| F1 showdown thread 11:38 - Dec 12 with 16794 views | bluelagos |
In case anyone is unaware, is live on C4 today, coverage starts at 12, race at 1pm.
Winner takes all. We are watching history, have no doubt this season will be made into a film in time, much as the great "Rush" and "Senna" were.
I'll be shouting for Max. Much as I love Hamilton and his amazing career, the talent of Verstappen is undeniable.
Time for the new pretender or for the old guard to get the all time record for F1 championships? |  |
| |  |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:07 - Dec 12 with 1632 views | Zapers |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:04 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
They didn't let the back markers overtake.
They let "some" of the backmarkers overtake so Max was right behind Hamilton. The others (like Vettel) were on the radio complaining they weren't allowed.
It's never happened before that "some" of the backmarkers are allowed to overtake and not others.
SB |
Still within their rights. I agree it doesn't seem fair, especially since Red Bull were bitterly complaining to Masi.
The FIA are pretty much impregnable |  | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:10 - Dec 12 with 1615 views | Zapers |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:05 - Dec 12 by Bugs |
ALL the back markers not a select few. |
But how would that have changed the result? | | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:11 - Dec 12 with 1609 views | StokieBlue |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:10 - Dec 12 by Zapers |
But how would that have changed the result? |
This has been explained.
If he let them all past the safety car wouldn't have made the pitlane and the race would therefore have finished behind the safety car with no overtaking.
The result would be Hamilton winning, Max second.
SB |  |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:16 - Dec 12 with 1586 views | WicklowBlue |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:07 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
Not really though, I can't think of the last time someone didn't manage to finish going slowly behind the safety car especially given he had no mechanical issues as he finished going at a high speed not behind the safety car.
It's a very weird argument you are making.
SB [Post edited 12 Dec 2021 20:07]
|
I am not arguing I'm stating a fact that no one can state categorically that Lewis would have finished first. Highly improbable as I posted but still a potential he didn't. Equally same for Verstappen so for me don't think you can undo what has been done. |  | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:17 - Dec 12 with 1585 views | Zapers |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:11 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
This has been explained.
If he let them all past the safety car wouldn't have made the pitlane and the race would therefore have finished behind the safety car with no overtaking.
The result would be Hamilton winning, Max second.
SB |
Fair enough. I admit to not seeing all the race. I still stand by the FIA having the right to allow some cars to pass, and not others.
I'm the first to feel Hamilton was robbed, I really wanted him to win an 8th championship because with the rules changing, it becomes a bit of a lottery as to which team next year hits the ground running with the best chassis engine combo. | | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:21 - Dec 12 with 1559 views | Trequartista |
| F1 showdown thread on 19:56 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
Lap 1 is irrelevant to what happened at the end, it was also determined he was pushed off the track by Max (again).
What happened at the end was entirely manufactured as it's never happened before and the race director did it to have a lap of racing that was never going to be racing given the tyres.
The two are in no way comparable.
If he cracked under pressure why are the FIA standing by the decision? It's just like VAR, it could be changed in the same way a bad ref decision is changed.
SB |
I referenced Lap 1 to illustrate how the race director / stewards were not biased towards Verstappen, not because it was relevant to the ending.
I would concede that the race director would be feeling pressure to not end the finale under a safety car, but for reasons of wanting to see racing (as he said on the radio to Mercedes) rather than bias towards anyone. |  |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:22 - Dec 12 with 1552 views | StokieBlue |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:16 - Dec 12 by WicklowBlue |
I am not arguing I'm stating a fact that no one can state categorically that Lewis would have finished first. Highly improbable as I posted but still a potential he didn't. Equally same for Verstappen so for me don't think you can undo what has been done. |
By this logic there is an infinitesimally small chance of anything happening.
For instance, nobody can say that you won't be able to respond to this post because a purple alien has entered your house and is eating your arms. It's possible but unlikely and counter to the evidence we have.
It's a silly point you're trying to make, especially given he finished the race at top speed.
The result won't change but it would just be the order under the safety car as that was what should have happened.
