My friend goes to the F1 every year in the UAE and tries to get me to go. It looks intense!

proest wrote:

My hope for next season is that the new regulation mixes everything up: McLaren and Ferrari battling for the title, for example, we will see, this season was mostly great racing. 2020-2021 will be one for the history books.

If Ferrari is up there next year I think they are going to have some driver drama.

Leclerc is the number 1 driver this year but Carlos Sainz beat him and Lando on points after finishing 3rd. He is going to be a force in the next few years.

Everything woke turns to shit. Congrats Max!

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap. The race director can be blamed for a lot of reasons (not only this race), but not for that. IMHO HAM lost the race because his team was following RBR on the initial tire strategy. He was faster on the mediums than VER on the softs, so why didn’t Mercedes extend the first stint and giving HAM the advantage of better tires? When RBR found out VER couldn’t win without newer tires, they made the call to pit during VSC and SC. It was the only possibility to keep pressure on HAM and it was successful at the end.

marcelh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap. The race director can be blamed for a lot of reasons (not only this race), but not for that. IMHO HAM lost the race because his team was following RBR on the initial tire strategy. He was faster on the mediums than VER on the softs, so why didn’t Mercedes extend the first stint and giving HAM the advantage of better tires? When RBR found out VER couldn’t win without newer tires, they made the call to pit during VSC and SC. It was the only possibility to keep pressure on HAM and it was successful at the end.

If the rules had been followed, either way, that wouldn't have been an issue.
If the rules had been followed, Lewis pitting would have resulted in him coming second behind the safety car.
A bit harsh to blame Mercedes for that.


Congratulations to Max for winning the world championship.
Do you think he'll really be satisfied with being handed the championship on a plate by a random rule violation by the sport's own rule makers, or do you think he'd have preferred to win it through his dominance on the day?

It makes you wonder what lottery the FIA will put in front of Max in what seems to be the grand quest to diminish the huge efforts of the teams, drivers, engineers, pit crew etc, and turn it into a virtual reality TV show.
Having a different winner of the championship after a tight fought battle should have been good for the sport.
But yesterday was not a good day for F1. Irrespective of whether you're a Max fan or a Lewis fan

Hamilton was absolutely immense yesterday, quite probably one of the best drives of his career.
To be THAT quick whilst still managing his tyres... utterly awesome.
His maturity after having the title taken off him was also huge, and greatest of respect to him for that.
The mark of a true champion.

astuteman wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap. The race director can be blamed for a lot of reasons (not only this race), but not for that. IMHO HAM lost the race because his team was following RBR on the initial tire strategy. He was faster on the mediums than VER on the softs, so why didn’t Mercedes extend the first stint and giving HAM the advantage of better tires? When RBR found out VER couldn’t win without newer tires, they made the call to pit during VSC and SC. It was the only possibility to keep pressure on HAM and it was successful at the end.

If the rules had been followed, either way, that wouldn't have been an issue.
If the rules had been followed, Lewis pitting would have resulted in him coming second behind the safety car.
A bit harsh to blame Mercedes for that.


Congratulations to Max for winning the world championship.
Do you think he'll really be satisfied with being handed the championship on a plate by a random rule violation by the sport's own rule makers, or do you think he'd have preferred to win it through his dominance on the day?

It makes you wonder what lottery the FIA will put in front of Max in what seems to be the grand quest to diminish the huge efforts of the teams, drivers, engineers, pit crew etc, and turn it into a virtual reality TV show.
Having a different winner of the championship after a tight fought battle should have been good for the sport.
But yesterday was not a good day for F1. Irrespective of whether you're a Max fan or a Lewis fan

Hamilton was absolutely immense yesterday, quite probably one of the best drives of his career.
To be THAT quick whilst still managing his tyres... utterly awesome.
His maturity after having the title taken off him was also huge, and greatest of respect to him for that.
The mark of a true champion.

Masi screwed up, but the screwup was more in not asking all the lapped cars unlap themselves one lap earlier. In that case, the regulations will all be followed and we would still have the one lap race. (And with a very similar result) The initial call of lapped cars not unlapping was clearly contrary to the Regulations.

Masi was in a (self-induced) very difficult position after he made the initial (and wrong) call of lapped cars staying in position. At that point, he did not have enough time and space to let all the lapped cars be released. However, as no one really cared about who is behind Max (honestly who remembered Sainz was there), only releasing the cars between Lewis and Max seems the only practical way out of this shit situation Masi has put himself in.

At that point, the only other option was to let SC finish the race, which would cause even more controversy as the track was already cleared and ready for racing.

Some have suggested that the race should have been red-flagged: that option was only available immediately after Latifi's crashing, once SC was called, that option was out of the window.

Bottomline:
1. Was a SC warranted after the Latifi crash? Yes. (and it is not serious enough to warrant a red flag)
2. Should racing resume once the debris was cleared? Yes. (That happened with around 2 laps left)
3. Should the lapped cars be released so as not to impede the race leaders? Yes. (This is compliant with race regulations)

So, what went wrong? It's Masi not preparing for the restart early enough and did not release the lapped cars at an earlier and more appropriate time.

