• Re: Maybe you didn't read that?

    From Martin Harran@21:1/5 to Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com on Tue Dec 14 09:00:34 2021
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    On 13/12/2021 14:36, Brian Lawrence wrote:

    "The FIA has brought back the rule allowing lapped cars to pass the
    safety car.

    The rule was last used in F1 in 2009. It proved problematic because of
    the large amount of time lapped cars needed to pass the safety car and
    re-join the train, as most F1 tracks are over five kilometres long.

    As a result the rule was enforced inconsistently as the race director
    occasionally chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the safety car, in
    order to prevent the safety car being kept out for too long."

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
    director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
    cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
    cars to pass the safety car?


    Of course Charlie had a perfectly valid/acceptable reason for doing
    that! I forget who said it, but most likely it was Eddie Jordan on the
    BBC yesterday - in my day if we pestered Charlie during a race he'd
    tell us to sod off.

    <https://www.racefans.net/2011/12/07/lapped-cars-allowed-pass-safety-car-2012/>



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Lawrence@21:1/5 to Brian Lawrence on Tue Dec 14 08:31:26 2021
    On 13/12/2021 14:36, Brian Lawrence wrote:

    "The FIA has brought back the rule allowing lapped cars to pass the
    safety car.

    The rule was last used in F1 in 2009. It proved problematic because of
    the large amount of time lapped cars needed to pass the safety car and re-join the train, as most F1 tracks are over five kilometres long.

    As a result the rule was enforced inconsistently as the race director occasionally chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the safety car, in order to prevent the safety car being kept out for too long."

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
    director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
    cars to pass the saety car...'

    Of course Charlie had a perfectly valid/acceptable reason for doing
    that! I forget who said it, but most likely it was Eddie Jordan on the
    BBC yesterday - in my day if we pestered Charlie during a race he'd
    tell us to sod off.

    <https://www.racefans.net/2011/12/07/lapped-cars-allowed-pass-safety-car-2012/>



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Lawrence@21:1/5 to Martin Harran on Tue Dec 14 11:37:24 2021
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    On 13/12/2021 14:36, Brian Lawrence wrote:

    "The FIA has brought back the rule allowing lapped cars to pass the
    safety car.

    The rule was last used in F1 in 2009. It proved problematic because of
    the large amount of time lapped cars needed to pass the safety car and
    re-join the train, as most F1 tracks are over five kilometres long.

    As a result the rule was enforced inconsistently as the race director
    occasionally chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the safety car, in >>> order to prevent the safety car being kept out for too long."

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
    director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
    cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
    cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
    to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
    to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    Of course Charlie had a perfectly valid/acceptable reason for doing
    that! I forget who said it, but most likely it was Eddie Jordan on the
    BBC yesterday - in my day if we pestered Charlie during a race he'd
    tell us to sod off.

    <https://www.racefans.net/2011/12/07/lapped-cars-allowed-pass-safety-car-2012/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark@21:1/5 to Brian Lawrence on Tue Dec 14 11:42:28 2021
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
    director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
    cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
    cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
    to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
    to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Lawrence@21:1/5 to Mark on Tue Dec 14 12:06:32 2021
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
    director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
    cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
    cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
    to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
    to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

    <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark@21:1/5 to Brian Lawrence on Tue Dec 14 12:31:10 2021
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
    cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
    to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
    to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

    <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
    (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
    rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
    right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
    most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
    clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
    (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sir Tim@21:1/5 to Mark on Tue Dec 14 13:49:35 2021
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>> cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

    <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
    (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
    rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
    most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
    clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
    (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.



    I agree with everything you say, Mark.

    --
    Sir Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Darryl Johnson@21:1/5 to Mark on Tue Dec 14 09:50:40 2021
    On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:

    <snip>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
    (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
    rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
    most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
    clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
    (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.


    I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been thrown.
    There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and others) to
    change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to justify it on any
    grounds, I would think.

    Otherwise, I agree that either your second or third options would have
    been perfectly fine and completely justifiable under the existing rules
    (as I understand them) and in line with precedent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark@21:1/5 to Darryl Johnson on Tue Dec 14 15:26:39 2021
    Darryl Johnson <darryl_johnson@rogers.com> wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.

    I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been thrown. There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and others) to
    change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to justify it on any
    grounds, I would think.

