Poll: Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 2021, Yas Island - Race 22

Rate the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix out of ten. If you want. I can’t be arsed.

  • Total voters
    370
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joxeon said:
I thought Hamiltons sportsmanship was impeccable today considering the injustice he had to lose the championship.
Click to expand...

Indeed he was fantastic. I have always been a hater of Lewis but he has matured a lot since his thirties. I haven't seen anything this bad in sport since Chelsea Barcelona 2009.
 
EVH said:
Reading that I see any appeal failing, however they could question why only some cars were allowed to unlap, why the SC didn’t complete the full lap before coming in and why it needed to be different to any other occasion where they’ve finished a race under a SC.

Having that rule otherwise says the race director could effectively allow anything he sees fit.

RBs allowed to unlap themselves if they’re a lap down, but no one else.
Alpine to race the SC 0-100, winner buys the beers.
Only 3rd gear allowed whilst passing the SC on the left.

Such a catch all reg is open for massive abuse.
Click to expand...

Yes it could easily fail as well, its written way too vaguely which is what allowed this farcical ruling to get made.

I just dont think it was the intention to give one man the ability to make up the rules as he goes along, for the reasons you stated it would be stupid. Red Bull have found a loophole, and the FIA played along to back their man.
 
Lewis must be emotionally shattered after that.

He played his part perfectly, doing what he needed. Even racing 2 Red Bulls at times, he was able to do what he needed in tricky circumstances.

Without a rear gunner he was left out on to the worse of the tire strategies because he needed track position and he still managed to maintain a gap.

Right as he’s just about to start thinking of the after party he’s getting screwed over by a dubious SC.
 
EVH said:
Interesting that they’ve effectively admitted that they didn’t apply article 48.12 fully. That’ll have some legal eagles frothing at the mouth.

How can you choose to not apply a rule fully?

Sorry but I don’t see how that work and certainly not how article 48.13 supersedes it because the message “safety car in this lap” is shown.

Oh wait, we’ve got an argument for that too… we are allowed to make up when/how we use the SC now.

Clutching at straws.
Click to expand...

woppy101 said:
Yeah that gets ripped apart in court TBH, you can’t choose to only partly apply a rule as written
Click to expand...

Mercedes will argue 48.12 wasn't adhered to as all cars weren't allowed unlap themselves, however, Red Bull have successfully argued the rule clearly doesn't state that "all" cars are to unlap themselves. This has been used to Red Bulls advantage despite always believing that rule to mean all cars. The rule states any and arguing over "any" and "all" is a sad state of affairs for the championship. Red Bull would likely would defend this at court IMO due to the wording.

Red Bull also argued 48.13 overwrites 48.12 which is reasonable at face value but it shouldn't have been given to teams until the following lap as per the rules. This was defended by the FIA as an agreement that had been agreed between all the teams to end the race on a green light. Merc will argue that whilst they agreed to that they never agreed to something verbally said overriding the rule book. Article 48.13 clearly states "once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap" and as a result I can't see the FIA successfully defending this in court.

48.12 should be upheld but the wording needs to be changed to all IMO but 48.13 has clearly been broken.

15.3 really throws a spanner into 48.13 though and this will be a major deciding factor.
 
EVH said:
Lewis must be emotionally shattered after that.

He played his part perfectly, doing what he needed. Even racing 2 Red Bulls at times, he was able to do what he needed in tricky circumstances.

Without a rear gunner he was left out on to the worse of the tire strategies because he needed track position and he still managed to maintain a gap.

Right as he’s just about to start thinking of the after party he’s getting screwed over by a dubious SC.
Click to expand...

...and it wasn't even the safety car that lost him the race either. It was Masi's made up rule to only clear the track for Max and Max alone on the restart.
 
Also… I don’t believe in fan theories but Latifi was overtaking Schumacher. That’s some crazy irony there.
 