It becomes very messy due to the right call being made too late. But ultimately I would say it was the right call. Mercedes will be unhappy, but there was no other way to handle the Latifi crash. Even in a perfect world, the Latifi crash will still lead to a SC and the race be restarted with 1 (or at most 2 ) laps to go with no DRS whatsoever. Mercedes would probably still have decided not to pit under SC as it won't want to lose track position to Max or maybe even Checo.

So basically, Lewis's fate has been sealed once Latifi kissed the barrier. No third party intervention could have saved him, short of directly maniupulating the results (e.g. red flag the race and not restarting, let SC finish the race when the track was all clear, etc). (Of course, Lewis could have saved himself if he could defend Max with the old tires, and he almost succeeded in this. Max only had two overtaking opportunities in that final lap. He got in on the first one.)

What a race and what a season it has been. In my opinion, whichever way the championship would go, the most deserving driver would end up on top, especially after such a tight and exhausting season.
Imagine all the pressure both HAM and VER must have felt during the last few races, and yet keeping a straight face. Nerves of steel!

In the end, I am pleased with VER winning the WDC, as I would rather see a first time WDC winner than an 8th time winner. But wow, such sportsmanship from both HAM and his father congratulating VER and his father.

The 2021 season will indeed be one to never forget, and here is for an equally exciting 2022 season!

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

That was also because of the poor tactics by Mercedes. Hamelton questioned that decision during the race and I think he was right.

yonahleung wrote:

Masi was in a (self-induced) very difficult position after he made the initial (and wrong) call of lapped cars staying in position. At that point, he did not have enough time and space to let all the lapped cars be released. However, as no one really cared about who is behind Max (honestly who remembered Sainz was there), only releasing the cars between Lewis and Max seems the only practical way out of this shit situation Masi has put himself in.

At that point, the only other option was to let SC finish the race, which would cause even more controversy as the track was already cleared and ready for racing.

Some have suggested that the race should have been red-flagged: that option was only available immediately after Latifi's crashing, once SC was called, that option was out of the window.

Bottomline:
1. Was a SC warranted after the Latifi crash? Yes. (and it is not serious enough to warrant a red flag)
2. Should racing resume once the debris was cleared? Yes. (That happened with around 2 laps left)
3. Should the lapped cars be released so as not to impede the race leaders? Yes. (This is compliant with race regulations)

So, what went wrong? It's Masi not preparing for the restart early enough and did not release the lapped cars at an earlier and more appropriate time.

It becomes very messy due to the right call being made too late. But ultimately I would say it was the right call. Mercedes will be unhappy, but there was no other way to handle the Latifi crash. Even in a perfect world, the Latifi crash will still lead to a SC and the race be restarted with 1 (or at most 2 ) laps to go with no DRS whatsoever. Mercedes would probably still have decided not to pit under SC as it won't want to lose track position to Max or maybe even Checo.

So basically, Lewis's fate has been sealed once Latifi kissed the barrier. No third party intervention could have saved him, short of directly maniupulating the results (e.g. red flag the race and not restarting, let SC finish the race when the track was all clear, etc). (Of course, Lewis could have saved himself if he could defend Max with the old tires, and he almost succeeded in this. Max only had two overtaking opportunities in that final lap. He got in on the first one.)

To be honest, I think there needs to be a clarification of the rules on this. The problem that Masi had to face was that if he released the lapped car a lap earlier, I do believe Latifi's car is still being towed away and he can't let cars go fast to catch up with the pack behind. Personally I think the rules should be made that the backmarkers need not race to the end of the safety car pack once released so that the Race Director can still release them even if there's still some obstacle on the track, which will have double waved yellows to slow down the lapped cars.

marcelh wrote:

When HAM will become world champion, the stench of cheating by pushing his rival off the track at Silverstone will never disappear..

How`s the stench now?


No Tax On Rotax

verstappen was worthy to be champion no doubt, it’s just a shame that it had to be done with another cockup of stewarding and Woolley ruling. It’s a shame max couldn’t win on his own merit in the end.

scbriml wrote:

the engineered mess we got.

Michael Masi, race director of WWF1.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dutchy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

That was also because of the poor tactics by Mercedes. Hamelton questioned that decision during the race and I think he was right.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I look back at Mercedes' tactical decisions over the last two years or so and there's been a few high-profile strategy errors. I can't help but think that until this season Mercedes have largely gotten away with it as their driver/car combo has been head and shoulders above most of the opposition for the majority of the V6 turbo hybrid era. Any errors in strategy could have largely been overcome.

Hamilton also questioned the tyres he was on in Saudi Arabia, but the team got that one right when Verstappen couldn't hold him off in the end and lost ground when Hamilton eventually passed him. As soon as we knew the safety car was going in, with Verstappen on fresh, soft tyres and Hamilton on worn, hard tyres, and knowing what was at stake, I think we all knew what was likely to happen.

I do think the safety car was the "miracle" Christian Horner alluded to needing about 10 laps from the end, but they took the opportunity when it presented itself. If the tables were turned, you can bet that Hamilton and Mercedes would have done the exact same thing.

