On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
> >>>> geoff wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Have to be:
> >>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
> >>>>> trajectory).
> >>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take
> >>>> avoiding action.
> >>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
> >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
> >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
> >>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
> >>>>> his new soft tyres.
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> >>>>
> >>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
> >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
> >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
> >>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
> >>>
> >>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
> >>> They just need to pick the card.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card” all
> >> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card because they
> >> *are* victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively award the
> >> race to Max.
> >>
> >> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have
> >> deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be
> >> tainted.
> >
> > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
> > but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
> > would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
> > half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
> Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
He definitely did not apply 48.12
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has
passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the
following lap."

But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as the
RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.

Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current *decision* is that
Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse him of
breaching the regs. Even though many would take a plain English reading
of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach the
regs.

Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the course" and
the "race director" having different roles is also a factor here?

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-12 4:05 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Martin Harran wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
> > > > > <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> >>>>>build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
> > > > > > > > > lap (note
> >>>>his >>>> trajectory).
> > > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
> > > > > > > > Hamilton to
> >>>>take >>> avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > > holding up
> >>>>HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
> not.
> > > > > > > > > - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
> > > > > > > > > - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
> > > > > > > > > opportunity to
> >>>>'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
> > > > > > > > the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
> > > > > > > > It is not unusual for
> >>>>a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance
> >>it >>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
> > > > > > > and play
> >>>>a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
> > > > > > card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
> > > > > > play a card because they are victims - victims of Masi’s
> > > > > > illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
> > > > > > thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially
> > > > > > for Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
> > > > > racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
> > > > > safety car which would have been within the regulations but
> > > > > still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
> > > > > what he deserved.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Masi should go.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone
> > > > > is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
> > > > > pretty big one.
> > > >
> > > > If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
> > > > then he is probably not the man for the job.
> > >
> > > He let the two contenders race to the end.
> > >
> >
> > You understand NOTHING about the race. You should perhaps shut up.
> > You have done nothing but make a fool of yourself lately.
> >
> > > Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
> >
> > No, they couldn't.
>
> Yes. They could.
>

Not without all but guaranteeing losing the championship.

So a dumb suggestion.

> >
> > Do you need it explaining?
> >
> > >
> > > They chose not to.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> You get that that completely contradicts your earlier "No, they
> couldn't", right?

No.

It's about context, something you have zero appreciation for.

To suggest they could have pitted is as adroit as suggesting they could
have chosen to throw away the championship.
To say they chose not to do that is correct.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > On 13/12/2021 12:44 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Martin Harran wrote:
> > > >
> >>>>On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> >>>>>build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
> > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
> > > > > > > > > first lap (note
> >>>>his >>>> trajectory).
> > > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
> > > > > > > > Hamilton to
> >>>>take >>> avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > > holding up
> >>>>HAM.  >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
> not.
> > > > > > > > > - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
> > > > > > > > > - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
> > > > > > > > > opportunity to
> >>>>'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
> > > > > > > > the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
> > > > > > > > It is not unusual for
> >>>>a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this
> instance it >>>>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
> > > > > > > and play
> >>>>a victim card.  >> They just need to pick the card.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
> > > > > > card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
> > > > > > play a card because they are victims - victims of Masi’s
> > > > > > illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
> > > > > > thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially
> > > > > > for Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to  "go
> > > > > racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
> > > > > safety car which would have been within the regulations but
> > > > > still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
> > > > > what he deserved.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Masi should go.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree though not just because of this decision -  everyone
> > > > > is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
> > > > > pretty big one.
> > > >
> > > > If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
> > > > then he is probably not the man for the job.
> > >
> > > He let the two contenders race to the end.
> > >
> > > Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
> > >
> > > They chose not to.
> >
> > That would have gifted track position to VER.
>
> Yup.
>
> But Hamilton ended up with track position...
>
> ...and we saw how well that worked out.

Sure, but RBR had nothing to lose. None of the strategists would have
expected the race director to ignore the regulations so only a idiot
with no appreciation of the situation would suggest they could take
that route.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Matt Larkin wrote:

> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
> > On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> > > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
> > wrote: >>>> geoff wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Have to be:
> > >>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
> > (note his >>>>> trajectory).
> > >>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
> > to take >>>> avoiding action.
> > >>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
> > HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
> > not. >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
> > >>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
> > 'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
> > likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
> > unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
> > this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
> > winner. >>>
> > >>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
> > play a victim card. >>> They just need to pick the card.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card”
> > all >> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card
> > because they >> are victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to
> > effectively award the >> race to Max.
> > >>
> > >> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
> > thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for
> > Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
> > >
> > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
> > > racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
> > > car which would have been within the regulations but still
> > > allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
> > > deserved.
> > Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
> He definitely did not apply 48.12
> "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
> presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
> car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
> the end of the following lap."
>
> But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as
> the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
>
> Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision is
> that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse
> him of breaching the regs.

