Formula 1

[najaB]

I can't see how you can expect a racing driver to drive at 200+mph only using a HUD.

I don't! That was @LOL The Irony's suggestion.

 

[O L Leigh]

But there is no mechanism for World Championship points to be awarded based on qualifying. In a sport where everything is negotiated and hotly contested between teams and the FIA, the FIA (or a mid-level employee of the FIA anyway) has unilaterally created a mechanism by running laps that they knew would never lead to green flag racing laps. Whatever the intentions (money, spicing up the championship, or good intentions that "any result is better than none") the result is really quite unsatisfactory because cars didn't compete under racing conditions.

Scrubbing the event entirely was a very valid option, and undoubtedly the safest, but instead, a result has been manufactured. I would still say manipulated (I accept this is a stronger term) because they've awarded points where there was no basis to do so. It's like a football game being called off after 10 minutes and a 1-0 win being awarded based on one team having more shots on target.

The law is an ass here because a complete race abandonment like this without a green flag ever being shown is extremely rare, and it was shown not to be adequately foreshadowed in the rules and procedures. The laps run were in effect formation laps and were only racing laps because they decided at that moment to call them racing laps (rather than additional formation laps, which was also done earlier) for their own reasons.

Masi's communications were quite embarrassing - he didn't really know what to do and using terms like "I would assume so" and "to the best of my knowledge" show that he was making it up as he went along based on his best guesses, and in a high stakes highly orchestrated proceduralised sport like this, that isn't really acceptable.

Well I respect your right to hold that view, but the points were not awarded for qualifying. They were awarded based on a race result.

The race was started behind the safety car, for which there is plenty of precedent, and then red flagged on the basis of the safety of running due to the weather conditions, for which there is also plenty of precedent. They had completed the minimum race distance to permit half points being awarded, which is within the rules. That it resulted in no green flag laps or competitive racing is neither here nor there.

 

[Royston Vasey]

These points were awarded solely for qualifying performance, which has never happened before, and hasn't been agreed by the teams - some of whom are as incensed as many supporters are. That's a major reinterpretation of the rules, done unilaterally by race officials.

The rules state that half points can be awarded after two racing laps (though 14 is the previous fewest ever). On Sunday there were no racing laps at all - just two parade laps. It's verging on fraudulent to call it a race result.

My thoughts entirely. Calling the laps run racing laps after no green light was ever shown is also rather opaque and open to challenge. It appears that none of the teams want to challenge this formally (Mercedes having lost 5 points of their lead in both Championships) and as such, I doubt it will ever be tested and now rule changes are being put in place probably never will. It's to their credit as the last thing the sport needs right now is being mired in legal wranglings and conspiracy theories.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2021 ==

As I understand it they wanted to get the cars out on track to see if the conditions were good enough or heading in the right direction to be able to race but there was another shower and more on the way so they called it off.

It's difficult to make a case that Masi truly was just testing the conditions in good faith, given it's accepted that the conditions were worse than before, and his soft interview with Sky showed that he genuinely felt that two sham laps giving any result at all were better than an abandonment giving no result. I would say that in sporting terms, no result was fairer.

 

[JamesT]

I can't see how you can expect a racing driver to drive at 200+mph only using a HUD.

Ask pilots how they manage to fly at faster speeds using just their instruments and HUD?

 

[najaB]

Ask pilots how they manage to fly at faster speeds using just their instruments and HUD?

There's 1,000 foot vertical separation between aircraft travelling in different directions to start with.

 

[GB]

Ask pilots how they manage to fly at faster speeds using just their instruments and HUD?

A pilot is not flying on a 5m wide road with barriers on the side, other vehicles in close proximity and curves every few 100m.

 

[DelW]

Racing was out of the question so what exactly was the solution?

Declare no result and award no points, just as would have been done had the race been cancelled for any other reason.

The race was started behind the safety car, for which there is plenty of precedent, and then red flagged on the basis of the safety of running due to the weather conditions, for which there is also plenty of precedent. They had completed the minimum race distance to permit half points being awarded, which is within the rules. That it resulted in no green flag laps or competitive racing is neither here nor there.

But there's no precedent for a "race" that consists entirely of (a very small number of) safety car laps. Before Sunday afternoon, I suspect that few people within F1, let alone spectators, thought that such a thing was even possible.

Given the discussions apparently now taking place, following the overwhelmingly hostile response to Sunday's event, I think it's very likely that it will never happen again either, which would make the points awarded even more contentious.

F1 had better hope that the final championship results, for drivers and constructors, are not wholly dependent on Sunday's points, or legal challenges might well ensue.

 

[GB]

F1 had better hope that the final championship results, for drivers and constructors, are not wholly dependent on Sunday's points, or legal challenges might well ensue.