B747forever wrote:

The 2021 season will indeed be one to never forget, and here is for an equally exciting 2022 season!

Agreed. As much as I respect Hamilton and Mercedes' achievements in the V6 turbo hybrid era, it was good for the sport to have such an intense fight all the way to the very last lap and probably good for the sport to have a different driver winning the championship.

scbriml wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap.

Pitting under the VSC wouldn't have made much difference IMHO. Hamilton would have still been on older hards against much newer softs for the final lap with Verstappen close behind and a guaranteed tow down the straights.

Would you would have pitted Hamilton under the SC? That would have forced Red Bull to leave Verstappen out. Yes, Hamilton would then be sat behind Verstappen with fresher tyres, but with absolutely no guarantee that the SC would finish before the end of the race. Mercedes was damned if they did and damned if they didn't - Red Bull's decision was always easier as they had nothing to lose. Without the SC, Verstappen was never catching Hamilton.

yonahleung wrote:

1. Was a SC warranted after the Latifi crash? Yes. (and it is not serious enough to warrant a red flag)

But in similar circumstance in Baku, the race was red flagged leaving us with a two lap race from a standing start. The red flag could have been thrown in Abu Dhabi to leave a five lap race at the end rather than the engineered mess we got.

The Baku red flag was more to cover Pirelli's ass...tyres were exploding on the 300km/h main straight for no reason...

astuteman wrote:

But yesterday was not a good day for F1. Irrespective of whether you're a Max fan or a Lewis fan.

I agree. OTOH, it’s the result of a year full of issues with how to read the rules and what fits in it and what not.

Dutchy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

That was also because of the poor tactics by Mercedes. Hamelton questioned that decision during the race and I think he was right.

And to make it worse, it’s not the first time HAM questioned a team decision which didn’t favor him at the end of the race.

scbriml wrote:

But in similar circumstance in Baku, the race was red flagged leaving us with a two lap race from a standing start. The red flag could have been thrown in Abu Dhabi to leave a five lap race at the end rather than the engineered mess we got.

One crash happened on the pit straight at high speed which undoubtedly mean more debris to clear and more dangerous for crews to clear the car, even at safety car speeds. The other crash happened on the exit of a corner where the speeds are lower, and the crews are better shielded against oncoming cars. The only thing that's similar between the two is that a car crashed. That's all.

It just goes to show that a "one size fits all" approach to F1 regulations doesn't really work.

notaxonrotax wrote:

marcelh wrote:

When HAM will become world champion, the stench of cheating by pushing his rival off the track at Silverstone will never disappear..

How`s the stench now?

No Tax On Rotax

If he hadn’t pushed VER off the track, VER probably would have become world champion without all the drama and controversy we saw yesterday…..

marcelh wrote:

If he hadn’t pushed VER off the track, VER probably would have become world champion without all the drama and controversy we saw yesterday…..

Not only that, yesterday's match would have been irrelevant.
Without the DNF's caused by Mercedes the WDC would have been decided one or two matches ago.

petertenthije wrote:

marcelh wrote:

If he hadn’t pushed VER off the track, VER probably would have become world champion without all the drama and controversy we saw yesterday…..

Not only that, yesterday's match would have been irrelevant.
Without the DNF's caused by Mercedes the WDC would have been decided one or two matches ago.

What are these matches of which you speak? Did Mercedes not score enough goals?

Exciting race but like the other poster says, engineered finish.

I think HAM should have given back position after VER passed him, apparently he gave back all advantage by the end of the lap (except the position!).

Then only allowing the cars between HAM and VER to unlap themselves, why not all?
Then restarting early, that sealed HAM’s fate.

No one wants to see a race finish under a SC but I’ll take that over a gerrymandered result.

mad99 wrote:

Exciting race but like the other poster says, engineered finish.

I think HAM should have given back position after VER passed him, apparently he gave back all advantage by the end of the lap (except the position!).

Then only allowing the cars between HAM and VER to unlap themselves, why not all?
Then restarting early, that sealed HAM’s fate.

No one wants to see a race finish under a SC but I’ll take that over a gerrymandered result.

So basically you're okay with a gerrymandered race as long as it benefits Lewis Hamilton, because that's what ending the race behind a safety car does.

marcelh wrote:

astuteman wrote:

But yesterday was not a good day for F1. Irrespective of whether you're a Max fan or a Lewis fan.

I agree. OTOH, it’s the result of a year full of issues with how to read the rules and what fits in it and what not.

Yep. Race director needs to be hard as nails when it comes to the rules, and Masi isn't.

In other news, Coulthard thinks Lewis will be back stronger than ever next year..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59588859

The article contains a quote from Eddie Jordan about Lewis Hamilton which is quite interesting...

"He's the best driver I've ever seen and I've seen some really top drivers in my time, so for me to say that I'm really putting him on a pedestal."

I'll avoid the GOAT conversation as it doesn't add value IMO, but I will say I thought Hamilton was absolutely at the top of the game yesterday - it was an extraordinary drive.

It is pretty fascinating to see just how far ahead of the other drivers these 2 guys have routinely gone in recent races.
Amazing. Different league

astuteman wrote:

I'll avoid the GOAT conversation as it doesn't add value IMO, but I will say I thought Hamilton was absolutely at the top of the game yesterday - it was an extraordinary drive.