    The grounds (if there were any) were the same ones as they used for
    the decision they actually took: allowing the race to continue. See
    further down for how they could have done it.

    I'm not saying it's right. I don't think there is a good way to resolve
    this. The most reasonable in terms of the regulations and precedents
    would be finishing the SC procedure and accepting it was ending under
    SC. If it was earlier in the season and not the finale, that's what I
    think they would have done.

    IF they really wanted to have racing, the least-worst (I didn't say
    "best") would be to engineer a situation where neither had an undue
    advantage. Bear in mind, the SC already neutralised some of Hamilton's advantage.

    In terms of calling a red flag, they could *easily* have justified it.
    All they had to say was that they wanted full speed laps right to the
    end, and they weren't convinced they could remove all dangerous debris
    from the track safely in time without a red flag. It's not like they
    weren't using red flags liberally this year. Bear in mind, having more
    than three in a year used to be strange (only three times in last
    decade) but this year there were seven across six races:

    2010 - 1 (1)
    2011 - 2 (2)
    2012 - 1 (1)
    2013 - 1 (1)
    2014 - 3 (2)
    2015 - 0 (0)
    2016 - 4 (3)
    2017 - 1 (1)
    2018 - 0 (0)
    2019 - 0 (0)
    2020 - 4 (3)
    2021 - 7 (6)

    So, yes it would have been unusual...but actually, I'd argue it would
    have been easier to justify than the one they actually chose to use.

    Otherwise, I agree that either your second or third options would have
    been perfectly fine and completely justifiable under the existing rules
    (as I understand them) and in line with precedent.

    Yes. I agree with that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alister@21:1/5 to Mark on Tue Dec 14 17:09:47 2021
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:31:10 -0000 (UTC), Mark wrote:

    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the
    race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow
    unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all*
    lapped cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on
    access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and
    will try to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing
    the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at
    the end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

    <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to
    take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
    clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
    (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.

    I agree with almost everything
    option 2 would have swung the advantage to Hamilton (which considering his position before the safety car would not be un-reasonably, but as i have admited on many occasions I am totally biased).

    A red flag would have given the grand finalli the organisers wanted on an
    even playing field & I suspect the complaints would be few either way.




    --
    Bride, n.:
    A woman with a fine prospect of happiness behind her.
    -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Mark on Tue Dec 14 10:17:02 2021
    On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race
    director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped
    cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
    cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
    to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
    to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams and the
    race director that any safety car period near the end of the race would
    be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the general agreement that
    F1 races would be ended under green flag conditions whenever possible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Dec 14 18:32:47 2021
    Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams and the
    race director that any safety car period near the end of the race would
    be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the general agreement that
    F1 races would be ended under green flag conditions whenever possible.

    Do you have the specific agreement for this race and/or a copy of the
    general agreement?

    In any case, I don't see how that makes a difference to the fact that he deviated from the norm. For example, the precedent-supported move of
    bringing in the safety car without moving any of the backmarkers would
    have met that requirement in full.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Brian Lawrence on Tue Dec 14 10:37:56 2021
    On 2021-12-14 4:06 a.m., Brian Lawrence wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped
    cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access
    to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try
    to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

        <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    I saw it... ...while following Hamilton's in-car video on F1TV

    There were literally NO COMPLAINTS about what was happening prior to him getting passed.

    I'm watching the whole sequence again, and while Hamilton is vocal about
    his bad luck before he even gets behind the safety car, he never says
    ONE WORD about how unfair it is that only 5 lapped cars are being let through... ...until after he's let Verstappen get by him.

    Behind the safety car, e's completely willing to chat and complain
    (including repeatedly about how fast the safety car is going for
    instance). At 1:38:00, Hamilton is informed that "He's going to let 4
    cars through" (even though it's actually 5) and simultaneously seems
    them go past him; the last just before turn 9. Then 18 seconds later,
    he's informed that the safety car will be "in this lap". Still no
    comment from the guy who was happy to complain about trivia just moments earlier. Nothing.

    He doesn't complain about the situation AT ALL until afterward.

    Then and ONLY then, does he suddenly complain the situation is being "manipulated".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Mark on Tue Dec 14 10:42:04 2021
    On 2021-12-14 4:31 a.m., Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>> cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

    <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
    (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
    rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
    most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
    clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
    (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.


    There was a specific agreement between the teams and the race director
    that any safety car period toward the end of the race should end as
    quickly as possible AND a long-standing agreement that whenever
    possible, F1 races should end under green.

