Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note
his trajectory).
take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win'
on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a
SC to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was
the Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a
victim card. They just need to pick the card.
build wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note
his trajectory).
take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win'
on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a
SC to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was
the Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a<sigh>
victim card. They just need to pick the card.
I seems ignoring you is not enough to prevent you being an ignorant and annoying drunk asshole.
Have a nice off season in rehab.
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
trajectory).
avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
trajectory).
avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the ovictim cardo all
season. In this instance Mercedes donAt need to play a card because they >*are* victims - victims of MasiAs illegal decision to effectively award the >race to Max.
ItAs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have >deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be >tainted.
Masi should go.
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take >>> avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his >>>> trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they >*are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the
race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly haveI agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be >tainted.
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this becameMasi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being
influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:his >>>> trajectory).
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance itThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for
was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the ovictim cardo all season. In this instance Mercedes donAt need to play a card because
they *are* victims - victims of MasiAs illegal decision to
effectively award the race to Max.
ItAs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for Max
whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being
influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max then he is probably not the man for the job.
"Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:
Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max then he is
probably not the man for the job.
If he did realise he was handing the championship to Max, then he is >*definitely* not the man for the job.
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
-a trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his
new soft tyres.
Hollow, and a travesty.
geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
trajectory).
It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
trajectory).
avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
Masi should go.
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take >>>> avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his >>>>> trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all
season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they >> *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the
race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have
deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:his >>>> trajectory).
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance itThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for
was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because
they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to
effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for Max
whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max then he is probably not the man for the job.
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
wrote:On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid>
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
his >>>> trajectory).Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
Hamilton to
HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity
to
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
it >>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instanceTo not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
unusual for
a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play
a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal
decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
car which would have been within the regulations but still
allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big
one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max then
he is probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
They chose not to.
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid>wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
(note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding
up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting
or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
'win' on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the race but in
this instance it was the Race Director that determined the
winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY
all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card
because they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision
to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for Max
whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen
a half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:his >>>> trajectory).
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
HAM.-a >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not. >>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance itThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for
was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
a victim card.-a >> They just need to pick the card.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because
they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to
effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for Max
whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to-a "go racing"
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision --a everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max then he is
probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
They chose not to.
On 2021-12-12 7:21 a.m., geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
-a-a trajectory).
Give it a rest.
Hamilton came out of that exchange with a larger lead than he had and no...
...he did not give all the advantage he gained back.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
It was utterly brilliant drivign.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
Hollow, and a travesty.
You wouldn't say that about this if it hadn't been the last race of the year.
Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there really was no choice.
Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
drivers to race to the finish.
Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other choices.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid>
it >>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:his >>>> trajectory).
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
Hamilton to
HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not. >>>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity
to
a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instanceThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
unusual for
a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play
a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal
decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
car which would have been within the regulations but still
allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big
one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max then
he is probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
You understand NOTHING about the race. You should perhaps shut up. You
have done nothing but make a fool of yourself lately.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
No, they couldn't.
Do you need it explaining?
They chose not to.
Correct.
On 13/12/2021 12:44 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:his >>>> trajectory).
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote: >>>>>>> geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
HAM.-a >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not. >>>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance itThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely >>>>>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for
was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
a victim card.-a >> They just need to pick the card.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>>>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because >>>>> they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to
effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for Max
whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to-a "go racing"
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision --a everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max then he is
probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
They chose not to.
That would have gifted track position to VER.
On 13/12/2021 12:34 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:21 a.m., geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
-a-a trajectory).
Give it a rest.
Hamilton came out of that exchange with a larger lead than he had and
no...
...he did not give all the advantage he gained back.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
It was utterly brilliant drivign.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
Hollow, and a travesty.
You wouldn't say that about this if it hadn't been the last race of
the year.
Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But
there really was no choice.
Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
drivers to race to the finish.
Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires
because they wanted track position. They had their chances to make
other choices.
Did what he could to ensure VER didn't have to pass 4 back-markers on
track, as HAM did have to prior.
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take >>>>> avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his >>>>>> trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. >>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on >>>>>> his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC >>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the >>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they >>> *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the
race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have
deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be >>> tainted.
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being
influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been the
same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end of
the race.
On 2021-12-12 8:38 a.m., Sir Tim wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take >>>> avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his >>>>> trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all
season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they >> *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the
race to Max.
If the decision was "illegal"...
...then quote the regulation that it violates.
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:He definitely did not apply 48.12
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take >>>> avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his >>>>> trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they
*are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the
race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have
deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be
tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
On 2021-12-12 4:05 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
wrote:On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_email@invalid.invalid>
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
not.his >>>> trajectory).Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
Hamilton to
HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
it >>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instanceTo not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for
a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially
for Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone
is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
then he is probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
You understand NOTHING about the race. You should perhaps shut up.
You have done nothing but make a fool of yourself lately.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
No, they couldn't.
Yes. They could.
Do you need it explaining?
They chose not to.
Correct.
You get that that completely contradicts your earlier "No, they
couldn't", right?
On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 13/12/2021 12:44 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
wrote:On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid>
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
not.his >>>> trajectory).Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
Hamilton to
HAM.-a >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
instance it >>>>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in thisTo not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for
a victim card.-a >> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially
for Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to-a "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision --a everyone
is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
then he is probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
They chose not to.
That would have gifted track position to VER.
Yup.
But Hamilton ended up with track position...
...and we saw how well that worked out.
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
wrote: >>>> geoff wrote:build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
(note his >>>>> trajectory).
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
to take >>>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
not. >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is notThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
winner. >>>
play a victim card. >>> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
all >> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they >> are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the >> race to Max.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY
thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
He definitely did not apply 48.12I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "goWhich regulation do you claim Masi breached?
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
car which would have been within the regulations but still
allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as
the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision is
that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse
him of breaching the regs.
Even though many would take a plain
English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards
decision, he did breach the regs.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
That would have gifted track position to VER.
Yup.
But Hamilton ended up with track position...
...and we saw how well that worked out.
Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there really was no choice.
Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
drivers to race to the finish.
Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other choices.
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
That would have gifted track position to VER.
Yup.
But Hamilton ended up with track position...
...and we saw how well that worked out.
You're missing the point.
Look at the options...
Under the precedents of all prior SC periods, it was reasonable to
assume that the backmarkers would either remain in place or there
would (if time) be unlapped and reformed as part of the queue behind
the safety car before a restart. In the closing laps of the race, it
was reasonable to assume that the race would end under the safety car.
Now there's the question of changing tyres. If Hamilton goes in first, Verstappen has options. He's behind so he can respond to the move.
Option 1: Red Bull can pull him in and gamble Verstappen can somehow
catch and pass Hamilton. Given the short time period, the likelihood
that there will be few if any racing laps, and given they would both
be on equally fresh tyres, this is not a credible option.
Option 2: Red Bull leave him out and he gambles on either the SC
running to the end or that Hamilton is bothered by traffic in the one
lap or so that would be under race conditions. Definitely a credible
option if Hamilton goes in.
That leaves the third option which happened as a result of Hamilton
staying out, and the fourth which was entirely in their hands:
Option 3: Verstappen chooses to change tyres and hope that something
comes along which allows him to chase down Hamilton with a significant
tyre age differential.
