On 14/12/2021 9:18 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
>> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>>
>
> I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
>
> But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to have many MORE cars between
> him and Verstappen, and that changes the entire rest of his race.

Doing your regular escapology act by changing 'from' emails huh?

It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.
--
Shaun.

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

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

On 2021-12-13 3:40 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 14/12/2021 9:18 am, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
>>> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
>>
>> But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to
>> have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes the
>> entire rest of his race.
>
> Doing your regular escapology act by changing 'from' emails huh?
>
> It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.

Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm just having trouble with AIOE
connectivity.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 4:40:24 PM UTC-7, ~misfit~ wrote:

> It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.

pat yourself on the back
you simpleton buffoon

On 14/12/2021 10:07 am, alister wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Bigbird wrote:
>>
>> There is no ambiguity in 48.12
>>
>>
>>> "any" does not mean "all".
>>
>> In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive term.
>>
>> To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
>> semantics.
>>
>>
> Alan is deliberately diverting the conversation from the critical part of

The above line sums up his entire presence in rasf1. That people are still arguing with him when
there are currently actual informed discussions to be had is beyond me.
--
Shaun.

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

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

On 14/12/2021 12:46 pm, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-13 3:40 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>> On 14/12/2021 9:18 am, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
>>>> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
>>>
>>> But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to
>>> have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes the
>>> entire rest of his race.
>>
>> Doing your regular escapology act by changing 'from' emails huh?
>>
>> It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.
>
> Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm just having trouble with AIOE
> connectivity.

Is that the only thing ?!!!

geoff

On 2021-12-13 4:18 p.m., geoff wrote:
> On 14/12/2021 12:46 pm, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-12-13 3:40 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2021 9:18 am, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
>>>>> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not whining at all, sunshine.
>>>>
>>>> But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going
>>>> to have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes
>>>> the entire rest of his race.
>>>
>>> Doing your regular escapology act by changing 'from' emails huh?
>>>
>>> It's the work of seconds to put you back in the bozo bin. Bye.
>>
>> Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm just having trouble with
>> AIOE connectivity.
>
> Is that the only thing ?!!!
>
> geoff

That's it. But thanks for asking.

On 12/13/2021 1:45 PM, Alan wrote:
> 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.

Well, let's hear from an expert, specifically Michael Masi explaining
why the safety car was on track for so long at the 2020 Eifel GP,
following Lando Norris' engine failure:

"That one was the fact that we had to, there's a requirement in the
sporting regulations, to wave all lapped cars past," Masi said.

"I think from that point, it was position 6 onwards that was still running.

"So 10, 11 cars, that had to unlap themselves, and therefore the safety
car period was a bit longer than what we would have normally expected."

Note the use of the word "requirement."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-race-director-masi-explains-norris-f1-eifel-gp-safety-car-decision-4978255/4978255/

--
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 14/12/2021 3:56 pm, Mark Jackson wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 1:45 PM, Alan wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, let's hear from an expert, specifically Michael Masi explaining why the safety car was on
> track for so long at the 2020 Eifel GP, following Lando Norris' engine failure:
>
> "That one was the fact that we had to, there's a requirement in the sporting regulations, to wave
> all lapped cars past," Masi said.
>
> "I think from that point, it was position 6 onwards that was still running.
>
> "So 10, 11 cars, that had to unlap themselves, and therefore the safety car period was a bit longer
> than what we would have normally expected."
>
> Note the use of the word "requirement."
>
> https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-race-director-masi-explains-norris-f1-eifel-gp-safety-car-decision-4978255/4978255/

Nice!

I see Ros Atkins has reported on the race:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-59645658>
His last line hits the spot.
--
Shaun.

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

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

On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>
As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that, it has
happened many times over the years drivers on course for victory losing
out through no fault of their own.

On 14/12/2021 7:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
>> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>>
> As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that, it has happened many times over
> the years drivers on course for victory losing out through no fault of their own.

If you don't see that this is different then I don't know what to say. IN every other case in
recent history a car that needs recovering on a track like this means at least 5 laps of safety
car. It was in the bag for Lewis, it's not like he got a puncture or had an engine failure - the
race director decided to go against the regs for the sake of spectacle and robbed Lewis of his win.

Horner has just said to the Sky team that Max needed a miracle to win now and he got a version of
it. Not God-given but Masi-given.
--
Shaun.

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

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

keithr0 wrote:

> On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine
> > like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
> >
> As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that, it
> has happened many times over the years drivers on course for victory
> losing out through no fault of their own.

I think we all know and accept that those things happen.

The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 18:41:50 UTC, 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.
I would normally agree with you on this; once a judgement has been handed
down, we have to accept that that is a statement on the position of those
officiating.

