How do you fix the FIA and save Formula 1? Overdramatic Clickbait Title!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 січ 2022
- The FIA and Formula 1 has been under an unceasing barrage of criticism since the season finale. It's "looking into it". But how will it save its reputation and the integrity of its most valuable asset... Formula 1 itself??
Get 26% off CuriosityStream AND Nebula if you sign up with this link:
curiositystream.com/chainbear
------------------
Patreon: / chainbearf1
Twitter: / chainbear
En Español: / @chainbearf1enespanol357
Music: "Chess Moves" by Telegrams
open.spotify.com/artist/0grDI... - Спорт
Plot twist: Ferrari in 2019 argued with the FIA that "any fuel flow measurement" does not mean "all fuel flow measurements".
That is probably true, they did go through great lengths to hide the results from that. With both parties stating "they" were fine with releasing the findings of the investigation except the other party wasn't.
Surprise surprise, the FIA have a selective memory when it comes to precedent.
Because it doesn’t mean all. “Any” refers to one, several or all of a total number. That’s not a strict any=all, at all (:
@@indiebekonn I think you've missed the point. The FIA disagreed with Ferrari in this case, which means the FIA were saying that "any" does mean "all" when applied to the regulations. Then when they were challenged over the wording of the safety car regulations which says "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 FIA subsequently claimed "any" does not mean "all" in this case. Therefore they are being inconsistent. Which I believe was the OP's point.
Also context of the word any changes its meaning but that does not mean it holds all possible meanings in all contexts. For example: "are there any votes for this?" In this context any does not mean all votes it means an unknown number but greater than zero which could be some or all of the votes available. "I don't want any votes for this" in this context any means none, one could argue it means all but as its a negative, not wanting means none. "I will count any votes for this" means all, it does not mean I will only count some of the votes for this, the expectation in this context is that any refers to an unknown quantity as we can't know how many votes there will be, but we will count all of how ever many there are. Its the same with the lapped cars, we can't know how many there will be but the context means that the use of the word any implies all, and indeed sporting precedent backs that up, it had always meant all before that so why would it stop meaning all now?
To be fair, the FIA regulates _actual fuel flow,_ regardless of the measurement. They [FIA]] had evidence that this was exceeded, due to Ferrari connivance. How it was done is likely what Ferrari had to show (perhaps in an OJ-like "If I did it ..." format) to get out of jail. Then it appears that they may have served a year's penalty somehow-some of the team's people mentioned something like it, perhaps a 1% fuel flow rate penalty, we'll never know-which is more evidence of lack of transparency.
Great concept. The fia document database is the best thing they do. It’s crazy how much it goes unused. & 6:03 been working on that since Monaco glad to see someone else think of that. All it took was a solid scraper and careful keyword tags. Now it’s searchable for real time precedent check. I’ll send a link when it’s done in case you’ve got any reactions/feedback to improve it
That's awesome. Keen to see it once it's live.
What is this a crossover episode???!? Love to see the mutual respect here
@@patrickconlon140 pretty much most of the F1 community are cool with each other. Rare to see in most communities.
CYMotorsport Good to see you here too!
@CYMotorsport good to see you active! And good day to you 👍 Any new videos coming soon?
Chain Bear: "Masi should be a tool"
F1 fans: "Ah, there we have some good news..."
This is a better lecture on law, lawmaking, and adjudicating than many I sat through in law school. Tremendous work.
Seconded as a law student and agreed , brilliantly put forth by Chain Bear 👏
If the FIA go down the path of a permanent set of stewards for all races (which for the sake of consistency I think they should), it obviously needs to include some people with racing experience - but there should also be some people with legal training too. That, and a far more accountable appeals process, would make a lot of difference.
i was wondering whether chainbear is a law gruaduate or not, since his materialising of abstract values, argument making and analysing is really similar to the general law methodology
@@alptekinday5062 he holds a degree in mathematics as far as I'm aware of being mentioned in other videos.
Although he wouldn't be the first mathematician I know to move into law studies if he did.
Except for specific legal procedures, the rule analysis skill developed in formal logic trainning (i.e. bollean albegra, formal languages and generative grammars) seem to be easier to adapt to natural language and social context then coming the other way around from law school and learning all the extra restrictions.
I do know one guy who did it though, definitely not impossible, and he said it made everything much clearer in his mind
4:32 So in short...ALL THE TIME YOU HAVE TO LEAVE A SPACE!
or you get Palmer levels of KARMA
The rule I have an issue with is the "unless the race director decides otherwise" caveat. This seems to be the root of the issue in Abu Dhabi but doesn't seem to draw much attention.
Exactly. That's the rule that allows the FIA and Liberty Media to influence races however they like. It undermines the credibility of F1. I have no doubts that Masi was told to make sure the season ended in racing before Abu Dhabi, at risk of his job.
@@Vok250 The only issue is ending the race in green-flag conditions didn't require going against any written protocols.
Nothing wrong with starting the final lap having all lapped drivers still in the mix, even if RB would've disliked this scenario.
I agree with you vauxdoublemaxim, on-the-fly changes should only happen on safety grounds, if at all, but most certainly not for entertainment purposes.
There is no such rule
@@shaggydoggs
Article 15.3 Page 12 of the 2021 Formula 1 Sporting Regulations
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.
The FIA has interpreted 15.3 to mean the following:
(15.3) allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.
@@vauxdoublemaxim That regulation is referring to the RD relationship with the clerk and permits the RD overriding authority over the clerk NOT THE REGULATIONS
Glad to see someone pointing out the ludicrousness of "any doe not mean all"
"Any" means "All those to whom it applies".
I think this is the main thing Merc was referring too when they said that in a normal court they have a strong argument. Any ordinary court of law would laugh that argument all the way out of it.
I've said to loads of people making that argument that if Christian Horner rents any properties, 100% it says "the tenant must repair any damage they cause" - in which case I'm going to rent from him, bulldoze the place and give him a single brick. His rule, not mine!
Definitely not mine...I rent to people with that rule and there is no doubt what "any damage" means. It means any damage they cause isn't costing me a penny even if it bankrupts their family for 15 generations.
I agree with Brundle on saying that getting rid of Masi wont change the core of the problem, but I believe it would be more in the idea of taking a clear new start and try not to make the same personality culture building mistakes with the person(/ hopefully team) that replaces him
Getting rid of Brundle would be a step in the right direction.
@@nomimalone7520 no It won't be
@@aaryanmachado4735 thanks for your insight.
Brundle is an annoying old man. There are plenty of better options: Jenson Button ,Mark Webber, Scott Mansell, etc.
@@nomimalone7520 you can keep him and hire others aswell
@@aaryanmachado4735 keeping him wouldn't solve the problem. He is the problem.
My knee-jerk reaction (so far) is that the FIA will never admit any error, but will (again) likely blame the drivers, teams, and fans for misunderstanding things, and they will make adjustments that will assist those in overcoming those "misunderstandings". We will see. I do not yet have confidence they will own up to any mistakes.
NFL fans be like "First time?"
@@TheVipershark ... We need to see if it was a "football move" before declaring it a fumble, yada yada yada lol.
