[Misc] F1 2021

[Creaky]

Could you give me a link to Lewis “spitting his dummy” rather than having a moan about something. If you’ve ever had kids you’ll know that there is a massive difference.

Heat of the moment on track incidents don’t count as all drivers do this, Max being up there as a world champion contender with his in car hissy fits. Personally love hearing them from all drivers, but I’d give Alonso the title, narrowly beating Seb.

Didn't he have a bit of a hissy fit a few years ago when his engine kept blowing up - conspiracy theories etc. - I think it was the year Rosberg won the title.

 

[Icy Gull]

Didn't he have a bit of a hissy fit a few years ago when his engine kept blowing up - conspiracy theories etc. - I think it was the year Rosberg won the title.

Possibly, they also switched the driver’s mechanics that year between the cars which I thought at the time was odd. He did have quite a few engine failures too.

I remember the conspiracy theory and joined in, as you’d expect

German car company wants a German F1 Champion. They got their way and Rosberg absolutely became a quitter!

 

[Audax]

1st day on the job an newly elected FIA president Mohammed ben Sulayem is already covering the FIA it yet more glory suggesting that Lewis may be punished for not attending the prize giving gala and stating 'rules are rules'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59705074

For god sake man read the room. After the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix we all know that rules are only rules until someone decides that they aren't rules and does whatever the hell they want.

...or am I misunderstanding again [MENTION=33374]Audax[/MENTION]

Well, I would respond to that with: do you want the FIA to respect its own rules (as so many, including myself, would have wanted at Abu Dhabi)? Or do you want them breaking their rules? He wasn't in charge when Abu Dhabi happened. And, as yet, he hasn't actually done anything beyond making a statement of fact. I very much doubt we should be hanging him for that.

I would certainly say that the noises coming out of Mercedes are suggestive that the reason they pulled their appeal is because the FIA has (behind closed doors) given them a clear understanding that the investigation into what happened at Abu Dhabi will focus on the right things and that material change for the better is possible.

I, for one, will wait and see what this new president of the FIA actually does for Formula 1 before judging him.

 

[Audax]

Not seen it hit the english-speaking press yet (doesn't suit their narrative?), but the new FIA president making the right noises (will wait to see what actions he follows with) re: making change to prevent an Abu Dhabi repeat: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/rkp42c/new_fia_president_promises_abu_dhabi_will_not_be/

 

[Bold Seagull]

Didn't he have a bit of a hissy fit a few years ago when his engine kept blowing up - conspiracy theories etc. - I think it was the year Rosberg won the title.

Malaysia 2016, he had the perfect weekend, error free for pole in qualifying, and an error free race which he drove to near perfection way out ahead. And his engine gave out. He made an after race comment that maybe someone didn't want him to win the title. That was it. That was the hissy fit. All the conspiracy theories were social media led. The way the knockers latch onto these things are worse that the fan-boys that defend his every move.

 

[drew]

Surely the simple solution would be to allow pit stops under a SC situation but that you retain your track position as at the start of the SC when you come out.

 

[Wozza]

Not seen it hit the english-speaking press yet (doesn't suit their narrative?), but the new FIA president making the right noises (will wait to see what actions he follows with) re: making change to prevent an Abu Dhabi repeat: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/rkp42c/new_fia_president_promises_abu_dhabi_will_not_be/

Of course he's going to say that. The Abu Dhabi debacle* was a truly terrible advert for the sport.

* That should be a band name.

 

[Audax]

Surely the simple solution would be to allow pit stops under a SC situation but that you retain your track position as at the start of the SC when you come out.

Too simple.

Indycar has a set of Safety Car rules that would have prevented the farce. As does Nascar. Both series have a long, long history of SC interventions and have thus refined their rules (in differing directions) over the years to the point where they are a) very specific, and b) very easily understood, and c) limit race direction discretion to tightly controlled specifics.

For example, in Indycar the only discretion the race director has is whether to go with SC or Red flag. Beyond that, the rules are clear and tightly defined. The other thing I like with Indycar is that they do not allow repairs / tyre changes under red flag. Damaged your car / tyres? No free fix for you.