It's done now but it's an appalling way to finish a championship.
SB | |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:24 - Dec 12 with 1545 views | StokieBlue |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:21 - Dec 12 by Trequartista |
I referenced Lap 1 to illustrate how the race director / stewards were not biased towards Verstappen, not because it was relevant to the ending.
I would concede that the race director would be feeling pressure to not end the finale under a safety car, but for reasons of wanting to see racing (as he said on the radio to Mercedes) rather than bias towards anyone. |
Another race was ended under the safety car this year which saw Max win.
It's not really that unusual. Just because it's the last race it shouldn't change the application of the rules.
Anyway, it's done, just leaves a bit of a cloud hanging over everything really.
SB | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| F1 showdown thread on 20:26 - Dec 12 with 1533 views | TexacoCup |
If the race director wanted a racing finish, he should have red flagged rather than a safety car.
That way we'd have seen a 5 lap race on equal terms.
Having said that, I'm of the opinion it should have finished under the safety car, as it would have had all the lapped cars been told to overtake.
Looking forward to what Toto Wolfe has to say ! |  | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:27 - Dec 12 with 1521 views | gordon |
Also worth saying that Sainz, in third place wasn't given any chance to go for a win - he didn't get the cars cleared from in front of him to let him try and overtake Verstappen or even Hamilton.
Obviously we'll never know, but if (for example) Sainz had been in 1st, Hamilton in 2nd and Verstappen in 3rd when the safety car went in place, do you think they have set up a final lap run-off between Sainz and Hamilton leaving Verstappen behind traffic? |  | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:29 - Dec 12 with 1506 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| F1 showdown thread on 19:48 - Dec 12 by TractorFrog |
Okay, here's my conclusion about today's events.
My initial reaction was that it was totally farcical, artificial entertainment and that Hamilton had been absolutely robbed. And I stand by that; only letting the lapped cars through that were between Hamilton and Verstappen was totally unfair. Yes, their battle is the most important, but it shouldn't be seen that way by the stewards, so that was artificially created entertainment on the final lap, and I do not like that in Formula 1.
However, while the decision by the stewards showed their intentions, if they had let all the lapped cars through the outcome would have been the same, so I think we can really just put it down to awful, awful luck for Mercedes. With the situation as it was, Hamilton was leading from Verstappen, who was always going to do the opposite in regards to a pitstop. Mercedes chose to stay out, which ultimately was the wrong decision, and it cost them the championship, but if they had pitted Hamilton and the race had not been restarted, they would have looked absolutely ridiculous. Essentially, Mercedes had to choose their strategy based, not only on how quickly Latifi's car could be recovered, but how much Masi was willing to have a race on the final lap. The first part is mainly down to luck, but at least it is not entirely, but in terms of the second part, there was nothing they could have done to pre-empt that. So I don't think Mercedes made a mistake in not pitting, I think they were just extremely unlucky. Red Bull won this race by being the team behind with nothing to lose, and I don't like that as a championship conclusion. So, in summary, Max Verstappen won that championship through pot luck, although, admittedly, Hamilton could have defended better on the restart. However, over the entire season, he and Red Bull have had far more bad luck, so I am okay with Verstappen as the Drivers' Champion. But if we only consider today, Mercedes and Hamilton deserved the championship and were robbed through no fault of their own.
I think it was an extremely fitting end to the season. Tremendous excitement, but highly controversial. In the end the championship was decided on a lottery. Incredible excitement, but too NASCAR. |
To add to my other comments in the thread, I actually think that the race director having latitude to make sensible decisions outside of the rules is a good thing, and that the aim should always be to get cars racing where possible. Of course the issue is that the decisions here weren’t sensible and the racing that resumed was inherently unfair on Hamilton (also not the first time Masi has used his powers questionably, see also Spa). If going down that route then restarting with the lapped cars still in the train would seem to have been the obvious and better solution
Your third paragraph though touches on my point earlier in the thread, that the real problem is the way pit stop rules work under the safety car, combined with the huge differences in tyre compounds and advantages of a new set, puts the leader at a massive disadvantage. Arguably the decisions made by Masi are a smokescreen here, if Latifi had crashed a lap earlier or the marshalls had dealt with the incident a bit quicker there wouldn’t have been any controversial decisions to be made but the outcome would have been the same. As I noted I don’t really know what the right answer is, but to have a situation where the current rules penalise someone leading so much feels completely wrong |  |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:36 - Dec 12 with 1481 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| F1 showdown thread on 19:56 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
Lap 1 is irrelevant to what happened at the end, it was also determined he was pushed off the track by Max (again).