    Hamilton doesn't sound the least bit upset with either letting the 5
    cars go through OR the early withdrawal of the safety car...

    ...until AFTER he's failed to defend into turn 5 AND has run out of
    legitimate passing opportunities.

    I find that interesting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Mark on Tue Dec 14 10:57:50 2021
    On 2021-12-14 10:32 a.m., Mark wrote:
    Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just
    that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and*
    rushing the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single
    sprint lap at the end of the race.

    Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams
    and the race director that any safety car period near the end of
    the race would be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the
    general agreement that F1 races would be ended under green flag
    conditions whenever possible.

    Do you have the specific agreement for this race and/or a copy of
    the general agreement?

    Nope. I have multiple reports that both exist, though.

    Do you disbelieve me on either point?


    In any case, I don't see how that makes a difference to the fact that
    he deviated from the norm. For example, the precedent-supported move
    of bringing in the safety car without moving any of the backmarkers
    would have met that requirement in full.

    True, but I find it telling that Hamilton took no exception to how it
    was handled...

    ...until he knew he was going to lose.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CJ@21:1/5 to Sir Tim on Tue Dec 14 21:09:54 2021
    On 14/12/2021 15:49, Sir Tim wrote:
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>>> cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the >>>> SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

    <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
    (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
    rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
    right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
    most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
    clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
    (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.



    I agree with everything you say, Mark.

    +1

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Dec 14 19:49:28 2021
    Alan wrote:

    On 2021-12-14 4:06 a.m., Brian Lawrence wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010,
    the race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose
    not to allow unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not
    all* lapped cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is
    yes. Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and
    depends on access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things
    filed away, and will try to do more research when I can find
    the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just
    that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers and rushing
    the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint
    lap at the end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much
    less likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority
    to do that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the
    last lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

        <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    I saw it... ...while following Hamilton's in-car video on F1TV

    There were literally NO COMPLAINTS about what was happening prior to
    him getting passed.

    I'm watching the whole sequence again, and while Hamilton is vocal
    about his bad luck before he even gets behind the safety car, he
    never says ONE WORD about how unfair it is that only 5 lapped cars
    are being let through... ...until after he's let Verstappen get by
    him.

    Behind the safety car, e's completely willing to chat and complain
    (including repeatedly about how fast the safety car is going for
    instance). At 1:38:00, Hamilton is informed that "He's going to let 4
    cars through" (even though it's actually 5) and simultaneously seems
    them go past him; the last just before turn 9. Then 18 seconds later,
    he's informed that the safety car will be "in this lap". Still no
    comment from the guy who was happy to complain about trivia just
    moments earlier. Nothing.

    He doesn't complain about the situation AT ALL until afterward.

    Then and ONLY then, does he suddenly complain the situation is being "manipulated".

    You couldn't be more irrelevant.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Dec 14 19:48:36 2021
    Alan wrote:

    On 2021-12-14 4:31 a.m., Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before
    2010, the race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally
    chose not to allow unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not
    all* lapped cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is
    yes. Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and
    depends on access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of
    things filed away, and will try to do more research when I
    can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just
    that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers and
    rushing the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single
    sprint lap at the end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was
    much less likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority
    to do that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the
    last lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

    <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly
    given some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a
    conscious (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based
    on clear rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director
    has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is
    not in question (for most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
    clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken
    to get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent
    and would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
    (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really
    don't think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like
    the RD and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You can't fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required
    to allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the
    race the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing
    some laps of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst
    would have been to bring the safety car in without any cars
    unlapping and letting them get on with it. The (distant)
    third-least-worst would have been to leave it under the safety car
    as that would have been consistent with precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.


    There was a specific agreement between the teams and the race
    director that any safety car period toward the end of the race should
    end as quickly as possible AND a long-standing agreement that
    whenever possible, F1 races should end under green.


    Non of which supports not adhering to the regulations.

    You are grasping at straws to defend the indefensible and coming up
    empty handed.

    You did well to abandon your previous nonsense but attempting to
    substitute with more is the work of a dullard.

    Hamilton doesn't sound the least bit upset with either letting the 5
    cars go through OR the early withdrawal of the safety car...

    ...until AFTER he's failed to defend into turn 5 AND has run out of legitimate passing opportunities.