No, it's not. It remains a truth.

The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all well.
15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course) has all
authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in any common
sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the regulations
detailing the procedures.

> Even though many would take a plain
> English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards
> decision, he did breach the regs.
>
> Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
> course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
> factor here?

No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose, not
to give the RD the right to change the regs.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>
>> That would have gifted track position to VER.
>
> Yup.
>
> But Hamilton ended up with track position...
>
> ...and we saw how well that worked out.

You're missing the point.

Look at the options...

Under the precedents of all prior SC periods, it was reasonable to
assume that the backmarkers would either remain in place or there would
(if time) be unlapped and reformed as part of the queue behind the
safety car before a restart. In the closing laps of the race, it was
reasonable to assume that the race would end under the safety car.

Now there's the question of changing tyres. If Hamilton goes in first,
Verstappen has options. He's behind so he can respond to the move.

Option 1: Red Bull can pull him in and gamble Verstappen can somehow
catch and pass Hamilton. Given the short time period, the likelihood
that there will be few if any racing laps, and given they would both be
on equally fresh tyres, this is *not* a credible option.

Option 2: Red Bull leave him out and he gambles on either the SC running
to the end or that Hamilton is bothered by traffic in the one lap or so
that would be under race conditions. Definitely a credible option if
Hamilton goes in.

That leaves the third option which happened as a result of Hamilton
staying out, and the fourth which was entirely in their hands:

Option 3: Verstappen chooses to change tyres and hope that something
comes along which allows him to chase down Hamilton with a significant
tyre age differential.

Option 4: Verstappen stays out and hopes something happens that allows
him to pass Hamilton. This isn't credible as the chances of overtaking
Hamilton on worn tyres is just too unlikely.

This really leaves - to my mind - options 2 and 3. Both are long shots.
Neither are really in Red Bull's hands...

....unless something unprecedented happens like Masi removing the
backmarkers faster than usual which he could only do by only allowing
the five to pass and pulling the SC in before they formed at the back of
the train. This is highly unusual, and I have yet to see a credible
explanation of why the sudden change in application of the SC rules.

So, yes Mercedes could have changed Hamilton's tyres, and that would
almost certainly have led to the situation described in option 2 which,
given precedent, their strategists would have ruled out on the basis it
would hand the lead and the championship to Verstappen. There is no way
that a reasonable person would assume that things would play out as they
did.

For Red Bull, seeing Hamilton stay out made option 3 a reasonable one.
It was a long shot, but staying out was no longer.

Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic
decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or
demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>
> Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there
> really was no choice.

Masi really *did* have choices. He could have followed precedents set
earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took place.
That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared *and* would
allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run to complete the
race. Of course, that would also have allowed Hamilton to change his
tyres and benefit in that way...

> Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
> drivers to race to the finish.

....but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to the
end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end one of
two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have happened if it
was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on worn) or Verstappen
easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.

The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and
championship to Verstappen.

> Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because
> they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other choices.

See my other post. There really wasn't another choice given the
situation and racing precedents. They didn't have a crystal ball to be
able to know either what Verstappen was going to do (the reverse of
which is obviously not true) or how Masi would rule (unusually) on the
safety car.

Mark wrote:

> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
> > On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
> >>
> >> That would have gifted track position to VER.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > But Hamilton ended up with track position...
> >
> > ...and we saw how well that worked out.
>
> You're missing the point.
>
> Look at the options...
>
> Under the precedents of all prior SC periods, it was reasonable to
> assume that the backmarkers would either remain in place or there
> would (if time) be unlapped and reformed as part of the queue behind
> the safety car before a restart. In the closing laps of the race, it
> was reasonable to assume that the race would end under the safety car.
>
> Now there's the question of changing tyres. If Hamilton goes in first,
> Verstappen has options. He's behind so he can respond to the move.
>
> Option 1: Red Bull can pull him in and gamble Verstappen can somehow
> catch and pass Hamilton. Given the short time period, the likelihood
> that there will be few if any racing laps, and given they would both
> be on equally fresh tyres, this is not a credible option.
>
> Option 2: Red Bull leave him out and he gambles on either the SC
> running to the end or that Hamilton is bothered by traffic in the one
> lap or so that would be under race conditions. Definitely a credible
> option if Hamilton goes in.
>
> That leaves the third option which happened as a result of Hamilton
> staying out, and the fourth which was entirely in their hands:
>
> Option 3: Verstappen chooses to change tyres and hope that something
> comes along which allows him to chase down Hamilton with a significant
> tyre age differential.
>
> Option 4: Verstappen stays out and hopes something happens that allows
> him to pass Hamilton. This isn't credible as the chances of overtaking
> Hamilton on worn tyres is just too unlikely.
>
> This really leaves - to my mind - options 2 and 3. Both are long
> shots. Neither are really in Red Bull's hands...
>
> ...unless something unprecedented happens like Masi removing the
> backmarkers faster than usual which he could only do by only allowing
> the five to pass and pulling the SC in before they formed at the back
> of the train. This is highly unusual, and I have yet to see a credible
> explanation of why the sudden change in application of the SC rules.
>
> So, yes Mercedes could have changed Hamilton's tyres, and that would
> almost certainly have led to the situation described in option 2
> which, given precedent, their strategists would have ruled out on the
> basis it would hand the lead and the championship to Verstappen.
> There is no way that a reasonable person would assume that things
> would play out as they did.
>
> For Red Bull, seeing Hamilton stay out made option 3 a reasonable one.
> It was a long shot, but staying out was no longer.
>
> Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic
> decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or
> demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.

In summary, given that the race were more likely to finish under the
SC, Mercedes had no viable strategic choice but to stay out and hope
the race finished under the SC and RBR had nothing to lose in taking
fresh tyres and hoping the race would restart.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>>
>> Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic
>> decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or
>> demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.
>
> In summary, given that the race were more likely to finish under the
> SC, Mercedes had no viable strategic choice but to stay out and hope
> the race finished under the SC and RBR had nothing to lose in taking
> fresh tyres and hoping the race would restart.

Precisely that.

On 12/13/2021 8:54 AM, Mark wrote:
> Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark wrote:
>>>
>>> Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic
>>> decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or
>>> demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.
>>
>> In summary, given that the race were more likely to finish under the
>> SC, Mercedes had no viable strategic choice but to stay out and hope
>> the race finished under the SC and RBR had nothing to lose in taking
>> fresh tyres and hoping the race would restart.
>
> Precisely that.

+1

--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
I love being told I'm growing up wrong by people
I don't want to turn out like. - Caulfield (Jef Mallett)

On 2021-12-13 4:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>> Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there
>> really was no choice.
>
> Masi really *did* have choices. He could have followed precedents set
> earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took place.
> That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared *and* would
> allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run to complete the
> race. Of course, that would also have allowed Hamilton to change his
> tyres and benefit in that way...

He could have "followed precedent" but was that a requirement or an option?

Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?

>
>> Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
>> drivers to race to the finish.
>
> ...but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to the
> end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end one of
> two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have happened if it
> was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on worn) or Verstappen
> easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.
>
> The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and
> championship to Verstappen.

Only if you assume that every decision that benefited one of them over
the other is "gifting" the championship as well.

Hamilton took out his many competitor in Silverstone and was allowed to
go on racing after a penalty. Was not making the penalty large enough
"gifting" him the championship?

>
>> Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because
>> they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other choices.
>
> See my other post. There really wasn't another choice given the
> situation and racing precedents. They didn't have a crystal ball to be
> able to know either what Verstappen was going to do (the reverse of
> which is obviously not true) or how Masi would rule (unusually) on the
> safety car.

No. You're wrong.

They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from Verstappen.

They chose and it didn't work out.

On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:
>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
>>>>>>> trajectory).
>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
>>>>>> take
>>>>>> avoiding action.
>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
>>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
>>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
>>>>>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
>>>>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
>>>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
>>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
>>>>>
>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a
>>>>> victim card.
>>>>> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card” all
>>>> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card because
>>>> they
>>>> *are* victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively
>>>> award the
>>>> race to Max.
>>>>
>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>> thoroughly have
>>>> deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will
>>>> always be
>>>> tainted.
>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
>>> but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
>>> would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
>>> half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Masi should go.
>>>
>>> I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
>>> entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
>>> What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being
>>> influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
>>> Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
>> Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
>> an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
>>
>> 3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been the
>> same for Lewis / Max.
>>
>> 1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end of
>> the race.
>
> Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at that
> point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car he should
> have thrown a red flag.