What happened at the end was entirely manufactured as it's never happened before and the race director did it to have a lap of racing that was never going to be racing given the tyres.
The two are in no way comparable.
If he cracked under pressure why are the FIA standing by the decision? It's just like VAR, it could be changed in the same way a bad ref decision is changed.
SB |
VAR changes something during the event and the event carries on, not retrospectively after the game. So I don’t see how that example applies here
VAR is also rubbish
I see you’ve noted a few posts later that it is fairly common for decisions to be made after the race in F1, which is indeed true. However, those adjustments are generally either for car being found to have been illegal or penalties specific to a driver, not to change decisions made at the time by stewards/race directors around the application of rules relating to resuming a race | |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:36 - Dec 12 with 1478 views | TractorFrog |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:29 - Dec 12 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
To add to my other comments in the thread, I actually think that the race director having latitude to make sensible decisions outside of the rules is a good thing, and that the aim should always be to get cars racing where possible. Of course the issue is that the decisions here weren’t sensible and the racing that resumed was inherently unfair on Hamilton (also not the first time Masi has used his powers questionably, see also Spa). If going down that route then restarting with the lapped cars still in the train would seem to have been the obvious and better solution
Your third paragraph though touches on my point earlier in the thread, that the real problem is the way pit stop rules work under the safety car, combined with the huge differences in tyre compounds and advantages of a new set, puts the leader at a massive disadvantage. Arguably the decisions made by Masi are a smokescreen here, if Latifi had crashed a lap earlier or the marshalls had dealt with the incident a bit quicker there wouldn’t have been any controversial decisions to be made but the outcome would have been the same. As I noted I don’t really know what the right answer is, but to have a situation where the current rules penalise someone leading so much feels completely wrong |
If Latifi had crashed earlier, Mercedes should have pitted Hamilton for new tyres and gambled on the race being restarted so he could pass Verstappen for the championship. If they didn't, that's their mistake for underestimating the speed of the marshals. It's an annoying thing to lose the championship on, and much down to luck, but still a mistake. But when the race director effectively rushes a restart that shouldn't have happened (otherwise Ricciardo, Stroll and Schumacher would have been allowed to unlap themselves), that is no longer a mistake from Mercedes in my opinion.
Yes, the rules relating to pitting under the safety car are never entirely fair, but there is no alternative. If they weren't allowed to pit under the safety car at all, those who had stayed out would be punished, and those who had just pitted would be rewarded, the opposite of how it works now. So no need to change the rules. |  |
| They'd all laugh at me if they knew what I was trying to do. To create a new strain of super-wine in half-an-hour with a fraction of nature's resources and a FOOL for an assistant. 'Bernard Black, he's mad,' they'd say, 'he's insane, he's dangerous.' Well I'll show them! I'll show them all! | | Poll: | Who should start in CM with Cajuste? |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:42 - Dec 12 with 1440 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:36 - Dec 12 by TractorFrog |
If Latifi had crashed earlier, Mercedes should have pitted Hamilton for new tyres and gambled on the race being restarted so he could pass Verstappen for the championship. If they didn't, that's their mistake for underestimating the speed of the marshals. It's an annoying thing to lose the championship on, and much down to luck, but still a mistake. But when the race director effectively rushes a restart that shouldn't have happened (otherwise Ricciardo, Stroll and Schumacher would have been allowed to unlap themselves), that is no longer a mistake from Mercedes in my opinion.