@@karatekid951 lmao. "Well as you can see, Mark, the receiver was born on a Wednesday and the quarterback is from Missouri. This would be a fantastic match if it wasn't for....yep right there,see, the cornerback was wearing cleats with his second favorite pair of shoe laces with an aglet missing. That, along with the observance of a bank holiday in Zimbabwe, means the receiver did not complete the process of a catch"
Exactly!!! When did the rules become so convoluted? I think it's when the big teams bitched and moaned about things not going their way.... Kinda like the FIA rulebook, the biggest teams kick and scream the most, that they need certain rules expanded upon or add sub sections because 'this could also happen..... Oh yeah I didn't think about that!!!' *proceeds to slide money under table*
@@karatekid951 that's a fairly accurate way of putting it 😂
Like it or not, the FIA has always had very controversial periods throughout the history of F1. No matter what people think about Masi, pressure from outside definitely played a key role in his decision making at the end of the Abu Dhabi GP. It was a very stressful situation for him with everyone hoping for a final blast last lap showdown between the two championship rivals, but not having quite enough time to do so properly within the regulations. I'm not defending Masi's decisions at that moment, because I think he still handled the situation wrong but I don't really blame him either. I completely agree with Brundle that getting rid of Masi won't suddenly solve everything, the problems with the decision making during incidents lays much deeper than with Masi himself.
I feel that Brundle falls victim to a fallacy - something he is prone to, I must say.
Just because removing Masi won't change the structural problems doesn't mean that he is a good fit for the job. He has proven on various occasions that he hasn't had the capacity and resources to take the best decision. That may be due to his abilities, or due to the system's framework or ,importantly, both.
Whiting has shown us for a very long time what an outstanding person can do in that role, and Masi hasn't lived up to that level. Keeping Masi makes sure that this level isn't reached again, regardless of structural changes to the system.
@@knutpohl339 Completely agree. Masi has shown himself to be inept dating back to 2019. Charles was allowed to race without seatbelts for 2 laps, while Hamilton was penalised for removing his for the cooldown lap. Then there's charles broken front wing in suzuka. And the inconsistent track limits. Masi is above his depts. F1 is a pressure cooker, that shouldn't an excuse to justify his incompetence.
there is no perfect solution. the end.
@@knutpohl339 I only partially agree with you, mostly because I don't know how good Charlie was in his early days as race director. I've only seen his (amazing) work from when he had 30+ years of experience on the job.
I think it is unfair to compare Charlie's competence with 40 years of experience to Michael's competence with 2 years experience.
But it is definitely possible (and probable) that there are better people out there for the job, but I also think you should give time for people to improve in such a complicated position
@@ukkiesc5087 Charlie wrote the book, so expecting masi to match him is a bit unfair. However, all that's needed is to follow the written rules. It's the ad hock decisions that kills sport and ultimately trust.
The big thing that seemed to happen at the end of Abu Dhabi was just how little time there was to try and get everything done and go green. We love the idea of all rules being followed perfectly, but try doing it with a clock ticking down and teams trying to provide their colorful input. I think the biggest change that could come from this is how to properly handle track cleanup with minimal impact to laps remaining. We all want to end under green, so I could see them using the red flag when its 20% of the race remaining instead of safety cars, or maybe a different kind of red flag that does not let people get out of the car or change tires as long as cleanup is quick.
@@duncachinoahimiha3889 Yeah but F1 doesn't have refueling, So you'd either have to allow it under red flag or pick another solution.
"maybe a different kind of red flag that does not let people get out of the car or change tires as long as cleanup is quick." They could line up the cars in the starting grid, but don't let mechanics near the cars. Or maybe allow them under strict conditions, for instance, only to change tyres, or to make necessary fixes under supervision.
Just do what Indycar do, if it is going to green with less than 15 laps o go, lapped cars drop to back... you could even "credit" these cars with their lap back, this does introduce some sketchiness with fuel and that, but most teams would be saving under safety car anyway...
But in that instance you could have them drop to back with one to go and then go green instantly on the following lap
@@JoyakoW3 But aren't F1 cars required to have a certain amount of fuel remaining at the end of a race for testing? This final "reserve" can be leveraged for the (relatively) uncommon occurrence of a safety car being deployed towards the end of a race and being required to have 1 or 2 final racing laps.
@@JoyakoW3 I was thinking about that. My suggestion is if the race is extended by a lap the rule about the 1 litre of fuel to be tested after the race (the one that cost Vettel his 2nd place) is waived, allowing that 1 litre to be used during the extended yellow flag lap before the green.
On a less “structural change” note, one practical change that could be explored is that if a safety car is needed with less than 3 laps to go, the race goes into red flag conditions.
Backmarkers can line up properly, cars put on new tyres, less time-pressure to clear the track, F1 and fans get an exciting 2 lap shootout to end the race rather than a precession behind the safety car. Although I’m sure I’m overlooking some things. Thoughts?
I mean, it would leave some fans frustrated waiting for red flag conditions to end... but yes, I agree! It is the fairest way to end a race under green flags, as everyone gets fresh rubber and there would be very little potential for controversy due to rule-bending.
Sure, but like with any time a red flag is dropped, it disregards all the people who may have recently pitted prior to the red flag, as unlikely as it may be with that little left in the race. Fast lap attempts maybe? Either way, they'd also be complaining about lost time/positions.
Generally speaking there are four (ish) counterpoints to throwing a red flag if there's less than X laps to go. Most of them are partly rooted in tradition, and there's no "real" reason to not break them, aside from the precedent/consistency that comes with tradition.
1) Red flags are used in a "we need to stop racing *immediately* since it's physically dangerous to continue". Meaning that the situation is so dangerous for the drivers or marshalls that slowing down with a (V)SC is not sufficient. It might very well be that it's not dangerous enough to call them all in but still dangerous enough that a SC is warranted.
1.B) This means that some incidents with the same amount of severity might be handled differently in the exact same race. Purple car crashes teal car in corner Y at lap 14? Sure, just a saftey car. Purple car crashes the other teal car in corner Y with 4 laps to go? Red flag, for the same thing.
2) The FIA are no fan of the mandatory stoppage required during a red flag. It takes time, it pads the race runtime, and they want as much "let them fight on track" as possible. A red flag is at a minimum 15 minutes and happens entirely off the track.
3) With a red flag, you will always bunch up the entire field and have a restart... which might then turn into a T1 incident, which means that they need to red flag it again and again and again.
4) Red flags, like full safety cars, pack up the entire field and therefore "punishes" the cars that have a gap to their pursuers and complicates strategy even further, making a decision to pit even more "random".
Imo you can make an X laps to go red flag, say tough luck that's racing if you get disadvantaged and see how it goes. On the other hand would it not surprise me if after a few times of that actually happening that fans/teams/team principles make a stink out of it, and demand a return to the old system.
What's your definition of backmarkers "lining up properly" with the auto-red rule you've proposed? Would we let backmarkers regain their lap before returning for a standing start? they'd get the added benefit of warmer tires and brakes compared to those on the lead lap. I'm just curious.
There are no rules in the rulebook that says a race has to finish under green flag. A race CAN finish under yellow or even red. See no farther than Spa 2021.
Gotta love the overdramatic and clickbait title
14:45 plenty of people already call Masi a massive tool
The problem I have currently with the FIA is the lack of consistency in quantitive rules such as Abu Dhabi safety car and track limits only being policed on certain corners.
Im a Dutch Max Verstappen fan and I agree almost fully with your analysis and recommendations. Im just slightly annoyed that this whole discussion about more fair and consistent ruling comes after years of unfair and inconsistent ruling against other F1 drivers.
