FIA Thread

[henry]

A solution to the cars unlapping would be for the lapped cars to go through the pits while the lead cars do not. The timing would need to be changed to count those cars doing 2 laps as they cross the pit lane timing loop. This would be done on the lap prior to the safety car coming in so even if the accident were on the pit straight the lead cars should be able to drive on the circuit on that lap.

[Stu]

A solution to the cars unlapping would be for the lapped cars to go through the pits while the lead cars do not. The timing would need to be changed to count those cars doing 2 laps as they cross the pit lane timing loop. This would be done on the lap prior to the safety car coming in so even if the accident were on the pit straight the lead cars should be able to drive on the circuit on that lap.

I was thinking something similar. Very easy to do if the pit-lane is closed during SC periods, all staff should be in their garages.

[Jolle]

I don’t understand why lap count would be a problem? They are one lap behind and would stay one lap behind…

[Big Tea]

As it’s the *start of the year I’m sure many of use have work objectives being set for the year ahead, with that in mind what objectives would we all like to see from the Race Director in 2022?

1. Track limits, the white lines are the white lines.
2. No forcing another driver off track, if you lock up and force another driver off track tough luck, you should be in control of your car at all times…
3. Safety car - all lapped cars let through or non, not some and at the discretion of race director
4. No penalties can be served under safety car, virtual safety car or red flag (Verstappen in SA)
5. If it’s not safe to run, it’s not safe to run. Spa 2021

Anyone have any others?

Let me add a few more. These are necessities, but currently aren't rules.
1. Close the pit entry for VSC and SC. This has been cause of unfair advantage for slower car.
2. No change of tyres/No Repairs in Red Flag situation in races. Bring cars under parc ferme in red flag.
3. Allowance for Engine/Gearbox change without penalty in case of crashes if the stewards deem the driver impacted has no fault.
4. Clear and unbiased application of penalties, regardless of whether the driver is a backmarker or championship contender. Stop the BS of "we do not want to interefere in the championship fight".
5. Race Director/Stewards to clearly explain what is acceptable and what is not to drivers in racing situations, in their thursday briefing. Clear definition of "driver alongside" without ambiguities to ensure a driver is not pushed off the race track.

Do you think rather than close the pit lane, it should be close the pit exit?
This way, if a car has enough damage or a safety issue it can come to the pit for service, but not leave until the race resumes. If it is a serious concern, it is worth them doing, if it is just to get a jump on the other cars it defiantly is not.
I also like Stu's idea of lapped cars going through the pit, and I have previously suggested it, but if they stop for tyres, they should then fall into same hold as pitting and await the end of the SC period.

[AeroDynamic]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60170232
Michael Masi: FIA may end spell as race director after Abu Dhabi controversy

Peter Bayer, newly appointed as the FIA's head of F1, said: "Michael did a super job in many ways. We told him that.

"But also that there is a possibility there could be a new race director."

If they're saying it, that means they're looking at a replacement.

Bayer said this was likely to involve splitting the responsibilities Masi formerly held between a number of different people.

Bayer, speaking to the respected Austrian journalist Gerhard Kuntschick, said: "(We are looking at) dividing the various tasks of the race director, who is also sports director, safety and track delegate.

I don't mind if Masi stay's in a supporting role to a new director, as I said in a previous post, he is competent inspecting tracks for safety and was competent in enough areas outside of race control.

"Had the Mercedes protest gone to the Court of Appeal, after being rejected by the stewards, what would have happened?" Bayer said.

"I think the judges would have said: 'It's different in the regulations, he decided that way, so we could just void the result.'

"But even then - if it were cancelled - Max Verstappen would have been world champion (because he was ahead going into the race).

"The situation was far from perfect and that's why we're working on it. It's also about having respect for the race director.

"My job is to look ahead, how can we improve things?"

Is Bayer suggesting the judges would have favoured the opinion that the result should be void due to Massi making a mistake after all?

like he says, if they did void the result, Verstappen would still be Champion. He doesn't believe they would reinstate any lap or do anything that would change the result.