Having said that, I think the Indy rule on repairs/tyres could be relaxed a little, and the F1 rule tightened. F1 allows full tyre changes and whatever repairs a team can complete in time. For F1, I'd perhaps suggest that the default position be "no tyre changes or repairs", but that teams can apply for and be granted permission to make repairs and/or tyre changes but in exchange they take a penalty once racing resumes that is designed to remove the "freebie" element. So .. take tyres, get a drive-through to be taken within X laps of racing resumes. Carry out repairs, get a stop-go (0s, 5s, 10s depending on repair) to be taken within X laps of racing resuming.

 

[Audax]

Of course he's going to say that. The Abu Dhabi debacle* was a truly terrible advert for the sport.

* That should be a band name.

Hence my note that need to wait and see what he actually does about it. All I can say at the moment is that I'm happy he's not chosen to go hard early and instead will take his time. As longas he doesn't take too long, and we start 2022 with a set of rules and directives to stewards that give clarity to everyone concerned (stewards, teams, drivers, fans) that I'll be happy.

The injustice of Abu Dhabi won't ever get reversed. That horse has bolted. What we need to see now is some strong leadership from the top that sorts out the stewarding problems in Formula 1. It's a delicate balance for the new guy to find: Max Mosley (and Balestre before him) was too involved with F1, constantly meddling (along with Bernie) and it hurt the sport for a long time, albeit in an era where it was largely hidden from the casual fan. The Todt era, for me, has been ultimately marred in the other way: Todt was too hands-off, and as a result the sport has been allowed to drift - in particular when it comes to the FIA's main area of influence with the stewarding.

Far too many decisions this season where the stewards decisions were confusing or downright nonsense. That's the result of several seasons where there hasn't been strong leadership on it (including the later years of Charlie Whiting). There's a serious lack of consistency, there's rules that are too open to interpretation (and re-interpretation, and re-re-interpretation etc). Stewards have allowed themselves to be badgered by teams and the FIA hasn't been strong enough to take firm and lasting action to clean this side of the sport up.

Few (relatively) simple things I would look at if I was in the new FIA President's shoes:

1. Permanent stewards. You're never going to get consistency in decisions if the people making the decisions are different at every race. The ex-driver "advisory" role can maybe continue to vary, but the other stewards need to be the same people at every race. And they need to be empowered with a clear set of directives on how stewarding is to be handled, defined on the back of clear "precedent" examples. Do away with the "every incident is different so we can make diametrically opposed decisions unilaterally" bollocks that has emerged since Masi became Race Director.

2. Role and responsibilities of the Race Director clearly and tightly defined in the rules. Remove all the carte blanche discretionary powers. Also remove any powers for the Race Director to interpose him/her-self between an event and the stewards: it should be entirely in the hands of the stewards whether or not they investigate and what punishment is then handed out.

3. All camera feeds are always available to stewards on demand. If a camera exists, its feed is available to the stewards on-the-spot. No more Verstappen/Brazil situations where potentially crucial evidence isn't available until after the race.

4. The consequences of poor driving standards *should* play a role in determining punishment. I understand the logic of why Masi has led a culture of ignoring the consequences and ruling purely on whether or not a breach of the rules took place, but I also completely disagree with it: there are too many corners in F1 where a bad driving decision could cause injury (or worse) and that should, IMO, be considered by stewards. Tagging someone into a spin at Eau Rouge is a very different kettle of fish to tagging someone into a spin at La Source.

5. On the flipside, there should be no leniency on "forcing another driver off track" track limits infringements. I don't care if there's tarmac runoff, a gravel trap, or a wall: if you are deemed to have failed to leave room for a driver legitimately trying to run side-by-side around the outside of a corner, it should be an automatic penalty.

6. If (and it's a big if IMO...) the practice of allowing a driver to "hand back" a place gained/kept through unfair advantage (eg track limits violation) in order to avoid a penalty is to continue, then a) it must be handed back promptly and b) no subsequent attack should be made until the unfair advantage has been fully neutralised. That means not allowing drivers to hand the place back immediately before a DRS zone and then using DRS to immediately take it back again. That neatly removes the incentive for the likes of Max to play silly games like that 'brake test' at Saudi Arabia (don't think it was intended to be a brake test personally, but in reality that's what happened as a result of the rules incentiving Max to attempt to play the DRA game while technically obeying the "hand the place back" request).

6a. Alternatively, my preference would be to no longer allow any voluntary hand-back of places. Instead, allow the stewards to impose a "hand place back" penalty with clear rules prescribing how that is done. If that is then ignored, the stewards are then given the option of a big time penalty and/or black flag.

