FIA Thread

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
siskue2005
70
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

oT v1 wrote:
Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:10 am
That’s motor racing Toto!

What a mess. Do you guys think Merc dropped the case for Masi’s head? Or the ambiguity in the rules prevented them pursuing it?
They dropped it after fia told them heads will be rolling and also there are multiple contracts with merc and fia (like the safety car and many others) which both parties don't want to be disrupted. It will mean a court proceeding towards fia and that nobody wants.

User avatar
diffuser
154
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: FIA Thread

Post

oT v1 wrote:
Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:10 am
That’s motor racing Toto!

What a mess. Do you guys think Merc dropped the case for Masi’s head? Or the ambiguity in the rules prevented them pursuing it?
I think they dropped the case for the sake of the sport, a long drawn out court battle would not have been pretty. Along with Masi's head and promise to fix it for the future.

User avatar
AeroDynamic
331
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:25 am
Location: La règle du jeu

Re: FIA Thread

Post

I don't think it had anything to do with Mercedes power or influence. People who say that probably also think everything was straight across the season under Masi, and that AD was normal.

The fans, the sport, the FIA, Formula 1's ceo, and the board / shareholders didn't want Masi. Masi did this to himself because he was untenable for the teams confidence and the fans confidence. I've no doubt Mercedes argued why he was unfit, who can blame them? it was objectively true.

Under Masi, the drivers became more and more confused about what the rules were wheel to wheel. The job of the FIA and the RD is to provide clarity and consistency. he created a mess big time and AD was the last straw for everyone... except RB and Max of course.

gshevlin
gshevlin
5
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

The FIA report was very careful and non-specific about Masi's conduct. He had discretion in how he applied the restart rules, the FIA admitted in the report that the rules were not entirely clear (Item 31 in the FIA Report) and there was guidance that required him to try everything possible to ensure that the race ended under a green flag, not a red flag. (Item 32 in the FIA Report).
The FIA says that it is moving Masi to a "new role" within the FIA, but in reality the only remaining question being decided is the number of zeroes to the left of the decimal point on Masi's severance payment. Masi did nothing definably wrong (causing uproar over a race result is not enough cause if the Race Director applied the rules correctly within the boundaries of his discretion). So if the FIA wants to terminate his current role, they have effectively constructively dismissed him, and if they try to do that without compensation he will sue, and he will win, plus if the case goes to court, discovery will kick in and any internal FIA deliberations and any communications from outside parties (like, ahem, Mercedes-Benz) will be potentially placed in the public domain. That is not going to be allowed to happen.

User avatar
Big Tea
89
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

gshevlin wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:52 pm
The FIA report was very careful and non-specific about Masi's conduct. He had discretion in how he applied the restart rules, the FIA admitted in the report that the rules were not entirely clear (Item 31 in the FIA Report) and there was guidance that required him to try everything possible to ensure that the race ended under a green flag, not a red flag. (Item 32 in the FIA Report).
The FIA says that it is moving Masi to a "new role" within the FIA, but in reality the only remaining question being decided is the number of zeroes to the left of the decimal point on Masi's severance payment. Masi did nothing definably wrong (causing uproar over a race result is not enough cause if the Race Director applied the rules correctly within the boundaries of his discretion). So if the FIA wants to terminate his current role, they have effectively constructively dismissed him, and if they try to do that without compensation he will sue, and he will win, plus if the case goes to court, discovery will kick in and any internal FIA deliberations and any communications from outside parties (like, ahem, Mercedes-Benz) will be potentially placed in the public domain. That is not going to be allowed to happen.
Most places where rules need to be followed have a 'custom and practice' approach, which means do the same as it was last time. This is where Masi wandered off.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

gshevlin
gshevlin
5
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Except that there was no identical "last time" scenario to replicate within the existing rules.

User avatar
dans79
245
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: FIA Thread

Post

gshevlin wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:47 pm
Except that there was no identical "last time" scenario to replicate within the existing rules.
O yea their is, and Masi made it blatantly clear himself in 2020.

2020 Eifel Grand Prix
https://www.racefans.net/2020/10/11/fia ... -exciting/
The delay in ending the Safety Car period happened because of the length of time it took to wave the lapped cars through, said Masi.