Option 4: Verstappen stays out and hopes something happens that allows
him to pass Hamilton. This isn't credible as the chances of overtaking Hamilton on worn tyres is just too unlikely.
This really leaves - to my mind - options 2 and 3. Both are long
shots. Neither are really in Red Bull's hands...
...unless something unprecedented happens like Masi removing the
backmarkers faster than usual which he could only do by only allowing
the five to pass and pulling the SC in before they formed at the back
of the train. This is highly unusual, and I have yet to see a credible explanation of why the sudden change in application of the SC rules.
So, yes Mercedes could have changed Hamilton's tyres, and that would
almost certainly have led to the situation described in option 2
which, given precedent, their strategists would have ruled out on the
basis it would hand the lead and the championship to Verstappen.
There is no way that a reasonable person would assume that things
would play out as they did.
For Red Bull, seeing Hamilton stay out made option 3 a reasonable one.
It was a long shot, but staying out was no longer.
Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.
Mark wrote:
Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic
decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or
demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.
In summary, given that the race were more likely to finish under the
SC, Mercedes had no viable strategic choice but to stay out and hope
the race finished under the SC and RBR had nothing to lose in taking
fresh tyres and hoping the race would restart.
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark wrote:
Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic
decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or
demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.
In summary, given that the race were more likely to finish under the
SC, Mercedes had no viable strategic choice but to stay out and hope
the race finished under the SC and RBR had nothing to lose in taking
fresh tyres and hoping the race would restart.
Precisely that.
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there
really was no choice.
Masi really *did* have choices. He could have followed precedents set
earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took place.
That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared *and* would
allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run to complete the race. Of course, that would also have allowed Hamilton to change his
tyres and benefit in that way...
Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
drivers to race to the finish.
...but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to the
end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end one of
two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have happened if it
was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on worn) or Verstappen
easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.
The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and
championship to Verstappen.
Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because
they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other choices.
See my other post. There really wasn't another choice given the
situation and racing precedents. They didn't have a crystal ball to be
able to know either what Verstappen was going to do (the reverse of
which is obviously not true) or how Masi would rule (unusually) on the
safety car.
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to >>>>>> take
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his >>>>>>> trajectory).
avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. >>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on >>>>>>> his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC >>>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the >>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a >>>>> victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because >>>> they
*are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively
award the
race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have
deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will
always be
tainted.
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being
influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been the
same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end of
the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car he should
have thrown a red flag.
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-12 8:38 a.m., Sir Tim wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take >>>>> avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his >>>>>> trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. >>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on >>>>>> his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC >>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the >>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they >>> *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the
race to Max.
If the decision was "illegal"...
...then quote the regulation that it violates.
48.12
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:He definitely did not apply 48.12
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take >>>>>> avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his >>>>>>> trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. >>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on >>>>>>> his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC >>>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the >>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they >>>> *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the
race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have
deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be >>>> tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as the
RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current *decision* is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though many would take a plain English reading
of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach the
regs.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a factor here?
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 4:05 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:not.
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_email@invalid.invalid>
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:his >>>> trajectory).
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
Hamilton to
HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up
it >>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to
a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instanceThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for
a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially
for Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone
is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
then he is probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
You understand NOTHING about the race. You should perhaps shut up.
You have done nothing but make a fool of yourself lately.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
No, they couldn't.
Yes. They could.
Not without all but guaranteeing losing the championship.
So a dumb suggestion.
Do you need it explaining?
They chose not to.
Correct.
You get that that completely contradicts your earlier "No, they
couldn't", right?
No.
It's about context, something you have zero appreciation for.
To suggest they could have pitted is as adroit as suggesting they could
have chosen to throw away the championship.
To say they chose not to do that is correct.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 13/12/2021 12:44 pm, Alan wrote:wrote:
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid>
not.
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:his >>>> trajectory).
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
Hamilton to
HAM.-a >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up
instance it >>>>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner. >>>>>>>>'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to
a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in thisThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for
a victim card.-a >> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially
for Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to-a "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision --a everyone
is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
then he is probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
They chose not to.
That would have gifted track position to VER.
Yup.
But Hamilton ended up with track position...
...and we saw how well that worked out.
Sure, but RBR had nothing to lose.
None of the strategists would have
expected the race director to ignore the regulations so only a idiot
with no appreciation of the situation would suggest they could take
that route.
Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:He definitely did not apply 48.12
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>wrote: >>>> geoff wrote:
wrote:
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
(note his >>>>> trajectory).
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
to take >>>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
not. >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is notThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
winner. >>>
play a victim card. >>> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
all >> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY
because they >> are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to
effectively award the >> race to Max.
thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
car which would have been within the regulations but still
allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as
the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision is
that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse
him of breaching the regs.
No, it's not. It remains a truth.
The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all well.
15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course) has all
authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in any common
sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the regulations
detailing the procedures.
Even though many would take a plain
English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards
decision, he did breach the regs.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose, not
to give the RD the right to change the regs.
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
That would have gifted track position to VER.
Yup.
But Hamilton ended up with track position...
...and we saw how well that worked out.
You're missing the point.
Look at the options...
Under the precedents of all prior SC periods, it was reasonable to
assume that the backmarkers would either remain in place or there would
(if time) be unlapped and reformed as part of the queue behind the
safety car before a restart. In the closing laps of the race, it was reasonable to assume that the race would end under the safety car.
Now there's the question of changing tyres. If Hamilton goes in first, Verstappen has options. He's behind so he can respond to the move.
Option 1: Red Bull can pull him in and gamble Verstappen can somehow
catch and pass Hamilton. Given the short time period, the likelihood
that there will be few if any racing laps, and given they would both be
on equally fresh tyres, this is *not* a credible option.
Option 2: Red Bull leave him out and he gambles on either the SC running
to the end or that Hamilton is bothered by traffic in the one lap or so
that would be under race conditions. Definitely a credible option if
Hamilton goes in.
That leaves the third option which happened as a result of Hamilton
staying out, and the fourth which was entirely in their hands:
Option 3: Verstappen chooses to change tyres and hope that something
comes along which allows him to chase down Hamilton with a significant
tyre age differential.
Option 4: Verstappen stays out and hopes something happens that allows
him to pass Hamilton. This isn't credible as the chances of overtaking Hamilton on worn tyres is just too unlikely.
This really leaves - to my mind - options 2 and 3. Both are long shots. Neither are really in Red Bull's hands...
...unless something unprecedented happens like Masi removing the
backmarkers faster than usual which he could only do by only allowing
the five to pass and pulling the SC in before they formed at the back of
the train. This is highly unusual, and I have yet to see a credible explanation of why the sudden change in application of the SC rules.
So, yes Mercedes could have changed Hamilton's tyres, and that would
almost certainly have led to the situation described in option 2 which,
given precedent, their strategists would have ruled out on the basis it
would hand the lead and the championship to Verstappen. There is no way
that a reasonable person would assume that things would play out as they
did.
For Red Bull, seeing Hamilton stay out made option 3 a reasonable one.--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
It was a long shot, but staying out was no longer.
Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no.-a However:
'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors
via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.'