    I find that interesting.

    You're a complete fuckwit; claiming you knew how someone felt when you
    have zero information in that respect.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From geoff@21:1/5 to alister on Wed Dec 15 09:43:27 2021
    On 15/12/2021 6:09 am, alister wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:31:10 -0000 (UTC), Mark wrote:

    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the
    race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow >>>>>>> unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all*
    lapped cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on
    access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and >>>>> will try to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing
    the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at
    the end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

    <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious (and
    public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear rules* or
    established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate right to
    take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for most). The
    question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
    clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
    (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
    think the second option would have been my preferred solution.

    I agree with almost everything
    option 2 would have swung the advantage to Hamilton (which considering his position before the safety car would not be un-reasonably, but as i have admited on many occasions I am totally biased).

    A red flag would have given the grand finalli the organisers wanted on an even playing field & I suspect the complaints would be few either way.
    A red flag a few laps earlier, when it was obvious how things were progressing'.

    Followed by a*real* sprint, for the couple of laps that remained.

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From geoff@21:1/5 to Darryl Johnson on Wed Dec 15 09:41:11 2021
    On 15/12/2021 3:50 am, Darryl Johnson wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:

    <snip>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
    (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
    rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
    right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
    most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
       clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
       get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
       would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
       (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
       think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
       think the second option would have been my preferred solution.


    I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been thrown. There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and others) to
    change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to justify it on any
    grounds, I would think.

    At least that would have ended in some sort of actual race, rather thana
    gift.

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From geoff@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Dec 15 09:45:12 2021
    On 15/12/2021 7:42 am, Alan wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 4:31 a.m., Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow
    unlapped
    cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>>> cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the >>>> SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

         <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
    (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
    rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
    right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
    most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
       clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
       get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
       would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
       (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
       think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
       think the second option would have been my preferred solution.


    There was a specific agreement between the teams and the race director
    that any safety car period toward the end of the race should end as
    quickly as possible AND a long-standing agreement that whenever
    possible, F1 races should end under green.

    Hamilton doesn't sound the least bit upset with either letting the 5
    cars go through OR the early withdrawal of the safety car...

    ...until AFTER he's failed to defend into turn 5 AND has run out of legitimate passing opportunities.

    I find that interesting.

    For fuck sake. You (only you) and your turn 5.

    But you know so much more that everybody, including the real drivers in
    their real F1 cars.

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From geoff@21:1/5 to Mark on Wed Dec 15 09:47:29 2021
    On 15/12/2021 7:32 am, Mark wrote:
    Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams and the
    race director that any safety car period near the end of the race would
    be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the general agreement that
    F1 races would be ended under green flag conditions whenever possible.

    Do you have the specific agreement for this race and/or a copy of the
    general agreement?


    No, we would have to find the proof that this wasn't the case. So his
    'logic' goes.

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to geoff on Tue Dec 14 21:04:35 2021
    geoff wrote:

    On 15/12/2021 7:32 am, Mark wrote:
    Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 3:42 a.m., Mark wrote:

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just
    that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers and
    rushing the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single
    sprint lap at the end of the race.

    Following the specific agreement for this race between the teams
    and the race director that any safety car period near the end of
    the race would be ended as quickly as possible, as well as the
    general agreement that F1 races would be ended under green flag conditions whenever possible.

    Do you have the specific agreement for this race and/or a copy of
    the general agreement?


    No, we would have to find the proof that this wasn't the case. So his
    'logic' goes.


    You know him so well. :)

    An "general agreement" that supersedes the rule book; his needs must be
    rather special to come up with that.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alister@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Dec 14 21:34:54 2021
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:37:56 -0800, Alan wrote:

    On 2021-12-14 4:06 a.m., Brian Lawrence wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the
    race director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow
    unlapped cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all*
    lapped cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on
    access to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and
    will try to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing
    the SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at
    the end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

        <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    I saw it... ...while following Hamilton's in-car video on F1TV

    There were literally NO COMPLAINTS about what was happening prior to him getting passed.

    I'm watching the whole sequence again, and while Hamilton is vocal about
    his bad luck before he even gets behind the safety car, he never says
    ONE WORD about how unfair it is that only 5 lapped cars are being let through... ...until after he's let Verstappen get by him.