It is pretty fascinating to see just how far ahead of the other drivers these 2 guys have routinely gone in recent races.
Amazing. Different league

Indeed. Nobody else came close to them for most of the season, particularly yesterday. Hamilton would have fully deserved it as he was flawless yesterday apart from the first lap incident and was doing everything he had to do. The safety car and Mercedes' decision to keep him out on the old hard tyres instead of bringing him in during the VSC cost him on the day. I think Hamilton knew the tyre decision was the wrong one given his questioning of strategy and highlighting how he felt he couldn't keep up the pace until the end on those tyres. Other factors throughout the season also played a part (e.g. Azerbaijan magic button mishap, the off-weekend in Monaco).

Next year will be interesting with the new regulations and the new tyres. I just hope there's a fight that's just as close and ideally involving more drivers/teams.

marcelh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap. The race director can be blamed for a lot of reasons (not only this race), but not for that. IMHO HAM lost the race because his team was following RBR on the initial tire strategy. He was faster on the mediums than VER on the softs, so why didn’t Mercedes extend the first stint and giving HAM the advantage of better tires? When RBR found out VER couldn’t win without newer tires, they made the call to pit during VSC and SC. It was the only possibility to keep pressure on HAM and it was successful at the end.

Lewis was gaining enough pace to not be undercut so following Max was solid. IIRC under the VSC and the SC he didn't have the ability to pit as he wasn't on the right part of the track when either happened. There was an undercut risk on the VSC and Bono knew it because the stop loses 17 seconds instead of the usual 23 during the race. Max made up his gap under the VSC.

Furthermore, Hamilton was holding a 10 second lead and unless Max pulled a pace miracle the strategy would have worked. When the safety car was needed he had cleared the 5 backmarkers that Max still had to pass. I was thinking this would be a Spain, France or (almost) Austin where Max or Lewis catch at the end. It became pretty clear as Max was making 0.1 to 0.2 seconds a lap when he needed 0.8 to 1 second to pass Lewis before the race ended.

scbriml wrote:

Would you would have pitted Hamilton under the SC? That would have forced Red Bull to leave Verstappen out. Yes, Hamilton would then be sat behind Verstappen with fresher tyres, but with absolutely no guarantee that the SC would finish before the end of the race. Mercedes was damned if they did and damned if they didn't - Red Bull's decision was always easier as they had nothing to lose. Without the SC, Verstappen was never catching Hamilton.

But in similar circumstance in Baku, the race was red flagged leaving us with a two lap race from a standing start. The red flag could have been thrown in Abu Dhabi to leave a five lap race at the end rather than the engineered mess we got.

Hopefully next year the cars are a lot closer in pace and the fastest few can't run away with it making free stops harder. A lot of what created the advantage for Lewis and Max is that they are so far out ahead of the pack that whoever is in second gets a free stop to enhance their strategy (example stealing the fastest lap)

Regarding Baku, Lewis had that in the bag and he made the magic brake mistake. No complaints on that because it was his error.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

mad99 wrote:

Exciting race but like the other poster says, engineered finish.

I think HAM should have given back position after VER passed him, apparently he gave back all advantage by the end of the lap (except the position!).

Then only allowing the cars between HAM and VER to unlap themselves, why not all?
Then restarting early, that sealed HAM’s fate.

No one wants to see a race finish under a SC but I’ll take that over a gerrymandered result.

So basically you're okay with a gerrymandered race as long as it benefits Lewis Hamilton, because that's what ending the race behind a safety car does.

No, it would have followed the safety rules. That are always followed. I can't ever remember a situation where only a select group of cars were allowed to underlap themselves, then on the same lap the safety car comes in. That is also grossly unfair on other drivers behind. The rules were not followed, but Masi has got round it because the Race Director has overall authority - so he can do what he wants. BUT the thing is this has never been done before so what was the reason to change it?

Races have ended behind a safety car before. If this wasn't a season ending /championship decider and both 1st and 2nd drivers had pitted, I would bet he would have ended it behind the safety car. There were not enough laps to let all drivers through and get back to the back of the train (which is what almost always happens).

mad99 wrote:

Exciting race but like the other poster says, engineered finish.

I think HAM should have given back position after VER passed him, apparently he gave back all advantage by the end of the lap (except the position!).

Verstappen yet again did what he often does. He deliberately braked too late for the first corner up the inside. He didn't / couldn't start turning until he was miles past the apex. Lewis had to go off the track to avoid hitting Verstappen. He could have come back on the track but he would have lost several positions or damaged the car going back over the curb. He went off the track through no fault of his own, he had to. If he gave back the advantage he gained then the ruling was perfectly fair.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

mad99 wrote:

Exciting race but like the other poster says, engineered finish.

I think HAM should have given back position after VER passed him, apparently he gave back all advantage by the end of the lap (except the position!).

Then only allowing the cars between HAM and VER to unlap themselves, why not all?
Then restarting early, that sealed HAM’s fate.

No one wants to see a race finish under a SC but I’ll take that over a gerrymandered result.

So basically you're okay with a gerrymandered race as long as it benefits Lewis Hamilton, because that's what ending the race behind a safety car does.

If the crash happens one lap later the race ends on a safety car because they can't clear the debris in time. It happened to be the miracle that Christian said to Crofty and Brundle on the telecast.

[quote=" Lewis was gaining enough pace to not be undercut so following Max was solid. IIRC under the VSC and the SC he didn't have the ability to pit as he wasn't on the right part of the track when either happened. There was an undercut risk on the VSC and Bono knew it because the stop loses 17 seconds instead of the usual 23 during the race. Max made up his gap under the VSC. [/quote]

With the VSC thats what I also saw. Bad luck for Lewis. The SC, I'm not sure.

Reinhardt wrote:

Verstappen yet again did what he often does. He deliberately braked too late for the first corner up the inside. He didn't / couldn't start turning until he was miles past the apex. Lewis had to go off the track to avoid hitting Verstappen. He could have come back on the track but he would have lost several positions or damaged the car going back over the curb. He went off the track through no fault of his own, he had to. If he gave back the advantage he gained then the ruling was perfectly fair.

Martin Brundle, Damon Hill and Jenson Button all said it was a fair pass by Max as he was clearly ahead and stayed on the track therefore Lewis should have given the place back.

THS214 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Verstappen yet again did what he often does. He deliberately braked too late for the first corner up the inside. He didn't / couldn't start turning until he was miles past the apex. Lewis had to go off the track to avoid hitting Verstappen. He could have come back on the track but he would have lost several positions or damaged the car going back over the curb. He went off the track through no fault of his own, he had to. If he gave back the advantage he gained then the ruling was perfectly fair.

Martin Brundle, Damon Hill and Jenson Button all said it was a fair pass by Max as he was clearly ahead and stayed on the track therefore Lewis should have given the place back.

Disagree. Fed up with Vestappen doing stupid lunges from miles back with no way of making the corner. Instead relying on the other car to stop him going off, or putting the onus on the other driver to avoid a collision. There were numerous over-takes on that corner throughout the race made properly. Stewards obviously took the nature of Verstappens attempt into consideration which is why they allowed Lewis to keep it but give back any time gained.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

mad99 wrote:

Exciting race but like the other poster says, engineered finish.

I think HAM should have given back position after VER passed him, apparently he gave back all advantage by the end of the lap (except the position!).

Then only allowing the cars between HAM and VER to unlap themselves, why not all?
Then restarting early, that sealed HAM’s fate.

No one wants to see a race finish under a SC but I’ll take that over a gerrymandered result.

So basically you're okay with a gerrymandered race as long as it benefits Lewis Hamilton, because that's what ending the race behind a safety car does.

I don’t care who wins I just don’t like changing the rules to race the last lap. They should have red flagged it if they really didn’t want to finish under SC.

THS214 wrote:

[quote=" Lewis was gaining enough pace to not be undercut so following Max was solid. IIRC under the VSC and the SC he didn't have the ability to pit as he wasn't on the right part of the track when either happened. There was an undercut risk on the VSC and Bono knew it because the stop loses 17 seconds instead of the usual 23 during the race. Max made up his gap under the VSC.

With the VSC thats what I also saw. Bad luck for Lewis. The SC, I'm not sure.[/quote]

He would have given the position to Max. Had the race ended under a S/C then Max wins.

Well, I didn't post yesterday as emotions here were high. For me the season was entertaining as two great drivers were very close. For me it do not make a difference if Lewis or Max is the champion.

Remember that in Silverstone Lewis was saved by red flag caused by himself? I think that the red flag was the right call. Did anyone complain? Yet Lewis hit from behind and Max retired and Lewis got a penalty for causing the accident. Without that red flag we wouldn't have this discussion. That was the ruling then and we should accept it. At least I accept it.

Remember that well before this final race it was told that F1 wants to have a racing to decide the winner. After Latifi's crash it was impossible situation for the stewards. Few laps before and everyone would have known what to expect. Mercedes gambled for a safety car for the chequered flag. So Red bull did the only possibility they had. Pit Max.

As the track cleared it was clear that a racing lap was ahead. Nothing wrong there.

The question is when and how the overlapped should have passed the safety car. Earlier and they all would have passed? Or later when all to pass and race end behind safety car? Or the made decision? Now the decision was made that only the cars between Lewis and Max should pass. Remember that F1 has said that they want the championship to be decided by racing? So Masi and stewards did exactly that.

I don't complain the ruling.

marcelh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap. The race director can be blamed for a lot of reasons (not only this race), but not for that. IMHO HAM lost the race because his team was following RBR on the initial tire strategy. He was faster on the mediums than VER on the softs, so why didn’t Mercedes extend the first stint and giving HAM the advantage of better tires? When RBR found out VER couldn’t win without newer tires, they made the call to pit during VSC and SC. It was the only possibility to keep pressure on HAM and it was successful at the end.

Billions spent on engines, chassis, and drivers, yet in the end it comes down to spinning lumps of rubber, sigh.

It's as if the results of the horse race depended primarily on horseshoes.