And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then a
different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen one")
would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted" to
Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.

On 2021-12-12 11:30 p.m., Sir Tim wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 8:38 a.m., Sir Tim wrote:
>>> build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
>>>>>> trajectory).
>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take
>>>>> avoiding action.
>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
>>>>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
>>>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
>>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
>>>>
>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
>>>> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card” all
>>> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card because they
>>> *are* victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively award the
>>> race to Max.
>>
>> If the decision was "illegal"...
>>
>> ...then quote the regulation that it violates.
>
> 48.12
>

1. That's not a quote.

2. Does "any" mean "all"?

3. Where are the definitions that normally accompany such paragraphs? In
the context of FIA regulations, what precisely does "will" mean?

On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?

Without context, no. However:

'48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the
message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors
via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the
leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety
car.'

In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the clear
meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been lapped by
the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to use "any" rather than
"all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.

(Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED CARS
MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the official messaging
system. So Masi was operating outside the bounds of both 48.12 and
precedent.)

--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
I love being told I'm growing up wrong by people
I don't want to turn out like. - Caulfield (Jef Mallett)

On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
>>>>>>> trajectory).
>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take
>>>>>> avoiding action.
>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
>>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
>>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
>>>>>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
>>>>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
>>>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
>>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
>>>>>
>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play a victim card.
>>>>> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card” all
>>>> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card because they
>>>> *are* victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively award the
>>>> race to Max.
>>>>
>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would thoroughly have
>>>> deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will always be
>>>> tainted.
>>>
>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
>>> but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
>>> would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
>>> half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
>> Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
> He definitely did not apply 48.12
> "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
> presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has
> passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the
> following lap."
>
> But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as the
> RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.

'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the
Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the
following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect
of them only with his express agreement:

....

e) The use of the safety car.'

>
> Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current *decision* is that
> Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse him of
> breaching the regs. Even though many would take a plain English reading
> of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach the
> regs.

And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence of
his superiors in the FIA?

>
> Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the course" and
> the "race director" having different roles is also a factor here?

Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.

On 2021-12-13 1:48 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-12 4:05 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
>>>>>>>>>> lap (note
>>>>>> his >>>> trajectory).
>>>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
>>>>>>>>> Hamilton to
>>>>>> take >>> avoiding action.
>>>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
>>>>>>>>>> holding up
>>>>>> HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
>> not.
>>>>>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to
>>>>>> 'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
>>>>>>>>> the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
>>>>>>>>> It is not unusual for
>>>>>> a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance
>>>> it >>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
>>>>>>>> and play
>>>>>> a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
>>>>>>> card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
>>>>>>> play a card because they are victims - victims of Masi’s
>>>>>>> illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>>>>> thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially
>>>>>>> for Max whose win will always be tainted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
>>>>>> racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
>>>>>> safety car which would have been within the regulations but
>>>>>> still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
>>>>>> what he deserved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Masi should go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone
>>>>>> is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
>>>>>> pretty big one.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
>>>>> then he is probably not the man for the job.
>>>>
>>>> He let the two contenders race to the end.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You understand NOTHING about the race. You should perhaps shut up.
>>> You have done nothing but make a fool of yourself lately.
>>>
>>>> Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
>>>
>>> No, they couldn't.
>>
>> Yes. They could.
>>
>
> Not without all but guaranteeing losing the championship.

So Hamilton was going to be unable to pass Verstappen?

Is that your claim?

>
> So a dumb suggestion.
>
>>>
>>> Do you need it explaining?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They chose not to.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>
>> You get that that completely contradicts your earlier "No, they
>> couldn't", right?
>
> No.
>
> It's about context, something you have zero appreciation for.
>
> To suggest they could have pitted is as adroit as suggesting they could
> have chosen to throw away the championship.
> To say they chose not to do that is correct.

Same questions.