There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars passed. So from that point it was position six onwards that were still running. Between 10, 11 cars had to unlap themselves. And therefore the Safety Car period was a bit longer than what we would have normally expected.”
183 103 103 7

User avatar
diffuser
154
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: FIA Thread

Post

dans79 wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:04 pm
gshevlin wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:47 pm
Except that there was no identical "last time" scenario to replicate within the existing rules.
O yea their is, and Masi made it blatantly clear himself in 2020.

2020 Eifel Grand Prix
https://www.racefans.net/2020/10/11/fia ... -exciting/
The delay in ending the Safety Car period happened because of the length of time it took to wave the lapped cars through, said Masi.

There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars passed. So from that point it was position six onwards that were still running. Between 10, 11 cars had to unlap themselves. And therefore the Safety Car period was a bit longer than what we would have normally expected.”
If you beleive that Masi acted in good faith. The only thing left is that he made too much of an effort to finish under green. He was too focused on bending the rules to finish under green that he forgot that teams were making decisions based on how long he normally took to bring in the safety car and all the actions that go with it.
That left Hamilton with a huge disadvantage vs Max in the restart.

User avatar
Big Tea
89
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:12 pm
dans79 wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:04 pm
gshevlin wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:47 pm
Except that there was no identical "last time" scenario to replicate within the existing rules.
O yea their is, and Masi made it blatantly clear himself in 2020.

2020 Eifel Grand Prix
https://www.racefans.net/2020/10/11/fia ... -exciting/
The delay in ending the Safety Car period happened because of the length of time it took to wave the lapped cars through, said Masi.

There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars passed. So from that point it was position six onwards that were still running. Between 10, 11 cars had to unlap themselves. And therefore the Safety Car period was a bit longer than what we would have normally expected.”
If you beleive that Masi acted in good faith. The only thing left is that he made too much of an effort to finish under green. He was too focused on bending the rules to finish under green that he forgot that teams were making decisions based on how long he normally took to bring in the safety car and all the actions that go with it.
That left Hamilton with a huge disadvantage vs Max in the restart.
This is what I believe. Just the opposite of deliberately being controversial I think he really did mean things for the best. But, it was not his job to decide what was for the best, and the best for who
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

izzy
izzy
41
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:12 pm
If you beleive that Masi acted in good faith. The only thing left is that he made too much of an effort to finish under green. He was too focused on bending the rules to finish under green that he forgot that teams were making decisions based on how long he normally took to bring in the safety car and all the actions that go with it.
That left Hamilton with a huge disadvantage vs Max in the restart.
I don't know why this complete nonsense keeps on persisting :? . Masi originally said "Lapped cars will not be unlapped" IN ORDER to finish under green. Because this would save a lap of SC, under the rules. Therefore, he could finish the season under green. :idea:

Of course FIA/F1 like this myth to keep going, cos it helps stop people asking why he changed it, after 3 mystery minutes. It wasn't to finish under green. We know this because he initially stopped cars from unlapping, in order to save a lap of SC and so, hence, thus, finish under green =D>

User avatar
diffuser
154
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: FIA Thread

Post

izzy wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:39 pm
diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:12 pm
If you beleive that Masi acted in good faith. The only thing left is that he made too much of an effort to finish under green. He was too focused on bending the rules to finish under green that he forgot that teams were making decisions based on how long he normally took to bring in the safety car and all the actions that go with it.
That left Hamilton with a huge disadvantage vs Max in the restart.
I don't know why this complete nonsense keeps on persisting :? . Masi originally said "Lapped cars will not be unlapped" IN ORDER to finish under green. Because this would save a lap of SC, under the rules. Therefore, he could finish the season under green. :idea:

Of course FIA/F1 like this myth to keep going, cos it helps stop people asking why he changed it, after 3 mystery minutes. It wasn't to finish under green. We know this because he initially stopped cars from unlapping, in order to save a lap of SC and so, hence, thus, finish under green =D>
So you're saying Masi didn't act in good faith?

You have 2 choices.

