FIA Thread

[spam account 1]

There’s lots of talk about the Race Director’s error, but very little about the Stewards. The post race Appeal to Stewards mechanism is supposed to catch errors made during the race. But they didn’t. They compounded it with an “error” of their own. So if the new Race Director(s) make a good faith error that determines the race result what guidance have thecStewards now got about how to handle it?

So true. The stewards were part of it and should all have been thrown out as well, but they've got away hardly being mentioned as you say. Of course their bosses are the same as Masi's bosses, and they also run the F1 media

[Big Tea]

There’s lots of talk about the Race Director’s error, but very little about the Stewards. The post race Appeal to Stewards mechanism is supposed to catch errors made during the race. But they didn’t. They compounded it with an “error” of their own. So if the new Race Director(s) make a good faith error that determines the race result what guidance have thecStewards now got about how to handle it?

I think they are going for blame rather than remedy, and they are not even pinning the blame.
They always leave a vague feeling of missing the boat

[Wouter]

A few quotes from an interesting nice long read. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the- ... s/9137893/

The unexpected question the FIA's Abu Dhabi F1 report does not address

The FIA's report into the Abu Dhabi GP controversy has been published, and the unexpected question it triggers is why did Formula 1 race director Michael Masi lose his job?

One remarkable aspect of the document, not mentioned within it but confirmed to Motorsport.com by multiple sources, is that
neither Masi nor his deputy in Abu Dhabi, Scot Elkins, were actually interviewed as part of the investigation.

That fact has to be taken into account, but despite the lack of an opportunity to defend himself, Masi comes out of it remarkably well.

Indeed, there is no direct criticism of his actions, other than a reference to "human error" regarding the lapped cars behind the safety car.

Instead, there is extensive explanation of why his job was so difficult, and how the infamous radio interventions from team bosses Christian Horner and Toto Wolff had an impact in distracting him from the job at hand.

Indeed, in summarising the report's conclusions, the FIA makes the following significant statement: "In combination with the objective to finish under green flag racing conditions applied throughout the 2021 season, the report finds that the race director was acting in good faith and to the best of his knowledge given the difficult circumstances, particularly acknowledging the significant time constraints for decisions to be made and the immense pressure being applied by the teams."

The actual report only rarely references Masi by name, and instead refers in generic terms to his job title.

One key part of the summary is that he had taken on, or been given, far too much responsibility.

To summarise, there is nothing in the report that says Masi screwed up or made a mistake or did anything untoward, and this, as noted, was without him being allowed to defend himself and provide extra context on why he did what he did on that fateful evening in Abu Dhabi.

[Roo]

A few quotes from an interesting nice long read. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the- ... s/9137893/

The unexpected question the FIA's Abu Dhabi F1 report does not address

The FIA's report into the Abu Dhabi GP controversy has been published, and the unexpected question it triggers is why did Formula 1 race director Michael Masi lose his job?

One remarkable aspect of the document, not mentioned within it but confirmed to Motorsport.com by multiple sources, is that
neither Masi nor his deputy in Abu Dhabi, Scot Elkins, were actually interviewed as part of the investigation.

That fact has to be taken into account, but despite the lack of an opportunity to defend himself, Masi comes out of it remarkably well.

Indeed, there is no direct criticism of his actions, other than a reference to "human error" regarding the lapped cars behind the safety car.

Instead, there is extensive explanation of why his job was so difficult, and how the infamous radio interventions from team bosses Christian Horner and Toto Wolff had an impact in distracting him from the job at hand.

Indeed, in summarising the report's conclusions, the FIA makes the following significant statement: "In combination with the objective to finish under green flag racing conditions applied throughout the 2021 season, the report finds that the race director was acting in good faith and to the best of his knowledge given the difficult circumstances, particularly acknowledging the significant time constraints for decisions to be made and the immense pressure being applied by the teams."

The actual report only rarely references Masi by name, and instead refers in generic terms to his job title.

One key part of the summary is that he had taken on, or been given, far too much responsibility.

To summarise, there is nothing in the report that says Masi screwed up or made a mistake or did anything untoward, and this, as noted, was without him being allowed to defend himself and provide extra context on why he did what he did on that fateful evening in Abu Dhabi.

https://c.tenor.com/NOl3eS9N5VgAAAAj/th ... py-poo.gif

What is worse is that they're reducing openness, the vary openness that placed them under scrutiny

[Red Rock Mutley]

There’s lots of talk about the Race Director’s error, but very little about the Stewards. The post race Appeal to Stewards mechanism is supposed to catch errors made during the race. But they didn’t. They compounded it with an “error” of their own. So if the new Race Director(s) make a good faith error that determines the race result what guidance have thecStewards now got about how to handle it?

