[Rules] 2022 and beyond... What will be the impact of the new regulations?

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I’m not sure what the fascination is with having to finish under green. Ah, so it can be a show.

For me the fascination is not the "show", but the in the spirit of fairness and sportsmanship.

Preventing a competitor improving his position or score in the last moments of a competition is neither fair nor sporting.

[Adam43]

I see that, but just because there was more time doesn’t mean it is fairer. One example finishes (in terms of allowing racing) a few laps early. The other a few laps later in a situation that is possibly (probably?) less fair as you have just produced an artificial situation just before the final laps.

Preventing a competitor improving his position or score in the last moments of a competition is neither fair nor sporting.
Removing a competitor’s advantage built up over the majority of the race so far is definitely neither fair nor sporting.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chavez

For me the fascination is not the "show", but the in the spirit of fairness and sportsmanship.

Preventing a competitor improving his position or score in the last moments of a competition is neither fair nor sporting.

I don't think "fair nor sporting" is the best set of terms to be using for this case. It is neither fair nor sporting that the regulations which the sport is run by were ignored in order to make for an exciting finish. It is neither fair nor sporting that the only car to benefit was the number 33. Third place was not allowed a crack at second place, and some cars even lost a lap to the cars they were only a couple of seconds behind because of the ignored regulations.

The only "fair and sporting" result would be to run the race by the regulations. This wasn't done and Netflix was prioritised.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chavez

For me the fascination is not the "show", but the in the spirit of fairness and sportsmanship.

Preventing a competitor improving his position or score in the last moments of a competition is neither fair nor sporting.

IMO - being in the last moments or not is irrelevant here.
During a SC (or VSC), competitors are prevented from improving their position, regardless of when that SC occurs during the competition (aside from those who are able to unlap themselves).

This (to my mind) should be applied in the same way if it is lap one of race one, or the last lap of the season.

[chillibowl]

Cars generally start on fresh(1-2 laps old with the quali rules) tires though…however the rules are to be interpreted, SC periods have a different set of variables/challenges to contend with at later stages of the race then they do at the beginning of races.

Maybe this is a trivial issue to bring up, but in the same way turn 1 incidents are looked at differently at different times of the race then so too must a lot of the other procedures change as the race evolves.

It’s not as clear cut as same rule for every circumstance imo.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The only "fair and sporting" result would be to run the race by the regulations. This wasn't done and Netflix was prioritised.

My previous point aside, I can’t completely disagree with this. Netflix/reality shows will continue to use F1 (and other sports) as the setting for the types of tv shows people really want to watch. And as long as people watch, this aspect will continue to be overly dramatized.

Going forward F1 will need to find a better balance or risk being completely upside down when the music stops and Netflix moves on from F1 to start dramatizing the next sport/backdrop/setting de jour.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Maybe this is a trivial issue to bring up, but in the same way turn 1 incidents are looked at differently at different times of the race then so too must a lot of the other procedures change as the race evolves.

I agree with this, but the procedures should be looked at to keep things fair. Not to improve the show. Turn 1 incidents are treated differently to lap 10 incidents because it is a different situation have 20 cars side by side rather than a 2 car tangle. They aren't treated differently to spice up the show, but to take into account that the situations are different.

Safety cars aren't different. At the point they were at, all safety cars are the same. And they have rules. I know people are saying "Yes but the teams agreed the race director should do everything within his power / where possible to finish the race under green". The "within his power" and "where possible" mean within the rules. If it's outside of the rules, then it isn't within his power, or possible. Yet, that is what happened anyway.

And as has been pointed out countless times, it was perfectly possible to finish the race under green within the rules. Don't move the lapped cars. Job done. That would have satisfied the race director attempting to finish the race under green.