In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been lapped by
the leader) be required to unlap.-a The choice to use "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED CARS
MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system.-a So Masi was operating outside the bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
On 2021-12-13 1:48 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 4:05 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
wrote:On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_email@invalid.invalid>
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
not.his >>>> trajectory).Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that
required Hamilton to
HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
instance >>>>it >>was the >>> Race Director that determined thea SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in thisTo not follow the regs in a way that actually
reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a
bad taste. It is not unusual for
winner.
a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad
losers and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes
donrCOt need to play a card because they are victims -
victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award
the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to
"go racing" but he should have left the lapped cars
behind the safety car which would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance
which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision -
everyone is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit
this was a pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
then he is probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
You understand NOTHING about the race. You should perhaps shut
up. You have done nothing but make a fool of yourself lately.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
No, they couldn't.
Yes. They could.
Not without all but guaranteeing losing the championship.
So Hamilton was going to be unable to pass Verstappen?
Is that your claim?
So a dumb suggestion.
Do you need it explaining?
They chose not to.
Correct.
You get that that completely contradicts your earlier "No, they couldn't", right?
No.
It's about context, something you have zero appreciation for.
To suggest they could have pitted is as adroit as suggesting they
could have chosen to throw away the championship.
To say they chose not to do that is correct.
Same questions.
On 2021-12-13 1:51 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 13/12/2021 12:44 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
wrote:On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_email@invalid.invalid>
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
not.his >>>> trajectory).Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note
take >>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that
required Hamilton to
HAM.-a >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
winner.instance it >>>>was the >>> Race Director that determined thea SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in thisTo not follow the regs in a way that actually
reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a
bad taste. It is not unusual for
a victim card.-a >> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad
losers and play
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes
donrCOt need to play a card because they are victims -
victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award
the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to-a
"go racing" but he should have left the lapped cars
behind the safety car which would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance
which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision --a
everyone is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit
this was a pretty big one.
If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
then he is probably not the man for the job.
He let the two contenders race to the end.
Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
They chose not to.
That would have gifted track position to VER.
Yup.
But Hamilton ended up with track position...
...and we saw how well that worked out.
Sure, but RBR had nothing to lose.
But the fact is that getting past Hamilton was possible.
So Hamilton getting past Verstappen would have been possible.
None of the strategists would have
expected the race director to ignore the regulations so only a idiot
with no appreciation of the situation would suggest they could take
that route.
The race director didn't ignore the regulations.
On 2021-12-13 4:28 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
That would have gifted track position to VER.
Yup.
But Hamilton ended up with track position...
...and we saw how well that worked out.
You're missing the point.
Look at the options...
Under the precedents of all prior SC periods, it was reasonable to
assume that the backmarkers would either remain in place or there
would (if time) be unlapped and reformed as part of the queue
behind the safety car before a restart. In the closing laps of the
race, it was reasonable to assume that the race would end under the
safety car.
Now there's the question of changing tyres. If Hamilton goes in
first, Verstappen has options. He's behind so he can respond to the
move.
Option 1: Red Bull can pull him in and gamble Verstappen can somehow
catch and pass Hamilton. Given the short time period, the likelihood
that there will be few if any racing laps, and given they would
both be on equally fresh tyres, this is not a credible option.
Option 2: Red Bull leave him out and he gambles on either the SC
running to the end or that Hamilton is bothered by traffic in the
one lap or so that would be under race conditions. Definitely a
credible option if Hamilton goes in.
That leaves the third option which happened as a result of Hamilton
staying out, and the fourth which was entirely in their hands:
Option 3: Verstappen chooses to change tyres and hope that something
comes along which allows him to chase down Hamilton with a
significant tyre age differential.
Option 4: Verstappen stays out and hopes something happens that
allows him to pass Hamilton. This isn't credible as the chances of overtaking Hamilton on worn tyres is just too unlikely.
This really leaves - to my mind - options 2 and 3. Both are long
shots. Neither are really in Red Bull's hands...
...unless something unprecedented happens like Masi removing the backmarkers faster than usual which he could only do by only
allowing the five to pass and pulling the SC in before they formed
at the back of the train. This is highly unusual, and I have yet to
see a credible explanation of why the sudden change in application
of the SC rules.
So, yes Mercedes could have changed Hamilton's tyres, and that would
almost certainly have led to the situation described in option 2
which, given precedent, their strategists would have ruled out on
the basis it would hand the lead and the championship to
Verstappen. There is no way that a reasonable person would assume
that things would play out as they did.
What about the earlier choice not to give him a better set of tires
when Verstappen pitted under the virtual safety car?
For Red Bull, seeing Hamilton stay out made option 3 a reasonable
one. It was a long shot, but staying out was no longer.
Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid
strategic decision by leaving him out is either deliberately
mischievous or demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was
going on IMO.
On 2021-12-13 1:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
wrote: >>>> geoff wrote:build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
(note his >>>>> trajectory).Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap
to take >>>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
Hamilton
HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up
not. >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not >>>unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but inTo not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the
this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
winner. >>>
play a victim card. >>> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and
all >> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card >>>because they >> are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to >>>effectively award the >> race to Max.Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY
thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially forItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
He definitely did not apply 48.12I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "goWhich regulation do you claim Masi breached?
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to
the pits at the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply
that as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
decision is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now
unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs.
No, it's not. It remains a truth.
The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all
well. 15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course)
has all authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in
any common sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the regulations detailing the procedures.
Even though many would take a plain
English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose,
not to give the RD the right to change the regs.
The fact that Mercedes protest was rejected means that the people who actually understand and administer the regs disagree with you.
On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will always be tainted.
He definitely did not apply 48.12I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "goWhich regulation do you claim Masi breached?
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that
as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority
in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders
in respect of them only with his express agreement:
...
e) The use of the safety car.'
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision
is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to
accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though many would take a
plain English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence
of his superiors in the FIA?
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.
On 2021-12-12 11:30 p.m., Sir Tim wrote:
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
On 2021-12-12 8:38 a.m., Sir Tim wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when he
did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the race but
in this instance it was the Race Director that determined
the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play
a card because they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
If the decision was "illegal"...
...then quote the regulation that it violates.
48.12
1. That's not a quote.
2. Does "any" mean "all"?
3. Where are the definitions that normally accompany such paragraphs?
In the context of FIA regulations, what precisely does "will" mean?
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no.-a However:
'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the
lead lap and the safety car.'
In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the
clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been
lapped by the leader) be required to unlap.-a The choice to use
"any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPEDThe powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
official messaging system.-a So Masi was operating outside the
bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially forI agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
Max whose win will always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone isMasi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open
to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get
was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end
of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car
he should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then
a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open
to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's
bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get
was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end
of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car
he should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then
a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no.-a However:
'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the
message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors
via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by
the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the
safety car.'
In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the clear
meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been lapped by
the leader) be required to unlap.-a The choice to use "any" rather than
"all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED CARS
MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the official
messaging system.-a So Masi was operating outside the bounds of both
48.12 and precedent.)
The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still racing
for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
Alan wrote:Nope. So what?
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no. However:
'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the
lead lap and the safety car.'
In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the
clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been
lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to use
"any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED
CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
official messaging system. So Masi was operating outside the
bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?
The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on the fly.And if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes protest?