That must have been why Mercedes reconsidered the appeal. I think for the fans, this statement from Bayer, coming out of the FIA, shows they acknowledge he (Masi) messed up and ruined a race result though. Actions speak louder than words and what the FIA are doing now must be accepted as an admission of guilt on the part of Masi's actions that race.

[aMessageToCharlie]

I think closing the pit lane for vsc/sc would be too much. Being at the right place at the right time is and has always been part of racing.

If you were to ban this, then you might as well ban pitting for wets when it starts raining until the leader came in. Otherwise the slower cars might get an advantage due to their track position, same as with the sc scenario.

[NathanOlder]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60170232
Michael Masi: FIA may end spell as race director after Abu Dhabi controversy

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/6 ... _getty.jpg

Peter Bayer, newly appointed as the FIA's head of F1, said: "Michael did a super job in many ways. We told him that.

"But also that there is a possibility there could be a new race director."

If they're saying it, that means they're looking at a replacement.

Bayer said this was likely to involve splitting the responsibilities Masi formerly held between a number of different people.

Bayer, speaking to the respected Austrian journalist Gerhard Kuntschick, said: "(We are looking at) dividing the various tasks of the race director, who is also sports director, safety and track delegate.

I don't mind if Masi stay's in a supporting role to a new director, as I said in a previous post, he is competent inspecting tracks for safety and was competent in enough areas outside of race control.

"Had the Mercedes protest gone to the Court of Appeal, after being rejected by the stewards, what would have happened?" Bayer said.

"I think the judges would have said: 'It's different in the regulations, he decided that way, so we could just void the result.'

"But even then - if it were cancelled - Max Verstappen would have been world champion (because he was ahead going into the race).

"The situation was far from perfect and that's why we're working on it. It's also about having respect for the race director.

"My job is to look ahead, how can we improve things?"

Is Bayer suggesting the judges would have favoured the opinion that the result should be void due to Massi making a mistake after all?

like he says, if they did void the result, Verstappen would still be Champion. He doesn't believe they would reinstate any lap or do anything that would change the result.

That must have been why Mercedes reconsidered the appeal. I think for the fans, this statement from Bayer, coming out of the FIA, shows they acknowledge he (Masi) messed up and ruined a race result though. Actions speak louder than words and what the FIA are doing now must be accepted as an admission of guilt on the part of Masi's actions that race.

Voiding the result would be one way to solve many issues with that last race. And then while they are at it, Spa needs voiding as well.

voiding the 2 biggest scandals in recent times would change the championship result too.

[AeroDynamic]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60170232
Michael Masi: FIA may end spell as race director after Abu Dhabi controversy

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/6 ... _getty.jpg

Peter Bayer, newly appointed as the FIA's head of F1, said: "Michael did a super job in many ways. We told him that.

"But also that there is a possibility there could be a new race director."

If they're saying it, that means they're looking at a replacement.

Bayer said this was likely to involve splitting the responsibilities Masi formerly held between a number of different people.

Bayer, speaking to the respected Austrian journalist Gerhard Kuntschick, said: "(We are looking at) dividing the various tasks of the race director, who is also sports director, safety and track delegate.

I don't mind if Masi stay's in a supporting role to a new director, as I said in a previous post, he is competent inspecting tracks for safety and was competent in enough areas outside of race control.

"Had the Mercedes protest gone to the Court of Appeal, after being rejected by the stewards, what would have happened?" Bayer said.

"I think the judges would have said: 'It's different in the regulations, he decided that way, so we could just void the result.'

"But even then - if it were cancelled - Max Verstappen would have been world champion (because he was ahead going into the race).

"The situation was far from perfect and that's why we're working on it. It's also about having respect for the race director.

"My job is to look ahead, how can we improve things?"

Is Bayer suggesting the judges would have favoured the opinion that the result should be void due to Massi making a mistake after all?

like he says, if they did void the result, Verstappen would still be Champion. He doesn't believe they would reinstate any lap or do anything that would change the result.

