It ended as everyone feared it might – with figures from Mercedes and Red Bull discussing matters in the stewards’ room, long after the chequered flag in Abu Dhabi.
And it is still not yet quite over.
But fears that they would be arguing over a clash between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton mercifully proved unfounded – even if they did come close on multiple occasions at Yas Marina.
The arguments centred on the handling of the late Safety Car restart that led to the sole lap of racing in which Verstappen passed Hamilton for the win and the championship.
The first protest – that Verstappen passed Hamilton prior to the restart – was flimsy and swiftly thrown out. Bar Verstappen briefly creeping a couple of millimetres in front of Hamilton there were no real grounds for a protest.
The second protest was far more justifiable.
The Sporting Regulations themselves are long-winded, confusingly worded and stretch to a scarcely believable 98 pages. Article 48, across two pages, covers the Safety Car.
Mercedes claimed that two breaches of Article 48.12 had occurred. It came prepared, with Sporting Director Ron Meadows and Trackside Engineering Director Andrew Shovlin joined by Paul Harris QC. Harris recently won Barrister of the Year and previously represented Manchester City FC in its successful appeal against UEFA regarding its suspension from the Champions League, which went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Mercedes outlined that the breaches related to “any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car” and that “once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap.”
As we know, Race Control initially atypically said lapped cars would not be permitted to pass, then allowed only the five lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to unlap themselves, then gave notice to restart at the end of the lap.
Mercedes argued that had this been complied with Hamilton would have won the race. They requested an amendment to the race result under Article 11.9.3.h of the FIA’s International Sporting Code. That article pronounces that stewards “may amend the classifications” under the jurisdiction that they hold.
Red Bull was permitted to attend “as an interested party” and did so with Sporting Director Jonathan Wheatley, Team Principal Christian Horner and Technical Director Adrian Newey.
Red Bull argued that in Article 48.12 “any” does not mean “all” and that Article 48.13 states that the message ‘Safety Car in this lap’ is the signal that it will enter the pit lane at the end of that lap – overriding Article 48.12. It also highlighted Article 15.3, which gives the Race Director “overriding authority” on several matters, including “the use of the safety car.” Red Bull also highlighted that even if all of the eight lapped cars were permitted to unlap themselves it would not have changed the race’s outcome.
Formula 1 Race Director Michael Masi outlined that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove lapped cars that would “interfere” in the racing between the leaders – and that from his perspective Article 48.13 was the one that applied in this case. He also stated that teams had long agreed that where possible it was highly desirable for races to end in green-flag conditions and not behind the safety car.
In dismissing the protest stewards determined that Article 15.3 allows Masi to control the use of the safety car, including its deployment and withdrawal. It accepted that “although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that.” Stewards concluded that “once the message ‘Safety Car in this lap’ has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of the lap.” Stewards deemed that Mercedes’ request to amend the race results was “not appropriate” as it is “effectively shortening the race retrospectively.”
No Mercedes personnel spoke to the media. Hamilton conducted the post-race world feed interview with Jenson Button but skipped the TV pen and press conference. Technically this is a breach of Article 56.1 of the Sporting Regulations. They now have no obligations to speak but are mandated to attend the FIA Gala on Thursday, with Hamilton due to collect the runner-up trophy and Toto Wolff the Constructors’ trophy.
It is an exceptionally convoluted decision and still open to interpretation – hence Mercedes’ quick reaction to notify its intention to appeal, giving it time to assess the situation. If it does proceed with an appeal then it will likely need to present new evidence that was not available at the time – as has happened with prior appeals this year. It is also a highly unusual situation in that, whereas stewards are usually interpreting the regulations to determine any sanction against a team or driver, this time it is the actions of the FIA’s Race Director under scrutiny.
In justifying dismissing the protests the stewards effectively agreed that one Article (48.13) overrules another (Article 48.12) and that in any case both are superseded by another (Article 15.3). If that is the case then it very obviously leads to doubt going forward over how, where and in what way the regulations will be enforced for anything which Article 15.3 covers, and in effect makes a host of other Articles superfluous. If what the Race Director says goes, over other Articles, then matters are surely open for interpretation going forward. Masi’s assertion that teams have expressed a desire to finish under green is fine, but it is not written down in the regulations.