On 2021-12-13 1:51 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2021 12:44 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
>>>>>>>> Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
>>>>>>>>>> first lap (note
>>>>>> his >>>> trajectory).
>>>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
>>>>>>>>> Hamilton to
>>>>>> take >>> avoiding action.
>>>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
>>>>>>>>>> holding up
>>>>>> HAM.  >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
>> not.
>>>>>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to
>>>>>> 'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
>>>>>>>>> the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
>>>>>>>>> It is not unusual for
>>>>>> a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this
>> instance it >>>>was the >>> Race Director that determined the winner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
>>>>>>>> and play
>>>>>> a victim card.  >> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
>>>>>>> card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
>>>>>>> play a card because they are victims - victims of Masi’s
>>>>>>> illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>>>>> thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially
>>>>>>> for Max whose win will always be tainted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to  "go
>>>>>> racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
>>>>>> safety car which would have been within the regulations but
>>>>>> still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
>>>>>> what he deserved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Masi should go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree though not just because of this decision -  everyone
>>>>>> is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
>>>>>> pretty big one.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
>>>>> then he is probably not the man for the job.
>>>>
>>>> He let the two contenders race to the end.
>>>>
>>>> Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
>>>>
>>>> They chose not to.
>>>
>>> That would have gifted track position to VER.
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>> But Hamilton ended up with track position...
>>
>> ...and we saw how well that worked out.
>
> Sure, but RBR had nothing to lose.

But the fact is that getting past Hamilton was possible.

So Hamilton getting past Verstappen would have been possible.

> None of the strategists would have
> expected the race director to ignore the regulations so only a idiot
> with no appreciation of the situation would suggest they could take
> that route.

The race director didn't ignore the regulations.

On 2021-12-13 1:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Matt Larkin wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
>>> wrote: >>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
>>> (note his >>>>> trajectory).
>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
>>> to take >>>> avoiding action.
>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
>>> HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
>>> not. >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
>>> 'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
>>> likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
>>> unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
>>> this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
>>> winner. >>>
>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
>>> play a victim card. >>> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card”
>>> all >> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card
>>> because they >> are victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to
>>> effectively award the >> race to Max.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>> thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for
>>> Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
>>>> racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
>>>> car which would have been within the regulations but still
>>>> allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
>>>> deserved.
>>> Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
>> He definitely did not apply 48.12
>> "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
>> presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
>> car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
>> the end of the following lap."
>>
>> But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as
>> the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
>>
>> Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision is
>> that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse
>> him of breaching the regs.
>
> No, it's not. It remains a truth.
>
> The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all well.
> 15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course) has all
> authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in any common
> sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the regulations
> detailing the procedures.
>
>> Even though many would take a plain
>> English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards
>> decision, he did breach the regs.
>>
>> Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
>> course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
>> factor here?
>
> No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose, not
> to give the RD the right to change the regs.
>

The fact that Mercedes protest was rejected means that the people who
actually understand and administer the regs disagree with you.

On 2021-12-13 4:28 a.m., Mark wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>
>>> That would have gifted track position to VER.
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>> But Hamilton ended up with track position...
>>
>> ...and we saw how well that worked out.
>
> You're missing the point.
>
> Look at the options...
>
> Under the precedents of all prior SC periods, it was reasonable to
> assume that the backmarkers would either remain in place or there would
> (if time) be unlapped and reformed as part of the queue behind the
> safety car before a restart. In the closing laps of the race, it was
> reasonable to assume that the race would end under the safety car.
>
> Now there's the question of changing tyres. If Hamilton goes in first,
> Verstappen has options. He's behind so he can respond to the move.
>
> Option 1: Red Bull can pull him in and gamble Verstappen can somehow
> catch and pass Hamilton. Given the short time period, the likelihood
> that there will be few if any racing laps, and given they would both be
> on equally fresh tyres, this is *not* a credible option.
>
> Option 2: Red Bull leave him out and he gambles on either the SC running
> to the end or that Hamilton is bothered by traffic in the one lap or so
> that would be under race conditions. Definitely a credible option if
> Hamilton goes in.
>
> That leaves the third option which happened as a result of Hamilton
> staying out, and the fourth which was entirely in their hands:
>
> Option 3: Verstappen chooses to change tyres and hope that something
> comes along which allows him to chase down Hamilton with a significant
> tyre age differential.
>
> Option 4: Verstappen stays out and hopes something happens that allows
> him to pass Hamilton. This isn't credible as the chances of overtaking
> Hamilton on worn tyres is just too unlikely.
>
> This really leaves - to my mind - options 2 and 3. Both are long shots.
> Neither are really in Red Bull's hands...
>
> ...unless something unprecedented happens like Masi removing the
> backmarkers faster than usual which he could only do by only allowing
> the five to pass and pulling the SC in before they formed at the back of
> the train. This is highly unusual, and I have yet to see a credible
> explanation of why the sudden change in application of the SC rules.
>
> So, yes Mercedes could have changed Hamilton's tyres, and that would
> almost certainly have led to the situation described in option 2 which,
> given precedent, their strategists would have ruled out on the basis it
> would hand the lead and the championship to Verstappen. There is no way
> that a reasonable person would assume that things would play out as they
> did.