That must have been why Mercedes reconsidered the appeal. I think for the fans, this statement from Bayer, coming out of the FIA, shows they acknowledge he (Masi) messed up and ruined a race result though. Actions speak louder than words and what the FIA are doing now must be accepted as an admission of guilt on the part of Masi's actions that race.

Voiding the result would be one way to solve many issues with that last race. And then while they are at it, Spa needs voiding as well.

voiding the 2 biggest scandals in recent times would change the championship result too.

I agree with the sentiment that the Spa weekend should've not added anything to championship standings.

I know there are Verstappen fans who argue these anomalies are justified because he was unlucky a couple of times, but that's not how Formula 1 is supposed to work; we have had many champions who could've lost the title if it wasn't for their nearest competitor having more bad luck. Hamilton could have been Champion in 2007 and 2016 (and 2021 for that matter) if it wasn't for bad luck, but that's F1 and motorsports in general.

Under normal fair motorsport circumstances, Hamilton should have been Champion. The rules were bent too many times, and on two occasions (Spa and Abu Dhabi) they were bent in crucial favour of Verstappen to be Champion. He's deserving to be a champion so I don't have a problem with that, but he was in fact given the championship by the FIA rather than overcoming his own luck.

rules should never favour someone based on incompetence or how unlucky they have been, they are unjustified. Verstappen is one of the luckiest Champions to date if we're quantifying being champion based on winning within the rules.

[Stu]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60170232
Michael Masi: FIA may end spell as race director after Abu Dhabi controversy

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/6 ... _getty.jpg

Peter Bayer, newly appointed as the FIA's head of F1, said: "Michael did a super job in many ways. We told him that.

"But also that there is a possibility there could be a new race director."

If they're saying it, that means they're looking at a replacement.

Bayer said this was likely to involve splitting the responsibilities Masi formerly held between a number of different people.

Bayer, speaking to the respected Austrian journalist Gerhard Kuntschick, said: "(We are looking at) dividing the various tasks of the race director, who is also sports director, safety and track delegate.

I don't mind if Masi stay's in a supporting role to a new director, as I said in a previous post, he is competent inspecting tracks for safety and was competent in enough areas outside of race control.

"Had the Mercedes protest gone to the Court of Appeal, after being rejected by the stewards, what would have happened?" Bayer said.

"I think the judges would have said: 'It's different in the regulations, he decided that way, so we could just void the result.'

"But even then - if it were cancelled - Max Verstappen would have been world champion (because he was ahead going into the race).

"The situation was far from perfect and that's why we're working on it. It's also about having respect for the race director.

"My job is to look ahead, how can we improve things?"

Is Bayer suggesting the judges would have favoured the opinion that the result should be void due to Massi making a mistake after all?

like he says, if they did void the result, Verstappen would still be Champion. He doesn't believe they would reinstate any lap or do anything that would change the result.

That must have been why Mercedes reconsidered the appeal. I think for the fans, this statement from Bayer, coming out of the FIA, shows they acknowledge he (Masi) messed up and ruined a race result though. Actions speak louder than words and what the FIA are doing now must be accepted as an admission of guilt on the part of Masi's actions that race.

Voiding the result would be one way to solve many issues with that last race. And then while they are at it, Spa needs voiding as well.

voiding the 2 biggest scandals in recent times would change the championship result too.

Maybe it would change it to something more palatable to Mercedes/Hamilton fans, and there is an argument to void the final race result. However, voiding the Spa result purely to obtain a different Championship outcome (months after the event - with no appeal from any party until it it is known that it would affect the Championship outcome), would be manipulation of the highest order.
That would go beyond the level of result manipulation that Mercedes/Hamilton fans have been railing against for two months now.
A worse outcome…

[Stu]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60170232
Michael Masi: FIA may end spell as race director after Abu Dhabi controversy

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/6 ... _getty.jpg




If they're saying it, that means they're looking at a replacement.



I don't mind if Masi stay's in a supporting role to a new director, as I said in a previous post, he is competent inspecting tracks for safety and was competent in enough areas outside of race control.



Is Bayer suggesting the judges would have favoured the opinion that the result should be void due to Massi making a mistake after all?

like he says, if they did void the result, Verstappen would still be Champion. He doesn't believe they would reinstate any lap or do anything that would change the result.