You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" isActually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written without ambiguity as much as is feasible.
secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and agreed
to by all competitors and the ruling body.
You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.Which drivers didn't claim that?
So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position claimed".
The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obviousI have no prejudice. Sorry.
your prejudice to everyone.
If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.
Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the exact
opposite side of the same argument.
On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC,
martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note his trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the
option of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to
prang when he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10
seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new
soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome
of the race but in this instance it was the Race
Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the
card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whomI agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyoneMasi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this
is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
pretty big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he
seems open to being influenced by principals shouting at
him - last week's bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
became an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have
been the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the
end of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety
car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under
safety car he should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car,
then a different set of people (who think there's a different
"chosen one") would be whining about how the championship had
been "gifted" to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire
change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine
like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to
have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes the
entire rest of his race.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
He definitely did not apply 48.12Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that
as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority
in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders
in respect of them only with his express agreement:
...
e) The use of the safety car.'
Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision
is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to
accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though many would take a
plain English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence
of his superiors in the FIA?
So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the regulations.
You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.
And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of the regulations... and fails!
The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those same
regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC are adhered to. Something he clearly failed to do.
On 2021-12-12 7:36 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:What regulation did they fail to follow?
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
trajectory).
It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take
avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. -This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
Race Director that determined the winner.
Quote it.
On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no. However:
the >>> lead lap and the safety car.''48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on
be >>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car"In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will
the >>> clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having
been >>> lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to
use >>> "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall
meaning.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPEDThe powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
official messaging system. So Masi was operating outside the
bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?Nope. So what?
Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that the
cars further back?
Yup.
The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on theAnd if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes
fly.
protest?
You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" isActually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written
secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and
agreed to by all competitors and the ruling body.
without ambiguity as much as is feasible.
There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety
car".
"any" does not mean "all".
You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.
So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position claimed".Which drivers didn't claim that?
The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obviousI have no prejudice. Sorry.
your prejudice to everyone.
If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.
Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to
find anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the
exact opposite side of the same argument.
Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.
What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his position
going into turn 5?
On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note his trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the
option of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to
prang when he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10
seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new
soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome
of the race but in this instance it was the Race
Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the
card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
He definitely did not apply 48.12I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "goWhich regulation do you claim Masi breached?
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to
the pits at the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply
that as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding
authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course
may give orders in respect of them only with his express
agreement:
...
e) The use of the safety car.'
Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
decision is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is
now unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though
many would take a plain English reading of it and argue that,
despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the
concurrence of his superiors in the FIA?
So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the
regulations.
Liberty are in no way his superiors.
And your second sentence is not
even complete.
You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated
clearly state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.
And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of
the regulations... and fails!
The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those
same regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he
alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC
are adhered to. Something he clearly failed to do.
I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced the
rule.
Have you?
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
He definitely did not apply 48.12Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the
option of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to
prang when he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10
seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new
soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome
of the race but in this instance it was the Race
Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the
card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to
the pits at the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply
that as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding
authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course
may give orders in respect of them only with his express
agreement:
...
e) The use of the safety car.'
Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
decision is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is
now unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though
many would take a plain English reading of it and argue that,
despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the
concurrence of his superiors in the FIA?
So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the
regulations.
Liberty are in no way his superiors.
They run the show. If you think they have no influence then you just
keep proving yourself a dumbass, Dumbass.
And your second sentence is not
even complete.
What you mean to say is that you don't comprehend it; that is not the
same thing, Dumbass.
You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated
clearly state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race
Director.
And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of
the regulations... and fails!
The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those
same regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he
alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC
are adhered to. Something he clearly failed to do.
I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced the
rule.
WTF has your ignorance of same to do with the above paragraph?
There is no ambiguity in 48.12
"any" does not mean "all".
In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive term.
To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
semantics.
On 2021-12-13 12:52 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
He definitely did not apply 48.12 "Unless the clerk of the courseWhich regulation do you claim Masi breached?
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY >>>>>>>>> all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card >>>>>>>>> because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to >>>>>>>>> effectively award the race to Max.
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton >>>>>>>>>>> to take avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap >>>>>>>>>>>> (note his trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of >>>>>>>>>>>> pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when he did. - >>>>>>>>>>>> MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>>>> 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the >>>>>>>>>>> likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not >>>>>>>>>>> unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the race but in >>>>>>>>>>> this instance it was the Race Director that determined the >>>>>>>>>>> winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and >>>>>>>>>> play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would >>>>>>>>> thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for >>>>>>>>> Max whose win will always be tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety >>>>>>>> car which would have been within the regulations but still
allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
deserved.
considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once
the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will
return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that >>>>>> as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority >>>>> in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders >>>>> in respect of them only with his express agreement:
...
e) The use of the safety car.'
SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA andWhether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision >>>>>> is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to
accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though many would take a
plain English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence >>>>> of his superiors in the FIA?
Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the
regulations.
Liberty are in no way his superiors.
They run the show. If you think they have no influence then you just
keep proving yourself a dumbass, Dumbass.
And your second sentence is not even complete.
What you mean to say is that you don't comprehend it; that is not the
same thing, Dumbass.
You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.
And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of
the regulations... and fails!
The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those
same regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he
alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC are
adhered to. Something he clearly failed to do.
I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced the
rule.
WTF has your ignorance of same to do with the above paragraph?
You've been claiming that "precedent" precludes the decision made by the
Race Director.
That implies that you know what precedents have actually been set.
On 2021-12-13 4:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there
really was no choice.
Masi really *did* have choices. He could have followed precedents set
earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took place.
That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared *and* would
allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run to complete the
race. Of course, that would also have allowed Hamilton to change his
tyres and benefit in that way...
He could have "followed precedent" but was that a requirement or an option?
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
drivers to race to the finish.
...but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to the
end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end one of
two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have happened if it
was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on worn) or Verstappen
easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.
The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and
championship to Verstappen.
Only if you assume that every decision that benefited one of them over
the other is "gifting" the championship as well.
Hamilton took out his many competitor in Silverstone and was allowed to
go on racing after a penalty. Was not making the penalty large enough "gifting" him the championship?
Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because >>> they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other
choices.
See my other post. There really wasn't another choice given the
situation and racing precedents. They didn't have a crystal ball to be
able to know either what Verstappen was going to do (the reverse of
which is obviously not true) or how Masi would rule (unusually) on the
safety car.
No. You're wrong.
They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from Verstappen.
They chose and it didn't work out.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:So... what you said was utter nonsense, Dumbass.
Alan wrote:the >>> lead lap and the safety car.'
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no. However:
'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on
be >>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car"
In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will
the >>> clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having
been >>> lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to
use >>> "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall
meaning.
Nope. So what?The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED
CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
official messaging system. So Masi was operating outside the
bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?
Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that the
cars further back?
No, points mean prizes.
And if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes
The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on the
fly.
protest?
Then they would be lying... like you do all the time. But they didn't
did they. They made spurious claims in order to cover their arse.
Simple question for a simple minded dumbass.
Was 48.12 adhered to?
Be careful now, it's a trap... you have already admitted it wasn't,
Dumbass.
Actually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written
You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" is
secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and
agreed to by all competitors and the ruling body.
without ambiguity as much as is feasible.
