FIA Thread

[Restomaniac]

So rules weren’t followed allowing the wrong man to win the race and WDC due to ‘human error’ but we’re going to pretend they were because otherwise it creates an even bigger mess.

So that’s Verstappen’s ‘*’ next to his WDC confirmed then.

[chrisc90]

Isnt the human error element only in respect to the cars that were allowed to unlap.

[Restomaniac]

Isnt the human error element only in respect to the cars that were allowed to unlap.

They actually state that the rule stating that the SC should stay out another lap wasn’t followed either.

[diffuser]

Still can't answer a straight question with a straight answer I see

Not sure I understand the question. As it was there was 1 lap of Green. 1 extra lap under the safety car mean we finish under the safety car.

If he didn't unlap the cars, it could finish under green, when it did, but legally. That was his plan, obviously. So my question is: at what point was finishing under green in doubt? So just say when it was NOT going to finish under green. Simple!

Or, admit it was always going to, and FIA are being dishonest with us about it.

Again not sure why you're stuck on this requirement of finishing under green. Before the accident Hamilton was holding his own and was way out in front. So if it would have finished like that, it would have finished under green but no excitment.

I thought that they could have ether unlap none of the cars or all. None means Max has to pass 5 cars in 1 lap just to get to Hamilton. Doing it with no unlapping they would have finished under green so it was was never in doubt. The new regs don't seem to suggest that as an option though.

[dans79]

I thought that they could have ether unlap none of the cars or all. None means Max has to pass 5 cars in 1 lap just to get to Hamilton. Doing it with no unlapping they would have finished under green so it was was never in doubt. The new regs don't seem to suggest that as an option though.

All the new regs are doing is making the old regs even more clear than they were in the past.

[izzy]

Not sure I understand the question. As it was there was 1 lap of Green. 1 extra lap under the safety car mean we finish under the safety car.

If he didn't unlap the cars, it could finish under green, when it did, but legally. That was his plan, obviously. So my question is: at what point was finishing under green in doubt? So just say when it was NOT going to finish under green. Simple!

Or, admit it was always going to, and FIA are being dishonest with us about it.

Again not sure why you're stuck on this requirement of finishing under green. Before the accident Hamilton was holding his own and was way out in front. So if it would have finished like that, it would have finished under green but no excitment.

I thought that they could have ether unlap none of the cars or all. None means Max has to pass 5 cars in 1 lap just to get to Hamilton. Doing it with no unlapping they would have finished under green so it was was never in doubt. The new regs don't seem to suggest that as an option though.

I'm not stuck on anything, I'm pointing out that Para 32 in this Executive Summary of the governing body is talking about finishing under green, and that this is a deception, because Masi's FIRST decision was specifically to make sure it finished under green. Therefore finishing under green was not ever a reason for his supposed mistake.

I think you understand really. Are you an F1 media account in fact?

[diffuser]

If he didn't unlap the cars, it could finish under green, when it did, but legally. That was his plan, obviously. So my question is: at what point was finishing under green in doubt? So just say when it was NOT going to finish under green. Simple!

Or, admit it was always going to, and FIA are being dishonest with us about it.

Again not sure why you're stuck on this requirement of finishing under green. Before the accident Hamilton was holding his own and was way out in front. So if it would have finished like that, it would have finished under green but no excitment.

I thought that they could have ether unlap none of the cars or all. None means Max has to pass 5 cars in 1 lap just to get to Hamilton. Doing it with no unlapping they would have finished under green so it was was never in doubt. The new regs don't seem to suggest that as an option though.

I'm not stuck on anything, I'm pointing out that Para 32 in this Executive Summary of the governing body is talking about finishing under green, and that this is a deception, because Masi's FIRST decision was specifically to make sure it finished under green. Therefore finishing under green was not ever a reason for his supposed mistake.

I think you understand really. Are you an F1 media account in fact?

No. For me finishing under green is not a priority.The priority is to be consistent in every call that is made.

[izzy]

Again not sure why you're stuck on this requirement of finishing under green. Before the accident Hamilton was holding his own and was way out in front. So if it would have finished like that, it would have finished under green but no excitment.

I thought that they could have ether unlap none of the cars or all. None means Max has to pass 5 cars in 1 lap just to get to Hamilton. Doing it with no unlapping they would have finished under green so it was was never in doubt. The new regs don't seem to suggest that as an option though.

I'm not stuck on anything, I'm pointing out that Para 32 in this Executive Summary of the governing body is talking about finishing under green, and that this is a deception, because Masi's FIRST decision was specifically to make sure it finished under green. Therefore finishing under green was not ever a reason for his supposed mistake.

I think you understand really. Are you an F1 media account in fact?

No. For me finishing under green is not a priority.The priority is to be consistent in every call that is made.

I'm not asking about your priority. Ross baby

[PlatinumZealot]

This will be remembered forever. If Sir Hamilton never wins another there will be an asterisk beside his seven. Robbed of the eigth by rogue race director.

[izzy]

This will be remembered forever. If Sir Hamilton never wins another there will be an asterisk beside his seven. Robbed of the eigth by rogue race director.

It wasn't Michael, it was his bosses. This is why there's no actual explanation in the report

[PlatinumZealot]

This will be remembered forever. If Sir Hamilton never wins another there will be an asterisk beside his seven. Robbed of the eigth by rogue race director.

It wasn't Michael, it was his bosses. This is why there's no actual explanation in the report

My theory as well.

There was no bad intent by Masi, and his first call the no cars to unlap was his own, geniune call. The second call was by the bosses. I won't call any names...

[diffuser]

This will be remembered forever. If Sir Hamilton never wins another there will be an asterisk beside his seven. Robbed of the eigth by rogue race director.

It wasn't Michael, it was his bosses. This is why there's no actual explanation in the report

My theory as well.

There was no bad intent by Masi, and his first call the no cars to unlap was his own, geniune call. The second call was by the bosses. I won't call any names...

Well if that is true, it's a lesson for the future race directors. Don't believe your bosses, the buck stops with you!

[toraabe]

It's how I wanted it to be

[Roo]

I wondered whether i heard Mark Webber right yesterday, i'll have to check. The report says we're no longer allowed to let a few cars through.

[henry]

There’s lots of talk about the Race Director’s error, but very little about the Stewards. The post race Appeal to Stewards mechanism is supposed to catch errors made during the race. But they didn’t. They compounded it with an “error” of their own. So if the new Race Director(s) make a good faith error that determines the race result what guidance have thecStewards now got about how to handle it?