That must have been why Mercedes reconsidered the appeal. I think for the fans, this statement from Bayer, coming out of the FIA, shows they acknowledge he (Masi) messed up and ruined a race result though. Actions speak louder than words and what the FIA are doing now must be accepted as an admission of guilt on the part of Masi's actions that race.

Voiding the result would be one way to solve many issues with that last race. And then while they are at it, Spa needs voiding as well.

voiding the 2 biggest scandals in recent times would change the championship result too.

I agree with the sentiment that the Spa weekend should've not added anything to championship standings.

I know there are Verstappen fans who argue these anomalies are justified because he was unlucky a couple of times, but that's not how Formula 1 is supposed to work; we have had many champions who could've lost the title if it wasn't for their nearest competitor having more bad luck. Hamilton could have been Champion in 2007 and 2016 (and 2021 for that matter) if it wasn't for bad luck, but that's F1 and motorsports in general.

Under normal fair motorsport circumstances, Hamilton should have been Champion. The rules were bent too many times, and on two occasions (Spa and Abu Dhabi) they were bent in crucial favour of Verstappen to be Champion. He's deserving to be a champion so I don't have a problem with that, but he was in fact given the championship by the FIA rather than overcoming his own luck.

rules should never favour someone based on incompetence or how unlucky they have been, they are unjustified. Verstappen is one of the luckiest Champions to date if we're quantifying being champion based on winning within the rules.

Whoever claimed that motorsport was “fair”? It is always (and has always) been about trying to find/gain an ‘unfair’ advantage (I think that is also the title of the book about Lotus F1??), that your competitors either cannot discover or easily copy. Rules have also been unfairly applied (Stirling Moss lost ‘his’ WDC because he insisted on a ‘fair’ interpretation of the rules), precisely because they are ‘interpreted’ when instances occur that are not exactly the same situation as written.

2007 can be traced to a mistake by either LH or McLaren team at China. 2016 was an intra-team battle that did not go LH’s way. Alonso could be a 5-time champion by now (and deservedly so) if things had gone his way at a single race in three separate years.

I would argue that manipulation of a result post-season is worse than incorrect decisions being made during it (Spa); several incorrect decisions were made in various races through the season. Had these decisions gone the other way LH would be champion (and deservedly so), to change them now would be massively incorrect.

[AeroDynamic]

Voiding the result would be one way to solve many issues with that last race. And then while they are at it, Spa needs voiding as well.

voiding the 2 biggest scandals in recent times would change the championship result too.

I agree with the sentiment that the Spa weekend should've not added anything to championship standings.

I know there are Verstappen fans who argue these anomalies are justified because he was unlucky a couple of times, but that's not how Formula 1 is supposed to work; we have had many champions who could've lost the title if it wasn't for their nearest competitor having more bad luck. Hamilton could have been Champion in 2007 and 2016 (and 2021 for that matter) if it wasn't for bad luck, but that's F1 and motorsports in general.

Under normal fair motorsport circumstances, Hamilton should have been Champion. The rules were bent too many times, and on two occasions (Spa and Abu Dhabi) they were bent in crucial favour of Verstappen to be Champion. He's deserving to be a champion so I don't have a problem with that, but he was in fact given the championship by the FIA rather than overcoming his own luck.

rules should never favour someone based on incompetence or how unlucky they have been, they are unjustified. Verstappen is one of the luckiest Champions to date if we're quantifying being champion based on winning within the rules.

Whoever claimed that motorsport was “fair”? It is always (and has always) been about trying to find/gain an ‘unfair’ advantage (I think that is also the title of the book about Lotus F1??), that your competitors either cannot discover or easily copy. Rules have also been unfairly applied (Stirling Moss lost ‘his’ WDC because he insisted on a ‘fair’ interpretation of the rules), precisely because they are ‘interpreted’ when instances occur that are not exactly the same situation as written.

2007 can be traced to a mistake by either LH or McLaren team at China. 2016 was an intra-team battle that did not go LH’s way. Alonso could be a 5-time champion by now (and deservedly so) if things had gone his way at a single race in three separate years.