1- He acted in good faith and screwed up.
2- He didn't act in good faith and was implicit in choosing the winner of the race & Championship.

izzy
izzy
41
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:12 pm
izzy wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:39 pm
diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:12 pm
If you beleive that Masi acted in good faith. The only thing left is that he made too much of an effort to finish under green. He was too focused on bending the rules to finish under green that he forgot that teams were making decisions based on how long he normally took to bring in the safety car and all the actions that go with it.
That left Hamilton with a huge disadvantage vs Max in the restart.
I don't know why this complete nonsense keeps on persisting :? . Masi originally said "Lapped cars will not be unlapped" IN ORDER to finish under green. Because this would save a lap of SC, under the rules. Therefore, he could finish the season under green. :idea:

Of course FIA/F1 like this myth to keep going, cos it helps stop people asking why he changed it, after 3 mystery minutes. It wasn't to finish under green. We know this because he initially stopped cars from unlapping, in order to save a lap of SC and so, hence, thus, finish under green =D>
So you're saying Masi didn't act in good faith?

You have 2 choices.

1- He acted in good faith and screwed up.
2- He didn't act in good faith and was implicit in choosing the winner of the race & Championship.
His bosses called him. Same bosses for the stewards too and same markers for the inquiry homework 🤫

MOD EDIT: Removal of fanboy-ism troll bait

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
542
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:12 pm
izzy wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:39 pm
diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:12 pm
If you beleive that Masi acted in good faith. The only thing left is that he made too much of an effort to finish under green. He was too focused on bending the rules to finish under green that he forgot that teams were making decisions based on how long he normally took to bring in the safety car and all the actions that go with it.
That left Hamilton with a huge disadvantage vs Max in the restart.
I don't know why this complete nonsense keeps on persisting :? . Masi originally said "Lapped cars will not be unlapped" IN ORDER to finish under green. Because this would save a lap of SC, under the rules. Therefore, he could finish the season under green. :idea:

Of course FIA/F1 like this myth to keep going, cos it helps stop people asking why he changed it, after 3 mystery minutes. It wasn't to finish under green. We know this because he initially stopped cars from unlapping, in order to save a lap of SC and so, hence, thus, finish under green =D>
So you're saying Masi didn't act in good faith?

You have 2 choices.

1- He acted in good faith and screwed up.
2- He didn't act in good faith and was implicit in choosing the winner of the race & Championship.
or:
3. He was gamed in to thinking he was doing the right thing and, without knowing it in the moment, help to choose the winner.

There will be other options too with subtle but important variations on these themes.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
Big Tea
89
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:42 pm
diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:12 pm
izzy wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:39 pm

I don't know why this complete nonsense keeps on persisting :? . Masi originally said "Lapped cars will not be unlapped" IN ORDER to finish under green. Because this would save a lap of SC, under the rules. Therefore, he could finish the season under green. :idea:

Of course FIA/F1 like this myth to keep going, cos it helps stop people asking why he changed it, after 3 mystery minutes. It wasn't to finish under green. We know this because he initially stopped cars from unlapping, in order to save a lap of SC and so, hence, thus, finish under green =D>
So you're saying Masi didn't act in good faith?

You have 2 choices.

1- He acted in good faith and screwed up.
2- He didn't act in good faith and was implicit in choosing the winner of the race & Championship.
or:
3. He was gamed in to thinking he was doing the right thing and, without knowing it in the moment, help to choose the winner.

There will be other options too with subtle but important variations on these themes.
I think which ever way it is expressed it becomes a choice of -

Did he deliberately favour one team, if yes, sanction, if no, then the choices become leave him where he is, probably not feasible, or move him sideways, which seems to be what happened.

Unless someone thinks he needs to be punished, it is best to let thing lay as they fell and move on
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

GrizzleBoy
GrizzleBoy
26
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:06 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:24 pm
diffuser wrote:
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:12 pm
dans79 wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:04 pm


O yea their is, and Masi made it blatantly clear himself in 2020.

2020 Eifel Grand Prix
https://www.racefans.net/2020/10/11/fia ... -exciting/
If you beleive that Masi acted in good faith. The only thing left is that he made too much of an effort to finish under green. He was too focused on bending the rules to finish under green that he forgot that teams were making decisions based on how long he normally took to bring in the safety car and all the actions that go with it.
That left Hamilton with a huge disadvantage vs Max in the restart.
This is what I believe. Just the opposite of deliberately being controversial I think he really did mean things for the best. But, it was not his job to decide what was for the best, and the best for who
Indeed.