Ive been watching F1 'fulltime' since 2010 and there have been so many dubious moments in the sport that I was willing to accept F1 more as a gloves off old fashioned sport where 'smart' drivers were able to stick their elbows out and get away with it.
I feel like with the sudden absence of the immensely experienced Charlie Whiting the ruling however got more inconsistent due to the immens task it is to successfully direct a race. So I'm fully for the suggestions you did @Chainbear. If Max lost due to what would've happened in corner 1 of that race I would've made the same argument.
And with that I end on my biggest annoyance: That this incident now overshadows Max Championship
What do you want the championship to be overshadowed by controversy or no championship because if Masi didn’t do what he did there was no way Max was winning that race
@@shaggydoggs Well, that's my whole argument. If we had good race directing and consistent application of the rules we could've found out. Now we will never know.
And of course I don't agree with you that Max had no chance of winning. But I'm not further entertaining any discussion in that direction as its totally besides the argument I'm trying to make.
Although it would never be possible to make a set of rules that covers every situation and clearly defines each limit, I was quite amazed by what we actually have (reading a couple of chapters from the rule book).
It should certainly be possible to do better than that! It looks like it was written eons ago, and then amended time after time. That leads to contradictory rules, unclear situations, etc.
It could certainly use a re-write.
And then, even for simple rules like "what are the boundaries of the track", for which a simple rule could be written as you showed, the rules are unclear.
Let them first fix that.
Although I generally agree and was surprised by how vague some rules are myself, I think that the boundaries of the track are a bad example as they are one of the few things that are actually stated clearly: white lines defining the track edges are part of the track, kerbs are not.
@@Nitrox-. Ok my statement was a bit to brief, my intention was not to indicate only the rules about the boundaries of the track (which are quite clear) but the entirety of the rules (including the notes for the session) about what happens when you drive outside the boundaries of the track.
It could be so simple. It is not allowed to drive outside the boundaries of the track at any time, and the penalty for doing it a certain number of times during the race is... (enter any suitable penalty).
It is just silly that it is allowed in one corner, not in the next, and that this varies during the weekend and from race to race.
"Yeah but when we are not allowed to drive outside the boundaries of the track we would be slower" that is such a lame excuse, as it is the same for everyone so it should not matter.
When playing football, whenever the ball is played over the side or back lines, there is a procedure to handle that. No "but it takes time and it wasn't more than a meter across the line so let's not enforce that" (except in 3 out of 10 games). Silly.
@@Rob2 Can definitely agree with that. These event note shenanigans have their purpose but it has been too much unnecessary stuff recently. Also there should be something like a penalty catalogue for common violations - there is no reference apart from precedence for what penalties are appropriate for what kind of violation and while situations are hardly comparable alot of the time in racing, simple things are way easier to compare and it is easier to set the boundaries. It should be way clearer and especially on leaving the track it should be enforced way stricter imo - we have the technology to prove these things easily and unambiguously. However I think that we should give the drivers a small margin of error in their judgement in some cases but crossing the line shouldn't be one of these areas, the line itself is the margin they should get.
The clickbait self awareness is what bought me
Excellent summary and breakdown… especially like the idea of a three-headed race director. “Err in haste, repent at leisure” to be avoided at all costs. I work in software and the worst change you can make is the hurried, ill-considered one you’re asked to squeeze in just before you ship… there’s more in common than one might expect with overseeing an F1 race…
the sentence "a perfectly constistent FIA with respect to the rules" just made me laugh.
and that is a fact that makes me sad.
@@jairajsinghshaktawat6593 ironic that the whole video is about Masi and his actions and the FIA investigating it all.
@@jairajsinghshaktawat6593 Masi broke the rules to gift Max a tainted title. Masi only did well in your eyes because your boy "won"
@@jairajsinghshaktawat6593 What utter idiocy. Lets ruin the sport just so the person I dislike doesnt win! How pathetic. You are not an F1 fan.
@@Lord_Lambert Every F1 title is tainted. It is one of the most dirty sports of all time. It all exists for two purposes: money and spectacle. Nothing more. Never has. How F1 "fans" can't see that is truly beyond me. Enjoy the spectacle. Enjoy the drama. THAT is F1.
@@danielkristiansen2298 Gotta love that sick af hyperbole...
Absolutely the most fair and well-informed video I've seen on this. Thank you!
No overtakes on Wednesday’s?
Outrageous
Luckily they race on Sundays!
@@pvanb phew!
The thing is, the clerk of course is designed to fill that role in relation to track safety and readiness to race. So either the clerk of course are not sufficiently trained or competent (unlikely but possible), Massi ignores the clerk of course (unlikely but possible) or the systems in place don't allow that sort of communication. But massi is certainly not the first race director to release cars to an unsafe or unready track or make ill considered judgement calls. I highly doubt he will be the last either.
Before watching your video... off the top of my head I'd say the stewards need to be the same ones every weekend and be accountable just like Masi is. This revolving door needs to end.
Also make track limits the white line at every corner of every circuit... don't forget this shit started all the way back in Bahrain when they changed the track limits rule MID RACE to favour Hamilton.
Edit: I'd say the VSC / SC button has to be in the hands of more people... so that Masi and all the stewards can push it whenever they feel like it's necessary. At Baku they could've gotten Lance and Max killed. Max especially... they waited until THE ENTIRE FIELD passed Max on the main straight before throwing the SC.
Is Masi really accountable though? He would have lost his job by now if so.
@@duppa I think he's already been fired, but the FIA will "announce it" way later this season to save face and maybe allow him to resign instead of "publicly sacked".
Basically, a little consistency would be great. And also non-brittish stewards
That'd be one swanky job, dangers on track not withstanding. Getting flown around the world overseeing F1 races as a dedicated steward. Learning all track layouts and safety logistic procedures might be a task though.
@@23juan42 or French
Something else that needs mentioned (that I hope I didnt miss in the video) is changing rules mid season and then acting off of that. Notably, the "flex wing" controversy, where a team was forced to change their car because the FIA changed testing for a rule mid season due to their own failures. If someone makes something within the rules, dont just move the goal posts to screw them over
So if I remember correctly, it was stated that you couldn't have flexibility aero. And the FIA did reserve the rights to implement other tests if they deem that the body work was built to pass a specific test and still flex past the allowed amount.
Thing is just because you pass the test does not mean your part is legal. You can have an illegal part but the FIA cant proof it with their test. So they create a new test procedure that enables them to proof your part is illegal. How teams are supposed to know their part is illegal when they pass the tests? No idea. But thats how the FIA justifies it. If it feels like BS to you, thats because it is.
@@invalid8774 I disagree mainly cause you could see that redbull and Merc had aero that was bending too much. And the fact they passed the test tells me that it was built to do both. When you know what the specific test is you can do things to pass the test and still break the rules, like Ferrari did with their engine in 2019. Adding in additional tests to make sure that the main rule is followed is fine.
@@Lo33y_ it wasn’t really a new tests that was created though, if I’m correct they just increased the loads the wings have to withstand for the test. If you build a wing to withstand a certain load and it passes then they made it within the rules. The fia just increasing the loads so the wings fails the test isn’t really fair in my opinion
I love how Chain Bear couldn’t even take the stewards’ argument of “yes the rules say this and this but the race director can just ignore all of it if they feel like it” with a straight face. What an utter load of horse manure.
