Motorsports Thread

[Jody]

.....and support what is a spurious argument (as confirmed by the FIA)

Imagine being a judge and able to rule your own case. Doubt many would find themselves guilty.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

F1 results now have about as much credibility as the wrestling I used to watch in the 80's on World of Sport.

And the wrestling was more entertaining.

1980s?

You missed it in its prime. McManus, Pallo, Count Bartelli (lived in a bungalow just down the road) Kendo Nagasaki. Jumpers for goalposts, F1 cars that killed you to death if you even sat in them.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Imagine being a judge and able to rule your own case. Doubt many would find themselves guilty.

That's academic. The teams signed up to that arrangement, and Mercedes in particular are well versed in interpreting them.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

That's academic. The teams signed up to that arrangement, and Mercedes in particular are well versed in interpreting them.

It's really not. That's why in the Concord Agreement there's provision for ICAS to act as the final arbitrator.

 

[Alex321]

I'd say you misquoting the regulations to try and support what is a spurious argument (as confirmed by the FIA) is more akin to a rise.

You really believe that "as confirmed by the FIA" has any validity/credibility in these circumstances?

 

[figbat]

There is apparently , read the stewards decision on Mercedes's protest.

I have. It states “Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully” (which means not applied - it is either done or not done). It argues that Article 48.13 overrides this, but it doesn’t. 48.13 states, in paraphrase, that once the safety car has been recalled it comes in that lap. However it doesn’t say that the safety car can be recalled at whim, or in contravention to other articles. Masi recalled the safety car incorrectly, but once he had it had to come it. The first action was the error and against the regulations.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

You really believe that "as confirmed by the FIA" has any validity/credibility in these circumstances?

Yup, they're the body tasked with such issues, and the one the teams signed up to. You may not like their interpretation, but at present, it's the deciding factor at this stage.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

It's really not. That's why in the Concord Agreement there's provision for ICAS to act as the final arbitrator.

See above response.

 

[FishFright]

I have. It states “Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully” (which means not applied - it is either done or not done). It argues that Article 48.13 overrides this, but it doesn’t. 48.13 states, in paraphrase, that once the safety car has been recalled it comes in that lap. However it doesn’t say that the safety car can be recalled at whim, or in contravention to other articles. Masi recalled the safety car incorrectly, but once he had it had to come it. The first action was the error and against the regulations.

That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.

He's been winging it all season and bowing to pressure from who shouts the loudest.

 

[Alex321]

Yup, they're the body tasked with such issues, and the one the teams signed up to. You may not like their interpretation, but at present, it's the deciding factor at this stage.

They are the body whose representative on the day appears to have played fast and loose with the rules, in order to engineer the end to the race he wanted to see. Of course they are going to "confirm" that it was OK.

Unfortunately, no matter what happens now, nobody is really going to be happy, and if it goes to court, the name of F1 will have really been dragged through the mud.

The odds are IMO that if it goes to court, the decision will be that the race should have finished under the safety car, and Hamilton may be awarded the title as a result. But I don't think either he or Mercedes would have wanted to win it that way. And if it doesn't go to court, or the court decides otherwise, I suspect that neither Verstappen nor Red Bull are really happy about having won it in those circumstances.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

They are the body whose representative on the day appears to have played fast and loose with the rules, in order to engineer the end to the race he wanted to see. Of course they are going to "confirm" that it was OK.

Unfortunately, no matter what happens now, nobody is really going to be happy, and if it goes to court, the name of F1 will have really been dragged through the mud.

The odds are IMO that if it goes to court, the decision will be that the race should have finished under the safety car, and Hamilton may be awarded the title as a result. But I don't think either he or Mercedes would have wanted to win it that way. And if it doesn't go to court, or the court decides otherwise, I suspect that neither Verstappen nor Red Bull are really happy about having won it in those circumstances.

The fact Verstappen is announced as Champion, and Red Bull Construction winners suggest they do make the rules, and the rest is simply wishful thinking.

 

[Jody]

The fact Verstappen is announced as Champion, and Red Bull Construction winners suggest they do make the rules, and the rest is simply wishful thinking.

Which season have you been watching?

 

[MasterDabber]

I'd say you misquoting the regulations to try and support what is a spurious argument (as confirmed by the FIA) is more akin to a rise.

I can't work out whether you're being serious or just trying a wind up....... either way, you really are hilarious.

 

[matticus]

Mercedes claimed that there were two breaches of the Sporting Regulations (Article 48.12) namely that which states “..any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car” and

<snip>

Red Bull argued that

1. “Any” does not mean “all”.

Red Bull are not speaking the same English as I speak here. The two words have exactly the same effect in this sentence.

 

[Reynard]

I might be totally contrary to you gentlemen, as I *WOULD* like this to go to court.

Because it's not about the result, it's about the whole integrity of the sport - especially when the officials aren't man enough to admit it's been an omnishambles and do the right thing.

Masi was a deputy race director under Charlie Whiting. Due to circumstance, Masi was promoted to a job he does not have the ability or fortitude to carry out. The other was / is Scott Elkins, who is now the Formula E race director. The difference in professionalism between the two men is light years apart. The FIA definitely went for the wrong man IMHO, and now they're paying the price.