Revelation wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap. The race director can be blamed for a lot of reasons (not only this race), but not for that. IMHO HAM lost the race because his team was following RBR on the initial tire strategy. He was faster on the mediums than VER on the softs, so why didn’t Mercedes extend the first stint and giving HAM the advantage of better tires? When RBR found out VER couldn’t win without newer tires, they made the call to pit during VSC and SC. It was the only possibility to keep pressure on HAM and it was successful at the end.

Billions spent on engines, chassis, and drivers, yet in the end it comes down to spinning lumps of rubber, sigh.

It's as if the results of the horse race depended primarily on horseshoes.

I think my issue with what happened yesterday is that an entire industry is focussed on honing performance to within a whisker of the absolute maximum, and this is so, because sport is, and always has been, about performance.
Yesterday the guy in charge of driver safety made a decision in the name of entertainment rather than safety, and in the process completely devalued the whole industry effort towards performance.
"we want a race" was the cry, but how was this ever going to be a "race" over that distance?
So even the entertainment objective was missed completely.

I feel very sorry for Lewis.
But in a way I also feel sorry for Max.
His first drivers championship will be forever tainted by the sour taste of the decisions made yesterday.
That's never going to go away

Not sure I know where F1 goes from here.
I get that sport is entertainment.
But the entertainment is surely driven by the intense desire for performance....
Reality TV I can get plenty of elsewhere without the billions spent on honing technology and performance.

Rgds

Revelation wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap. The race director can be blamed for a lot of reasons (not only this race), but not for that. IMHO HAM lost the race because his team was following RBR on the initial tire strategy. He was faster on the mediums than VER on the softs, so why didn’t Mercedes extend the first stint and giving HAM the advantage of better tires? When RBR found out VER couldn’t win without newer tires, they made the call to pit during VSC and SC. It was the only possibility to keep pressure on HAM and it was successful at the end.

Billions spent on engines, chassis, and drivers, yet in the end it comes down to spinning lumps of rubber, sigh.

It's as if the results of the horse race depended primarily on horseshoes.

Tire strategy makes F1 a brilliant sport, it will make it much better if the even introduce a supersoft for sprint races.

Many of the best races this year were decided on strategy. Spain, France, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia (Max going on mediums really lost him that race) and now this one.

astuteman wrote:

Not sure I know where F1 goes from here.
I get that sport is entertainment.
But the entertainment is surely driven by the intense desire for performance....
Reality TV I can get plenty of elsewhere without the billions spent on honing technology and performance.

From my admittedly newbie perspective I'm getting the feeling Masi is not very good at his job, but am not seeing calls for a replacement so I guess it's not a very wide spread opinion?

StarAC17 wrote:

Tire strategy makes F1 a brilliant sport, it will make it much better if the even introduce a supersoft for sprint races.

Many of the best races this year were decided on strategy. Spain, France, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia (Max going on mediums really lost him that race) and now this one.

I'm encouraged that you see it that way, maybe some day I will come around to that point of view.

For now, though, the importance of tires in motor racing seems totally out or proportion to me.

I just watched an entire Sunday of NFL action and not once did I ask what shoes were the players wearing.

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Billions spent on engines, chassis, and drivers, yet in the end it comes down to spinning lumps of rubber, sigh.

How do you propose to race cars without tyres?

Sigh, the weary old reduction to absurdity argument, hoped for better...

I just think their importance should be reduced.

Not sure how, I'm a newbie to the sport, yet it'd be better if we were more focused on the people rather than the equipment, especially one of the more banal pieces of equipment.

Yes, just my opinion, people should feel free to continue to be enthralled by tire selection if they like doing so...

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Billions spent on engines, chassis, and drivers, yet in the end it comes down to spinning lumps of rubber, sigh.

How do you propose to race cars without tyres?

Sigh, the weary old reduction to absurdity argument, hoped for better...

I just think their importance should be reduced.

Not sure how, I'm a newbie to the sport, yet it'd be better if we were more focused on the people rather than the equipment, especially one of the more banal pieces of equipment.

Yes, just my opinion, people should feel free to continue to be enthralled by tire selection if they like doing so...

Just worth pointing out perhaps that one of the key differentiators for drivers such as Lewis Hamilton and Sergio Perez is their ability to be "in tune" with the vehicle to an extent that allows them to be fast whilst still protecting their tyres better than other drivers.
Reference Turkish GP last year.
I also think that this was one of the key aspects of Hamilton's drive yesterday - to be so fast even on tyres that were getting older.

It gets farcical when you you've got one lap to race, with one guy on the fastest tyre with no wear, and the other on the slowest tyre with 40 laps of wear on it.
Verstappen showed in qualifying that he was 0.35 sec faster than Hamilton over 1 lap on fresh soft tyres.
As the race progressed though, that advantage diminished rapidly, as we saw when he put the fresh hard tyres on during the VSC.

F1 is a bit like cricket IMO - it can be a lot more nuanced than it appears on the surface..

Rgds

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Billions spent on engines, chassis, and drivers, yet in the end it comes down to spinning lumps of rubber, sigh.

How do you propose to race cars without tyres?