What about the earlier choice not to give him a better set of tires when
Verstappen pitted under the virtual safety car?

>
> For Red Bull, seeing Hamilton stay out made option 3 a reasonable one.
> It was a long shot, but staying out was no longer.
>
> Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid strategic
> decision by leaving him out is either deliberately mischievous or
> demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on IMO.

On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
>
> Without context, no.  However:
>
> '48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the
> message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors
> via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the
> leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety
> car.'
>
> In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the clear
> meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been lapped by
> the leader) be required to unlap.  The choice to use "any" rather than
> "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
>
> (Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED CARS
> MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the official messaging
> system.  So Masi was operating outside the bounds of both 48.12 and
> precedent.)
The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.

The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?

So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still racing
for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were actually
important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 1:48 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-12 4:05 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
> > > > > > > <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>>>build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
> > > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
> > > > > > > > > > > first lap (note
> >>>>>>his >>>> trajectory).
> > > > > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that
> > > > > > > > > > required Hamilton to
> >>>>>>take >>> avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > > > > holding up
> >>>>>>HAM. >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
> > > not.
> > > > > > > > > > > - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
> > > > > > > > > > > - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > opportunity to
> >>>>>>'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually
> > > > > > > > > > reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a
> > > > > > > > > > bad taste. It is not unusual for
> >>>>>>a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this
> instance >>>>it >>was the >>> Race Director that determined the
> winner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad
> > > > > > > > > losers and play
> >>>>>>a victim card. >> They just need to pick the card.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
> > > > > > > > “victim card” all season. In this instance Mercedes
> > > > > > > > don’t need to play a card because they are victims -
> > > > > > > > victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively award
> > > > > > > > the race to Max.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
> > > > > > > > would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
> > > > > > > > especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to
> > > > > > > "go racing" but he should have left the lapped cars
> > > > > > > behind the safety car which would have been within the
> > > > > > > regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance
> > > > > > > which was just about what he deserved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Masi should go.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree though not just because of this decision -
> > > > > > > everyone is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit
> > > > > > > this was a pretty big one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
> > > > > > then he is probably not the man for the job.
> > > > >
> > > > > He let the two contenders race to the end.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You understand NOTHING about the race. You should perhaps shut
> > > > up. You have done nothing but make a fool of yourself lately.
> > > >
> > > > > Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
> > > >
> > > > No, they couldn't.
> > >
> > > Yes. They could.
> > >
> >
> > Not without all but guaranteeing losing the championship.
>
> So Hamilton was going to be unable to pass Verstappen?
>
> Is that your claim?
>

Yet again demonstrating ZERO appreciation of the situation or the
regulations.

If you had any clue you would not be asking such a dumb question.

You are not allowed to pass under the safety car.

HTH.

> >
> > So a dumb suggestion.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Do you need it explaining?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They chose not to.
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > >
> > > You get that that completely contradicts your earlier "No, they
> > > couldn't", right?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > It's about context, something you have zero appreciation for.
> >
> > To suggest they could have pitted is as adroit as suggesting they
> > could have chosen to throw away the championship.
> > To say they chose not to do that is correct.
>
> Same questions.

Same answers, dumbass.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 1:51 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > On 13/12/2021 12:44 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2021-12-12 11:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
> > > > > > > <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>>>build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
> > > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
> > > > > > > > > > > first lap (note
> >>>>>>his >>>> trajectory).
> > > > > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that
> > > > > > > > > > required Hamilton to
> >>>>>>take >>> avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > > > > holding up
> >>>>>>HAM.  >>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
> > > not.
> > > > > > > > > > > - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
> > > > > > > > > > > - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > opportunity to
> >>>>>>'win' on >>>> his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually
> > > > > > > > > > reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a
> > > > > > > > > > bad taste. It is not unusual for
> >>>>>>a SC >>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this
> >>instance it >>>>was the >>> Race Director that determined the
> winner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad
> > > > > > > > > losers and play
> >>>>>>a victim card.  >> They just need to pick the card.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
> > > > > > > > “victim card” all season. In this instance Mercedes
> > > > > > > > don’t need to play a card because they are victims -
> > > > > > > > victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively award
> > > > > > > > the race to Max.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
> > > > > > > > would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
> > > > > > > > especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to 
> > > > > > > "go racing" but he should have left the lapped cars
> > > > > > > behind the safety car which would have been within the
> > > > > > > regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance
> > > > > > > which was just about what he deserved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Masi should go.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree though not just because of this decision - 
> > > > > > > everyone is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit
> > > > > > > this was a pretty big one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If he did not realise he was handing the championship to Max
> > > > > > then he is probably not the man for the job.
> > > > >
> > > > > He let the two contenders race to the end.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton for a set of softs.
> > > > >
> > > > > They chose not to.
> > > >
> > > > That would have gifted track position to VER.
> > >
> > > Yup.
> > >
> > > But Hamilton ended up with track position...
> > >
> > > ...and we saw how well that worked out.
> >
> > Sure, but RBR had nothing to lose.
>
> But the fact is that getting past Hamilton was possible.
>

Not unless the RD ignored the regulations.

> So Hamilton getting past Verstappen would have been possible.

No, you are not allowed to overtake under the SC, Dumbass.

>
> > None of the strategists would have
> > expected the race director to ignore the regulations so only a idiot
> > with no appreciation of the situation would suggest they could take
> > that route.
>
> The race director didn't ignore the regulations.

Clearly he did, Dumbass.

The procedure is clearly laid out but was not followed, ergo... you are
a dumbass.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 4:28 a.m., Mark wrote:
> >Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
> > > On 2021-12-12 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That would have gifted track position to VER.
> > >
> > > Yup.
> > >
> > > But Hamilton ended up with track position...
> > >
> > > ...and we saw how well that worked out.
> >
> > You're missing the point.
> >
> > Look at the options...
> >
> > Under the precedents of all prior SC periods, it was reasonable to
> > assume that the backmarkers would either remain in place or there
> > would (if time) be unlapped and reformed as part of the queue
> > behind the safety car before a restart. In the closing laps of the
> > race, it was reasonable to assume that the race would end under the
> > safety car.
> >
> > Now there's the question of changing tyres. If Hamilton goes in
> > first, Verstappen has options. He's behind so he can respond to the
> > move.
> >
> > Option 1: Red Bull can pull him in and gamble Verstappen can somehow
> > catch and pass Hamilton. Given the short time period, the likelihood
> > that there will be few if any racing laps, and given they would
> > both be on equally fresh tyres, this is not a credible option.
> >
> > Option 2: Red Bull leave him out and he gambles on either the SC
> > running to the end or that Hamilton is bothered by traffic in the
> > one lap or so that would be under race conditions. Definitely a
> > credible option if Hamilton goes in.
> >
> > That leaves the third option which happened as a result of Hamilton
> > staying out, and the fourth which was entirely in their hands:
> >
> > Option 3: Verstappen chooses to change tyres and hope that something
> > comes along which allows him to chase down Hamilton with a
> > significant tyre age differential.
> >
> > Option 4: Verstappen stays out and hopes something happens that
> > allows him to pass Hamilton. This isn't credible as the chances of
> > overtaking Hamilton on worn tyres is just too unlikely.
> >
> > This really leaves - to my mind - options 2 and 3. Both are long
> > shots. Neither are really in Red Bull's hands...
> >
> > ...unless something unprecedented happens like Masi removing the
> > backmarkers faster than usual which he could only do by only
> > allowing the five to pass and pulling the SC in before they formed
> > at the back of the train. This is highly unusual, and I have yet to
> > see a credible explanation of why the sudden change in application
> > of the SC rules.
> >
> > So, yes Mercedes could have changed Hamilton's tyres, and that would
> > almost certainly have led to the situation described in option 2
> > which, given precedent, their strategists would have ruled out on
> > the basis it would hand the lead and the championship to
> > Verstappen. There is no way that a reasonable person would assume
> > that things would play out as they did.
>
> What about the earlier choice not to give him a better set of tires
> when Verstappen pitted under the virtual safety car?
>

So now you completely abandon your dumbass responses and attempt a
diversion.

ROTFL.

Dumbass!

