FIA Thread

[AeroDynamic]

their decision making hinged on Masi following the rules. He did not. Thats the only reason why RBR won. The only 'outsmarting' they did, was lobbying Masi. If what they did was so smart, why did they need to ask for a racing lap and lobby him so hard that F1 have had to ban that capability?

[Hoffman900]

I rewatched the last 10 laps all over again. At the point when SC occurred and immediately Max was pitted, Lewis was moaning on the radio that they have missed an opportunity and he was persistently asking what can be done and at that point Bono's only answer was, "we would have lost the position". Despite that, the pit crew came out, but only to realize it was way too late. None of what Masi was going to do later, was a reason in not pitting. They were outsmarted by Red Bull with the advantage of position. Everything else is an after thought to hide that error of not pitting.

I don’t know how many times this has to be explained to you, but you are wrong.

The only people I know who are happy with the result are die hard Max / Honda / RBR fans. Actual fans of motorsports and racing are deeply bothered by how this went down

Hell, I like Honda but this was a sham. And so was awarding points at Spa.

Someone repeating it over and over again, doesn't make it truth.

People have quoted the rules ad nauseam, paired with the timeline of events, and this situation, as it happens, is when Masi doesn’t follow the rules.

This is a rudimentary logic problem and a quite simple one. Mercedes only dropped this to play the long political game, otherwise this would end ugly for everyone if the lawyers got involved.

[Ryar]

their decision making hinged on Masi following the rules. He did not. Thats the only reason why RBR won. The only 'outsmarting' they did, was lobbying Masi. If what they did was so smart, why did they need to ask for a racing lap and lobby him so hard that F1 have had to ban that capability?

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

[AeroDynamic]

their decision making hinged on Masi following the rules. He did not. Thats the only reason why RBR won. The only 'outsmarting' they did, was lobbying Masi. If what they did was so smart, why did they need to ask for a racing lap and lobby him so hard that F1 have had to ban that capability?

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

They gambled on predictable following of the actual rules. So did RBR.. it wasn't working for RBR so they had to lobby Masi and Masi recreated the rules in their benefit. Luck was nothing to do with it when you consider this.

[Hoffman900]

their decision making hinged on Masi following the rules. He did not. Thats the only reason why RBR won. The only 'outsmarting' they did, was lobbying Masi. If what they did was so smart, why did they need to ask for a racing lap and lobby him so hard that F1 have had to ban that capability?

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

There was no gamble. Masi was to do what the rules are. He didn’t.

There isn’t a “wildcard” rule where it’s “guess what the race director is going to do”.

-Masi makes any decision how he pleases- “Toto, it’s called WILDCARD. YEEEE HAWWW”

Even NASCAR isn’t that bad.

[Just_a_fan]

Why should Masi be bothered about the tyre situation of any car? Just because Mercedes didn't choose to pit, should give some kind of soft corner in Race Director's heart?

The choice not to pit was driven by the understanding of the written rules and what Masi had previously said was absolutely essential - that all of the cars must be fully unlapped if unlapping occurs before the SC is called in.

At the point the SC was put out, had the rules been followed as written and as demanded by Masi previously, they would either run out of laps or there would be a train of cars between Max and Lewis. Either way pitting would have meant losing track position and thus giving up the race. Staying out meant keeping track position and either finishing behind the SC (win race and title) or restarting for a lap or two but with a lot of cars in between Lewis and Max which would mean a good chance of winning the race and title.

It was the F1 equivalent of Pascal's Wager. Only this time, Masi came along and proved that God doesn't exist thus buggering up Pascal's choice...

I rewatched the last 10 laps all over again. At the point when SC occurred and immediately Max was pitted, Lewis was moaning on the radio that they have missed an opportunity and he was persistently asking what can be done and at that point Bono's only answer was, "we would have lost the position". Despite that, the pit crew came out, but only to realize it was way too late. None of what Masi was going to do later, was a reason in not pitting. They were outsmarted by Red Bull with the advantage of position. Everything else is an after thought to hide that error of not pitting. At the end of lap 55, the stricken Williams was removed and there was a clear opportunity to let the lapped cars go, but Masi waited another lap and half with confusion to make that call. Had he made that call to let the lapped cars go at the end of lap 55 when the car was removed, there could have been atleast 2 laps of racing. I wonder what Mercedes would be complaining about.

They weren't outsmarted at all. In every other race, in the same situation, pitting from where they were would lose position and put them in a place where would struggle to compete for the win. You don't give up track position in a SC that close to the end of the race. Or rather, you didn't right up until the way the game is played was changed by Masi following coaching from Wheatley.

You can spin it anyway you like but even other drivers - who have no interest in who wins the title if it's not them - have said it was done badly.

As for Red Bull's course of action - they had nothing to lose by pitting for fresh tyres in that situation. It was effectively a free tyre change. Any team would have done the same in that situation - there is nothing clever in that call.

[Just_a_fan]

their decision making hinged on Masi following the rules. He did not. Thats the only reason why RBR won. The only 'outsmarting' they did, was lobbying Masi. If what they did was so smart, why did they need to ask for a racing lap and lobby him so hard that F1 have had to ban that capability?