Unfortunately for Masi though, his tone and compliance wiith requests when talking to Horner/Wheatley and his tone and compliance when talking to Wolff for many viewers rightly or wrongly displayed a notable difference that regardless of any intention, looked very much like a severe lack of impartiality.

That, paired with aforementioned compliance with what sounds like being coached by the boss of one team as to how to proceed with the Race direction (diverting from your own independently made decision before being coached to do otherwise), and the outcome of such affecting the race in such a way that the clear leader of the race has their fairly/strategically gained advantage wiped out.

Not through natural running of proceedings, but because you stopped doing what you were going to do which was within the rules (no unlapping), and "coincidentally" changed your decision on how to proceed in a way that just happened to match exactly the views of what the Red Bull pit wall thought was best to do. Of whose only intention was to put their remaining car in the best position possible to win the the WDC.

Further fuelling the view of being a lapdog for one particular team liable to be unduly influenced in way that affects the fairness of proceedings, you can hear Masi be asked the question, "why aren't we getting these lapped cars out of the way", to which he responds not by allowing the lapped cars to unlap using the standard procedure to do so, but by literally selecting a certain group of cars to be metaphorically picked up with the hand of his officiating powers, and simply moved those cars "out of the way" of the relevant red bull driver so he could get the best opportunity at attacking car number 44 on the last lap and win the WDC.

Horner requested Masi got lapped cars out of the way. Masi did just that.

Wheatley requested Masi not bother letting cars to be moved out of the way catch up to the field. Masi did just that

Horner requested Masi give the apparently required "one racing lap". He did just that.

And after all that, when Wolff correctly stated that what Masi had done was not right (literally wasnt, according to the report), Masi defended himself and his decisions by parroting the words of Wheatley back to Wolff, about engineering "a motor race" in a way that seemed cold and combative, in stark contrast to the Red Bull team who's frustrated instructions and requests he replied to with "understood" and "give me a minute".

He kissed Wheatleys and Horners asses for all to hear, but only because he had "genuine intentions?

He passively aggressively insulted Toto Wolff with his snarky reply that just so happened to echo exact parts of the instructions from Johnathan Wheatley, but only because he had "genuine intentions",?

He went against his own precedent set by himself just one season ago about their being a requirement within the regulations for all lapped cars to unlap, because he had "genuine intentions"?

He diverged and put in play Red bulls plan for the restart as dictated to him by Red Bull, after making his own independent decision that fell within the rules of the sport, because he had "genuine intentions"?


He then went up to the stewards room after all the pressure had been removed and he had time to assess his "human error", but instead stood firm, allowing Red Bull to argue his case for him that "any" does not mean "all", despite his own public showing of what he understood the rules to mean last year regarding whether all lapped cars need to unlap according to regs?

Because he had "genuine intentions"?

Even though the "no unlapped cos may overtake" message would have actually given the green flag finish he was had "genuine intentions" for achieving just fine before he started picking up and placing cars around the track where it best suited Max Verstappen, at the behest of Red Bulls pit wall?

Well. Okay then. Its a view, I guess.

You want to know what's funny though? Even though it stinks, I too also haven't truly felt like Masi just got up and SAID " right I'm gonna do what I can to make sure Max gets this WDC".

Yet when you simply note down what he was doing, what he was saying, how his attitude was between different teams, whether he ought to have known the consequences of the actions he was taking, whether he believed what he was doing was correct based on his own announcement of his understanding of the rules the prior season, whether he acknowledged any genuine mistakes once given the opportunity to review, etc etc, it's difficult for him to be shown in a light that doesnt "raise questions".

So, although we can talk forever about how genuine Masis intentions were during that safety car period, unless you just ignore the evidence of your own eyes and ears, it seems quite difficult to argue that a person who as defense of their actions that day is so apparently unconsciously vulnerable of manipulation to the point of "twisting" rules and regulations because they fear the ire of one set of team bosses more than the possibility of damaging the entire reputation and integrity of Formula 1, could ever keep their position as someone who literally has the power to affect the outcome of races.