Mercedes made a strategic call based on their understanding of the regulations. It is blatantly unfair that they make a call based on the regulations, and the race director is then allowed to ignore the regulations, switching the Mercedes strategic call from the right one to the wrong one. And that is where we went from a sport, to a Netflix drama. You can't expect teams to make strategic calls when the race director is rolling a dice to decide what to do. A similar situation occurred in Saudi where we had a grid set for a restart that was completely fictional and decided by Red Bull being offered a deal or the Masi Mystery Box.

The last 4 races of the year proved that the current F1 race direction is not fit for purpose. Sau Paulo, Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi were 3 of the worst officiated races I've ever watched in any series - and for those of us familiar with Formula E, that's a pretty strong statement I'm laying down.

[chillibowl]

indeed all 20 through the 1st corner at the start is different and while there is a safety element to be considered for allowing cars to run wide at the beginning of a race there is also the practical consideration of having a SC sent out moments after a race starts....its boring af.

so imo there is an element of spice being added when 1st lap rules are different. an extension of the paved tarmac debate also...people pay a lot of money to go and watch races and those at home have a lot of choices of something else to watch on TV, so surely 'the show' has a vested interested in maintaining green racing conditions and that interest is served by keeping us entertained.

entertainment of course is not the only consideration (and i too worry that it is going too far) but entertainment still has to be, to some level, a factor that has to be considered.

that said though, i do concede that when one also factors in the last four races, as well as some of the stewarding decisions earlier on in the season, that things are skewing too far into the area of manufactured entertainment.

as it applies to this thread there does need to be a wider conversation about just how far they are willing to go down this path.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Mercedes made a strategic call based on their understanding of the regulations. It is blatantly unfair that they make a call based on the regulations, and the race director is then allowed to ignore the regulations, switching the Mercedes strategic call from the right one to the wrong one.

off topic part...

you say this is blatantly unfair...i would argue the sport is inherently unfair.

Merc took a chance based on their interpretations of the rules (RB does the same) and even then the best laid plans are easily thrown off by the random act of a driver having an off at the wrong time.

this sport is constantly evolving (which is a nice way to say they are always making up the rules as they go along). sometimes the new rules or new FIA test work to their advantage and sometimes they dont.

with their eyes open, this is the game they have chosen to play no?

[Sodemo]

Is Masi still employed and in the same role?

[Adam43]

While a lot of people on the internet have called for his head. There has been no changes to his role or position. I’ve not heard anything. Not sure why there would be.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

indeed all 20 through the 1st corner at the start is different and while there is a safety element to be considered for allowing cars to run wide at the beginning of a race there is also the practical consideration of having a SC sent out moments after a race starts....its boring af.

so imo there is an element of spice being added when 1st lap rules are different. an extension of the paved tarmac debate also...people pay a lot of money to go and watch races and those at home have a lot of choices of something else to watch on TV, so surely 'the show' has a vested interested in maintaining green racing conditions and that interest is served by keeping us entertained.

entertainment of course is not the only consideration (and i too worry that it is going too far) but entertainment still has to be, to some level, a factor that has to be considered.

that said though, i do concede that when one also factors in the last four races, as well as some of the stewarding decisions earlier on in the season, that things are skewing too far into the area of manufactured entertainment.

as it applies to this thread there does need to be a wider conversation about just how far they are willing to go down this path.



off topic part...

you say this is blatantly unfair...i would argue the sport is inherently unfair.

Merc took a chance based on their interpretations of the rules (RB does the same) and even then the best laid plans are easily thrown off by the random act of a driver having an off at the wrong time.

this sport is constantly evolving (which is a nice way to say they are always making up the rules as they go along). sometimes the new rules or new FIA test work to their advantage and sometimes they dont.

with their eyes open, this is the game they have chosen to play no?

I don't think having the race director make things up as he goes along is the game anyone chose to play, no. It's the game it became when the race director and the associated stewards teams became increasingly incapable of making rational decisions as things heated up between Max and Lewis.

We're misunderstanding each other regarding my comment on Mercedes decision based on the rules. Mercedes chose not to pit Lewis, knowing there was no chance of the race restarting with Lewis and Max in 1-2 with no cars between them. With the laps left it was either going to be a restart with the lapped cars there, or no restart. Either way would've benefitted Lewis.