I would argue that manipulation of a result post-season is worse than incorrect decisions being made during it (Spa); several incorrect decisions were made in various races through the season. Had these decisions gone the other way LH would be champion (and deservedly so), to change them now would be massively incorrect.

I agree they should not change them now, only because its too late. They should've owned up to this quickly, postponed the result of the race and made a decision to restart the race from where they were or provide extra racing laps imo.

I don't know who's saying motorsport was fair, I know that Advocates for Verstappen's Championship entitlement argue its justified, and im saying it isn't because that's not how sport works; you don't recreate the rules and boundaries when you feel like it. That is not the kind of luck that makes sport ethical and fair for the competition.

How many pitlane areas have a gravel trap inside them anymore? it was cruelly unlucky to make a tiny error in the a pit lane area and be punished by a sizeable gravel trap – we can't even get them where they are actually needed nowadays that was the only 1 example of bad luck from 2007 anyway, his tyre blew up in Turkey and lost a podium that Alonso inherited.. amongst other things that season (Not including the obvious Brazil gearbox failure)

I think decisions that go against the foundation of the rules and betray the spirit of them, is as bad if not worse than changing the result after. although I'd argue quantifying how long after is key; within a day and ending the race result 'under investigation' I think is fine. Changing it 3 weeks later after declaring the result official isn't. Unfortunately we cannot rely on the FIA to have moral decency to call into question their own mistakes. They prefer to cover things up, as Jean Todt proved with the Ferrari engine saga, and his initial handling with the FIA over Abu Dhabi.

[Stu]

I agree with the sentiment that the Spa weekend should've not added anything to championship standings.

I know there are Verstappen fans who argue these anomalies are justified because he was unlucky a couple of times, but that's not how Formula 1 is supposed to work; we have had many champions who could've lost the title if it wasn't for their nearest competitor having more bad luck. Hamilton could have been Champion in 2007 and 2016 (and 2021 for that matter) if it wasn't for bad luck, but that's F1 and motorsports in general.

Under normal fair motorsport circumstances, Hamilton should have been Champion. The rules were bent too many times, and on two occasions (Spa and Abu Dhabi) they were bent in crucial favour of Verstappen to be Champion. He's deserving to be a champion so I don't have a problem with that, but he was in fact given the championship by the FIA rather than overcoming his own luck.

rules should never favour someone based on incompetence or how unlucky they have been, they are unjustified. Verstappen is one of the luckiest Champions to date if we're quantifying being champion based on winning within the rules.

Whoever claimed that motorsport was “fair”? It is always (and has always) been about trying to find/gain an ‘unfair’ advantage (I think that is also the title of the book about Lotus F1??), that your competitors either cannot discover or easily copy. Rules have also been unfairly applied (Stirling Moss lost ‘his’ WDC because he insisted on a ‘fair’ interpretation of the rules), precisely because they are ‘interpreted’ when instances occur that are not exactly the same situation as written.

2007 can be traced to a mistake by either LH or McLaren team at China. 2016 was an intra-team battle that did not go LH’s way. Alonso could be a 5-time champion by now (and deservedly so) if things had gone his way at a single race in three separate years.

I would argue that manipulation of a result post-season is worse than incorrect decisions being made during it (Spa); several incorrect decisions were made in various races through the season. Had these decisions gone the other way LH would be champion (and deservedly so), to change them now would be massively incorrect.

I agree they should not change them now, only because its too late. They should've owned up to this quickly, postponed the result of the race and made a decision to restart the race from where they were or provide extra racing laps imo.

I don't know who's saying motorsport was fair, I know that Advocates for Verstappen's Championship entitlement argue its justified, and im saying it isn't because that's not how sport works; you don't recreate the rules and boundaries when you feel like it. That is not the kind of luck that makes sport ethical and fair for the competition.