While there were very obvious implications for the title deciders, the way the restart was handled also influenced the result further down the order; Carlos Sainz had the lapped Daniel Ricciardo and Lance Stroll in front and had to contend with the AlphaTauris on Softs in the last stages. Ricciardo and Stroll were also miffed at having pitted for Softs but then being denied the chance at attacking rivals directly ahead, who were given the all-clear to unlap themselves. And the quintet of ‘unlappers’ fronted by seventh-placed Lando Norris were 50 seconds behind sixth-placed Valtteri Bottas.
At last year’s Eifel Grand Prix, in explaining why a Safety Car phase was so long, Masi outlined that per the Sporting Regulations he had to allow all of the lapped cars to unlap themselves.
There is no mechanism in the Sporting Regulations for retrospectively changing the race result if indeed there was to have been an officiating error. Results are only be taken back in the event of the race being suspended and not restarted – which was not the case. It reached its full distance. And, in any case, the stewards rejected the protest.
Article 11.9.3.h of the FIA’s International Sporting Code remains present in that stewards can amend the classification – yet this has already been rejected. Mercedes would have to present new evidence that was not available at the time in order for the case to be reviewed. It is difficult to envisage what, if any, new evidence could be forthcoming. And, in the improbable event of any appeal being successful, it would surely be an even worse outcome – having the title change hands in court. For now, Mercedes is merely in the process of deciding whether to proceed with an appeal, so everyone just has to wait.
The Race Director has an incredibly challenging job, as do the stewards, the latter not even remunerated for their services. Officials in any sport are rarely popular. Someone is always likely to be unhappy. It is not as if everything was perfect before 2019, prior to Masi’s sudden ascension to the role in difficult circumstances, and any accusations of bias or favouritism from any camp are just wrong and unfair.
But it is not the first time that Race Control, and the application of the regulations, has been called into question this year. And in this instance it had a massive influence in the outcome of an entire championship. A deep-rooted analysis of the entire structure must surely be needed for the sake of greater sporting integrity moving forwards.
I, like many stateside, fell into this sport with the help of Netflix. I’ve since fallen deep following analysis pieces and studying the engineering tech. What happened on Sunday was a disgusting display of sport and refereeing. This is not just a “bad call” that happens in a game; this was a concerted effort to tip the tables in the end to favor the losing team. A yearlong battle that ended in a decision to throw away precedent so the race director and his boss could have their jollies.
Sorry to break it to you; we aren’t stupid, F1. As easy as it was to fall in, I have fallen out of love with this sport. I’m done guys.
I’ve got news for you. You are stupid.
So we’ll thought out and articulate, Dami.
Masi has obviously been instructed by his employers, the FIA, to do more or less as he likes, so long as he brings cars closer together for more televisual incidents. This he has done over many races this season. F1 is now a clone for the WWF, and has about as much credibility.
What’s next?
1. Get rid of Michael Masi. He’s made some pretty bonehead decisions this year. Everyone seems to be forgetting the Spa “race” shambles because it’s been overshadowed by this latest fiasco.
2. Overhaul the stewards system. Get some former f1 drivers in there. DO NOT ALLOW the team principles to call the race director to influence him. Let them talk to an “assistant race director” who can relay only legitimate gripes to the race director.
And what if this assistant race director has a view of what is legitimate which doesn’t fit with your world view? Will you be calling for another system to replace the one you wanted in the first place? Or will it be a requirement that he makes a call to run everything by you before passing it on? Basically, you’re having a strop because you didn’t get the result you wanted. Keep it up. They’ll make you an honorary Austrian.
Simple. Set it out in the regulations. Racing incidents only.
Nice straw man & ad hominem attack. lol I’m a McLaren fan and don’t care if Max or Lewis won. We just want consistent and fair decisions. Not the ad hoc BS we’ve seen from Masi this year.
It’s one of the oldest clauses in the rules of competition. The decision of the judges is final. Ultimately, the organizers of any competition retain the right to make decisions in unusual circumstances, and by participating the competitors agree to abide by their decision. Do Mercedes call in a lawyer to protest against decisions which favour them? Do they hell as like. What happened after the race is hypocritical bullshit on the part of Mercedes, and that is what is besmirching the sport, not the Race Director making decisions in a unique situatiion to enable the completion of a crucial race.