I don't think legal challenges would work. We might not like what happened but as far as I can see it was run as per the rules.

 

[najaB]

I don't think legal challenges would work. We might not like what happened but as far as I can see it was run as per the rules.

Indeed. The letter of the law was followed, if not the spirit.

 

[O L Leigh]

But there's no precedent for a "race" that consists entirely of (a very small number of) safety car laps. Before Sunday afternoon, I suspect that few people within F1, let alone spectators, thought that such a thing was even possible.

There's never a precedent for anything until it actually happens. My point is that all the elements that made up the "race" at Spa have a precedent and are permitted within the F1 rules. That it resulted in a non-spectacle with no green flag laps is immaterial.

I'm not saying that it was satisfactory for the fans (among which I count myself) who would have been hoping for a proper joust on a classic circuit, but that's motorsport. Just sometimes these things happen against which the organisers cannot insure themselves and it has an effect. As I said up-thread, having decided to set themselves a 1 hour timed race I would have liked to have seen a few more laps behind the safety car to try and get a dry line but, being a realist and knowing what Spa can be like, given the fact that it was still raining quite hard this was always going to be highly unlikely.

All I can say is thank god for TOCA and wonder how many F1 fans discovered the near-guaranteed spectacle that is the BTCC and it's support package last Sunday.

Given the discussions apparently now taking place, following the overwhelmingly hostile response to Sunday's event, I think it's very likely that it will never happen again either, which would make the points awarded even more contentious.

Short of running F1 indoors, I don't see how they can ensure that something like this never happens again. Everyone inside the sport agrees that it was too dangerous to have raced under the prevailing conditions, so you can't start eroding the procedures that ensure safety.

It's easy to be wise after the event, but what sort of reaction would the sport have had if they'd scrubbed the event completely? More hostile, less hostile or about the same? I think that the conditions needed to be explored and for each team and driver to have had the opportunity to assess the conditions and give their feedback. As such, given the time constraints it seemed sensible to start the race behind the safety car rather than just sending drivers out for exploratory laps. Once you've done that you have entered race conditions and ending the race after a certain number of laps means that drivers and teams should be awarded points based on their finishing positions. Having started the race and then red flagged it no-one is going to allow the FIA to fail to award points.

We'll see what comes from any discussions, but I personally feel that this level of hostility is more out of frustration and disappointment than a sense of injustice. What can't be argued, though, is that we had a race on Sunday. That it didn't feature any green flag laps is just unfortunate.

 

[najaB]

What can't be argued, though, is that we had a race on Sunday. That it didn't feature any green flag laps is just unfortunate.

Agreed.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I would have liked to have seen a few more laps behind the safety car to try and get a dry line but, being a realist and knowing what Spa can be like, given the fact that it was still raining quite hard this was always going to be highly unlikely.

The last driver to die in F1 did after crashing under double yellows in similar conditions, even under SC it was an unnecessary risk that anyone watching and especially the drivers could see would never result in racing laps.

Short of running F1 indoors, I don't see how they can ensure that something like this never happens again. Everyone inside the sport agrees that it was too dangerous to have raced under the prevailing conditions, so you can't start eroding the procedures that ensure safety.

Easy, don't take them round the track at all. That wouldn't break any procedures at all (whereas they broke plenty in order to contrive two safety car laps on Sunday). There will be more wet races of course, they don't have to take the cars out in them if they're that bad again. Plenty of sporting events the world over get cancelled due to rain without any action. And that's ok. It happens. They don't contrive a win for one team or another; everyone just goes home and at best, a point each is awarded.

We'll see what comes from any discussions, but I personally feel that this level of hostility is more out of frustration and disappointment than a sense of injustice. What can't be argued, though, is that we had a race on Sunday. That it didn't feature any green flag laps is just unfortunate.

I think that argument is specious and a little contrived and reading it back surely even to you must seem a little ridiculous. I disagree that it's immaterial there were no racing laps.

It's about the intent - Masi practically admitted he just wanted to get a result at any price, and it wasn't convincing to claim they were testing the conditions. He knew there would be no racing. To all intents and purposes it wasn't a race, regardless of the FIA definition/judgement!

 

[O L Leigh]

The last driver to die in F1 did after crashing whilst touring a wet track under safety car conditions, it was an unnecessary risk that anyone watching and especially the drivers could see would never result in racing laps. Self edit - double waved yellows at low speed but not under SC

Thank you for correcting that, but it’s still not quite correct. It was never revealed by how much Bianchi slowed down, but it wasn’t by enough. He aqua-planed on the same water that Sutil had which had caused the double waved yellows, and from there on out he was on the same trajectory and heading for a collision with the “snatch recovery” vehicle recovering Sutil’s car. As such, it is not paralleled by what happened last weekend at Spa.