*any
I don’t think he panicked coz he had time to school wolf with the comment to wolf "it’s called racing "
@Chris Hani Omitta I totally agree, he didn't panic, what he did required too much coordination for it to be a panic situation. He figured out how to get a one lap duel with Max and Lewis for the cameras.
@@tonespeaks sure
Thank you... thank you for these technical insights. Thanks to your videos I can understand a little bit more everything of this passion. Greetings from Spain!
Since Masi and the FIA can't do the very first step that is admitting you have an issue, I doubt we'll see meaningful changes
They need to change the rule so if you run off track defending a position that you lose the position. It happened so many times this year where people (not picking on Hamilton, just about everyone...) ran wide defending and only had to get back to the gap they were at before they missed their braking point.
Makes no sense.
Normally I agree but like Chain Bear said, there’s infinite nuance. So making a rule like that will be just as hard to enforce than what we have now I think
But yes clear cut stuff like the driver ahead outbraking himself all on his own, then just running wide and using the runoff to maintain the lead is bs. If it were grass or gravel they wouldve fallen back. They need to put more of those off track obstacle courses for drivers to run through if they run themselves off
If we're talking lap 1 abu dhabi Hamilton didnt "ran wide defending" he was pushed off the track by Max in a very typical, terrible Max move. What a terribly crappy racer we have for a "World Champion*"
@@Lord_Lambert THIS! While I agree that if you defend your position by outbraking yourself and missing the corner, you should have to hand over the place, this is not the same as being forced off the track by the attacking car behind.
@@Lord_Lambert Even if one doesn't agree with that, let's be clear that if the rule had always been clear, then Verstappen would not have done his Brazil move (or would have lost the place then and not do all that again in Saudi where he _was_ then, inconsistent w. Brazil, punished), nor would Hamilton have taken the mikey, copied Max's moves including pushing the throttle only to ease of a calculated amount to be able to say to the stewards he gave back any advantage he gained (clever in a legalese argument of the sorts we curse lawyers for?), so the situation over those races would have been different, with fairer racing. Which is why it's not just about the last lap of th season I guess!
You are correct, any does mean all in that particular context.
If the rules stated "Any cars that have been lapped by the leader *may* be required to pass the cars on the lead lap", that would not mean all.
Right, it essentially means any that exist.
The word any is always context dependent. So any can mean all.
Would love to see a video with a deep dive on what's changed on the new cars for 2022 and how it might affect racing. Love the channel!
The only downside of having a “congress” instead of one person is that a congress often doesn’t get things done quickly. I like the idea, but it has its flaws as well
It's the eternal problem of reforms, unforeseen consequences are as sure to ensure as death and taxes
My 2 cents worth, re Abu Dhabi, but racing in general.
There will be a real world ratio of fuel saving, engine and tyre wear, for 1 lap under green light vs behind the safety car; for arguments sake 3:1(someone else can cruch the math, but the principle stands, race directors would have the choice to run the safety car longer, to claw back racing laps, fans would stand for it as they know that they would get racing laps later) .
So for every 3 laps behind the safety car, the race is extended by 1 lap, as the extra lap will represent a equal tole on a cars life.
In Abi, this would have negated the effect of the safety cars, and allow a handful of laps to sort the championship.
10:55 the airplane example made me laugh so hard everyone in the house was staring at me
Great video. Solid points. Clear explanations. Good perspective.
I do think Masi needs to go. I understand what you are saying and that simply firing him will not magically solve the problem, but Masi's actions have destroyed any reputation he may have had and tarnished the reputation of F1. Were he to stay, then the suspicion of incompetence will forever linger in the background and further corrode the authority of the stewards. This is not good for anyone, not Lewis who was robbed of a title by Masi's bungling of the race, not Max who will always have the niggle that he only won the title due to a botched interpretation of the rules, not F1 or the FIA who have been made to look fools by Masi's actions. For the sake of fair racing and F1 Masi should, in my view, never be in charge of a race again.
I agree with almost all of this, but I think Masi needs to go. Even if we can excuse his poor decisions due to overwork, he has an unfortunate tendency to discard safety in favor of spectacle when stressed. I absolutely think that if you put safety first, you wait longer to go green ESPECIALLY if you are feeling under pressure or aren't sure you have the full picture (and I mostly refer to the events prior to Abu Dhabi).
I have worked in event production, with some very dangerous equipment. Hydraulic lifts, equipment weighing tons, rigging, towers, etc. I have one rule on my worksites: "Everyone goes home tonight." It's a high-stress, high-pressure, time-critical industry, but I will shut people and actions down immediately if I see or hear of dangerous situations.
I will also take the heat from superiors if I need to, because that is part of my job and what I owe my crew (even if they suck) and the people attending any event. For me, being a safety leader means slowing or stopping things as a default until you can be entirely sure that the problem has been resolved. When you compromise this principle, people get killed or injured. I have a reputation as a bit of a pain in the ass, but my conscience is clean and I sleep well at night.
So I don't think Masi is a bad person per se, but I am not convinced that he is a proper fit for the position.
Fantastic video. Keep up the good work.
Very well explained. Though similar to how a democratic government works, i think legislative and judicial orgs (in this case stewards, sports court etc) need to be independent to avoid conflict. Legislative body controlling judicial body - we all know is a recipe for disaster in any countries politics. though we are discussing for a sport regulation here, if this distinction is not implemented for F1 then it is and will continue to suffer from such controversies.
The FIA need to decide whether F1 is a sport or a show. It's obviously both at once but there are times when one must override the other, and those expecting a sport because that's how it's marketed are understandably irked when that seems less important than the show.
Shows are scripted, manufactured, etc. Sport is entertainment, but at its core shouldn't be a show.
@@karsakasdasfa6474 which is exactly the difference. Do the FIA want to manipulate what happens for an exciting outcome or let things play according to the rules?
Say what you will about Hamilton, but at the end of last year the FIA manipulated the race for the sake of the show
So they need to decide: if they want a show they need to stop calling it a sport. If they want a sport they need to not treat it like a show.
F1 rulebook: “Any team entrant must field two cars.”
Red Bull: “So you’re saying we can enter...18 cars? 🤓🤦♂️
How do they define car???
This is great! It’s always nice to hear a well thought out balanced argument 👍🏻
I love the vids chainbear keep them coming. I had to miss the last three minutes for work reasons. Did you also address the stewards looking the other way as Hamilton impeded Mazepin the day before which would have resulted in an automatic ten place grid penalty "for the good of the show" or his off-track excursion on lap 1 which was similarly not penalized? I am all for fairness and it wasn't just the last lap of the last race.....
for engagement
For engagement!
The real issue with Masi is that he doesn't have the respect of the competitors like Charlie used to, getting him out is an attempt to see if they can get someone who demands respect, which will never happen
They just need someone who can learn the rules and wont buckle under pressure
The point is not learning the rules, it's exactly as the op wrote. Charlie had decades of experience, making it easier to be consistent and quick on his decisions, and was a huge authority over everyone involved with the sport. Plus, he was gone so suddenly that no proper transition of roles was possible, and there was no one in Earth that could have jumped up and filled his shoes with every responsibly the job has. Masi lacks the respect, the experience and the background, which would happen to any candidate to the function that I can think of
Masi had the right idea when he said no cars overtake. But he buckled with the pressure. Under duress he came up with a wildly questionable solution. I believe had someone been more headstrong in that position, that same mistake wouldnt have happened. Tell the teams to politely fuck off lol
IMO he never had the right idea, had he not let everyone overtake we would talking about butthurt people saying he helped Hamilton. The only uncontroversial decision there would have been a red flag, standing start and a shootout however many laps were left for the championship
Sorry, I should have clarified: He had the right idea with no lapped cars overtake if he wanted to finish under green flag*.