There is also another part of the steward hearing report which states they accepted Masi's reasoning for only allowing some cars by as only the lead cars matter, yet Sainz in 3rd still had a lapped car between him and Max in second, so apparently 3rd isnt a lead car in Masi's eyes. CAS might disagree with that one as well.

The FIA are going to have to explain the inconsistencies, and also why Masi decided no lapped cars passing to suddenly lapped cars passing, and as well as what you pointed out why previous processes were not followed.

Would CAS accept "for the entertainment" as a reason?
 
.Lethal said:
Mercedes will argue 48.12 wasn't adhered to as all cars weren't allowed unlap themselves, however, Red Bull have successfully argued the rule clearly doesn't state that "all" cars are to unlap themselves. This has been used to Red Bulls advantage despite always believing that rule to mean all cars. The rule states any and arguing over "any" and "all" is a sad state of affairs for the championship. Red Bull would likely would defend this at court IMO due to the wording.

Red Bull also argued 48.13 overwrites 48.12 which is reasonable at face value but it shouldn't have been given to teams until the following lap as per the rules. This was defended by the FIA as an agreement that had been agreed between all the teams to end the race on a green light. Merc will argue that whilst they agreed to that they never agreed to something verbally said overriding the rule book. Article 48.13 clearly states "once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap" and as a result I can't see the FIA successfully defending this in court.

48.12 should be upheld but the wording needs to be changed to all IMO but 48.13 has clearly been broken.

15.3 really throws a spanner into 48.12 though and this will be a major deciding factor.
Click to expand...

Yup, the FIA are still admitting they made a mistake and that the rules were not followed.
 
EVH said:
Right as he’s just about to start thinking of the after party he’s getting screwed over by a dubious SC.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the SC call was fine. It should have just come sooner, as it was blatantly obvious Latifi's car was going to need marshalls and machinery on the track to move it. Massi has at numerous times this year left it waaaaaay too long to call SC/VSC, and this was another of those. Had he called it immediately, Merc would have been able to make the choice to bring Ham in for fresh tyres and we wouldn't be in this mess.
 
chrcoluk said:
There is also another part of the steward hearing report which states they accepted Masi's reasoning for only allowing some cars by as only the lead cars matter, yet Sainz in 3rd still had a lapped car between him and Max in second, so apparently 3rd isnt a lead car in Masi's eyes. CAS might disagree with that one as well.
Click to expand...

and since when would the teams EVER agree to such a rule. A rule like that could affect any number of positions unfairly.
 
GravyMonster said:
To be fair, the SC call was fine. It should have just come sooner, as it was blatantly obvious Latifi's car was going to need marshalls and machinery on the track to move it. Massi has at numerous times this year left it waaaaaay too long to call SC/VSC, and this was another of those. Had he called it immediately, Merc would have been able to make the choice to bring Ham in for fresh tyres and we wouldn't be in this mess.
Click to expand...
Sorry I meant to write SC restart. I agree the SC was required.
 
Jono8 said:
and since when would the teams EVER agree to such a rule. A rule like that could affect any number of positions unfairly.
Click to expand...

I dont think they agreed to the rule, Masi made this rule up on the spot, the only thing they agreed to was to try and avoid ending races under SC conditions.
 
chrcoluk said:
There is also another part of the steward hearing report which states they accepted Masi's reasoning for only allowing some cars by as only the lead cars matter, yet Sainz in 3rd still had a lapped car between him and Max in second, so apparently 3rd isnt a lead car in Masi's eyes. CAS might disagree with that one as well.

The FIA are going to have to explain the inconsistencies, and also why Masi decided no lapped cars passing to suddenly lapped cars passing, and as well as what you pointed out why previous processes were not followed.

Would CAS accept "for the entertainment" as a reason?
Click to expand...
After CAS let Man City get away with ffp murder, I don’t put anything past them.
 
I wonder if this is even possible?

CAS acknowledge 15.3 wins out but then declares 15.3 in itself is unsporting.

I think Merc might not appeal though so we wont find out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom