F1 2021 Season

First topic message reminder :

Jeff Navarro wrote:I’ve watched f1, and motorsports in general, for many years and I’ve never seen the bartering of penalties.

Beyond a joke.

Race director making decisions on the fly rather than sticking to the FIA rule book is maybe a recipe to maintain entertainment in the moment - but it is moving Formula One away from meaningful sport and more towards WWW meaningless entertainment.

I think there are two issues here: a) Maintaining the integrity of the sport  b) Face saving (brushing it under the carpet).

What comes next - sprint races and reverse grids?  We already have sprint races so maybe reverse grids comes next.

Rules are rules and they have to be abided by everyone yet here we have Michael Massi (at a critical point) saying to hell with the rules and allowing a half-arsed restart that broke FIA rules. It would be cruel to take the title away from Max now but it would be fair by the rules.

FIA rejects Mercedes appeal for ‘overtaking behind safety car’.

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:OK, last post for now, and I'll attempt to play devil's advocate a little.

We have had an incredibly dramatic season, I think everyone will agree on that. Two drivers driving for the most part superbly, duking it out, miles ahead of the rest of the field. Some great battles, and some controversy/flashpoints. It comes down to the last race of the season, winner takes all. Just as it looks like the race is petering out into a comfortable win, a SC. Late drama!

You couldn't script it, etc. But then it appears that there won't actually be time to re-start the race properly, and instead it'll just be a dull procession behind a SC. All this, 21 races, for a complete damp squib? So the race director tries everything to re-start the race, and ultimately who cares if the process isn't quite followed? (rhetorical question, obviously)

That's what I can imagine the thought process could have been. Is it right? Probably not. Is it understandable? Maybe.

I'm not so sure it is understandable. There was no drama on that final lap for my reckoning - Verstappen on fresh soft tyres v Hamilton on knackered hard tyres for a lap, only going to be one winner.

Your devil's advocate post highlights exactly the reason why this Verstappen 'win' needs to be overturned: because otherwise it creates a precedent where future race directors can tear up the rule book whenever they like for the guise of 'entertainment'. Then it's not F1, it's scripted WWE nonsense, and it can't be allowed to stand.

This isn't just about Hamilton getting the title he deserves - the entire future of F1 is at stake.

Agreed. If the rules had been followed, Hamilton wins. If Verstappen keeps the title, it is basically based on a clearly incorrect/illegal decision from Masi.

Jeff Navarro wrote:FIA rejects Mercedes appeal for ‘overtaking behind safety car’.

That was always going to happen. The real meat of the protest is about the restart, and Masi bypassing the rule book, in a desperate attempt to gain a racing outcome.

This is a no brainer. The rules weren’t followed. Title to Hamilton and sack Masi. Harsh on Verstappen but he was 30 seconds off Hamilton’s pace today with no safety cars so don’t feel that sorry for him.

I expect the FIA to find a way to not alter the outcome though and this to have to go to CAS.

Born Slippy wrote:i expect the FIA to find a way to not alter the outcome though and this to have to go to CAS.

That’s what I’m expecting

The FIA’s easy out, would of been to just accept that overtaking under the SC, and given Max the penalty. They won’t rule against themselves on the restart mess. This is going to the courts

Just to add there was also a first lap incident that was waived away.

Marco Rossi stating both appeals have been dismissed.

Jeff Navarro wrote:Marco Rossi stating both appeals have been dismissed.

Bound to happen, if true. They were never going to admit it was a balls up, and Masi broke the rules.

It’s going to the courts.

No official fia documents yet but Red Bull left the fia saying protest is rejected.

Heading for Paris now. This will roll into, 2022.

Disgrace. Take it to the CAS.

"once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."

It's indisputable.

Pretty embarrassing if this goes further tbh. Wonder what Lewis makes of trying to win a title in the courts

GSC wrote:Pretty embarrassing if this goes further tbh. Wonder what Lewis makes of trying to win a title in the courts

There's nothing embarrassing about it. The rules have been flouted. It's only just to seek proper compensation.

 preferred when you went awol during Qatar, Saudi and Brazil

Why's it embarrassing expecting the regulations to be followed properly? It is however embarrassing winning a world title this way.

It all depends on Mercedes pushing forward with this. They might do this because otherwise there is no certainty in future that FIA regulations will be followed. It all depends on whether the race director has the power to bend / break the rule book.

There’s a few subsections in the fia law book that has some interesting wording - no I’m not that sad that I’ve read the book

But under one subsection there’s an option for race directors discretion.

Fia will stick to this.

I am sure that Michael Masi is not an idiot - he knew he would be bending / breaking the rulebook. Somebody (Liberty Media, Ross Brawn, Netflix, FIA,???) have maybe given him verbal direction / pressure to use all his discretion to either get a result as in the "half race" that was a safety car procession, or to have a race finish under racing conditions rather than a safety car.

With the introduction of Sprint Races, new regulations for next year (leaders will get penalized - less simulation time etc), strong consideration to trial reverse grids - there is an overall push to a) get results b) maximize racing c) maximize F1 marketability (entertainment) d) level the field e) reduce the costs.

I think when the dust settles and if there is a push for clarity we will find the race director has been given the discretion to do this. However maybe we will only know if Mercedes push this further.

Appeal rejected because of nonsense reasons:

"Article 15.3 allows the race director to control the use of the safety car. Article 48.12 not applied fully, in relation to s/c returning to pits at end of following lap, 48.13 overrides it. Once message “s/c in this lap” displayed, mandatory to withdraw s/c at end of lap."

"Mercedes' request that stewards remediate the matter by amending the classification to reflect the positions at the end of the penultimate lap, this is a step that the Stewards believe is effectively shortening the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate." (Quoted from Andrew Benson who quoted the decision)

FIA also stated it was desirable to end the race with a green flag finish, not under a safety car. All nonsense.

They've essentially admitted they didn't apply one of their rules properly in order to have a manufactured finish. Mercedes need to get this overturned. Verstappen is no more an F1 Champion than I am.

Mercedes have made ‘an intention to appeal’. They have 96hrs to formalise the appeal.

If the racing director has been given discretion within the rule book to over ride other rules within the rule book then technically the rule book has been followed - with some rules taking precedent over others. Obviously Mercedes are considering whether or not to contest that at a court of appeal. In football there is a rule book but ultimately the referee has the power to conduct the game as he sees fit including being free to "make mistakes". With the billionaire owners in the Premier League they are powerless to correct in game "mistakes".

Hopefully I’m wrong, but can’t see anything being overturned. It’s a farce, and has stained the championship, along with the image of F1. That article 15 nonsense, seemingly, gives that incompetent clown, free reign. It’s incredibly dangerous to allow that kind of authority/leeway to be given, to one individual. The FIA is a governing body, which is unfit for purpose. It’s a tainted championship, along with some others, from many moons ago.

Article 15.3 isn't that strong. It only refers to the Race Director having overriding authority over the clerk of the course, not over the whole rule book:

Spoiler:

Nowhere in that does it say that the race director can do what likes with 'use of the safety car'. It only clarifies his hierarchical relationship with the clerk, not that he can ride roughshod over the rule book whenever the mood takes him, otherwise what would be the point of the rule book?

And we already know 48.13 does not overrule 48.12, however much the FIA pretend otherwise; and the FIA have firmly shot themselves in the foot by admitting in their ruling that they didn't apply the relevant article (48.12) fully.

Mercedes wouldn't waste time on a dead duck, they know they have a strong case.

Terrible decision on the appeal to back up the complete ineptitude of the original decision. I hope Mercedes take this as far as they can do. Not Max’s fault but he should not be world champion. I will not be watching F1 again and I’m not even particularly a Hamilton fan.

Right something I didn’t understand. Yes they tried to improve the track at Yas Marina, but what on earth is the second banked turn about? The old chicane was a genuine passing opportunity. Now aside from the chicane between the straights - there’s literally no opportunity to pass.
Where Verstappen passed Hamilton isn’t a genuine passing opportunity, that was tyre differential.
I don’t understand why the track has to go under the hotel.

Does anyone know why RB boxed Perez by the way? It was clearly tactical but what did it gain?

Born Slippy wrote:Does anyone know why RB boxed Perez by the way? It was clearly tactical but what did it gain?

They lost water pressure and oil pressure so most likely an imminent engine failure.

There is Mercedes the race team (headed by Toto Wolff) and then there is Mercedes the parent company / manufacturer. I suspect the parent company might not want to cause too much noise over this if they feel it might impact upon them negatively. They can still say they won their 8th consecutive constructors title in their marketing brochures etc.

IANAL, but as I understand it, FIA's defense has two components: firstly that Article 15.3 allows Masi to control the use of the safety car, and thus that it was a valid decision to re-start in the way they did, and secondly that Article 48.13 means that once the "SC retiring this lap" message flashed, even if that decision was itself incorrect, the race had to proceed based on it.

First off, it seems to me that FIA is trying a bit of a "have cake and eat it" approach here, essentially saying: the call was fine, and even if it wasn't, nothing we could/can do once it was made and communicated. Anyway, let's look at both arguments in turn. Regs are here by the way, for those that can be bothered: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2021_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_iss_13_-_2021-12-08.pdf

Duty has already quoted Article 15.3, so no need to repeat that, but let's look at what the provisions are in Articles 48.12 an 48.13.

From 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."
Our first oddity here is that Masi only allowed a few cars to overtake, which seems to directly contradict the bolded bit above. There certainly seems to be no provision for this anywhere in the regulations: it's either safe for all cars to unlap themselves, or for none of them. This kind of makes sense: by the time it's safe for cars to unlap themselves it means the track has to be clear-ish, which means the cars will all be nicely lined up behind the SC, so how can it be safe for some of them to unlap themselves but not all?

The second relevant part has already been quoted quite a bit: "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."
The issue with the bolded bit and the way the FIA are arguing the case, as I see it, is that this isn't a judgement call. It doesn't say "The clerk will instruct the safety car to return to the pits...", it says "the safety car will return to the pits..."

So based on this, it seems to me that the FIA are arguing that not only does Article 15.3 give Masi the right to overrule calls made by the clerk with regards to the way SC periods are managed, he also has the right to overrule the regulations. Again, IANAL, but I don't see Article 15.3 in that way at all. Rather, like Duty, I see it as simply establishing a hierarchy of who makes the decisions. In any case, even if the wording of Article 15.3 were technically loose enough to allow this interpretation, this seems to me to be an incredibly dangerous argument to make: you are essentially saying that Masi has absolute power in determining what happens in those five areas, regardless of what the rules say should/must happen. Is this really a road we want to go down? A Race Director who can, and does, make up rules as he wants? I really don't think so.

But wait, there's also Article 48.13: "When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP" will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system and the car's orange lights will be extinguished. This will be the signal to the Competitors and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap."

FIA may well argue that the bolded part allows the clerk to decide to call in the safety car whenever. Thus Masi could also do that under Article 15.3. Hmmm. Given that it immediately follows the previously quoted bit about SC returning at the end of the following lap unless it's deemed unsafe this seems a stretch to be honest, but there may be enough wiggle-room there. The argument is that essentially the clerk/Masi can at any point decide it's safe to call in the safety car, and that this supersedes any of the provisions set out in 48.12 (including the emphatically worded "will"). Perhaps? But then what's the point of that previous paragraph at all, if ultimately it's just up to the clerk/race director to decide when it's safe to retire the SC? Any lawyers out there want to have a go at that one?

FIA's other argument is that once the call to retire the SC had been made, regardless of whether that decision was correct or not, the race had to proceed. Sort of a "the referee's decision is final, even if it's (demonstrably) wrong". I can see that argument holding out, but we'll see.

Those are, in my view, the technical arguments. The "moral" arguments remain. What we have is a race director who ignored at least some of the regulations of safe racing in favour of making a more exciting finish. And the thing is, Masi is not an idiot. He will have known that if he allowed Max and Lewis to race on that final lap there was only ever going to be one winner with the tyre situation. So yeah, it stinks.

Let’s be clear, if you’d asked FIA at the start of the race whether Masi has the power to overrule the rules in respect of the safety car, they’d obviously have said “of course not - as Race Director he will appropriately apply the regulations”. This is a decision worked backwards to justify the horrendous initial decision.

Masi obviously won’t be there at the start of next season but that doesn’t get Lewis his title back.

No name Bertie wrote:So we have Michael Masi breaching the FIA regulations?

Partly, but he's also not helped by the fact their own rules are contradictory.

48.12 states that, "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 then you have 48.13 which states, "Once the message 'safety car in this lap' has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap."

So as well as getting a competent race director in place ASAP, the FIA also needs to get an independent team to go through their rule book with a fine tooth comb, to look for any more inconsistencies. I certainly wouldn't trust them to find and fix their own mistakes.

In fairness, the rules have been amended and re-written so many times over the years, that the rule book is probably one giant almost incomprehensible mess now.

They really need to start with a blank sheet of paper. Maybe pick out the bits of the existing rules that still make sense, but re-write everything else, to make them much more black and white.

As a few posters have noted, there are far too many grey areas that are open to interpretation, which can result in farcical situations like yesterday.

Would make the stewards' and Race Director's job easier if they didn't have to spend so much time interpreting. Teams would get decisions in a more timely manner, having the correct impact on races. Should also lead to more consistent decisions.

Jeff Navarro wrote:Right something I didn’t understand. Yes they tried to improve the track at Yas Marina, but what on earth is the second banked turn about? The old chicane was a genuine passing opportunity. Now aside from the chicane between the straights - there’s literally no opportunity to pass.
Where Verstappen passed Hamilton isn’t a genuine passing opportunity, that was tyre differential.
I don’t understand why the track has to go under the hotel.

They wanted to make it a faster, more flowing circuit - presumably after seeing the Qatar and Saudi tracks. The idea was to take out some chicanes so there would be fewer braking areas. Ended up taking about 15 seconds off the lap time.

I think banked sections are just becoming fashionable now. Drivers seem to like them and it looks cool, seeing cars take them at high speed.

Track probably goes under the hotel to give guests a view of the action. I'm more curious as to why they decided to make the pit lane go through a tunnel.

Born Slippy wrote:
Does anyone know why RB boxed Perez by the way? It was clearly tactical but what did it gain?

They had to retire the car. Sensors must have picked up something was about to fail. Sad for Checo after the race he had.

The idea "the future of F1 is at stake" is a rather ridiculous over exaggeration

I'd expect Mercedes try to take it to CAS, but I don't think Lewis would want to win a world title in the courts. Especially the one to go past Schumacher and set the record.

Would imagine Merc don't get far with over turning the result, but probably some rule changes/tweaks are coming, and either Masi is gone or he gets some serious extra support.

Think I will check out of the incoming 2/3 months of rule combing and appeals - and just look forward to 2022. Hopefully the new regs actually do allow the cars to run closer and for more overtaking, and bring the field closer together.

Also agree Jeff on the Yas Marina track changes - didn't work for this race. Hopefully they do for the 2022 cars

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:
The idea "the future of F1 is at stake" is a rather ridiculous over exaggeration

Not at all.

We've already had a number of very questionable decisions by Masi and his team this season, which could quite rightly be viewed as the thin end of the wedge.

Extrapolated over a number of seasons in future, where the Race Director decides to interpret the rules to engineer results - especially when they decide titles, would definitely push F1 to being more like WWE, where it becomes "sports entertainment" and the drivers' & engineers' skills become secondary to the whims of those in authority.

Thats why it is vital this kind of crap is nipped in the bud right now, before it becomes an accepted part of the sport.

"Engineering" drama to boost the sport's appeal to casual fans, at the expense of fair (or at least consistent) governance would sound the death knell for F1.

Either that or there would be a seismic shift in the fan demographic, with the true motorsport fans making way for kids and their parents who just want to see exciting shenanigans.

From what I’m hearing Michael Masi isn’t going anywhere. FIA will stand by him come hell or high water…obviously down the line it could change. But seems very unlikely.

The stewarding panel needs reworking before 2022. If F1 is now ‘modern era’ why do we have dinosaurs from many moons ago?

I think guys like Button, Rosberg, Webber, Hill, Raikkonen(if he can be bothered) etc should be where we move towards. Elite drivers from the current era.

Jeff Navarro wrote:I think guys like Button, Rosberg, Webber, Hill, Raikkonen(if he can be bothered) etc should be where we move towards. Elite drivers from the current era.

I don’t disagree with your point, but none of those drivers were ‘elite’

The problem really is F1 has always acted as though they have "soft" rules with regards on track rules. they've been inconsistently applied for years, and under stress from repeated incidents between the leading teams, the approach has largely been exposed. Which is not to say the teams have behaved well either. The race director should not be being petitioned by a team director to not bring out the safety car at half distance because it favours his team.

There will always be a degree of a grey area when it comes to incidents, but F1 needs clear guidelines with clear penalties defined. I think you could go through the last 10 races and find multiple examples where similar incidents have received vastly different outcomes.

Just Gareth wrote:

Jeff Navarro wrote:I think guys like Button, Rosberg, Webber, Hill, Raikkonen(if he can be bothered) etc should be where we move towards. Elite drivers from the current era.

I don’t disagree with your point, but none of those drivers were ‘elite’

In terms of elite I’d say the above mentioned are more worthy than Warwick and Connolly.
And IMO being WDC = elite
So only Webber isn’t totally elite.

I'd pay for a team director to Kimi in race radio feed

GSC wrote:The problem really is F1 has always acted as though they have "soft" rules with regards on track rules. they've been inconsistently applied for years, and under stress from repeated incidents between the leading teams, the approach has largely been exposed. Which is not to say the teams have behaved well either. The race director should not be being petitioned by a team director to not bring out the safety car at half distance because it favours his team.

There will always be a degree of a grey area when it comes to incidents, but F1 needs clear guidelines with clear penalties defined. I think you could go through the last 10 races and find multiple examples where similar incidents have received vastly different outcomes.

I agree with this. We talk about drivers giving each other space, but in the next sentence we might say that a driver owned the corner, so had the right to take the racing line even if said line forces the other driver wide/off the track. Those two things are somewhat contradictory, and it can be a grey area as to where one begins and another ends. Example: Max's overtake attempt on lap 1 here. Did Max "own the corner" and therefore have the right to force Hamilton to back out or go off track? Or was it an opportunistic lunge in which he didn't give Hamilton enough room to manoeuvre? The stewards ruled the latter, but on another day it could easily have gone the other way. Max certainly did much worse in Brazil in terms of leaving room, but there was allowed to keep position.

However, I'm not sure this is relevant to the main discussion here, which is about the SC situation. For SC the procedure has always been fairly clear. Clear everything off the track while the field bunches up. When safe to do so (track clear), release the lapped cars to unlap themselves. At some point in the next lap, while lapped cars are catching/have caught back to the main bunch, announce SC retirement, then start racing again. The 'extra lap' in between announcing cars can unlap themselves and re-starting the race is (presumably) to allow unlapping cars to get back to the main bunch without taking undue risks.

Here the problem seems to be that Masi worked backwards. Rather than going through the procedure from where the situation was, he started from where he wanted to get the situation (racing on last lap). Working backwards, there wouldn't have been time for all cars to unlap themselves properly and re-start racing in time, so initial decision to not allow unlapping. But of course that wouldn't have been much of a spectacle and the title race would have fizzled out. So the weird decision to only allow cars between the two leader to unlap themselves (still don't see any justification for this BTW), and ignore the 'extra lap behind SC' requirement of the regs.

And while I wouldn't put it in as stark terms as dyrewolfe, they do have a point. If we are saying that the race director essentially has the power to ignore regs and manipulate a race to improve the spectacle (and this is being kind TBH), then that seems to me... worrisome. Beyond that, where does it end? What if conditions had been like in the Netherlands, or worse? Do you start the race in completely unsafe conditions "for the spectacle"?

So for me, whatever the ultimate outcome is, for the good of the sport it would be better if Masi were found to have grossly overstepped his bounds on that call, because otherwise... And if that does happen I don't see how Masi could carry on. Whether the ultimate decision is then that Max should keep the championship anyway, or whether it's awarded to Lewis, I don't really mind. Neither is particularly appealing TBH, but that's on Masi, not either driver.

The interesting thing in 48.12 is that the only discretion with regards to the safety car is bolded here "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."

i.e. the SC can be requested to stay out longer, but for no less time than in the final part of the clause (as an aside, I'd prefer it to say 'shall' rather than 'will'). No way does 48.13 override that final part of 48.12 - there is no provision to call the SC in sooner.

Globally are the FIA and Liberty Media happy with what happened?  I just don't think Michael Masi is a loose cannon and has been given strong direction from Liberty Media,  FIA, NetFlix, Abu Dhabi circuit owners, balancing team demands.  

Christian Horner was demanding that Masi allow cars to unlap themselves immediately the safety car entered on track but he refused ... then at the last moment he just allowed the cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to unlap themselves and then immediately brought in the safety car for a one lap shoot out between Hamilton on old hards and Verstappen on fresh softs .... reading what I just typed it was madness from Masi.  Behind Verstappen there were lapped cars so those battling for third, fourth, fifth etc maybe had lapped cars between them.

No name Bertie wrote:Globally are the FIA and Liberty Media happy with what happened?