If he did let everyone overtake, then he would’ve had to finish the race under SC. Bringing in the SC on the same lap as unlapping all the cars would’ve definitely been against the rules.
If he red flagged, I think he Masi would’ve been in the clear. Yes it’d still be somewhat controversial since it was so out of the ordinary and nullifies everybody’s strategy, but at least it affects everybody on the grid. Realistically though I think that was never going to happen without a plan already in place, since red flagging right when someone crashed just to prevent an SC finish has never happened, as far as I know.
Yea I agree though re: not unlapping any cars could be even more controversial than a red flag. It too would’ve been within the rules but by the time the track was clear, a red flag wasn’t on the table anymore. It was either let all cars unlap or none. No cars unlap was the only published option available if he wanted to finish green
Really like the new car models you've got to match the 2022 spec. It really is the finer details that make this such a good channel!
No overtaking on Wednesdays!
Great video alot of good recommendations even a few of these would dramatically reduce controversy over decisions
If only all the "Drive to Survive brought me here, and I chose the winning driver as my favourite" people understood about Monaco 84, or Suzuka 89, or the 94 Benetton, or Adelaide 95, or Jerez 97 or Indy 2005 or Brazil 2008 or the whole Ferrari thing or the whole Merc engine thing or.. well. My point is, the FIA have never been flawless. This year was no different. For all the Abu Dhabi stuff, there is the weird 10 second VSC at Imola, or Silverstone, or Bottas Bowling, or or or.
that's what i've been thinking too. when i spoke to my dad after the abu dhabi (and this is a man who grew up stanning niki lauda and got me into f1 when senna was still alive and i was about to start school), his answer was pretty much "eh, this stuff happens". it will eventually become just another anecdote in the history of the sport.
Whats wrong with that being introduced via DTS and liking Lewis? Sounds like you’re Gatekeeping Formula 1? New viewers like myself watched Abu Dhabi for the title fight that was promised, what we got was a sham, it jeopardizes the integrity F1 in my opinion.
@@TonyMezaXD Thats exactly what he means, u dont have enough experience watching the sport to make comments like that about it, thats F1!
@@katchaontheflipside Yes I do. Its not that hard. You don’t need a degree in F1. You’re just too biased at this point, your reasoning is completely skewed.
@@TonyMezaXD No u dont need a degree in F1. But can at least acknowledge that u havent watched F1 for long enough to make a judgement on what the sport really is?
When the mafia ran numbers games, they used the three numbers after the decimal point of the closing stock exchange value. People knew they were dealing with organized crime, but they had enough trust that if their number came up, they would get paid.
Contrarily, growing up, my older sister cheated at board games every time. Even as a child I gave up playing games with her, because there was not trust in basic fairness. She's a perfectly lovely person, but I don't trust her in a game of cards, so I don't play. Being able to trust in the basic fairness of the game is essential.
I agree, except F1 is not, and has never been a sport with any sort of basic fairness. Take the cost cap that is supposed to level the playing field for all teams. It doesn't apply to engine manufacturers. This means that if a team's parent corporation is an engine manufacturer, and they have a driver in the title fight, they can throw different configurations of their engine into the other driver's car until they get it right. Then, at the end of the season, they can put said engine into the lead driver's car, giving him a significant advantage over the entire field, and stage a "dramatic comeback". You know, that's just an example of what could (ahem) happen.
Sadly, but there has never been true fairness in F1. Just look at the amount of sway Merc has had over the FIA this season.
@@katchaontheflipside Considering more dodgy stewards calls have gone the way of Max and Red Bull than Lewis and Merc I'm not sure how you can say this lol
@@lostalone9320 That’s what I mean by configurations… as in programming configurations.
@@Lord_Lambert Hamilton has had just as many calls go his way over the season, maybe more. We even had 3 in season rule changes that benefited Mercedes.
I've been watching your videos for some time. Today I subscribed. This is amazing content.
Great commentary on the state of F1, as always. Keep it up
You handled this video very professionally and I agree with every word you said here.
It's all about consistency the whole season, which makes it just weird the FIA is only looking at the last few laps of the final race.
Every decision made has influence on the championship.
Like the track limits. That rule is interpreted as black&white, yet the enforcement of it was changed mid range first race.. so looking at consistency will take a lot more looking into races.
exceptional video. just for the plain language overview of trustworthiness in a legislative system, totally worth watching. great job.
Excellent analysis and suggestions.
I strongly disagree that Masi isnt a problem. We have a man that cracks under pressure in charge of the safety of the premier racing series. After watching Bianci die live on tv, I would have fired the man after the crane incident. It's not even that he makes mistakes constantly, it's that he never admits fault or learns from anything.
A team is probably better than one man, but Masi should have no part of it.
Bianchi wasn't Masi
@@eoinfitzsimons I know, I mean THIS season when he let them all out with a crane on track. I know it's unbelievable.
I think there’s a rulebook issue as well, another race director could’ve made the same call because of the nebulous nature of certain rules. That needs to be clarified too
@@Ropius777 ohhhhhh I get you now, my bad
First, I genuinely don’t believe that Masi had any bias. He was simply under pressure to deliver “the show” and as Chain Bear opined, he choked it.
But for me the most damning thing about the end of Abu Dhabi is that, if you (as Race Director) decided to rig the championship for Verstappen, you’d make the exact same decisions Masi did.
If you doubt this, just recall Horner’s radio calls to Masi.
“We only need one lap” - Delivered.
“Get the lapped cars out of the way” - Delivered.
Most damning, reversing the decision to leave them in place but only the cars between Verstappen and Hamilton are removed.
Truth is, Mercedes made the right calls based on the previous decade of racing, and they got fucked. That final lap of racing threw out years of precedent to tailor-make a scenario where Verstappen takes the Championship.
*to make an exciting championship end, not to make verstappen win. you must surely realise that if hamilton and verstappen were swapped (both position and tyres etc), masi would have still made the same decision. which is still wrong don't misunderstand me on that. but it was done in the name of pressure and the need to please, not to fix
no you wouldnt make the same decisions. If you wanted to make Verstappen champ, you would rule lap 1 differently. And you would never have made the strange „lapped cars will not be allowed to overtake“- decision that was changed just one lap later
If Hamilton had just gone and changed his tyres, the situation would've been exactly the inverse of what we got now: Verstappen in the lead with old(er) tires, Hamilton chasing.
Or both would have pitted and Hamilton, with a faster car, could've just cruised to another championship.
it was first and foremost a tactical mistake by Mercedes so I have no idea how you come to conclusion they made the right calls.
Sure, they could have gone and betted that the race would have ended under the safety car, but that, again, would have been a mistake. All weekend long I had heard that the FIA and the teams had agreed that finishing under racing conditions was preferred. Even Mercedes agreed with that.
I completely disagree.