    Behind the safety car, e's completely willing to chat and complain
    (including repeatedly about how fast the safety car is going for
    instance). At 1:38:00, Hamilton is informed that "He's going to let 4
    cars through" (even though it's actually 5) and simultaneously seems
    them go past him; the last just before turn 9. Then 18 seconds later,
    he's informed that the safety car will be "in this lap". Still no
    comment from the guy who was happy to complain about trivia just moments earlier. Nothing.

    He doesn't complain about the situation AT ALL until afterward.

    Then and ONLY then, does he suddenly complain the situation is being "manipulated".
    Perhaps he had more important things on his mid at that time, such as how
    to deal with the restart & the problem he had been presented with.

    In any case this is another one of your logical fallacies - the red
    herring




    --
    In charity there is no excess.
    -- Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ~misfit~@21:1/5 to Darryl Johnson on Wed Dec 15 12:52:00 2021
    On 15/12/2021 3:50 am, Darryl Johnson wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:

    <snip>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly given
    some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a conscious
    (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based on clear
    rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director has the ultimate
    right to take a decision to resolve situations is not in question (for
    most). The question (as you say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
       clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken to
       get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent and
       would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
       (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really don't
       think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like the RD
    and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to pretend
    that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with all
    regulations.

    You *can't* fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required to
    allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the race
    the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing some laps
    of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been
    to bring the safety car in without any cars unlapping and letting them
    get on with it. The (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave
    it under the safety car as that would have been consistent with
    precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
       think the second option would have been my preferred solution.


    I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been thrown. There was no reason --
    other than allowing Hamilton (and others) to change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to
    justify it on any grounds, I would think.

    But still better than what occurred no?

    Otherwise, I agree that either your second or third options would have been perfectly fine and
    completely justifiable under the existing rules (as I understand them) and in line with precedent.


    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
    in the DSM"
    David Melville

    This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Harran@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Dec 15 08:28:14 2021
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:37:56 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

    On 2021-12-14 4:06 a.m., Brian Lawrence wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 11:42, Mark wrote:
    Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
    On 14/12/2021 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
    On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:31:26 +0000, Brian Lawrence
    <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

    Just to be clear, it says that in some seasons before 2010, the race >>>>>> director (Charlie Whiting), 'occasionally chose not to allow unlapped >>>>>> cars to pass the saety car...'

    Was there ever an incident where he allowed *some but not all* lapped >>>>> cars to pass the safety car?

    My impression, partly but not entirely from that article, is yes.
    Checking if that was the case is time consuming, and depends on access >>>> to lap charts, etc. I do have a lot of things filed away, and will try >>>> to do more research when I can find the time. :-)

    It definitely happened from time to time, but this wasn't just that.

    This was eliminating a specific subset of backmarkers *and* rushing the
    SC into the pits early in order to provide a single sprint lap at the
    end of the race.

    Remove either element from that, and the result created was much less
    likely.

    That's what looks dubious.

    Absolutely. I wouldn't really dispute that Masi had the authority to do
    that, but I fail to see what the motivation might be.

    Did we all see HAM's radio comment after Max overtook him on the last
    lap? "This has been manipulated, man."

        <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59639828>

    I saw it... ...while following Hamilton's in-car video on F1TV

    There were literally NO COMPLAINTS about what was happening prior to him >getting passed.

    Just when we all thought you had scaled the heights of idiocy, you
    establish yet another peak.


    I'm watching the whole sequence again, and while Hamilton is vocal about
    his bad luck before he even gets behind the safety car, he never says
    ONE WORD about how unfair it is that only 5 lapped cars are being let >through... ...until after he's let Verstappen get by him.

    Behind the safety car, e's completely willing to chat and complain
    (including repeatedly about how fast the safety car is going for
    instance). At 1:38:00, Hamilton is informed that "He's going to let 4
    cars through" (even though it's actually 5) and simultaneously seems
    them go past him; the last just before turn 9. Then 18 seconds later,
    he's informed that the safety car will be "in this lap". Still no
    comment from the guy who was happy to complain about trivia just moments >earlier. Nothing.

    He doesn't complain about the situation AT ALL until afterward.

    Then and ONLY then, does he suddenly complain the situation is being >"manipulated".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 15 11:16:28 2021
    ~misfit~ wrote:

    On 15/12/2021 3:50 am, Darryl Johnson wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:

    <snip>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly
    given some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a
    conscious (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions
    based on clear rules* or established precedent. That the Race
    Director has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve
    situations is not in question (for most). The question (as you
    say) is motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
       clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was
    taken to    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent
    and    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
       (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really
    don't    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like
    the RD and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to
    pretend that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with
    all regulations.