The Stewards options are binary when it comes to determining whether a competition was run to the rules. Either they determine events were within the scope of the rule book, in which they are obliged to uphold the result. Or they determine they weren't, in which case they may void the result. Imposing a result is considered going off-book

Theoretically, the judgement is taken to the normal common law standard, however, in practice, the bar to voiding a result is set very high; it's expected to be used seldomly

The Steward's report did raise an eyebrow, they adjudged the running of the event in a similar manner as the teams approach the technical regulations. Where plain reading of the rules may close off avenues, but forensic analysis of the wording opens paths of interpretation. Hence their finding that, while critical of the RD's actions, they found them to be an unusual interpretation of the rules, but he did not break them

Having said that, taking a step back, neither of the binary options available to the Stewards would have affected the drivers' championship

[GrizzleBoy]

The report quite literally says that Michael Masi made errors because of pressure from "team bosses".

But when you look at what played out and tie it in with his conversation with one particular team, in some kind of shitty round about way the FIA are putting it in black and white that Masi made a litany of "errors", but its just a coincidence that they all matched up with the requests of one particular teams pit wall.....

But you know what. Why in the world am I being told about "pressure from the teams"?

Who cares about that? Since when was the race director beholden to team bosses? Do they realise they are admitting that Masi was behaving like some kind of servant?

Is there some rule that he needs to answer any of the team principles calls if he is busy trying to keep the drivers/marshals etc safe during a safety car period?

Why did he feel he had to be kissing Wheatley and Horners ass? He had a job to do. Why does he need to stop doing it and say "give me a minute", "yep, yep", "understood" just because a team boss and tech manager and whinging on the phone?

He didn't have to answer the phone. He CHOSE to.

He didn't have to listen to their demands. He CHOSE to.

He didn't have to stop doing his primary job in that situation to be dictated to as to how to do his job. He CHOSE to.

If he needed to have a clear head, he could've shown Wheatley and Horner the same cold and hard stance he did in his reply to Wolff and told them to **** off and let him do his job. But he CHOSE to let them go on and on with their direction of the race director.

Masi had all the ability to make all the correct choices, but he CHOSE to stop focusing on doing his job to be dictated to, he CHOSE to behave like some Red Bull brown noser, he CHOSE to do all of it, when he didn't HAVE to do any of it.

Spinning it as "too distracted" when there was no obligation for him to be distracted beyond his own CHOICES is trash.

Someone needs to tell me why if time was constrained and it was a such a high pressure situation and he needed a clear head to do the right thing, why he didn't actually just focus on the race until he had the time to talk to Red Bull.

[Big Tea]

The report quite literally says that Michael Masi made errors because of pressure from "team bosses".

But when you look at what played out and tie it in with his conversation with one particular team, in some kind of shitty round about way the FIA are putting it in black and white that Masi made a litany of "errors", but its just a coincidence that they all matched up with the requests of one particular teams pit wall.....

But you know what. Why in the world am I being told about "pressure from the teams"?

Who cares about that? Since when was the race director beholden to team bosses? Do they realise they are admitting that Masi was behaving like some kind of servant?

Is there some rule that he needs to answer any of the team principles calls if he is busy trying to keep the drivers/marshals etc safe during a safety car period?

Why did he feel he had to be kissing Wheatley and Horners ass? He had a job to do. Why does he need to stop doing it and say "give me a minute", "yep, yep", "understood" just because a team boss and tech manager and whinging on the phone?

He didn't have to answer the phone. He CHOSE to.

He didn't have to listen to their demands. He CHOSE to.

He didn't have to stop doing his primary job in that situation to be dictated to as to how to do his job. He CHOSE to.

If he needed to have a clear head, he could've shown Wheatley and Horner the same cold and hard stance he did in his reply to Wolff and told them to **** off and let him do his job. But he CHOSE to let them go on and on with their direction of the race director.

Masi had all the ability to make all the correct choices, but he CHOSE to stop focusing on doing his job to be dictated to, he CHOSE to behave like some Red Bull brown noser, he CHOSE to do all of it, when he didn't HAVE to do any of it.

Spinning it as "too distracted" when there was no obligation for him to be distracted beyond his own CHOICES is trash.

Someone needs to tell me why if time was constrained and it was a such a high pressure situation and he needed a clear head to do the right thing, why he didn't actually just focus on the race until he had the time to talk to Red Bull.