Yes, the rules relating to pitting under the safety car are never entirely fair, but there is no alternative. If they weren't allowed to pit under the safety car at all, those who had stayed out would be punished, and those who had just pitted would be rewarded, the opposite of how it works now. So no need to change the rules. |
This is it. Ultimately Hamilton lost thanks to the wrong call being made on him pitting when the safety car appeared. Chances are that, had he done so, Verstappen would not have done gambling on the race finishing behind the safety car or the back markers being between them and preventing Hamilton from catching and passing him.
The decision to allow the lapped cars through handed the race to Verstappen but was made in order for it finish as a race instead of an easy win for Hamilton. It is a bit like a dodgy penalty call at the end of the final match that decides the title. VAR might take a look but because there was a little contact the referee's decision is upheld. Hard luck Lewis but not often the title race goes down to such a tight finish. |  |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 21:15 - Dec 12 with 1361 views | WicklowBlue |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:22 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
By this logic there is an infinitesimally small chance of anything happening.
For instance, nobody can say that you won't be able to respond to this post because a purple alien has entered your house and is eating your arms. It's possible but unlikely and counter to the evidence we have.
It's a silly point you're trying to make, especially given he finished the race at top speed.
The result won't change but it would just be the order under the safety car as that was what should have happened.
It's done now but it's an appalling way to finish a championship.
SB |
Just because a situation is infinitesimally small for it happen doesn't mean it cannot. Hence that it is not a categorical statement of fact that Hamilton wins, this is motor sport, things fail, punctures happen etc.
Look I have no interest debating this with you or engaging with your "silly" comments about the point I am making. Plus your comment "given he finished the race at top speed" is being made in hindsight.
The point is totally relevant, you cannot decide the outcome of race with 2 laps to go because the race director made a bad decision.
Think we both agree it's a mess, Hamilton should have cantered home but a mixture of bad luck and a human being making poor decisions handed it to Verstappen.
The correct decision would have been to let all the lapped cars unlap themselves once possible even if the race finished under the SC. It seems like Masi was too focused on getting the race back to green, and finishing under race conditions, while under intense pressure from both Mercedes and Red Bull.
Again I'm not sure you can undo what has been done fairly, so for me the race result should stand. | | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 22:44 - Dec 12 with 1218 views | ZXBlue |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:10 - Dec 12 by Zapers |
But how would that have changed the result? |
5 cars between him and Hamilton + by the time it had happened, the race would have finished behind the safety car, quite probably. | | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 01:02 - Dec 13 with 1129 views | Pinewoodblue |
Interesting thread. Looking forward to 2022 wouldn’t be surprised to see Lewis Hamilton in An .Indy car, full season or just Indy 500.
Wonder if Mercedes, and others will back away from F1. |  |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 07:32 - Dec 13 with 1008 views | bluestandard |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:36 - Dec 12 by TractorFrog |
If Latifi had crashed earlier, Mercedes should have pitted Hamilton for new tyres and gambled on the race being restarted so he could pass Verstappen for the championship. If they didn't, that's their mistake for underestimating the speed of the marshals. It's an annoying thing to lose the championship on, and much down to luck, but still a mistake. But when the race director effectively rushes a restart that shouldn't have happened (otherwise Ricciardo, Stroll and Schumacher would have been allowed to unlap themselves), that is no longer a mistake from Mercedes in my opinion.
Yes, the rules relating to pitting under the safety car are never entirely fair, but there is no alternative. If they weren't allowed to pit under the safety car at all, those who had stayed out would be punished, and those who had just pitted would be rewarded, the opposite of how it works now. So no need to change the rules. |
Yes, you’re right, but Mercedes never got the opportunity to make this call. If Latifi had crashed earlier and Mercedes kept Hamilton out then yes that would have been a mistake, but would they?! Mercedes made the perfect call based on the rules. It was tight, but at the end of the day, the rules had to be bent to make them wrong. | | | |
| F1 showdown thread on 08:17 - Dec 13 with 967 views | TractorFrog |
This is my final conclusion to the race (until I change it again):
Race control have the option of letting lapped cars through on the restart, or not doing so. They decided to let only the cars between Hamilton and Verstappen through. The only possible reason they could have for not letting all the lapped cars through is that they feared there wouldn’t be time for a restart. Therefore, race control deliberately bent the rules to allow for an exciting conclusion to the championship, and it changed the outcome. And that does not fit with my definition of a sport.