7. Block team principals / team staff from opening conversations with the stewards / race director on sporting / rules matters. Replace it with a safety-only channel. It won't stop them using the team<->driver channels to try to influence the stewards, but it will stop them directly badgering and influencing decision making processes.

8. Borrow Formula E's one-way Race Director to Drivers comms channel. Not saying it's perfect (Formula E has its own stewarding / race direction issues to resolve as well!), but it feels like a step in the right direction when it comes to communications during safety cars etc.

9. Weaving on the straights to break the slipstream for a following driver. Why the actual F have the stewards allowed this to creep back into F1? The rulebook clearly outlaws multiple changes of direction as defensive moves, and IMO weaving to break the slipstream is exactly that: multiple changes of direction. No warnings, it should be an instant penalty.

 

[JJ McClure]

Hence my note that need to wait and see what he actually does about it. All I can say at the moment is that I'm happy he's not chosen to go hard early and instead will take his time. As longas he doesn't take too long, and we start 2022 with a set of rules and directives to stewards that give clarity to everyone concerned (stewards, teams, drivers, fans) that I'll be happy.

The injustice of Abu Dhabi won't ever get reversed. That horse has bolted. What we need to see now is some strong leadership from the top that sorts out the stewarding problems in Formula 1. It's a delicate balance for the new guy to find: Max Mosley (and Balestre before him) was too involved with F1, constantly meddling (along with Bernie) and it hurt the sport for a long time, albeit in an era where it was largely hidden from the casual fan. The Todt era, for me, has been ultimately marred in the other way: Todt was too hands-off, and as a result the sport has been allowed to drift - in particular when it comes to the FIA's main area of influence with the stewarding.

Far too many decisions this season where the stewards decisions were confusing or downright nonsense. That's the result of several seasons where there hasn't been strong leadership on it (including the later years of Charlie Whiting). There's a serious lack of consistency, there's rules that are too open to interpretation (and re-interpretation, and re-re-interpretation etc). Stewards have allowed themselves to be badgered by teams and the FIA hasn't been strong enough to take firm and lasting action to clean this side of the sport up.

Few (relatively) simple things I would look at if I was in the new FIA President's shoes:

1. Permanent stewards. You're never going to get consistency in decisions if the people making the decisions are different at every race. The ex-driver "advisory" role can maybe continue to vary, but the other stewards need to be the same people at every race. And they need to be empowered with a clear set of directives on how stewarding is to be handled, defined on the back of clear "precedent" examples. Do away with the "every incident is different so we can make diametrically opposed decisions unilaterally" bollocks that has emerged since Masi became Race Director.

2. Role and responsibilities of the Race Director clearly and tightly defined in the rules. Remove all the carte blanche discretionary powers. Also remove any powers for the Race Director to interpose him/her-self between an event and the stewards: it should be entirely in the hands of the stewards whether or not they investigate and what punishment is then handed out.

3. All camera feeds are always available to stewards on demand. If a camera exists, its feed is available to the stewards on-the-spot. No more Verstappen/Brazil situations where potentially crucial evidence isn't available until after the race.

4. The consequences of poor driving standards *should* play a role in determining punishment. I understand the logic of why Masi has led a culture of ignoring the consequences and ruling purely on whether or not a breach of the rules took place, but I also completely disagree with it: there are too many corners in F1 where a bad driving decision could cause injury (or worse) and that should, IMO, be considered by stewards. Tagging someone into a spin at Eau Rouge is a very different kettle of fish to tagging someone into a spin at La Source.

5. On the flipside, there should be no leniency on "forcing another driver off track" track limits infringements. I don't care if there's tarmac runoff, a gravel trap, or a wall: if you are deemed to have failed to leave room for a driver legitimately trying to run side-by-side around the outside of a corner, it should be an automatic penalty.

6. If (and it's a big if IMO...) the practice of allowing a driver to "hand back" a place gained/kept through unfair advantage (eg track limits violation) in order to avoid a penalty is to continue, then a) it must be handed back promptly and b) no subsequent attack should be made until the unfair advantage has been fully neutralised. That means not allowing drivers to hand the place back immediately before a DRS zone and then using DRS to immediately take it back again. That neatly removes the incentive for the likes of Max to play silly games like that 'brake test' at Saudi Arabia (don't think it was intended to be a brake test personally, but in reality that's what happened as a result of the rules incentiving Max to attempt to play the DRA game while technically obeying the "hand the place back" request).

6a. Alternatively, my preference would be to no longer allow any voluntary hand-back of places. Instead, allow the stewards to impose a "hand place back" penalty with clear rules prescribing how that is done. If that is then ignored, the stewards are then given the option of a big time penalty and/or black flag.

7. Block team principals / team staff from opening conversations with the stewards / race director on sporting / rules matters. Replace it with a safety-only channel. It won't stop them using the team<->driver channels to try to influence the stewards, but it will stop them directly badgering and influencing decision making processes.

8. Borrow Formula E's one-way Race Director to Drivers comms channel. Not saying it's perfect (Formula E has its own stewarding / race direction issues to resolve as well!), but it feels like a step in the right direction when it comes to communications during safety cars etc.

9. Weaving on the straights to break the slipstream for a following driver. Why the actual F have the stewards allowed this to creep back into F1? The rulebook clearly outlaws multiple changes of direction as defensive moves, and IMO weaving to break the slipstream is exactly that: multiple changes of direction. No warnings, it should be an instant penalty.

Great post [MENTION=33374]Audax[/MENTION] I think I agree with pretty much all of that. Have you considered submitting your CV for the hopefully soon to be vacant post of race director?

 

[Creaky]

Malaysia 2016, he had the perfect weekend, error free for pole in qualifying, and an error free race which he drove to near perfection way out ahead. And his engine gave out. He made an after race comment that maybe someone didn't want him to win the title. That was it. That was the hissy fit. All the conspiracy theories were social media led. The way the knockers latch onto these things are worse that the fan-boys that defend his every move.

I do remember he looked very angry when he got out of his car - who wouldn’t? - and in the immediate aftermath said some things that he probably wouldn’t have were he in a calmer mood.

I didn’t mention that race in order to put LH down but rather to point out to his disciples that he is human and in many ways behaves in exactly the same way as any competitive sportsman, (including MV), when things don’t go to plan.

 

[Creaky]

Hence my note that need to wait and see what he actually does about it. All I can say at the moment is that I'm happy he's not chosen to go hard early and instead will take his time. As longas he doesn't take too long, and we start 2022 with a set of rules and directives to stewards that give clarity to everyone concerned (stewards, teams, drivers, fans) that I'll be happy.

The injustice of Abu Dhabi won't ever get reversed. That horse has bolted. What we need to see now is some strong leadership from the top that sorts out the stewarding problems in Formula 1. It's a delicate balance for the new guy to find: Max Mosley (and Balestre before him) was too involved with F1, constantly meddling (along with Bernie) and it hurt the sport for a long time, albeit in an era where it was largely hidden from the casual fan. The Todt era, for me, has been ultimately marred in the other way: Todt was too hands-off, and as a result the sport has been allowed to drift - in particular when it comes to the FIA's main area of influence with the stewarding.

Far too many decisions this season where the stewards decisions were confusing or downright nonsense. That's the result of several seasons where there hasn't been strong leadership on it (including the later years of Charlie Whiting). There's a serious lack of consistency, there's rules that are too open to interpretation (and re-interpretation, and re-re-interpretation etc). Stewards have allowed themselves to be badgered by teams and the FIA hasn't been strong enough to take firm and lasting action to clean this side of the sport up.

Few (relatively) simple things I would look at if I was in the new FIA President's shoes:

1. Permanent stewards. You're never going to get consistency in decisions if the people making the decisions are different at every race. The ex-driver "advisory" role can maybe continue to vary, but the other stewards need to be the same people at every race. And they need to be empowered with a clear set of directives on how stewarding is to be handled, defined on the back of clear "precedent" examples. Do away with the "every incident is different so we can make diametrically opposed decisions unilaterally" bollocks that has emerged since Masi became Race Director.

2. Role and responsibilities of the Race Director clearly and tightly defined in the rules. Remove all the carte blanche discretionary powers. Also remove any powers for the Race Director to interpose him/her-self between an event and the stewards: it should be entirely in the hands of the stewards whether or not they investigate and what punishment is then handed out.

3. All camera feeds are always available to stewards on demand. If a camera exists, its feed is available to the stewards on-the-spot. No more Verstappen/Brazil situations where potentially crucial evidence isn't available until after the race.