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

Mercedes expected a certain course of events to unfold based on the rules and precedent. That's not gambling, especially as Masi had been so categorical in his previous insistence that all cars had be fully unlapped before the SC could be pulled back in.

[Ryar]

their decision making hinged on Masi following the rules. He did not. Thats the only reason why RBR won. The only 'outsmarting' they did, was lobbying Masi. If what they did was so smart, why did they need to ask for a racing lap and lobby him so hard that F1 have had to ban that capability?

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

Mercedes expected a certain course of events to unfold based on the rules and precedent. That's not gambling, especially as Masi had been so categorical in his previous insistence that all cars had be fully unlapped before the SC could be pulled back in.

Like I mentioned in earlier post, the gamble took place on lap 54. Decision to pit or not was to be taken when the incident occurred on lap 54 and at that time. 5 laps still to go. Mercedes chose not to pit. Martin Brundle in the commentary predicted, there would be a lap or two of racing at the end. What Masi did later doesn't absolve Mercedes. Like I said, at the end of Lap 55, the stricken car was out. Masi's error was to not letting the lapped cars unlap on lap 56 when the track was clear and give it a go. He took that decision late. Either ways, Mercedes were caught pants down.

[Just_a_fan]

Either ways, Mercedes were caught pants down.

FFS man, it's F1 101 - you don't give up track position in such situations. Had Hamilton had a 30 second gap to Max and the safety car been called before he got to the pit entry, they probably would have risked it - the chance of losing track position would have been minimal then. As it was, they absolutely would have given up track position if they'd pitted. And if the SC period had lasted a lap or two longer, there would have been no racing laps and they would have lost the race. In either case, however, Max had nothing to lose by pitting. It was a no-risk call for them

None of this is complicated. It's what we've seen for years. Quite why anyone thinks they can spin it as "Mercedes were outthought by Red Bull" or similar is beyond me.

[NathanOlder]

their decision making hinged on Masi following the rules. He did not. Thats the only reason why RBR won. The only 'outsmarting' they did, was lobbying Masi. If what they did was so smart, why did they need to ask for a racing lap and lobby him so hard that F1 have had to ban that capability?

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

If Masi followed the rules, who would have won the race.

Answer that please.

[Ryar]

their decision making hinged on Masi following the rules. He did not. Thats the only reason why RBR won. The only 'outsmarting' they did, was lobbying Masi. If what they did was so smart, why did they need to ask for a racing lap and lobby him so hard that F1 have had to ban that capability?

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

If Masi followed the rules, who would have won the race.

Answer that please.

If Masi would have taken the decision to let the lapped cars unlap on Lap 56 when the Williams was removed at the end of lap 55, who would have won the race?

[NathanOlder]

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

If Masi followed the rules, who would have won the race.

Answer that please.

If Masi would have taken the decision to let the lapped cars unlap on Lap 56 when the Williams was removed at the end of lap 55, who would have won the race?

As expected you are unable to answer such a simple question as you can't see past your complete bias.

[NathanOlder]

Mercedes essentially gambled on what Masi was to do and lost!

If Masi followed the rules, who would have won the race.

Answer that please.

If Masi would have taken the decision to let the lapped cars unlap on Lap 56 when the Williams was removed at the end of lap 55, who would have won the race?

To answer your question, not that I need to after you just ignored mine, I would have said it would be between Max, Sainz and Lewis. With such a poor run out of turn out of turn 5 for both Max and Lewis, Carlos would have been right in there as he would have set up for a decent launch out of turn 5.

Dont forget though, the williams removal was delayed due to the fire

[Ryar]

If Masi followed the rules, who would have won the race.

Answer that please.

If Masi would have taken the decision to let the lapped cars unlap on Lap 56 when the Williams was removed at the end of lap 55, who would have won the race?

To answer your question, not that I need to after you just ignored mine, I would have said it would be between Max, Sainz and Lewis. With such a poor run out of turn out of turn 5 for both Max and Lewis, Carlos would have been right in there as he would have set up for a decent launch out of turn 5.

Dont forget though, the williams removal was delayed due to the fire

Only one problem. Carlos didn't pit a second time. He was on one stop and had 35 old hards against Max with fresh Softs. Carlos wouldn't have got the traction required out of corners like Max, even with a compromised entry on turn 5 and neither did Ferrari had the grunt over Honda and Mercedes, especially without DRS.

Regarding Williams removal, I posted the picture above.

[NathanOlder]

If Masi would have taken the decision to let the lapped cars unlap on Lap 56 when the Williams was removed at the end of lap 55, who would have won the race?

To answer your question, not that I need to after you just ignored mine, I would have said it would be between Max, Sainz and Lewis. With such a poor run out of turn out of turn 5 for both Max and Lewis, Carlos would have been right in there as he would have set up for a decent launch out of turn 5.

Dont forget though, the williams removal was delayed due to the fire

Only one problem. Carlos didn't pit a second time. He was on one stop and had 35 old hards against Max with fresh Softs. Carlos wouldn't have got the traction required out of corners like Max, even with a compromised entry on turn 5 and neither did Ferrari had the grunt over Honda and Mercedes, especially without DRS.

Carlos still would have had a better line and a double tow, so it proves that you would never know who won if there was 1 racing lap AND all the back markers out the way.