> >
> > For Red Bull, seeing Hamilton stay out made option 3 a reasonable
> > one. It was a long shot, but staying out was no longer.
> >
> > Suggesting that Mercedes made a mistake rather than a solid
> > strategic decision by leaving him out is either deliberately
> > mischievous or demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was
> > going on IMO.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 1:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Matt Larkin wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
> > > > On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> >>>>>build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
> >>>wrote: >>>> geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
> > > > > > > > > first lap
> >>>(note his >>>>> trajectory).
> > > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
> > > > > > > > Hamilton
> >>>to take >>>> avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > > holding up
> >>>HAM. >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
> >>>not. >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
> > > > > > > > > - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
> > > > > > > > > opportunity to
> >>>'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
> > > > > > > > the
> >>>likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
> >>>unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
> >>>this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
> > > > winner. >>>
> > > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
> > > > > > > and
> >>>play a victim card. >>> They just need to pick the card.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
> > > > > > card”
> >>>all >> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card
> >>>because they >> are victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to
> >>>effectively award the >> race to Max.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
> >>>thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for
> >>>Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
> > > > > racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
> > > > > safety car which would have been within the regulations but
> > > > > still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
> > > > > what he deserved.
> > > > Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
> > > He definitely did not apply 48.12
> > > "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
> > > presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
> > > lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to
> > > the pits at the end of the following lap."
> > >
> > > But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply
> > > that as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
> > >
> > > Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
> > > decision is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now
> > > unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs.
> >
> > No, it's not. It remains a truth.
> >
> > The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all
> > well. 15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course)
> > has all authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in
> > any common sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the
> > regulations detailing the procedures.
> >
> > > Even though many would take a plain
> > > English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
> > > stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
> > >
> > > Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
> > > course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
> > > factor here?
> >
> > No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose,
> > not to give the RD the right to change the regs.
> >
>
> The fact that Mercedes protest was rejected means that the people who
> actually understand and administer the regs disagree with you.

No, it means that the people who made the mistakes do not wish to admit
their mistakes.

Your retarded response suggests you think it absurd to ever disagree
with any RD or stewards decision. Have you ever done so, you absurd,
hypocritical dumbass.

(There's a clue in my response :-) )

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> > On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> >>>On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> > > >
> >>>>build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
> > > > > > > > lap (note his trajectory).
> > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
> > > > > > > Hamilton to take avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
> > > > > > > > of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
> > > > > > > > he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
> > > > > > > > opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
> > > > > > > the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
> > > > > > > is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
> > > > > > > race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
> > > > > > > determined the winner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
> > > > > > and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
> > > > > card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
> > > > > play a card because they *are* victims - victims of Masi’s
> > > > > illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
> > > > > thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
> > > > > Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > >
> > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
> > > > racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
> > > > safety car which would have been within the regulations but
> > > > still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
> > > > what he deserved.
> > > Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
> > He definitely did not apply 48.12
> > "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
> > presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
> > car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
> > the end of the following lap."
> >
> > But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that
> > as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
>
> 'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
> the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority
> in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders
> in respect of them only with his express agreement:
>
> ...
>
> e) The use of the safety car.'
>

Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?

> >
> > Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision
> > is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to
> > accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though many would take a
> > plain English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
> > stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
>
> And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence
> of his superiors in the FIA?
>

So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the regulations.

You are not the first to suggest such pressures.

> >
> > Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
> > course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
> > factor here?
>
> Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
> state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.

And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of the
regulations... and fails!

The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those same
regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he alone is
responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC are adhered to.
Something he clearly failed to do.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-12 11:30 p.m., Sir Tim wrote:
> >Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
> > > On 2021-12-12 8:38 a.m., Sir Tim wrote:
> >>>build <buildy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
> > > > > > > lap (note his trajectory).
> > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
> > > > > > Hamilton to take avoiding action.
> > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
> > > > > > > of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when he
> > > > > > > did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
> > > > > > > opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
> > > > > > likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
> > > > > > unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the race but
> > > > > > in this instance it was the Race Director that determined
> > > > > > the winner.
> > > > >
> > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
> > > > > play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
> > > > card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play
> > > > a card because they *are* victims - victims of Masi’s illegal
> > > > decision to effectively award the race to Max.
> > >
> > > If the decision was "illegal"...
> > >
> > > ...then quote the regulation that it violates.
> >
> > 48.12
> >
>
> 1. That's not a quote.

Dumbass.

>
> 2. Does "any" mean "all"?

In most contexts "any" suggests no exclusions, so as far as it matters,
yes.

"Any"one, should be able to comprehend that.

If I say "any" thing you have said so far is nonsense have I excluded a
single word? No, it is the same as saying "all" you have said is
nonsense.

>
> 3. Where are the definitions that normally accompany such paragraphs?
> In the context of FIA regulations, what precisely does "will" mean?

Dumbass.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!