FIA went about trying to stop Mercedes’ advantage when the regulations and rake were changed this season. The owners, LM, who are doing everything in their power, to attract new fans, and, interest, will be very content with this outcome. DTS, also over the moon, with the manufactured outcome on that last lap.

Having said all that, in the long run, many of the fans will switch off, or turn away from the sport, after this shameful conclusion. Also, if the overtaking divebombs, with no real intent to make the corner, just forcing your rival to yield continues, then the racing is dead.

Everybody knows that Hamilton was screwed over and in the eyes of most is the legitimate world champion. Manufacturing a final lap showdown is no different to the black sox scandal of 1919 or the Mafia's involvement in boxing throughout the 1950's and 60's.

No name Bertie wrote:..... Christian Horner was demanding Masi allow cars to unlap themselves immediately the safety car entered on track but he refused ... then at the last moment Masi just allowed the cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to unlap themselves and then immediately brought in the safety car for a one lap shoot out between Hamilton on old hards and Verstappen on fresh softs ... Behind Verstappen there were lapped cars so those battling for third, fourth, fifth etc maybe had lapped cars between them.

Imagine this race had Hamilton fourth and Verstappen fifth but they had five lapped cars between them - then the above scenario would allow a last lap shootout between the race leader and the second place driver - but Verstappen would have had to pass five lapped cars before getting to Hamilton.  

The more I think about it the more ridiculous it gets.   Masi completely made it up on the fly so that Verstappen was immediately behind Hamilton while those fighting for fourth and fifth in this race may have had lapped cars between them.

ps: I hope Mercedes take this to CAS and really hammer the FIA.

Born Slippy wrote:
Does anyone know why RB boxed Perez by the way? It was clearly tactical but what did it gain?

They had to retire the car. Sensors must have picked up something was about to fail. Sad for Checo after the race he had.

Or they short fueled him to make him quicker to be able to help Max more?

There were also lapped cars left between Verstappen in second and Sainz in third, meaning Verstappen had absolutely no concern about anything going on behind him. I would be genuinely curious to hear Masi give an explanation of allowing only a few cars to unlap themselves in that way. As said, there's absolutely no provision whatsoever for it in the regs, and it doesn't make any sense from a safety viewpoint.

As for the question about whether the other stakeholders are happy with this, almost certainly yes, and for a number of reasons.
1) It's brought an end to a long period of Mercedes/Hamilton dominance, and monopolies have never been good for F1 (see also, Schumi and why the FIA were delighted when Alonso came along).
2) Max has long been touted as the Next Big Thing (Great White Hope?), so they'll be delighted he's won a championship, beating a GOAT contender in an epic head-to-head season-long battle no less.
3) It stops Hamilton breaking the last Schumi record for at least another year: extra plot intrigue for next season.
4) The drama! Oh, the drama! A title decided on the last lap by an on-track overtake. Never mind how contrived it will appear to F1 fans, this is the stuff dreams are made of when marketing to new fans who might not appreciate things like tyre situation, wording of Article 48.12, and so on.
5) If Mercedes to push on with their appeal, I fully expect FIA and Masi to position themselves as the defenders of racing: "we just want the title to be decided on track, head-to-head, not behind a SC, and not in the courts." Again, it might be economical with the truth, but they'll feel it will play well to the more casual fans.

Essentially, sport can rarely survive on the back of committed fans alone, and F1 will be happy to take the gamble that a few committed fans will stop watching in disgust if it means they can attract more casual fans into the sport.

Afro wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:
Does anyone know why RB boxed Perez by the way? It was clearly tactical but what did it gain?

They had to retire the car. Sensors must have picked up something was about to fail. Sad for Checo after the race he had.

Or they short fueled him to make him quicker to be able to help Max more?

I like it but you may have dropped your tinfoil hat somewhere.

My best guess is they saw something in the telemetry that was a bit worrying, and obviously if Perez had had to park up anywhere on track it would almost certainly have extended the SC, so they retired the car rather than risk it. Perez certainly seemed surprised, so it's not as if the car stopped working. So my suspicion is that in a normal race situation they would have left Perez out and taken the risk, but obviously this was not a normal situation. Can't complain too much about it TBH, albeit there's probably a banter timeline in which Hamilton tries to defend too hard at the re-start, crashes out, and the decision costs RB the constructors' championship.