I think that argument is specious and a little contrived and reading it back surely even to you must seem a little ridiculous. I disagree that it's immaterial there were no racing laps.

It’s neither specious nor contrived. It’s based on precedent and the rules as they stand.

 

[GB]

That wouldn't break any procedures at all (whereas they broke plenty in order to contrive two safety car laps on Sunday).

What procedures did they break?

 

[Geezertronic]

I wonder how much the crash that Perez had on the way to the grid affected the decisions. Perez is not the first to bin it on the lap to the grid (ask Verstappen), but that and the Lando crash (plus the others that had gone on before that weekend and during previous years) was surely in the mind of the race director.

If any procedures were broken, then why have teams not been up in arms and issued protests?

 

[Royston Vasey]

What procedures did they break?

Second formation lap, rather than a start under safety car which was effectively what the second formation lap was.

Preventing and then readmitting Perez to the race (and claiming the race had started so he couldn't resume, then letting him "start" which would require the race not to have started, yet under their definition it had)

Suspending the three hour countdown clock with no statutory justification (I'm not saying it was a bad decision to suspend the three hour clock, but it was an arbitrary decision to do so and a break from procedure "justified" by "force majeure")

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2021 ==

If any procedures were broken, then why have teams not been up in arms and issued protests?

It's not necessarily in their interests to do so, they may not have the appetite to bother going down that route. You could probably say it's in Mercedes' interests more than anyone to object, but they pick their battles and Toto was magnanimous and resigned to the situation as it was and that they would just move on. It was a mess and making more of a mess would probably not easily be a winnable battle or help anyone. Red Bull and Aston Martin are fairly litigious (or at least posture an awful lot about perceived injustice), Mercedes seem to rise above it.


Anyway, I can only imagine the social media reaction had it been in Hamilton's favour, the bile and accusations of FIA bias are already bad enough... Verstappen benefitting at least spared us that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2021 ==

As such, it is not paralleled by what happened last weekend at Spa.

I accept that - I'd just say that going out at all is not a zero risk but I don't think Masi sent them out in good faith expecting any chance of being able to resume.

 

[DelW]

The blatant disregard of the three hour rule is an interesting point. Presumably, said rule had been agreed by F1, the FIA, teams, organisers, and possibly broadcasters, yet race officials unilaterally abrogated it. What's more, they did so in such a way that the rule is now meaningless, and might as well be abandoned immediately. Their actions patently contravened both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

Are Liberty pulling everyone's strings here? As with football clubs, we have a bunch of wealthy Americans who have bought part of a sport because they see it as a cash cow that they can milk. They have little interest in, let alone respect for, its history, traditions, "spirit", or even fairness. What they are interested in is money, and if by contriving a result where there shouldn't ever have been one, they can avoid payouts, that directly benefits their bottom line.

One surprising aspect of the whole affair is that the main beneficiaries were George Russell and Williams. Would anyone have expressed surprise that these events had happened if there had been a Ferrari unexpectedly out of position and high up the grid? And if so, would C Horner have been grinning smugly at the outcome, or joining the ranks of the objectors?

 

[Geezertronic]

The blatant disregard of the three hour rule is an interesting point. Presumably, said rule had been agreed by F1, the FIA, teams, organisers, and possibly broadcasters, yet race officials unilaterally abrogated it. What's more, they did so in such a way that the rule is now meaningless, and might as well be abandoned immediately. Their actions patently contravened both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

The rule is actually the four hour rule - I believe they suspended the clock after three hours leaving one hour to attempt to get a decent race in. This is consistent with the FIA International Sporting Code (I believe the specific rule is 11.9.3.o). As it was, they could not and applied rule 6.5 of the F1 Sporting Regulations

 

[Royston Vasey]

The rule is actually the four hour rule - I believe they suspended the clock after three hours leaving one hour to attempt to get a decent race in. This is consistent with the FIA International Sporting Code (I believe the specific rule is 11.9.3.o). As it was, they could not and applied rule 6.5 of the F1 Sporting Regulations

Nope, from this year the Formula One Sporting Regulations state that the maximum total race time is three hours from the scheduled start time, not four. They suspended it at 17:00 local time, two hours after the start time with an hour remaining.

The FIA helpfully even highlight the changes in pink in their sporting regulations, see 5.3 on page 3 of: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2021_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_iss_5_-_2020-12-16.pdf

b) Should the race be suspended (see Article 41) the length of the suspension will be added to this period up to a maximum total race time of three (3) four hours. c) If the formation lap is started behind the safety car (see Article 36.14 c)) the number of race laps will be reduced by the number of laps carried out by the safety car minus one.