Sigh, the weary old reduction to absurdity argument, hoped for better...

I just think their importance should be reduced.

Not sure how, I'm a newbie to the sport, yet it'd be better if we were more focused on the people rather than the equipment, especially one of the more banal pieces of equipment.

Yes, just my opinion, people should feel free to continue to be enthralled by tire selection if they like doing so...

We'll agree to disagree but when the first round of stops comes that is when the racing tends to get more exciting. Considering these stops take 2-3 seconds and can make or break a race its an exciting part of the racing. When you have a race like Monaco the pit stops are the only excitement we will get.

Reinhardt wrote:

No, it would have followed the safety rules. That are always followed. I can't ever remember a situation where only a select group of cars were allowed to underlap themselves, then on the same lap the safety car comes in. That is also grossly unfair on other drivers behind. The rules were not followed, but Masi has got round it because the Race Director has overall authority - so he can do what he wants. BUT the thing is this has never been done before so what was the reason to change it?

Races have ended behind a safety car before. If this wasn't a season ending /championship decider and both 1st and 2nd drivers had pitted, I would bet he would have ended it behind the safety car. There were not enough laps to let all drivers through and get back to the back of the train (which is what almost always happens).

The race was a championship decider. To finish under a safety car would have been a farce of the highest order. Masi applied discretion given to him by the rules to ensure that you don't get a bloody farce.

Funny how "F1 fans" moan about no action in F1 but then when we're presented with action, they moan when the driver they support lost.

Reinhardt wrote:

Verstappen yet again did what he often does. He deliberately braked too late for the first corner up the inside. He didn't / couldn't start turning until he was miles past the apex. Lewis had to go off the track to avoid hitting Verstappen. He could have come back on the track but he would have lost several positions or damaged the car going back over the curb. He went off the track through no fault of his own, he had to. If he gave back the advantage he gained then the ruling was perfectly fair.

Verstappen made the corner, so it was a legitimate overtake. Lewis could have easily returned to the track mid corner, so that he would be side by side with Max going up the straight. He didn't do that because he knows Max will slipstream him, so he had to open up space.

scbriml wrote:

A race finishing under the SC is not gerrymandering a result, sometimes it just happens. To my knowledge, ten GPs have finished behind a safety car, it's certainly not the issue you're portraying it to be. Were you complaining about a gerrymandered result for Verstappen in Spa? Just curious.

It's gerrymandered if you let the SC continue on even though the obstacle has been cleared and there's an opportunity for racing.

astuteman wrote:

I think my issue with what happened yesterday is that an entire industry is focussed on honing performance to within a whisker of the absolute maximum, and this is so, because sport is, and always has been, about performance.
Yesterday the guy in charge of driver safety made a decision in the name of entertainment rather than safety, and in the process completely devalued the whole industry effort towards performance.
"we want a race" was the cry, but how was this ever going to be a "race" over that distance?
So even the entertainment objective was missed completely.

I honestly don't get how the decision to race on the last lap devalues anything. Would it have devalued anything had the roles been reversed, that is Verstappen being in the lead and Hamilton charging up for the win?

astuteman wrote:

I feel very sorry for Lewis.
But in a way I also feel sorry for Max.
His first drivers championship will be forever tainted by the sour taste of the decisions made yesterday.
That's never going to go away

Max won it fair and square. The only sour taste is being poured on by Hamilton fans who are looking ever more like sore losers.

How do you propose to get rid of the sour taste? Give the title to Hamilton? Then Lewis winning it wouldn't leave a sour taste? To me that would leave a shitty taste.

I'm OK if you want to annul the results of this race but it wouldn't change a thing because Max will still be world champion. All you get is Carlos Sainz being screwed because the podium in Abu Dhabi vaulted him up to 5th ahead of Charles Leclerc and Lando Norris.

Revelation wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

When you say "watching the restart", you mean the one where the race director's decision put Max just behind Lewis, but with tires softer and 44 laps younger ?

Mercedes chose neither to pit and change tires during the VSC, nor during the SC deployment, so they are to blame making HAM a sitting duck in the final lap. The race director can be blamed for a lot of reasons (not only this race), but not for that. IMHO HAM lost the race because his team was following RBR on the initial tire strategy. He was faster on the mediums than VER on the softs, so why didn’t Mercedes extend the first stint and giving HAM the advantage of better tires? When RBR found out VER couldn’t win without newer tires, they made the call to pit during VSC and SC. It was the only possibility to keep pressure on HAM and it was successful at the end.

Billions spent on engines, chassis, and drivers, yet in the end it comes down to spinning lumps of rubber, sigh.

It's as if the results of the horse race depended primarily on horseshoes.

I suppose we could return to the old F1 days when tires were really lumps of rubber that lasts an entire race without the need to change it.

scbriml wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

The race was a championship decider. To finish under a safety car would have been a farce of the highest order.

Why would the race finishing under the SC have been a farce? Verstappen wouldn't have won without the safety car, so where's the farce if he'd finished second behind the SC? If Latiffi had crashed one lap later, the race would have finished under the SC. Where's the farce? If Latiffi had crashed in the last couple of laps, the race would probably have been red flagged and not finished. Where's the farce?