4. The consequences of poor driving standards *should* play a role in determining punishment. I understand the logic of why Masi has led a culture of ignoring the consequences and ruling purely on whether or not a breach of the rules took place, but I also completely disagree with it: there are too many corners in F1 where a bad driving decision could cause injury (or worse) and that should, IMO, be considered by stewards. Tagging someone into a spin at Eau Rouge is a very different kettle of fish to tagging someone into a spin at La Source.

5. On the flipside, there should be no leniency on "forcing another driver off track" track limits infringements. I don't care if there's tarmac runoff, a gravel trap, or a wall: if you are deemed to have failed to leave room for a driver legitimately trying to run side-by-side around the outside of a corner, it should be an automatic penalty.

6. If (and it's a big if IMO...) the practice of allowing a driver to "hand back" a place gained/kept through unfair advantage (eg track limits violation) in order to avoid a penalty is to continue, then a) it must be handed back promptly and b) no subsequent attack should be made until the unfair advantage has been fully neutralised. That means not allowing drivers to hand the place back immediately before a DRS zone and then using DRS to immediately take it back again. That neatly removes the incentive for the likes of Max to play silly games like that 'brake test' at Saudi Arabia (don't think it was intended to be a brake test personally, but in reality that's what happened as a result of the rules incentiving Max to attempt to play the DRA game while technically obeying the "hand the place back" request).

6a. Alternatively, my preference would be to no longer allow any voluntary hand-back of places. Instead, allow the stewards to impose a "hand place back" penalty with clear rules prescribing how that is done. If that is then ignored, the stewards are then given the option of a big time penalty and/or black flag.

7. Block team principals / team staff from opening conversations with the stewards / race director on sporting / rules matters. Replace it with a safety-only channel. It won't stop them using the team<->driver channels to try to influence the stewards, but it will stop them directly badgering and influencing decision making processes.

8. Borrow Formula E's one-way Race Director to Drivers comms channel. Not saying it's perfect (Formula E has its own stewarding / race direction issues to resolve as well!), but it feels like a step in the right direction when it comes to communications during safety cars etc.

9. Weaving on the straights to break the slipstream for a following driver. Why the actual F have the stewards allowed this to creep back into F1? The rulebook clearly outlaws multiple changes of direction as defensive moves, and IMO weaving to break the slipstream is exactly that: multiple changes of direction. No warnings, it should be an instant penalty.

Most of that sounds like reasonable suggestions.

I’m not sure number 3 is practical - depends on the bandwidth and number of feeds coming from each car - in Brazil the feed swapped from the front facing camera to the rear one just before the corner - nothing was withheld from the stewards - the video feed simply wasn’t available.

Number 5 is a tricky one - how do you define forcing a driver off the track and at what point do you have to leave room? Is a driver on the outside approaching a corner with their front wing overlapping the rear wing of the car on the inside entitled to “room”? If not what about front wheels alongside rear? You see it’s all very subjective and each case will be different. Personally I’d go for if the car on the outside is ahead of the one on the inside at the start of the corner then the inside car must leave room, (isn’t that already the rule?).

Regarding number 9 then I don’t see a real problem with “weaving” to break the slipstream on two conditions - firstly it’s not in the braking zone, a definite no-no, and secondly the following car is not within a couple of car lengths of the leading car.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I do remember he looked very angry when he got out of his car - who wouldn’t? - and in the immediate aftermath said some things that he probably wouldn’t have were he in a calmer mood.

I didn’t mention that race in order to put LH down but rather to point out to his disciples that he is human and in many ways behaves in exactly the same way as any competitive sportsman, (including MV), when things don’t go to plan.

He is far from a perfect human being, however genius is often tinged with these character defects. And when I say defects, I mean they're not normal, and of course they're not normal, they can do something better than anyone else.

 

[Icy Gull]

F1 will be a poorer place without Lewis. I am expecting a fudge but the very least the FIA need to do is sack Massi. Very surprised this hasn’t already happened. The guy decided the F1 title with his manipulated cock up, even if it gave the result the FIA were gagging for. Maybe the reason he still has a job lies there…. i love a conspiracy theory


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59987230

 

[Hugo Rune]

F1 will be a poorer place without Lewis. I am expecting a fudge but the very least the FIA need to do is sack Massi. Very surprised this hasn’t already happened. The guy decided the F1 title with his manipulated cock up, even if it gave the result the FIA were gagging for. Maybe the reason he still has a job lies there…. i love a conspiracy theory


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59987230

“Final decisions will be announced on the eve of the new season.”

Lewis won’t wait until then. He’s gone.