Both Mercedes and RedBull gambled on how long it would take to clear Latifi’s car and resume racing.
When Latifi crashed on lap 52, that left 5 complete laps remaining to the race. It was difficult to know precisely how long it would take to clear the car and debris, but RedBull guessed it could be done and allow at least one green lap before the end, where as Merc gambled it couldn’t.
Masi’s call to let lapped cars through and resume the race under green flag conditions was ultimately made on lap 57, but only seconds after the safety car had passed start finish. Had he given that direction even 30 seconds earlier, there would be nothing to argue or complain about.
As a result, it is absolutely incorrect and wildly inaccurate to say that Merc made the only sensible or reasonable call to not pit Hamilton. They gambled. And the facts are that had Masi not bungled the initial decision (to not allow lapped cars to overtake) and given the direction to lapped cars to overtake on lap 56, the race would have ended under the exact same circumstances we all watched play out.
And don’t take my word for it. The same observation has been made by a number of reputable F1 pundits, including Ed Shaw and Karun Chandock.
So please spare us the outrage and hyperbole.
Lewis and Merc gambled and lost, and while Masi’s handling of the situation could have been managed better, it is hardly a scandal.
@@henkkooistra1946 it wasnt a mistake by mercedes, they did the right thing. First and foremost, the were unlucky. The safety car left them to decide between two options that both had big risks. IMO at that point it was about 50/50 that there was gonna be a restart. Thats why keeping track position was the right call, because if there is no restart you win, if there is one, you might lose, but its not certain( you can manage to defend 1lap with much worse tire, just look at Perez/Hamilton). Thirdly, the situation would not have been exactly reversed, if Hamilton had pitted, Verstappens „old“ tires were clearly fresher than Hamiltons, since he pitted under VSC before, he would have had better chances to defend
Great video and well thought out. Wish they would make your changes which would go a long way to bringing back integrity but do not see it happening. People in power (FIA) will never admit they or their race director made a mistake. Like you stated, these people do not like being questioned on anything. The sport will suffer because of their their arrogance.
Love your content mate. Keep it up❤️
What I think also made a difference in Masi's last lap decision, is Toto literally being the race director for the whole race. 'Mickey, No safety car', 'Mickey, he has been pushed off'. In that scenario I would certainly feel like: "Im doing my job, you are not commanding me over what is happening in regards to safety"
You seem to be forgetting Toto actually asking not to apply safety car when the VSC was there.
It should be penalized when a team manager tries to intervene with safety.
Same with horner later on.
Great video as always! What I thought was absent and where I think we need to place some blame is on the teams themselves.The teams had put pressure on Masi not to have the race end under a safety car. Zac Brown, for example, pointed that out in a recent interview which is worth a read. Masi was caught between that promise, the entertainment value of more racing and the rules/precedent of having all cars unlap themselves. Meanwhile everyone was on the radio and all eyes on him. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't in that situation. Anyway, keep up the great videos!
Exactly mate, the title would be even more controversial if they ended with safety car. The only thing that bothers me is that he had all the time to restart, if you check the video on F1 app you’ll see on 55th lap one shoot where they show truck driving away the car and marshals finishing sweeping, then you switch on Lewis’s onboard and by the time he got there track was empty they were on gravel just about to leave behind fences.
On the next lap 56th to be precise Masi comes with ‘lapped cars not allowed to overtake ‘
Could be because of Toto but it didn’t make sense hence why drivers were asking why they don’t let us go ??
@@zeezmusic7245 Nah, SC ending has been there for years, it's annoying but part of what can happen, ie. predictable part of crash near end of the race.
@@bosyber yeah if there’s 3 laps to go or even 5 but full 6 laps for a light crash like that. Cmon mate, Masi made all that craziness and it wasn’t even necessary. But they discussed possibility of late safety car before the race all teams and FIA and they agreed that things should be done if possible to finish it on track .
as always, a very well considered and fair assessment from CB, thanks!
Something that probably a lot of people missed but I appreciate very much is that the top down representation of the cars is already changed to look like the new cars with the 2022 aero regulations. Thats some fantastic detail right there!
Looking forward to the reaction to the FIA report stating Masi is a hero and a legend
making toto his poodle was epic.
On a topical note: late race red flags to diminish the effect that a late race safety car will have on the actual race finish.
On a less topical note: having the rules be more solid so there is less room for creative interpretation. Everyone is on the same page, there are as few surprises as possible and everyone goes home feeling less cheated. Mercedes and Red Bull are considered on the same importance as Haas and Alfa Romeo. Of course, not everything can be anticipated, but as much as possible.
That's just my take though.
Or how about a rule where, if the Safety Car is out in the last few laps of a race, then the final lap is not called until the Green Flag is waved.
If that were in place for the Abu Dhabi GP, they could have taken all the time they needed to get everything right and avoided a bunch of drama.
Deploying a red flag just to have the race end under green flags would be changing the rules, red flags are there for safety not to make racing fair.
I agree more with Clok, but there is an issue here, do the cars have enough fuel? Or will they all fail the 2L sample that is required at the end of the race, the cars are fueled for 300km +1 lap, but extending the race distance may not be viable
@@ey7290 Fair point...
They just need to prevent issues like what happened in Abu Dhabi and Azerbaijan from repeating again.
Safety is paramount, but we don't want the race ending either under a safety car OR through a ridiculous warping of the rules just to get the race under way.
Maybe they need to re-allow refueling? I don't know...
@@ey7290 I know that my suggestion is far from the best solution.
What would happen if there was a red flag to VSC type of situation where the cars are released from RF at their intervals that they came in but no laps are advanced? Once all cars are at their previous point in the race (lapped cars and all), then they can be green flagged to go? The state of the race is maintained, but any work can be done safely? This would be in a 'final 5 or 10 laps' type of situation, not for all incidences of course. Fuel could be an issue, but I don't see there being a need for too much more than usual.
I don't know, we're all just kind of spitballing here.
“No overtake on Wednesdays” 😂
The rule that bothers me the most is that anyone can work on their car under a red flag as they see fit
Thank you for calling out Article 15.3! No one has been talking about that. Without that rule, the FIA would have had no-where to hide. With that rule, they were able to say "well actually, we were following the rules", which is a total copout!
@@jairajsinghshaktawat6593 wtf are you on lmao. I dont think anyone can make you look at the 2021 season without your biases. So all I'll say is touch grass.
@@diegoleonardia5358 Well I mean he cut turn 5 by a good 50m, gained a position and a 2 second lead, If only the FIA told him to give the position back on lap 1, you know, just like they do with any other driver who cuts a corner and gains an advantage
@@jairajsinghshaktawat6593 try to imagine the scenario being reversed and see if you still think it's a good decision. can you for once think of the actual rulling instead of seeing you favorite driver win. this is coming from someone who's a fan of neither driver.
@@ey7290 The problem with that is that the move by Verstappen was illegal. Hamilton opted to go around the outside of Verstappen, Max however did not leave any room on the outside and forced Lewis off the track.
Hamilton should've gotten a warning or even a 3 sec penalty for corner cutting since he could've at least tried to stay closer to the track, but had Max overtaken Lewis then Max would've actually been the one forced to give the position back. Max didn't "lose" a position, he never gained it fair and square in the first place.