We all know there's only one reason you think it would have been a farce.

I notice you dodged the question about a gerrymandered result in Spa.

It's a farce because they cleared Latifi's car in due time and there's a clear track ready for racing. Denying the opportunity for one last go at the championship is a definitely a farce even if the roles were reverse and it was Hamilton chasing after Verstappen.

And yes, I chose to ignore your question about Spa simply because it's an irrelevant non sequitur. They tried to make the race work, but it didn't. It's irrelevant to the issue being discussed, and merely you trying to move the goalposts.

Finally getting round to watching this on DVR, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the race was decided less by Hamilton or Verstappen, and more by the stewards' red and yellow flag decisions, which have been opaque and seemingly arbitrary for the whole season. Thing is, though, that's exactly what both Red Bull and Mercedes seem to have wanted, given that every time someone so much as sneezes on the track they're both on the radio with the FIA demanding an interpretation of the situation that favors them as much as possible. It's a little like baseball if the umpires actually changed their calls when the managers argued with them.

Newark727 wrote:

Finally getting round to watching this on DVR, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the race was decided less by Hamilton or Verstappen, and more by the stewards' red and yellow flag decisions, which have been opaque and seemingly arbitrary for the whole season.

I disagree. The Latifi crash wasn’t a red flag, because we would have had a lot more red flags this season.

scbriml wrote:

THS214 wrote:

The question is when and how the overlapped should have passed the safety car. Earlier and they all would have passed? Or later when all to pass and race end behind safety car? Or the made decision? Now the decision was made that only the cars between Lewis and Max should pass. Remember that F1 has said that they want the championship to be decided by racing? So Masi and stewards did exactly that.

I don't complain the ruling.

The problem is Race Control largely seems to have made it up as they went along. At first Masi told Red Bull that lapped cars wouldn't be released. Then he changed his mind after Red Bull complained vociferously, and only released the cars between HAM and VER. Why not also release the cars between SAI and VER? Why was Sainz denied the chance to overtake Verstappen (even if that chance was very slim)? There seems to be no provision within the rules for the partial release of lapped cars.

In addition, the FIA Sporting Regulations clearly state that the Safety Car will return to the pits at the end of the lap after lapped cars have been released. In Abu Dhabi the SC was withdrawn on the same lap that the lapped cars were released.

Every race is equally important. What if Silverstone would have been the last race of this season? Should Lewis been black flagged? My point is that race director and stewards have to make decisions that are best for the sport based on the rules. And I think they were good throughout the season. Sometimes Lewis won, sometimes Max won. But they were treated equally and fair.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

The race was a championship decider. To finish under a safety car would have been a farce of the highest order. Masi applied discretion given to him by the rules to ensure that you don't get a bloody farce.

But we DID get a bloody farce, and a rigged one at that. What happened in the last lap can in no way be described as "racing".
We ALL know Hamilton was absolutely a sitting duck
And no. Masi didn't apply the rules

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Funny how "F1 fans" moan about no action in F1 but then when we're presented with action, they moan when the driver they support lost.

Question. How would you feel if it were the other way round, and Max was clearly head-and-shoulders ahead, only to have the title handed to Lewis by some last minute deviation from the rules and established practice. Would you still be as happy? Honestly?

We all crave sporting action, not Big Brother reality TV

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Verstappen made the corner, so it was a legitimate overtake. Lewis could have easily returned to the track mid corner, so that he would be side by side with Max going up the straight. He didn't do that because he knows Max will slipstream him, so he had to open up space.

But he pushed Lewis wide in the process. So no. It wasn't a legitimate overtake. And the stewards concur.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

It's gerrymandered if you let the SC continue on even though the obstacle has been cleared and there's an opportunity for racing.

No. It's gerrymandered when there is a deliberate flouting of the rules that results in an inevitable change to the conclusion.
Masi knew damned well, just like the rest of us, that Lewis had no chance whatsoever on those old tyres over 1 single lap. A complete farce

read this...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/motorsp ... hp&pc=U531

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I honestly don't get how the decision to race on the last lap devalues anything. Would it have devalued anything had the roles been reversed, that is Verstappen being in the lead and Hamilton charging up for the win?

Yes, it absolutely would!
My issue is not with who won, but how they were gifted the lead.
I would totally think the same if Max had been walking away with it, and then had the lead stolen from him

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Max won it fair and square. The only sour taste is being poured on by Hamilton fans who are looking ever more like sore losers.

You should read up a bit more on social media.
The number of Max fans who agree with me that this will leave a sour taste is quite large. And most independents seem to think so too.
This is not just about being a Lewis fanboy
Per our conversation earlier, by the way, if you look up the dictionary meaning of "bigot". It pertains to much much more than just racism

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

How do you propose to get rid of the sour taste? Give the title to Hamilton? Then Lewis winning it wouldn't leave a sour taste? To me that would leave a shitty taste.

Agree. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle now, and nothing will change that

You know what, considering the toxicity of the matter (some idiots have gone as far as threatening Latifi to the point that he had to apologize!), I'm going to refrain myself. I've said what I needed to say and I'm not going to add anything more on the matter.