In this circumstance however I am more circumspect.

The concept that the RD can overrule specific clauses as written into
the regs is certainly a new one to most people.

I'd be pretty confident that a decent arbitration court would reject their
argument that the RD could do what he wanted with the SC.

Whether Merc want to push it that far, and whether indeed even if they
did disagree with the stewards an arbitration court would be prepared
to find a way of changing the result of the race, I don't know. A lot of me
hopes they don't, and Merc etc retain the moral high ground of being a
wronged party (and I'd hope they are charitable with Max and RBR too
as neither of them did anything wrong either).

It's an impossible situation to correct, unless you take the view that
everything was done properly, which I find a hard view to accept
even despite the Sunday evening reviews and outcomes.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:34:18 +1300, geoff wrote:

> On 14/12/2021 7:41 am, 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 they were panicked into a quick reaction to cover their
> arses.
>
> geoff

seems to be the FIA equivalent of
"I am not aware of it and all guidance was followed "
(Apologies if any non Brits don't get this reference, but I suspect you
have been quite rightly laughing loudly at us over this)

--
A wise man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can from a
mountain top.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:28:21 -0800, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 12:43 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?
>>> Nope. So what?
>>>
>> So... what you said was utter nonsense, Dumbass.
>>
>>> Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that the
>>> cars further back?
>>>
>>>
>> No, points mean prizes.
>
> OK. So let's look.
>
> The only "race" that was split by allowing some lapped cars, but not all
> to pass the leaders was the battle between Sebastian Vettel and Daniel
> Ricciardo...
>
> ...for what was then 12th place, which became and 11th place for Vettel
> because Ricciardo pitted.
>
> So releasing the cars they did left them free to race for the actual
> points positions, and the one car that had their race "wrecked" wasn't
> in a position to win any points anyway.
>
> So when you implied that some drivers were denied the chance to race for
> points, you're wrong...
>
> ...again!
>
>
>>>
>>>> The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on the
>>>> fly.
>>> And if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes
>>> protest?
>>
>> Then they would be lying... like you do all the time. But they didn't
>> did they. They made spurious claims in order to cover their arse.
>>
>> Simple question for a simple minded dumbass.
>> Was 48.12 adhered to?
>
> I can't answer that.
>
> And neither can you.
>
> Because neither of us have studied all past applications of the rules
> and the rulings that have arisen from them.
>
>
>> Be careful now, it's a trap... you have already admitted it wasn't,
>> Dumbass.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" is
>>>> secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and
>>>> agreed to by all competitors and the ruling body.
>>> Actually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written without
>>> ambiguity as much as is feasible.
>>>
>>> There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety
>>> car".
>>
>> There is no ambiguity in 48.12
>
> There most certainly is.
>
>
>>
>>> "any" does not mean "all".
>>
>> In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive
>> term.
>
> Nope. Sorry. "Any" does not mean "all".
>
>
>> To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
>> semantics.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position
>>>> claimed".
>>> Which drivers didn't claim that?
>>
>> Sainz for one. Read the drivers comments, Dumbass.
>
> How about you quote them, sunshine?
>
> It's not my job to find what you claim is there.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obvious
>>>> your prejudice to everyone.
>>> I have no prejudice. Sorry.
>>
>> QED
>>
>>
>>>> If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.
>>>> Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to
>>>> find anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the exact
>>>> opposite side of the same argument.
>>>>
>>> Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.
>>
>> "Your collective ignorance"
>>
>> You don't even comprehend the irony, do you?
>
> Oh, I do.
>
>
>>
>>> What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his position
>>> going into turn 5?
>>
>> So now you wish to change the subject.
>>
>> I completely understand.
>>
>> You've never shown a great understanding of racing and much less of
>> English and the regulations.
>
> I understand racing very well. I understand it well enough, that the
> best racers in our club (who include some very experienced and
> successful drivers in both amateur and pro racing) invited me to join
> the Race Drivers Committee and teach other drivers how to do it.
>
> What's your racing experience again: was it WiRace, or just Pole
> Position?
>
> :-)
And so the master of the logical falacy falls back to his usual last
resort "Appeal to Accomplishment"

Why no response to any of my posts citing the fundamental part of the
regulation that was not followed?
or do you hope that you can ignore it & continue to distract with
irrelevancies.