If the Abu Dhabi GP had been a 59-lap race, and all the lapped cars had been released in time, with the race restarting at the end of lap 58, I would have said it was fair. Mercedes gambled on there not being time for a restart when they didn’t pit, and it lost them the title. But, as it stands, Mercedes gambled on there not being time for a restart, and there wasn’t time for a restart, but the race restarted anyway, and they lost the championship. Mercedes have been absolutely robbed of the championship and completely have a right to take this to court. | |
| They'd all laugh at me if they knew what I was trying to do. To create a new strain of super-wine in half-an-hour with a fraction of nature's resources and a FOOL for an assistant. 'Bernard Black, he's mad,' they'd say, 'he's insane, he's dangerous.' Well I'll show them! I'll show them all! | | Poll: | Who should start in CM with Cajuste? |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 08:22 - Dec 13 with 962 views | TractorFrog |
And here's my own football analogy.
Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen are in the second leg of the final of the biggest tournament of them all. They have the same number of goals, but Hamilton is ahead on away goals (I have to do it like this to bypass the result of a draw, and to represent the fact that Verstappen has been better over the whole season, but Hamilton deserves it on the day). In the final seconds of the game, an incident happens that gives the referee the opportunity to award a penalty. It shouldn't be a penalty, and the referee knows it, but he awards a penalty anyway because it's an exciting conclusion to the tournament if it all comes down to a penalty in the final seconds of the season. Again, not a sport. | |
| They'd all laugh at me if they knew what I was trying to do. To create a new strain of super-wine in half-an-hour with a fraction of nature's resources and a FOOL for an assistant. 'Bernard Black, he's mad,' they'd say, 'he's insane, he's dangerous.' Well I'll show them! I'll show them all! | | Poll: | Who should start in CM with Cajuste? |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 09:29 - Dec 13 with 878 views | Ely_Blue |
| F1 showdown thread on 20:17 - Dec 12 by Zapers |
Fair enough. I admit to not seeing all the race. I still stand by the FIA having the right to allow some cars to pass, and not others.
I'm the first to feel Hamilton was robbed, I really wanted him to win an 8th championship because with the rules changing, it becomes a bit of a lottery as to which team next year hits the ground running with the best chassis engine combo. |
So Max has no pressure from the 3rd Place guy (Sainz) because the rest of the back markers weren’t allowed through, therefore all he has to do is concentrate on overtaking Hamilton who was a sitting duck
The FIA bowed to pressure from that slime ball Horner |  |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 09:47 - Dec 13 with 840 views | Pinewoodblue |
I may have got this wrong but the cars that are allowed to unlap themselves are those who were a lap down when the safety car was deployed. Pretty sure that Lando Norris only went a lap down when he pitted for tyres after the safety car deployment.
The last few races they have been rewriting the rules as they go. Going to be ironic if one of the most exciting ends of a season ( last few races) is seen as the distruction of the sport.
Hope Mercedes and the other leading teams look at joining an alternative such electric or Indie.
Should be quite a backlash felt by Sky and others worldwide. | |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 11:26 - Dec 13 with 771 views | Keno |
Surely Mercedes should just let it go now.
Its sport, the 'referee' has made his decision and surely thats should be final.
Maybe we should taking action with the FA over the travesty that was the 1975 F A Cup semi final replay? Decisions were made that day that were not strictly within the rules of the game but the ******** welsh ********* **** ********** decision was final |  |
| |
| F1 showdown thread on 11:30 - Dec 13 with 764 views | Zapers |
Probably because he would be bringing the sport in to disrepute. I doubt the FIA wanted this to happen | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