There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety
car".
There is no ambiguity in 48.12
"any" does not mean "all".
In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive term.
To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
semantics.
Which drivers didn't claim that?
You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.
So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position
claimed".
Sainz for one. Read the drivers comments, Dumbass.
I have no prejudice. Sorry.
The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obvious
your prejudice to everyone.
QED
If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.
Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to
find anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the
exact opposite side of the same argument.
"Your collective ignorance"
You don't even comprehend the irony, do you?
What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his position
going into turn 5?
So now you wish to change the subject.
I completely understand.
You've never shown a great understanding of racing and much less of
English and the regulations.
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote: >>>>>>> geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to >>>>>>> take
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note >>>>>>>> his
trajectory).
avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. >>>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
'win' on
his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely >>>>>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for >>>>>>> a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the >>>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play >>>>>> a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>>>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because >>>>> they
*are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively >>>>> award the
race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have
deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will
always be
tainted.
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one. >>>> What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being
influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been the
same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end of
the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car he
should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen one")
would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted" to
Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
One simple question:They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from
Verstappen.
They chose and it didn't work out.
They didn't 'choose' to have a 13 second advantage ( or several seconds
plus back-markers between after the SC called) negated by an
unprecedented and unfair call by the race director.
On 2021-12-13 1:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:He definitely did not apply 48.12
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>wrote:-a >>>> geoff wrote:
wrote:
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
(note his >>>>> trajectory).
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
to take >>>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
HAM.-a >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
not.-a >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is notThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
winner.-a >>>
play a victim card.-a >>> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
because they >> are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY >>>> all >> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card
effectively award the >> race to Max.
thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
car which would have been within the regulations but still
allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as
the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision is
that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse
him of breaching the regs.
No, it's not. It remains a truth.
The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all well.
15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course) has all
authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in any common
sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the regulations
detailing the procedures.
Even though many would take a plain
English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards
decision, he did breach the regs.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose, not
to give the RD the right to change the regs.
The fact that Mercedes protest was rejected means that the people who actually understand and administer the regs disagree with you.
On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:He definitely did not apply 48.12
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote: >>>>>>> geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to >>>>>>> take
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note >>>>>>>> his
trajectory).
avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. >>>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
- LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
'win' on
his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely >>>>>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for >>>>>>> a SC
to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the >>>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play >>>>>> a victim card.
They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all >>>>> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because >>>>> they
*are* victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively >>>>> award the
race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have
deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will
always be
tainted.
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
car has
passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of
the
following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as the
RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the
Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect
of them only with his express agreement:
...
e) The use of the safety car.'
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current *decision*
is that
Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse him of
breaching the regs.-a Even though many would take a plain English reading
of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards decision, he did
breach the
regs.
And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence of
his superiors in the FIA?
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the course"
and
the "race director" having different roles is also a factor here?
Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.
On 2021-12-13 1:25 p.m., geoff wrote:
One simple question:They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from
Verstappen.
They chose and it didn't work out.
They didn't 'choose' to have a 13 second advantage ( or several
seconds plus back-markers between after the SC called) negated by an
unprecedented and unfair call by the race director.
How do you KNOW it was unprecedented?
On 2021-12-13 12:52 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note his trajectory).
required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to
VER, holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2
car the option of pitting or not. - LAT, for
managing to prang when he did. - MASSEY for
gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
'win' on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually
reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves
a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC to
determine the outcome of the race but in this
instance it was the Race Director that determined
the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad
losers and play a victim card. They just need to
pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively
award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
He definitely did not apply 48.12I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them toWhich regulation do you claim Masi breached?
"go racing" but he should have left the lapped cars
behind the safety car which would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance
which was just about what he deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return
to the pits at the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to
apply that as the RD has absolute discretion under article
15.3.
'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation
with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have
overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk
of the course may give orders in respect of them only with
his express agreement:
...
e) The use of the safety car.'
Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating
to the SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
decision is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is
now unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though
many would take a plain English reading of it and argue
that, despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach
the regs.
And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the
concurrence of his superiors in the FIA?
So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others
with their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the regulations.
Liberty are in no way his superiors.
They run the show. If you think they have no influence then you just
keep proving yourself a dumbass, Dumbass.
And your second sentence is not
even complete.
What you mean to say is that you don't comprehend it; that is not
the same thing, Dumbass.
You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of
the course" and the "race director" having different roles
is also a factor here?
Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated
clearly state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the
Race Director.
And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent
misrepresentation of the regulations... and fails!
The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
SC. They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed
in those same regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they
say he and he alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs
related to the SC are adhered to. Something he clearly failed
to do.
I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced
the rule.
WTF has your ignorance of same to do with the above paragraph?
You've been claiming that "precedent" precludes the decision made by
the Race Director.
That implies that you know what precedents have actually been set.
On 2021-12-13 12:43 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no. However:
the >>> lead lap and the safety car.''48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do
so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has
been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging
system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will
be required to pass the cars on
(having >>been >>> lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. Thebe >>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car"In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader
will
the >>> clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron
choice to >>use >>> "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the
overall
meaning.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear thatThe powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
"LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors
via the official messaging system. So Masi was operating
outside the bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to
allow those still actually racing for position to do so
unimpeded, right?
And were all cars "racing for position" able to do soNope. So what?
"unimpeded"?
So... what you said was utter nonsense, Dumbass.
Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that
the cars further back?
No, points mean prizes.
OK. So let's look.
The only "race" that was split by allowing some lapped cars, but not
all to pass the leaders was the battle between Sebastian Vettel and
Daniel Ricciardo...
...for what was then 12th place, which became and 11th place for
Vettel because Ricciardo pitted.
So releasing the cars they did left them free to race for the actual
points positions, and the one car that had their race "wrecked"
wasn't in a position to win any points anyway.
So when you implied that some drivers were denied the chance to race
for points, you're wrong...
...again!
The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted onAnd if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes
the fly.
protest?
Then they would be lying... like you do all the time. But they
didn't did they. They made spurious claims in order to cover their
arse.
Simple question for a simple minded dumbass.
Was 48.12 adhered to?
I can't answer that.
And neither can you.
Because neither of us have studied all past applications of the rules
and the rulings that have arisen from them.
Be careful now, it's a trap... you have already admitted it wasn't, Dumbass.
You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" is secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... andActually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written
agreed to by all competitors and the ruling body.
without ambiguity as much as is feasible.
There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety
car".
There is no ambiguity in 48.12
There most certainly is.
"any" does not mean "all".
In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive
term.
Nope. Sorry. "Any" does not mean "all".
To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at semantics.
You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.
So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually
still racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of
those that were actually important were those between
Hamilton and Verstappen.
That is not what several drivers "actually still racing forWhich drivers didn't claim that?
position claimed".
Sainz for one. Read the drivers comments, Dumbass.
How about you quote them, sunshine?
It's not my job to find what you claim is there.
The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to howI have no prejudice. Sorry.
obvious your prejudice to everyone.
QED
If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists
i.e. Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard
pressed to find anyone who would not be convinced that you
would be on the exact opposite side of the same argument.
Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.
"Your collective ignorance"
You don't even comprehend the irony, do you?