    You can't fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum
    required to allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the
    race the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag
    allowing some laps of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst would have been to bring the safety car in
    without any cars unlapping and letting them get on with it. The
    (distant) third-least-worst would have been to leave it under the
    safety car as that would have been consistent with precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
       think the second option would have been my preferred solution.


    I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been
    thrown. There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and
    others) to change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to
    justify it on any grounds, I would think.

    But still better than what occurred no?


    Forget for a moment what did happen and imagine that had happened
    instead. It would be setting a different precedent. The red flag is
    meant to be thrown on safety grounds. Using it to produce a more
    exciting climax to a race would be just as controversial. It might have
    been fairer but had Max won we would/could still be complaining that
    the RD used his position in an unprecedented way to influence the
    result of the championship. It might be easier for the FIA to defend.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Build
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alister@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Dec 15 15:10:51 2021
    On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:16:28 -0000 (UTC), Bigbird wrote:

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    On 15/12/2021 3:50 am, Darryl Johnson wrote:
    On 2021-12-14 7:31 AM, Mark wrote:

    <snip>

    Yes. The controversy is precisely that. For years - particularly
    given some bust ups in the 90s over rulings - there has been a
    conscious (and public) effort to be able to explain decisions based
    on clear rules* or established precedent. That the Race Director
    has the ultimate right to take a decision to resolve situations is
    not in question (for most). The question (as you say) is
    motivation.

    * And where the rules are shown to be unclear, by engaging in a
       clarification process.

    I can see lots of potential causes (motivations are harder):

    1 Panic: with everyone screaming in his ear, the decision was taken
    to    get things running at all costs.
    2 Confusion: he genuinely thought that this fitted with precedent
    and    would provide a more acceptable end to the race.
    3 Spectacle: he was pushed to "spice" up the end of the race and
       (similar to 1) did whatever he could to turn the race back on.
    4 Partisanship: I only include this for completion, but I really
    don't    think this is the cause.

    Whatever the cause - or the motivation behind it - it looks like
    the RD and stewards deciding the outcome, and that's not good.

    What I find really odd is the way that the FIA are trying to
    pretend that this was a fairly routine and perfectly in line with
    all regulations.

    You can't fix some situations. In fact, almost all crashes are not
    only unexpected but create winners and losers you simply can't
    neutralise the effect of (think of punctures in the aftermath, or
    secondary collisions). The best you can do is the minimum required
    to allow racing to the maximum extent possible.

    For me, I still think that given the proximity to the end of the
    race the least-worst* solution would have been a red flag allowing
    some laps of real racing after the restart. The second-least-worst
    would have been to bring the safety car in without any cars
    unlapping and letting them get on with it. The (distant)
    third-least-worst would have been to leave it under the safety car
    as that would have been consistent with precedent.

    Somehow, I think he managed to find the one way to guarantee
    controversy.

    * While I think this would have been least-worst on balance, I
       think the second option would have been my preferred solution.


    I would have been surprised (astonished?) if a red flag had been
    thrown. There was no reason -- other than allowing Hamilton (and
    others) to change tires before the final racing laps. Hard to justify
    it on any grounds, I would think.

    But still better than what occurred no?


    Forget for a moment what did happen and imagine that had happened
    instead. It would be setting a different precedent. The red flag is
    meant to be thrown on safety grounds. Using it to produce a more
    exciting climax to a race would be just as controversial. It might have
    been fairer but had Max won we would/could still be complaining that the
    RD used his position in an unprecedented way to influence the result of
    the championship. It might be easier for the FIA to defend.

    I dont think we would
    it would have been clear that the cause of the red flag was the car on
    track, yes it would have been posible to clear under safety card but that
    would have ended the race (or at least should have & we would have no
    reason to suspect other wise).
    At the restart both drivers would have had fresh tyres so it would have
    been an even 1,2,3 or 4 lap shoot out depending on when exactly the falg
    was shown.

    If Max had one I would have been disappointed but accepted that that was
    just part of racing luck.

    I can see Max fans being upset that lewis had been given a free stop
    though so there might be a bit of discussion but nothing on this level





    --
    monitor resolution too high

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)