@@PlayinFreak Welp then I guess overtaking is banned lmao
Max made a fair move, Hamilton could have kept within track limits if he slowed down, Brundle, Button and several other big names on the paddock commented on it and said Max made a legit move.
if you leave the door open, you cant just decide nobody can use the door just because you don't like it
The point you missed (but mentioned earlier in the video) in favour of firing Masi is accountability. He made a catastrophic decision (with prior precedent of bad decisions) and has faced no consequences for his actions. Combine that with the official "racing director can do whatever he wants" argument and he looks both arbitrary and unaccountable. It would be reasonable to at least demote him as a sign that he is not beyond accountability.
The current racing director situation is that the labour market for possible replacements is impossibly tight and that means Masi can make the most outrageous decisions imaginable and still keep his job. Moving to the 3 director model you suggest would help to bring in more "understudies" to potentially fill job vacancies if someone loses their job due to bad behaviour.
I was waiting for the goat to drop another video
That was well done. Clear breakdown of the issues involved. Some very well considered solutions.. and deletions!
A lot of it is applicable to any system with fuzzy rules..consider any government anywhere..lol.
Great great video, my first thought after Abu Dhabi was that Masi panicked and lost his head, none of this DTS drama or favouritism that toxic fans are clawing at. Your videos always nail it!
Exactly if you look at it objectively there was plenty of time to restart.
If you watch the video on F1 app you’ll see on 55th lap the shoot where truck is taking the car and Marshals are finishing sweeping the debris.
Then switch to Lewis’s onboard by the time he got there track was empty, Marshals were on gravel leaving behind fences.
And Masi on the next lap made a decision ‘lapped cars not allowed to overtake ‘
Craziness, Toto was in his radio and Christian and he panicked.
Light crash like that and 6 laps to go , restart was imminent but he made a mess
The only cockup was not allowing the cars to overtake at first, had they let them unlap themselves at that moment the ending would be identical and there wouldn’t be a material for Ham fans to put some imaginary asterisks next to Ver title. That’s the most frustrating thing, it wasn’t “rule bending” as much as a loosing the cool and then trying to fix the mistake.
@@indiebekonn exactly, but it could be miscommunication too, he decided not to let them overtake and that same lap you check the onboards there’s nobody on track and everything is clean and ready. If Masi knew that they’re leaving on 55th lap he might call lapped cars to overtake on 56th which was expected, and lapped drivers were asking ‘why they don’t let us go’ on 56th because they knew the condition on the track, also Bono first said to Lewis on 56th ‘ok lapped cars are overtaking now’ and then he corrected himself.
Also he let only those 5 cars go but there was only 8 of them so 3 more, as all of the cars were behind safety car it wouldn’t make any difference if he ordered 8 cars to go. It’s like he wanted to do the right thing but also he wanted to make it as controversial as it can be.
No more team-principals-to-race-director communication. Hopefully FIA doesn't get rid of Masi just to placate Mercedes and Wolff...
You should include a link in the description for the public fia page with all the documents as I have been finding it for the past couple years but couldn't find it at all till now
Chain Bear doesn’t need a click bait title for me to watch.
I think that the funniest part of the final race is red bull and Mercedes would have both taken opposing positions if the places had been reversed.
F1 first and foremost is a Sport, so for me if a race has to end under the SC so be it. This isn’t WWE where we have to manufacture excitement!
Except that this situation clearly illustrates that F1 has a helluva long way to go until it can be considered a (pure) sport. This whole situation happened exactly because they're trying to manufacture excitement. If F1 really were a sport, first and foremost, then this whole scenario would've never happened, they would've finished under SC and that would be that.
"Firing Masi won't change the problem."
OK so can we fire Masi?
There are some simple rules that the FIA could implement that have been part of Nascar, Indycar, and... well... football (soccer), for many years, work well, and could vastly improve the show.
When a safety car (yellow flag) is implemented the pit lane is closed until all cars have gathered behind the safety car. This means that you don't get an advantage because you were able to dart into the pits when the car you were racing with 1/2 a second ahead of you wasn't able to safely dart in. Under a VSC I would suggest just closing the pits, or at least closing them until your car has past the start/finish line one time.
As for those lovely white touchlines that enclose the racing surface, use them. When the ball (your car) completely crosses the line, you're out of bounds. Here I would implement two complementary rules:
1. If you complete a pass immediately before, or immediately after going off track you must give the place back. Immediately would be all the way to the beginning/end of the previous/next straight (so you're not off the hook if you ruin wide on the second part of a chicane for instance).
2. Every time you go off track you get a penalty point. When you get to 5, or 10, or whatever number, you get a drive through and your points reset to zero. Points are carried over from race to race, season to season, so you don't get 9 free every race.
3. If you are pushed off track, no penalty point.
And then I'd add iRacing's penalty system to that. Touch another car, and you both get a point. Break rule Y, get a penalty point. Team manager acts like an ass to race control, both cars get a point. Etc.
There were a lot of little issues throughout the season that I could forgive - but for me the big one was only allowing the lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to go, and not the lapped cars between Verstappen and Sainz.
I can forgive restarting the race a lap earlier, based on the Gentlemens Agreement to finish racing under Green Flags, since that was stated before the race started between the teams that everyone didn't want to end the session under Yellow Flags.
but selectively applying the rules in regards to the lapped cars was an absolute sin.
Sorry dude, but no - restarting the race a lap earlier was the cardinal sin, as ignoring this rule literally changed the result of the championship. Hamilton's win was locked in if the Safety Car had continued to Lap 58.
Mercedes would have made their call on the basis they didn't think the race would restart, given an assessment of the cleanup operation and what they knew the rules said about timescales - and knowing that no 'gentleman's agreement' should override the rules of a competition. Imagine an alternative situation where Lewis and Max were locked together at the start of the final lap, racing to the finish, and THEN Latifi has his accident ahead of them in Sector 3. Does the gentleman's agreement mean you don't throw the yellow flags and hope the title rivals can dodge the Williams, just so they can battle all the way to the last corner?
Why couldn't the gentleman's agreement override the rules that say the race should only have 58 laps? Why not run the Safety Car to the end of Lap 58 - as it should have - and then add a 59th lap? Red flag it, refuel and have a standing start, let both title challengers pick their tyres and go mano-a-mano? Once it's agreed that a gentleman's agreement can override the rules, surely the sky's the limit and there are far better and fairer solutions out there (for all drivers) than what ended up happening.
But gentleman's agreements do not override the rules. Formal technical directives, as mentioned in the video? Sure. On an informal handshake? Nah. Especially if you have no way of planning for when and how the race director will apply them.
We don't need total consistency, we just need some vague form of consistency or at the very least have the people who are in charge look like they're trying to be consistent
Oh man, I just love you! Mainly for saying that any totaly means all, dont understand how that ever was even a thing.
3:32 Bahrain 2021 turn 4 flashbacks intensify
Would it have helped the situation if the unlapping rules were that the lapped cars are told to fall back behind the leaders and have a lap artificially added to their score? The arguments in the comments last time this came up were that it would be unfair because they would be skipping on some tyre degradation, but that argument just falls flat to me. The unlapping procedure is already an artificial method of making the frontrunners' race more exciting; I would say sacrificing a little more artifice is a good compromise if it leads to a (hopefully) much faster unlapping procedure
Two problems with that - not every car is one lap behind, some are two laps behind and may not be in the right order once the order and falling back has been completed. Also per FIA, the timing system and timing transmitters on the cars need to be manually adjusted which leaves room for human error.