Oh, I do.
What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his
position going into turn 5?
So now you wish to change the subject.
I completely understand.
You've never shown a great understanding of racing and much less of
English and the regulations.
I understand racing very well.
I understand it well enough, that the
best racers in our club (who include some very experienced and
successful drivers in both amateur and pro racing) invited me to join
the Race Drivers Committee and teach other drivers how to do it.
What's your racing experience again: was it WiRace, or just Pole
Position?
On 2021-12-13 1:25 p.m., geoff wrote:
They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had
the faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead
from Verstappen.
They chose and it didn't work out.
They didn't 'choose' to have a 13 second advantage ( or severalOne simple question:
seconds plus back-markers between after the SC called) negated by
an unprecedented and unfair call by the race director.
How do you KNOW it was unprecedented?
On 2021-12-13 4:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there
really was no choice.
Masi really *did* have choices. He could have followed precedents set
earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took place.
That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared *and* would
allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run to complete the
race. Of course, that would also have allowed Hamilton to change his
tyres and benefit in that way...
He could have "followed precedent" but was that a requirement or an option?
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
drivers to race to the finish.
...but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to the
end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end one of
two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have happened if it
was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on worn) or Verstappen
easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.
The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and
championship to Verstappen.
Only if you assume that every decision that benefited one of them over
the other is "gifting" the championship as well.
Hamilton took out his many competitor in Silverstone and was allowed to
go on racing after a penalty. Was not making the penalty large enough "gifting" him the championship?
Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because >>> they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other choices. >>See my other post. There really wasn't another choice given the
situation and racing precedents. They didn't have a crystal ball to be
able to know either what Verstappen was going to do (the reverse of
which is obviously not true) or how Masi would rule (unusually) on the
safety car.
No. You're wrong.
They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from Verstappen.
They chose and it didn't work out.
On 2021-12-13 4:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But
there really was no choice.
Masi really did have choices. He could have followed precedents set
earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took
place. That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared
and would allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run
to complete the race. Of course, that would also have allowed
Hamilton to change his tyres and benefit in that way...
He could have "followed precedent" but was that a requirement or an
option?
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the
two drivers to race to the finish.
...but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to
the end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end
one of two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have
happened if it was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on
worn) or Verstappen easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.
The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and championship to Verstappen.
Only if you assume that every decision that benefited one of them
over the other is "gifting" the championship as well.
Hamilton took out his many competitor in Silverstone and was allowed
to go on racing after a penalty. Was not making the penalty large
enough "gifting" him the championship?
On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to-a take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM.-a - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
of pitting or not.-a - LAT, for managing to prang when
he did.-a - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a-a victim card.-a They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because-a they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively-a award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will-a always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
big one.-a What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open
to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's
bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get
was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end
of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
that-a point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car
he should-a have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then
a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to have many MORE cars between
him and Verstappen, and that changes the entire rest of his race.
On 14/12/2021 9:18 am, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to-a take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM.-a - GIO for giving the P2 car the option >>>>>>>>>>> of pitting or not.-a - LAT, for managing to prang when
he did.-a - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a-a victim card.-a They just need to pick the card. >>>>>>>>>
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because-a they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs >>>>>>>> illegal decision to effectively-a award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will-a always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
big one.-a What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open
to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's
bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get
was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end
of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
that-a point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car >>>>> he should-a have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then
a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to
have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes the
entire rest of his race.
Doing your regular escapology act by changing 'from' emails huh?
It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.
It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Bigbird wrote:
Alan is deliberately diverting the conversation from the critical part of
There is no ambiguity in 48.12
"any" does not mean "all".
In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive term.
To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
semantics.
On 2021-12-13 3:40 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 14/12/2021 9:18 am, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became >>>>>>> an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first >>>>>>>>>>>> lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to-a take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM.-a - GIO for giving the P2 car the option >>>>>>>>>>>> of pitting or not.-a - LAT, for managing to prang when >>>>>>>>>>>> he did.-a - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the >>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It >>>>>>>>>>> is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a-a victim card.-a They just need to pick the card. >>>>>>>>>>
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim >>>>>>>>> cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to >>>>>>>>> play a card because-a they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs >>>>>>>>> illegal decision to effectively-a award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would >>>>>>>>> thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for >>>>>>>>> Max whose win will-a always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is >>>>>>>> entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
big one.-a What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open >>>>>>>> to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's >>>>>>>> bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get >>>>>>>> was ridiculous.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end >>>>>>> of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at >>>>>> that-a point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car >>>>>> he should-a have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then >>>>> a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like >>>> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to
have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes the
entire rest of his race.
Doing your regular escapology act by changing 'from' emails huh?
It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.
Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm just having trouble with AIOE connectivity.
On 14/12/2021 12:46 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 3:40 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 14/12/2021 9:18 am, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became >>>>>>>> an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first >>>>>>>>>>>>> lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to-a take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM.-a - GIO for giving the P2 car the option >>>>>>>>>>>>> of pitting or not.-a - LAT, for managing to prang when >>>>>>>>>>>>> he did.-a - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses >>>>>>>>>>>> the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It >>>>>>>>>>>> is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the >>>>>>>>>>>> race but in this instance it was the Race Director that >>>>>>>>>>>> determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers >>>>>>>>>>> and play a-a victim card.-a They just need to pick the card. >>>>>>>>>>>
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim >>>>>>>>>> cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to >>>>>>>>>> play a card because-a they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs >>>>>>>>>> illegal decision to effectively-a award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would >>>>>>>>>> thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for >>>>>>>>>> Max whose win will-a always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is >>>>>>>>> entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty >>>>>>>>> big one.-a What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open >>>>>>>>> to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's >>>>>>>>> bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get >>>>>>>>> was ridiculous.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been >>>>>>>> the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end >>>>>>>> of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at >>>>>>> that-a point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car >>>>>>> he should-a have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then >>>>>> a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted" >>>>>> to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like >>>>> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going
to have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes
the entire rest of his race.
Doing your regular escapology act by changing 'from' emails huh?
It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.
Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm just having trouble with
AIOE connectivity.
Is that the only thing ?!!!
geoff
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no. However:
'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the
lead lap and the safety car.'
In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the
clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been
lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to use
"any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED
CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
official messaging system. So Masi was operating outside the
bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
On 12/13/2021 1:45 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no.-a However:
'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official
messaging system, any cars that have
been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the
lead lap and the safety car.'
In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
-arequired to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the
-aclear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been
-alapped by the leader) be required to unlap.-a The choice to use
"any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED
-aCARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
official messaging system.-a So Masi was operating outside the
bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
Well, let's hear from an expert, specifically Michael Masi explaining why the safety car was on
track for so long at the 2020 Eifel GP, following Lando Norris' engine failure:
"That one was the fact that we had to, there's a requirement in the sporting regulations, to wave
all lapped cars past," Masi said.
"I think from that point, it was position 6 onwards that was still running.
"So 10, 11 cars, that had to unlap themselves, and therefore the safety car period was a bit longer
than what we would have normally expected."
Note the use of the word "requirement."