I am not a fan of Lewis or Max, but I am a fan of F1. I was glad to see the race (yes, it’s called a race) end on the track as a proper race should. Does anyone here think it would have been more exciting watching a procession behind the safety car? Perhaps F1 needs to clarify the rules that either:
1. If there is a safety car on track that will likely be there until the end of the race, the race should instead be extended 2 or 3 laps after the safety car pits.
or 2. If the race has less than 5 laps remaining, instead of a safety car, the race should be red-flagged.
Both of these would allow us to see a racing finish.
The only exception would be races that end due to severe weather behind the safety car.
Not mentioned here.
1) Christian Horner asked Masi to allow the 5 lapped cars to un-lap themselves and Masi said no. Several minutes later he changed his mind and allowed them to un-lap – not all lapped cars just the 5 between Verstappen and Hamilton
2) At the start of the safety car period Verstappen pitted and put on a new set of soft tires this “free” pit stop was not available to Hamilton without (potentially) giving up track position which was tactically disadvantageous. It was paramount to keep P1 as it seemed more than likely the race would not re-start. When the race restarted it was inevitable that Verstappen would pass Hamilton as he had new softs and Hamilton was on very worn hards..
No. 2 meant that unlapping the 5 cars and restarting the race with Verstappen within half a second of Hamilton was unfair as it gave a huge advantage to Verstappen. Ignoring or breaking the rules in order to have a race for the championship may have seem as laudable ideal, but as it was done it was the very definition of unfair disadvantage to one driver, Hamilton, who had led Verstappen handily throughout the race.
If they really wanted a race at the end that reflected the rest of the day’s racing, they could have restarted the race with the lapped cars in place, after all 2 of those 5 lapped cars were there because Verstappen pitted a couple of laps earlier.
I don’t know what can be done, but however good a racer Verstappen is, he did not deserve the final win – and therefore I cannot considerer he won fair and square.
At the very least, there should be a thorough investigation in Masi and especially the pressure put on him by Horner. Both should consider their positions very carefully and new rules should consider how unfair this whole debacle has been.
Mercedes are behaving like spoilt brats. They had the run of the mill for the last 7 years. Grow up and accept that it didn’t work out for your driver this time around. You still won the Constructors championship. Hamilton has been driving a car that has been superior to the rival teams car for too long. My opinion is that Mercedes are trying to get Hamilton this years championship because next season he will struggle with the new changes being made to the car.
I disagree.
In making strategy decisions, teams rely on the rules & on precedent – the manner in which the rules have been applied in the past.
When making a call likely to change a major result, the strongest position for an adjudicator to be in is to be able to demonstrate a straightforward vanilla application of the rules in keeping with precedent. They then have a strong case that they are not exercising a preference but simply declaring the inevitable.
The decisions made were apparently, upon a lawyer’s reading, consistent with the letter of the rules but they were clearly inconsistent with precedent: a choice was made to apply the rules in a uniquely innovative manner to spice up the spectacle. One may agree or disagree with that choice, but it is not unreasonable of anyone to disagree, least of all those who lost out as a result.
It’s F1. They all act like spoiled brats. Every other team would have filed the exact same protests if they were in Merc’s position.
A rigged outcome by Masi influenced by Liberty owners for the sole purpose to dethrone by any means the 7X social activist champion and bring in the Great White Saviour. Ecclestone the geriatric former owner didn’t hide his disdain for Hamilton by saying he hopes he never breaks Schu’s record. The problem was the social activist champion didn’t play along with the script and to the shock of many won 4 straight races, yes 4 unofficially Abu Dhabi too. The same thing will happen next season because Masi ain’t going anywhere . The social activist legend ain’t going to stop supporting climate change , and exposing what is really bothering F1 which is his kneeling before races, BLM and the worse egregious act calling for diversity in F1.
And that clever little article 48.12 which basically says the Race Director can throw all rules and regulations out the window and decide what he thinks is best. Imagine that in other sports.
Championship game in basketball and tied score with 1sec left in game and the ref decides he wants to go home early and avoid overtime hands out a non existent foul with free throws thus ending the game avoiding overtime.
A tainted F1 title at best