One thing is for sure, if Masi remains in his position for 2022 then my interest in F1 is over. Removing him wouldn't fix the issues, but the man is out of his depth and has made poor decision after poor decision all season long, deciding who won the championship was the final straw.
Hi chainbear, do you have a video that talks about the advantages/disadvantages between using a safety car instead of red flagging a race to restart once everything is safe again (even if it means less laps). I am comparing MotoGP and F1 in particular for this subject myself, but perhaps, if you do not have a video for this, it could be potentially interesting to talk/think about?
I've actually refereed for board games quite a lot, and the difference you described about clearly defined rules actually doesn't make things simpler. The easy part is saying what's within the rules and what's forbidden by them, and F1 can do that for most subjective factors pretty easily. But the next steps, after you know the rules have been broken, are tougher.
The actually complicated parts are twofold: first, diagnosis. We have documents like the FIA's that say "if this happens then the procedure is this". However, deciding which procedure to follow means you have to diagnose the causes and issues of the situation, and very different problems can arise from very similar situations. Often you have several causes for a situation, and thus several choices for which procedure you could choose to follow to fix it.
Second, fixing the situation. Even with clear-cut procedures, it's possible to make things worse by doing things in a bad order, or because of other situations happening at the wrong time, or different interpretation. We have a regime of conferences and exams to make sure we're all fixing problems in a similar way to our colleagues, and I can assure you that even the simplest situation will generate discussion between people who read the same sentences but understand them in different ways, or can imagine complications that could arise.
I hope this shows why even a comprehensive ruleset is only half the answer, and why (as you explored in the video) the more important part is having a decision-making process that values consistency and self-improvement, and takes feedback to heart.
Super post. Never thought board games provided so many life lessons.
Idk about that section on the word "any". Saying "I can have any thing on the menu for dinner" does not mean that you are going to have every single thing on the menu 🤔 depends on how you use it
Really that hard to understand for you ? 🤡
Just one question, are the lapped cars between Sainz and Verstappen part of the 'any lapped car' group?
This man failed English
Yes, it does depend on how you use it, and the way it is used in the rules is to mean "all".
"Any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car."
"Any passengers that have a grenade in their luggage will be required to get off the plane."
If you think those "any"s don't mean "all", I invite you to try and board a plane with a grenade in your luggage.
In my opinion, article 15.3 doesn't need any clarification - the article clearly isn't saying that the race director should have godlike powers. That interpretation is just super absurd and totally wrong. But we all know why some have gone for that interpretation.
They just need to add “…overriding authority *over the Clerk of the course*” but they won’t, because the FIA is never wrong
Well, now that the puzzle madness is in the past... :P As always, a wonderful job getting to the heart of things. It's a crazy situation and it's glad to see just what kind of clarity and murkiness there is with this issue.
I think the problem with Abu Dhabi was the agreement that the race should end under green flags. That thing alone makes everything else trickier.
Why can’t F1 and the feeder series move to a self regulating system similar to the NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL. The FIA looks like a needless body ripe for not showing change in the best interest on the series.
As an American that watches f1 they need to adopt some rules from racing on this side of the pond. If that race (Abu dhabi) was an Indy car race after the latifi crash it would have been red flagged. In NASCAR there a green and white checkered flags. No one is interested in watching a race end under the safety car. Especially Americans were that never happens.
there a few issues with adding GWC overtime to F1 is that they aren't allowed to refuel during the race, and in F1 they often share a pitbox with the other driver on the same team so there are 10 pit crews for 20 cars as opposed to the 43 pit crews for 43 cars in nascar but overall the overtime finish is fantastic for spectators and makes it a consistent thought through rule that teams can play around
@@CaroFDoom They could create a rule where, if there is a safety car incident in the last section of the race (10%, 15%, 20%, a certain number of laps, whatever they decide, as long as they are consistent), the race is immediately red-flagged. That would create the same goals of NASCAR's Overtime (late cautions not leading to races finished under a safety car), without requiring more fuel.
This is how f1 has always been, but I think most people would be open to changes. You can't just make those changes suddenly in the middle of the final race of the season though.
If they could reduce the turn around time on red flags I think it could be used more. Kinda takes ages with the current rules though.
Speaking of Indy, I watched most of this season for the first time due to Grosjean. Was pretty sweet.
@Chainbear.
I would be really interested to see how the pole times in 2020 compare to that of 2021.
How much did the rake angle changes affect Mercedes and can you see them develop it out in the times?
I have a feeling they recovered over a second deficit.
Fabulously informative analysis
Two observations: Stewards decisions do not in fact always refer to the regulations allegedly broken.
Secondly: There is no replacing Charlie Whiting, and sadly he made a mistake in selecting Massi.
Finally: The only correct decision would have been a red flag. It would have given enough time to safely deal with all issues.
The fact Massi does not use the tools he has but instead panics and invents shit on the spot is not sustainable.
Quoting the precedent the really correct scenario its to finish the race either under the yellow flags or if they really want to restart the race under the green flag, then restart it quickly without having lapped cars to unlap themselves, just restart it as the way it ‘stopped’, both situations had happened extensively in the past
Now, the first has been heavily lobbied against by almost all f1 teams, and both of the solutions would’ve perceived as favoring lewis, and also to a detriment of the ‘spectacle’, against the sport side, but on a key moment of the year (last race from a 23 race season, equal points), on a key year for the sport as a brand
The argument against red flagging the race its that it wasn’t really needed, and thats true, this past season has had an unusual high amount of red flags, because they’re really meant as an ‘ultima ratio’ measure, so introducing red flags would’ve set a dangerous precedent as benefiting the ‘’spectacle’ side of the sport, but at least theres a sense of ‘equal treatment’ to both title contenders, thats also the decision i lean to
What masi did was messy, had no connection between the orders themselves (not unlap, then unlap some, not having the last lap buffer.etc), had no substantial link to the regulations, was motivated by lobbying, benefiting much of the spectacle side, absolutely hurting one title contender, and the cherry on the top was the petty response to their race director, all for the cameras. Somehow he managed to absolutely take the worst decision possible.
@@elosobratto3802 considering the race director had agreement from the teams to do whatever was necessary to have a green flag race finish I don't see how a red flag could even have been controversial. It would have allowed for safe removal of both the wreck and the replacement of the damaged barrier, so it was always within the rules and the previous agreement with the teams made it a slam dunk. Furthermore it was an appropriate procedure well within written and established race protocol.
In the end it IS a sport for entertainments sake and I can't see anyone - given the race up to that point - who would have lost.
@@Argosh This is why I keep saying that a red flag would have been the best result. Literally the only con from this would have been eliminating the gap between Lewis and Max but the red flag rules as of 2021 would have allowed a fair fight on relatively fresh tires. Everything else would have been non-controversial and that would have been best for both safety and to "put on a show", as the Americans would say.
The twitter crowd is annoying. Its like dealing with whining crybabies
It's why I avoid it like COVID.
I'm not a native English language, but I do study linguistics. And while the word ANY does not mean ALL, at the lexical level it really does not mean it. That is why laws and regulations, like this, MUST be extremely clear as to what they really mean, to avoid any possible ambiguity.
I agree completely with you. However, I think Mercedes and Hamilton successes were killing F1 as a sport, and we needed a change.