The decision was made by the stewards to overrule the Formula One Sporting Regulations under the rule you mention, Article 11.9.3.o of the FIA International Code (a different set of regs, said clause to do with force majeure).

It's frankly a tough ask to state that bad weather is force majeure, since force majeure is defined as "unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract"

Heavy rain in the Ardennes forest is hardly unforeseeable. July and August are their two wettest months!

 

[najaB]

It's frankly a tough ask to state that bad weather is force majeure, since force majeure is defined as "unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract"

That would be the case if we were considering contract law and if a breach of that contract had occurred, but they were making the decision based on the sporting rules, so we would need to see if they have anything to say on the matter. Even if we were considering contract law, the precise definition that needs to be applied depends on the jurisdiction under which the contract was established.

In UK common law it's been established (Matsoukis v. Priestman & Co) that rain isn't in itself force majeure but, under the principles of international commerce a, claim of force majeure is valid:

"if that party proves that the non-performance was due to an impediment beyond its control and that it could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences."

The highlighted part being the important phrase - while they could have predicted rain, there was nothing that they could have done to overcome it.

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps they could have had a 50mph slow zone (like they have at Le Mans) from La Source to Radion to remove the risk of: a car crashing at Eau Rouge, coming back onto the circuit at almost stationary speed, and having another car crash in to it at full speed, like the Formula 2 fatality a couple of years ago. But they can't suddenly add slow zones to Formula 1 on the Sunday.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Perhaps they could have had a 50mph slow zone (like they have at Le Mans) from La Source to Radion to remove the risk of: a car crashing at Eau Rouge, coming back onto the circuit at almost stationary speed, and having another car crash in to it at full speed, like the Formula 2 fatality a couple of years ago. But they can't suddenly add slow zones to Formula 1 on the Sunday.

No but given another half hour or so you got the impression that Michael Masi would have come up with it, deployed and enforced it all on his own It's Force Majeure!

"We gave every opportunity... to be able to complete a race"

 

[najaB]

Perhaps they could have had a 50mph slow zone (like they have at Le Mans) from La Source to Radion to remove the risk of: a car crashing at Eau Rouge, coming back onto the circuit at almost stationary speed, and having another car crash in to it at full speed, like the Formula 2 fatality a couple of years ago.

If that was the only corner on the track then maybe, but there were plenty other places that someone could come to grief.

 

[JamesRowden]

If that was the only corner on the track then maybe, but there were plenty other places that someone could come to grief.

I think that the safety of modern Formula 1 cars is such that the primary risk at this event was of a high speed car on car collision following a crash at Eau Rouge, rather than the very small direct risk associated with a potential car into barrier collision.

There is always risk in motorsport. Safety always needs to be partially compromised to allow motorsport to occur.

 

[Spamcan81]

Indeed. The letter of the law was followed, if not the spirit.

Apart from them ignoring the rule regarding the time window for attempting to run the race. Seems that was rewritten on the day.

 

[najaB]

I think that the safety of modern Formula 1 cars is such that the primary risk at this event was of a high speed car on car collision following a crash at Eau Rouge, rather than the very small direct risk associated with a potential car into barrier collision.

The problem is that, if a car hydroplanes going into one of the braking zones it might very well impact that barrier at a lot higher speed than it would in normal circumstances. And the energy involved increases based on the square of the velocity.

 

[JamesRowden]

The problem is that, if a car hydroplanes going into one of the braking zones it might very well impact that barrier at a lot higher speed than it would in normal circumstances. And the energy involved increases based on the square of the velocity.

I think that there was clear points at which there was not enough water to create a risk of aquaplaning. The issue was visibility and the risk of a high speed multicar pile up in the early laps.

And this risk of aquaplaning can be mitigated or solved by just making it so that every car has to use those monsoon tyres that existed but were not used in the past, until the race director concludes that it's OK to use lower tread tyres.

 

[najaB]

And this risk of aquaplaning can be mitigated or solved by just making it so that every car has to use those monsoon tyres that existed but were not used in the past, until the race director concludes that it's OK to use lower tread tyres.

Which multiplies the visibility issues.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I don't! That was @LOL The Irony's suggestion.

It actually wasn't my idea, as you'd find if you read further back. I simply agreed with it and guessed how such a system would work.

 

[DarloRich]

finally caught up with the Belgian GP highlights. The race could not be run in those conditions. Visibility was shockingly bad in places. Conditions were described by someone I know who works for a local F1 team to be the worst they can remember and the whole thing "farcical" and a total waste of time and effort.

It should have just been called off rather than run under the safety car for 2 and a half laps. It is clear the reasons behind that were commercial and not sporting.

I would love to say just go for it and if you cant hack the conditions park up - but the world is, rightly, not like that anymore.