I would prefer to use the term 'he was accommodating' (to all teams)

[diffuser]

There’s lots of talk about the Race Director’s error, but very little about the Stewards. The post race Appeal to Stewards mechanism is supposed to catch errors made during the race. But they didn’t. They compounded it with an “error” of their own. So if the new Race Director(s) make a good faith error that determines the race result what guidance have thecStewards now got about how to handle it?

Well, in their defense, they ruled on if the RD was allowed to do what he did rather whether it was right.

[diffuser]

Let's not lose site of the fact that Masi was fired. That, by itself, speaks volumes about the FIAs feeling of his handling of the situation. The fact that they're not piling on in a report is besides the point.

[Big Tea]

Ref the policing track limits, I think it may be a better option to make the limit the inside / outside (depending on corner) wheels the one that must stay on track rather than all 4 wheels off.
Easier for drivers to judge, easier for policing, and in the event of a fracas a little more room for a car getting caught outside before it hits something or gets in the gravel and brings it back on track.
This could be further aided with a 'rumble strip' outside the line when the driver would be in no doubt he was going over the limit before losing his time or getting penalised.
Any thoughts?

[AeroDynamic]

so max's technique will no longer be endorsed with that 'let em race' nonsense we saw most of the last season? the drivers don't agree with Max, and neither do the new FIA? ha!

that special 'let em race' pass people leaned on to cheat out drivers in wheel to wheel has been revoked hopefully. Classy real racing might be back. Who can forget when this started? Austria 2019 when Charles was cheated out of that win in a move that reminded me of what Rosberg did a few years earlier



so What happened in Monza t4 and Imola t1 would not be correct?

Masi's era really seemed to have gone hopefully its really gone

[henry]

There’s lots of talk about the Race Director’s error, but very little about the Stewards. The post race Appeal to Stewards mechanism is supposed to catch errors made during the race. But they didn’t. They compounded it with an “error” of their own. So if the new Race Director(s) make a good faith error that determines the race result what guidance have thecStewards now got about how to handle it?

The Stewards options are binary when it comes to determining whether a competition was run to the rules. Either they determine events were within the scope of the rule book, in which they are obliged to uphold the result. Or they determine they weren't, in which case they may void the result. Imposing a result is considered going off-book

Theoretically, the judgement is taken to the normal common law standard, however, in practice, the bar to voiding a result is set very high; it's expected to be used seldomly

The Steward's report did raise an eyebrow, they adjudged the running of the event in a similar manner as the teams approach the technical regulations. Where plain reading of the rules may close off avenues, but forensic analysis of the wording opens paths of interpretation. Hence their finding that, while critical of the RD's actions, they found them to be an unusual interpretation of the rules, but he did not break them

Having said that, taking a step back, neither of the binary options available to the Stewards would have affected the drivers' championship

You’re right. It made no difference to the outcome for WDC. other positions may have been affected, I haven’t checked. Maybe that’s why Mercedes dropped their appeal. It would take a brave steward to declare a result void. there are many interested parties that would have been unhappy. Once the error was made there was no way to rectify the situation. So the moves to make errors less likely are to be welcomed.

[diffuser]

so max's technique will no longer be endorsed with that 'let em race' nonsense we saw most of the last season? the drivers don't agree with Max, and neither do the new FIA? ha!

that special 'let em race' pass people leaned on to cheat out drivers in wheel to wheel has been revoked hopefully. Classy real racing might be back. Who can forget when this started? Austria 2019 when Charles was cheated out of that win in a move that reminded me of what Rosberg did a few years earlier

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... height=423

so What happened in Monza t4 and Imola t1 would not be correct?

Masi's era really seemed to have gone hopefully its really gone

It happend before that but that was the first major occurrence between leaders. Max has been driving like that since he came into F1.

[AeroDynamic]

so max's technique will no longer be endorsed with that 'let em race' nonsense we saw most of the last season? the drivers don't agree with Max, and neither do the new FIA? ha!

that special 'let em race' pass people leaned on to cheat out drivers in wheel to wheel has been revoked hopefully. Classy real racing might be back. Who can forget when this started? Austria 2019 when Charles was cheated out of that win in a move that reminded me of what Rosberg did a few years earlier

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... height=423

so What happened in Monza t4 and Imola t1 would not be correct?

Masi's era really seemed to have gone hopefully its really gone

It happend before that but that was the first major occurrence between leaders. Max has been driving like that since he came into F1.

Shhhh.

Let them race (crash) is set to be a thing of the past.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60815007

[oT v1]

That’s motor racing Toto!

What a mess. Do you guys think Merc dropped the case for Masi’s head? Or the ambiguity in the rules prevented them pursuing it?