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-race-director-masi-explains-norris-f1-eifel-gp-safety-car-decision-4978255/4978255/
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open
to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's
bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get
was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end
of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car
he should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then
a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that, it has happened many times over
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to-a take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM.-a - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
of pitting or not.-a - LAT, for managing to prang when
he did.-a - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a-a victim card.-a They just need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because-a they *are* victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively-a award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
Max whose win will-a always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
big one.-a What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open
to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's
bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get
was ridiculous.
an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end
of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
that-a point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car
he should-a have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then
a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
the years drivers on course for victory losing out through no fault of their own.
On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC,
martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note his trajectory).
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the
option of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to
prang when he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10
seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new
soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome
of the race but in this instance it was the Race
Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the
card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whomI agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyoneMasi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this
is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
pretty big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he
seems open to being influenced by principals shouting at
him - last week's bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
became an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have
been the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the
end of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety
car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under
safety car he should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car,
then a different set of people (who think there's a different
"chosen one") would be whining about how the championship had
been "gifted" to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire
change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine
like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that, it
has happened many times over the years drivers on course for victory
losing out through no fault of their own.
On 2021-12-13 1:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:I would normally agree with you on this; once a judgement has been handed
Matt Larkin wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:He definitely did not apply 48.12
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>wrote: >>>> geoff wrote:
wrote:
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
(note his >>>>> trajectory).
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
to take >>>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
not. >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is notThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
winner. >>>
play a victim card. >>> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
because they >> are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to >>> effectively award the >> race to Max.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY >>> all >> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card
thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
car which would have been within the regulations but still
allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
deserved.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as
the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision is
that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse
him of breaching the regs.
No, it's not. It remains a truth.
The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all well.
15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course) has all authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in any common sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the regulations detailing the procedures.
Even though many would take a plain
English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards
decision, he did breach the regs.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose, not
to give the RD the right to change the regs.
The fact that Mercedes protest was rejected means that the people who actually understand and administer the regs disagree with you.
On 14/12/2021 7:41 am, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 1:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Matt Larkin wrote:The fact that Mercedes protest was rejected means that the people who
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:He definitely did not apply 48.12 "Unless the clerk of the course
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>wrote:-a >>>> geoff wrote:
wrote:
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
(note his >>>>> trajectory).
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
to take >>>> avoiding action.It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
HAM.-a >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
not.-a >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is notThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
winner.-a >>>
play a victim card.-a >>> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for Max >>>>> whose win will always be >> tainted.Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY >>>>> all >> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card >>>>> because they >> are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to >>>>> effectively award the >> race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing" >>>>>> but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which >>>>>> would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen >>>>>> a half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the
last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to
the pits at the end of the following lap."
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as
the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision is
that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse
him of breaching the regs.
No, it's not. It remains a truth.
The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all well.
15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course) has all
authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in any common
sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the regulations
detailing the procedures.
Even though many would take a plain English reading of it and argue
that, despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose,
not to give the RD the right to change the regs.
actually understand and administer the regs disagree with you.
No, it means they were panicked into a quick reaction to cover their
arses.
geoff
On 2021-12-13 12:43 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:So... what you said was utter nonsense, Dumbass.
Alan wrote:the >>> lead lap and the safety car.'
On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
Without context, no. However:
'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have >>>>>> been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on
be >>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car"
In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will
the >>> clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having
been >>> lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to
use >>> "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall
meaning.
Nope. So what?And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED >>>>>> CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
official messaging system. So Masi was operating outside the
bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that theNo, points mean prizes.
cars further back?
OK. So let's look.
The only "race" that was split by allowing some lapped cars, but not all
to pass the leaders was the battle between Sebastian Vettel and Daniel Ricciardo...
...for what was then 12th place, which became and 11th place for Vettel because Ricciardo pitted.
So releasing the cars they did left them free to race for the actual
points positions, and the one car that had their race "wrecked" wasn't
in a position to win any points anyway.
So when you implied that some drivers were denied the chance to race for points, you're wrong...
...again!
The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on theAnd if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes
fly.
protest?
Then they would be lying... like you do all the time. But they didn't
did they. They made spurious claims in order to cover their arse.
Simple question for a simple minded dumbass.
Was 48.12 adhered to?
I can't answer that.
And neither can you.
Because neither of us have studied all past applications of the rules
and the rulings that have arisen from them.
Be careful now, it's a trap... you have already admitted it wasn't,
Dumbass.
You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" isActually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written without
secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and
agreed to by all competitors and the ruling body.
ambiguity as much as is feasible.
There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety
car".
There is no ambiguity in 48.12
There most certainly is.
"any" does not mean "all".
In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive
term.
Nope. Sorry. "Any" does not mean "all".
To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
semantics.
You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.Which drivers didn't claim that?
So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position
claimed".
Sainz for one. Read the drivers comments, Dumbass.
How about you quote them, sunshine?
It's not my job to find what you claim is there.
The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obviousI have no prejudice. Sorry.
your prejudice to everyone.
QED
If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.
Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to
find anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the exact
opposite side of the same argument.
"Your collective ignorance"
You don't even comprehend the irony, do you?
Oh, I do.
And so the master of the logical falacy falls back to his usual last
What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his position
going into turn 5?
So now you wish to change the subject.
I completely understand.
You've never shown a great understanding of racing and much less of
English and the regulations.
I understand racing very well. I understand it well enough, that the
best racers in our club (who include some very experienced and
successful drivers in both amateur and pro racing) invited me to join
the Race Drivers Committee and teach other drivers how to do it.
What's your racing experience again: was it WiRace, or just Pole
Position?
:-)
On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 18:41:50 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-13 1:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Matt Larkin wrote:
Hamilton >>> to take >>>> avoiding action.On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>wrote: >>>> geoff wrote:
wrote:
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
(note his >>>>> trajectory).
Have to be:
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
up >>> HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding
or >>> not. >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
to >>> 'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.- MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity
not >>> unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the racelikely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It isThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
but in >>> this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that
determined the >>> winner. >>>
cardrCY >>> all >> season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need toplay a victim card. >>> They just need to pick the card.The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
play a card >>> because they >> are victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to >>> effectively award the >> race to Max.
for >>> Max whose win will always be >> tainted.thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
safety >>>> car which would have been within the regulations but
I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
still >>>> allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he >>>> deserved.
lapped >> car has passed the leader the safety car will return toWhich regulation do you claim Masi breached?He definitely did not apply 48.12
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
the pits at >> the end of the following lap."
that as >> the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply
decision is >> that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now
Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
unfair to accuse >> him of breaching the regs.
No, it's not. It remains a truth.
The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all
well. 15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course)
has all authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not,
in any common sense or English sense give him the right to ignore
the regulations detailing the procedures.
stewards >> decision, he did breach the regs.Even though many would take a plain
English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
factor here?
No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's
purpose, not to give the RD the right to change the regs.
The fact that Mercedes protest was rejected means that the peopleI would normally agree with you on this; once a judgement has been
who actually understand and administer the regs disagree with you.
handed down, we have to accept that that is a statement on the
position of those officiating.
In this circumstance however I am more circumspect.
The concept that the RD can overrule specific clauses as written into
the regs is certainly a new one to most people.
I'd be pretty confident that a decent arbitration court would reject
their argument that the RD could do what he wanted with the SC.