--
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
-- Miguel de Cervantes

Matt Larkin wrote:

> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 18:41:50 UTC, 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.
> I would normally agree with you on this; once a judgement has been
> handed down, we have to accept that that is a statement on the
> position of those officiating.
>
> In this circumstance however I am more circumspect.
>
> The concept that the RD can overrule specific clauses as written into
> the regs is certainly a new one to most people.
>
> I'd be pretty confident that a decent arbitration court would reject
> their argument that the RD could do what he wanted with the SC.
>
> Whether Merc want to push it that far, and whether indeed even if they
> did disagree with the stewards an arbitration court would be prepared
> to find a way of changing the result of the race, I don't know. A
> lot of me hopes they don't, and Merc etc retain the moral high ground
> of being a wronged party (and I'd hope they are charitable with Max
> and RBR too as neither of them did anything wrong either).
>
> It's an impossible situation to correct, unless you take the view
> that everything was done properly, which I find a hard view to accept
> even despite the Sunday evening reviews and outcomes.

Short version: you can't unfuck this... so it's untenable to admit it
was fucked.

<Spike Miligan exits stage left>

"What are we going to do now, what are we going to do now..."

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
> keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine
>>> like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>>>
>> As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that, it
>> has happened many times over the years drivers on course for victory
>> losing out through no fault of their own.
>
> I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
>
> The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
>
The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max
victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I don't
think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows, maybe Jos
threatened to beat him up if he didn't.

The situation could have been avoided with one simple rule change - as
Lando has said close the pit lane while the safety car is out to stop
cars getting an unfair advantage.

keithr0 wrote:

> On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
> > keithr0 wrote:
> >
> > > On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would
> > > > whine like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that,
> > > it has happened many times over the years drivers on course for
> > > victory losing out through no fault of their own.
> >
> > I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
> >
> > The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
> >
> The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max
> victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I don't
> think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows, maybe Jos
> threatened to beat him up if he didn't.
>

You should ask Alan about that. It's one of the billion unknowns that
apparently paralyse him and render him unable to make rational
judgements.

Conspiracy theorists like him look for the answers in the most unlikely
places without any rational.

> The situation could have been avoided with one simple rule change -
> as Lando has said close the pit lane while the safety car is out to
> stop cars getting an unfair advantage.

The situation could have been avoided without any rule changes.

It's slightly ironic that you suggest a change you believe would make
things fairer while defending a decision which did precisely the
opposite.

Closing the pitlane is not a sensible option. F1 has been down that
route before. There are many reasons not least of all keeping damaged
cars or cars that may have picked up CF shards in their tyres is a
safety issue. A lot of people seem to forget that safety is at the
heart of the SC regulations including those abused by the RD in Abu
Dhabi.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-21 6:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
>>> keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would
>>>>> whine like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>> As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in that,
>>>> it has happened many times over the years drivers on course for
>>>> victory losing out through no fault of their own.
>>>
>>> I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
>>>
>>> The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
>>>
>> The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max
>> victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I don't
>> think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows, maybe Jos
>> threatened to beat him up if he didn't.
>>
>
> You should ask Alan about that. It's one of the billion unknowns that
> apparently paralyse him and render him unable to make rational
> judgements.

I like that I'm so in your head you feel the need to try to slam me even
when you're answering someone else.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-21 6:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > keithr0 wrote:
> >
> > > On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > keithr0 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would
> > > > > > whine like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in
> > > > > that, it has happened many times over the years drivers on
> > > > > course for victory losing out through no fault of their own.
> > > >
> > > > I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
> > > >
> > > > The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
> > > >
> > > The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max
> > > victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I
> > > don't think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows,
> > > maybe Jos threatened to beat him up if he didn't.
> > >
> >
> > You should ask Alan about that. It's one of the billion unknowns
> > that apparently paralyse him and render him unable to make rational
> > judgements.
>
> I like that I'm so in your head you feel the need to try to slam me
> even when you're answering someone else.

LOL.

So many things you do not know.

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 12:16:17 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

> Have a lovely Christmas Alan.

Well he will be by himself.
That's a given.

On 2021-12-24 2:16 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-21 6:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/12/2021 9:09 pm, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/12/2021 6:10 am, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would
>>>>>>> whine like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I've said elsewhere, he isn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in
>>>>>> that, it has happened many times over the years drivers on
>>>>>> course for victory losing out through no fault of their own.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we all know and accept that those things happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> The RD manipulating the regs to enable it is a new thing.
>>>>>
>>>> The question is did he deliberately manipulate it to ensure a Max
>>>> victory? That seems to be what is being implied, personally I
>>>> don't think he did. Why did he choose that course, who knows,
>>>> maybe Jos threatened to beat him up if he didn't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You should ask Alan about that. It's one of the billion unknowns
>>> that apparently paralyse him and render him unable to make rational
>>> judgements.
>>
>> I like that I'm so in your head you feel the need to try to slam me
>> even when you're answering someone else.
>
> LOL.
>
> So many things you do not know.

Likewise.

>
> Have a lovely Christmas Alan.

And you, too!