three 2nds, three 4ths, and two 5ths. Verstappen has been 1st, 3rd (twice), 4th, 5th, 6th, and 12th. Really it's Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel, and Kimi Raikkonen who should have attended, as the only drivers to finish first, second, and third in the championship.

 

[ND4SPD]

"We can't just ignore the rules"
Ahhahahahaha!
Michael Masi: "Hold my beer"

I think Lewis had the right to not go to anything if he didn't want to go. I mean I guess it's understandable for Mohammed Ben Sulayem to say that as he's used to his country not having rights to begin with.....

 

[andrea]

View attachment 1099855

 

[MagpieRacer]

Bit rich from someone who’s only just been elected to the role. Might be an idea to just overlook it given the circumstances rather than add fuel to the flames.

 

[ND4SPD]

Bit rich from someone who’s only just been elected to the role. Might be an idea to just overlook it given the circumstances rather than add fuel to the flames.

I'm pretty sure his "we can't just ignore the rules" quote has already started to age like gas station sushi....

 

[PaMu1337]

Hamilton's championship record is seven 1sts, three 2nds, three 4ths, and two 5ths. Verstappen has been 1st, 3rd (twice), 4th, 5th, 6th, and 12th. Really it's Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel, and Kimi Raikkonen who should have attended, as the only drivers to finish first, second, and third in the championship.

If we think about their actual classification in the championship itself, nobody finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Everyone only managed to finish in 1 position

 

[Famine]

If we think about their actual classification in the championship itself, nobody finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Everyone only managed to finish in 1 position

Yes, the joke here is that it doesn't state what year of the championship (actually it also doesn't state which championship - driver or constructor - in specific enough language to get past a reasonable lawyer, only stating that "drivers finishing in first, second and third in the championship"), so it could apply to all seasons...

... in which case only Alonso, Vettel, and Raikkonen need to attend as the only (active) drivers to have won the championship, and placed second in the championship, and placed third in the championship, in their F1 careers. As I said, it's a joke.

 

[O604]

They've already placed the blame on media and fans for ignorance.

The new President says they will "look into it". But it will only affect future situations.

“We will look into the rules and we are sure that, if any situation like this occurs in the future, we will have an instant solution for it,” he said during a press conference in Paris.

Time will tell. But looks to me like bad signs so far.