Whether Merc want to push it that far, and whether indeed even if they
did disagree with the stewards an arbitration court would be prepared
to find a way of changing the result of the race, I don't know. A
lot of me hopes they don't, and Merc etc retain the moral high ground
of being a wronged party (and I'd hope they are charitable with Max
and RBR too as neither of them did anything wrong either).
It's an impossible situation to correct, unless you take the view
that everything was done properly, which I find a hard view to accept
even despite the Sunday evening reviews and outcomes.
keithr0 wrote:
On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that, it
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC,
martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note his trajectory).
Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the
option of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to
prang when he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10
seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new
soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
It is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome
of the race but in this instance it was the Race
Director that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
and play a victim card. They just need to pick the
card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim
cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to
play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs
illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
safety car which would have been within the regulations but
still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone
is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
pretty big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he
seems open to being influenced by principals shouting at
him - last week's bartering with Horner about what penalty
Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
became an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have
been the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the
end of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety
car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under
safety car he should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car,
then a different set of people (who think there's a different
"chosen one") would be whining about how the championship had
been "gifted" to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire
change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine
like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
has happened many times over the years drivers on course for victory
losing out through no fault of their own.
I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC,
martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note his trajectory).
required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to
VER, holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2
car the option of pitting or not. - LAT, for
managing to prang when he did. - MASSEY for
gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
'win' on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually
reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves
a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC to
determine the outcome of the race but in this
instance it was the Race Director that determined
the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad
losers and play a victim card. They just need to
pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively
award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whomI agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
"go racing" but he should have left the lapped cars
behind the safety car which would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance
which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision -Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this
everyone is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit
this was a pretty big one. What really annoys me,
however, is how he seems open to being influenced by
principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was
ridiculous.
became an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have
been the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at
the end of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety
car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race
under safety car he should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety
car, then a different set of people (who think there's a
different "chosen one") would be whining about how the
championship had been "gifted" to Hamilton, because he would
get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would
whine like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that,
it has happened many times over the years drivers on course for
victory losing out through no fault of their own.
I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max
victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I don't
think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows, maybe Jos
threatened to beat him up if he didn't.
The situation could have been avoided with one simple rule change -
as Lando has said close the pit lane while the safety car is out to
stop cars getting an unfair advantage.
keithr0 wrote:
On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
keithr0 wrote:The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max
On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that,
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC,
martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
first lap (note his trajectory).
required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance toThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
VER, holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2
car the option of pitting or not. - LAT, for
managing to prang when he did. - MASSEY for
gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually
reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves
a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC to
determine the outcome of the race but in this
instance it was the Race Director that determined
the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad
losers and play a victim card. They just need to
pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance Mercedes
donrCOt need to play a card because they are victims -
victims of MasirCOs illegal decision to effectively
award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
"go racing" but he should have left the lapped cars
behind the safety car which would have been within the
regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance
which was just about what he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision -
everyone is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit
this was a pretty big one. What really annoys me,
however, is how he seems open to being influenced by
principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was
ridiculous.
became an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have
been the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at
the end of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety
car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race
under safety car he should have thrown a red flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety
car, then a different set of people (who think there's a
different "chosen one") would be whining about how the
championship had been "gifted" to Hamilton, because he would
get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would
whine like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
it has happened many times over the years drivers on course for
victory losing out through no fault of their own.
I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I don't
think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows, maybe Jos
threatened to beat him up if he didn't.
You should ask Alan about that. It's one of the billion unknowns that apparently paralyse him and render him unable to make rational
judgements.
On 2021-12-21 6:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM
UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out
HAM on first lap (note his trajectory).
required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance
to VER, holding up HAM. - GIO for giving
the P2 car the option of pitting or not. -
LAT, for managing to prang when he did. -
MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely outcome pre safety car
leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a
SC to determine the outcome of the race but
in this instance it was the Race Director
that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be
bad losers and play a victim card. They just
need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance
Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they
are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision
to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either ofI agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow
whom would thoroughly have deserved the
championship, but especially for Max whose win
will always be tainted.
them to "go racing" but he should have left the
lapped cars behind the safety car which would have
been within the regulations but still allowed
Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what
he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision -Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where
everyone is entitled to a mistake under pressure
albeit this was a pretty big one. What really
annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last
week's bartering with Horner about what penalty
Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
this became an issue is when the accident happened
when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would
have been the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out
at the end of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a
safety car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end
the race under safety car he should have thrown a red
flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the
safety car, then a different set of people (who think
there's a different "chosen one") would be whining about
how the championship had been "gifted" to Hamilton,
because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would
whine like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in
that, it has happened many times over the years drivers on
course for victory losing out through no fault of their own.
I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I
don't think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows,
maybe Jos threatened to beat him up if he didn't.
You should ask Alan about that. It's one of the billion unknowns
that apparently paralyse him and render him unable to make rational judgements.
I like that I'm so in your head you feel the need to try to slam me
even when you're answering someone else.
Have a lovely Christmas Alan.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-21 6:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
keithr0 wrote:The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max
On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in
On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC,
martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid>
Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM
UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
Have to be:It was certainly a very hard block pass that
- VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out
HAM on first lap (note his trajectory).
required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
- PER for epic, if not extreme, assistanceThis is why it feels such a wrong decision.
to VER, holding up HAM. - GIO for giving
the P2 car the option of pitting or not. -
LAT, for managing to prang when he did. -
MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
To not follow the regs in a way that actually
reverses the likely outcome pre safety car
leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a
SC to determine the outcome of the race but
in this instance it was the Race Director
that determined the winner.
The best man won but don't worry Merc will be
bad losers and play a victim card. They just
need to pick the card.
Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
rCLvictim cardrCY all season. In this instance
Mercedes donrCOt need to play a card because they
are victims - victims of MasirCOs illegal decision
to effectively award the race to Max.
ItrCOs a sad situation for both drivers, either of
whom would thoroughly have deserved the
championship, but especially for Max whose win
will always be tainted.
them to "go racing" but he should have left the
lapped cars behind the safety car which would have
been within the regulations but still allowed
Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what
he deserved.
Masi should go.
I agree though not just because of this decision -
everyone is entitled to a mistake under pressure
albeit this was a pretty big one. What really
annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being
influenced by principals shouting at him - last
week's bartering with Horner about what penalty
Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
this became an issue is when the accident happened
when it did.
3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would
have been the same for Lewis / Max.
1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out
at the end of the race.
Because of the likely effect on the championship of a
safety car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end
the race under safety car he should have thrown a red
flag.
And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the
safety car, then a different set of people (who think
there's a different "chosen one") would be whining about
how the championship had been "gifted" to Hamilton,
because he would get a free tire change.
Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would
whine like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
that, it has happened many times over the years drivers on
course for victory losing out through no fault of their own.
I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I
don't think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows,
maybe Jos threatened to beat him up if he didn't.
You should ask Alan about that. It's one of the billion unknowns
that apparently paralyse him and render him unable to make rational
judgements.
I like that I'm so in your head you feel the need to try to slam me
even when you're answering someone else.
LOL.
So many things you do not know.
Have a lovely Christmas Alan.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 222:12:48 |
| Calls: | 132 |
| Files: | 706 |
| Messages: | 83,364 |