How many pitlane areas have a gravel trap inside them anymore? it was cruelly unlucky to make a tiny error in the a pit lane area and be punished by a sizeable gravel trap – we can't even get them where they are actually needed nowadays that was the only 1 example of bad luck from 2007 anyway, his tyre blew up in Turkey and lost a podium that Alonso inherited.. amongst other things that season (Not including the obvious Brazil gearbox failure)

I think decisions that go against the foundation of the rules and betray the spirit of them, is as bad if not worse than changing the result after. although I'd argue quantifying how long after is key; within a day and ending the race result 'under investigation' I think is fine. Changing it 3 weeks later after declaring the result official isn't. Unfortunately we cannot rely on the FIA to have moral decency to call into question their own mistakes. They prefer to cover things up, as Jean Todt proved with the Ferrari engine saga, and his initial handling with the FIA over Abu Dhabi.

I tend to agree with most of that.
I think that I can recall some stewards decisions being appealed and having to be heard by the FIA World Council (Ferrari barge-boards circa 1998?), but would go with any race result would need to be ratified before the following event (unless something like a major/fundamental construction regulation transgression was discovered).

[Big Tea]

What ever happens from now on the result is not going to change. It is in far too many books and records, even the year book. Bookmakers would have to repay on the new result for instance, and they are not going to have that. Even just reconfiguring payments for points and re-engraving cups and plates, claims for merchandise with Max Verstappen World champion on or tee-shirts with the seasons results...you see where I am going.

Even if they wanted to, which they do not as it would set/break a precedent, they would be stymied in every direction. We have to accept it and move on.

[NathanOlder]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60170232
Michael Masi: FIA may end spell as race director after Abu Dhabi controversy

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/6 ... _getty.jpg




If they're saying it, that means they're looking at a replacement.



I don't mind if Masi stay's in a supporting role to a new director, as I said in a previous post, he is competent inspecting tracks for safety and was competent in enough areas outside of race control.



Is Bayer suggesting the judges would have favoured the opinion that the result should be void due to Massi making a mistake after all?

like he says, if they did void the result, Verstappen would still be Champion. He doesn't believe they would reinstate any lap or do anything that would change the result.

That must have been why Mercedes reconsidered the appeal. I think for the fans, this statement from Bayer, coming out of the FIA, shows they acknowledge he (Masi) messed up and ruined a race result though. Actions speak louder than words and what the FIA are doing now must be accepted as an admission of guilt on the part of Masi's actions that race.

Voiding the result would be one way to solve many issues with that last race. And then while they are at it, Spa needs voiding as well.

voiding the 2 biggest scandals in recent times would change the championship result too.

Maybe it would change it to something more palatable to Mercedes/Hamilton fans, and there is an argument to void the final race result. However, voiding the Spa result purely to obtain a different Championship outcome (months after the event - with no appeal from any party until it it is known that it would affect the Championship outcome), would be manipulation of the highest order.
That would go beyond the level of result manipulation that Mercedes/Hamilton fans have been railing against for two months now.
A worse outcome…

Oh I agree, its far too late to do anything now. I was just pointing out the race in Belgium was as much of a scandal as what happened in abu dhabi. Just all for different reasons. Both races for different reasons have no place in F1
It was just a coincidence that of these 2 scandals were removed, a different driver would be champion.

[Ryar]

Voiding the result would be one way to solve many issues with that last race. And then while they are at it, Spa needs voiding as well.

voiding the 2 biggest scandals in recent times would change the championship result too.

Maybe it would change it to something more palatable to Mercedes/Hamilton fans, and there is an argument to void the final race result. However, voiding the Spa result purely to obtain a different Championship outcome (months after the event - with no appeal from any party until it it is known that it would affect the Championship outcome), would be manipulation of the highest order.
That would go beyond the level of result manipulation that Mercedes/Hamilton fans have been railing against for two months now.
A worse outcome…

Oh I agree, its far too late to do anything now. I was just pointing out the race in Belgium was as much of a scandal as what happened in abu dhabi. Just all for different reasons. Both races for different reasons have no place in F1
It was just a coincidence that of these 2 scandals were removed, a different driver would be champion.

Is this going to be another "Hamilton got robbed because of FIA" thread? I thought this is about FIA in the context of 2022.