Mercedes made that call based on the rules. Red Bull made the only sensible call they could, and pitted Max. There was no downside to this.

Masis decision to change the rules on the fly meant that the decision Mercedes made went from being a good one, to being a terrible one. And that is inherently unfair. You can't expect teams and drivers to make strategic calls, and then the race director shouts "Surprise! Lets do things differently!"

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't think "fair nor sporting" is the best set of terms to be using for this case. It is neither fair nor sporting that the regulations which the sport is run by were ignored in order to make for an exciting finish. It is neither fair nor sporting that the only car to benefit was the number 33. Third place was not allowed a crack at second place, and some cars even lost a lap to the cars they were only a couple of seconds behind because of the ignored regulations.

The only "fair and sporting" result would be to run the race by the regulations. This wasn't done and Netflix was prioritised.

I am not at all suggesting what occurred was fair or sporting, only that fair and sporting rules can be written and followed.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

IMO - being in the last moments or not is irrelevant here.
During a SC (or VSC), competitors are prevented from improving their position, regardless of when that SC occurs during the competition (aside from those who are able to unlap themselves).

This (to my mind) should be applied in the same way if it is lap one of race one, or the last lap of the season.

Preventing competitors from overtaking during the race due to a SC or VSC is very different from imposing the same conditions at the conclusion of the race.

The former is a temporary measure, similar to stoppages in other sports to attend to injured players.

The latter becomes a permanent measure in terms that it fixes the result and prevents a sporting end to the race.

[Adam43]

What if we had a soccer game and one team had a four goal lead. We have an injury with two minutes left and the rules stated that the losing team is gifted four goals (like suddenly gaining on the leader) and then they get injury time. Game doesn’t finish under stoppage, but the losing team nabs the winning goal.

Is it fairer and more sporting than just stopping the game a little earlier?

[S griffin]

We've had many races finish under yellow. Yes it's disappointing to have it end that way, but it's the way it goes. There was nothing sporting about the way the Abu Dhabi GP ended, because the rules weren't being followed. If anything letting the lapped cars unlap themselves is unfair on the leader who built that buffer

[crmalcolm]

I have been trying to consider where a similar situation may occur in other sports.
Typically, most sports are decided on a time basis as opposed to a physical measure such as distance, and so a direct comparison is difficult.

However - the closest I can think of is Golf, where the distance of the course is covered by all competitors within a certain ruleset.

So imagine the following situation:
Prior to 2019, the rules for a lost ball were written so that competitors had five minutes to search before having to declare lost ball and receive a penalty. From 2019, this was amended to being three minutes, to improve the pace of the game (a better 'show').

So Verstappen and Hamilton are lining up on the 18th tee of the final round. Over the course of the tournament, Hamilton has built up a one stroke lead. Off the tee, Hamilton sends a steady iron down the middle of the fairway. Verstappen knows he has to make up the stroke and goes for a Hail Mary Drive which flies out of sight and into the trees.
Verstappen goes searching for the ball and three minutes pass without him finding the ball. At this point, lightning strikes near the course and play is suspended for safety grounds, before Verstappen has chance to take the penalty.

At this point, the director of the tournament is now in the same situation as Masi was when Latifi crashed. The director is considering how to make this a contest to the end, and decides to allow Verstappen to continue his search for the ball. Remember - the rules have been agreed by all as being designed to finish with a contested result wherever possible, so he's working within the intent of the competitors.

Eventually, Verstappen finds his ball, but it is a long way off line, and his route to the green is blocked by a tree. In theory, there is still scope for Hamilton to make a catastrophic error, but everything looks like an inevitable win for Hamilton. Verstappen's caddy radios the director and says 'Michael, we need to get this ball moved so that Verstappen has a chance of reaching the green'. The director agrees, and the ball is moved to the side of the tree on a nice flat patch of land, where Verstappen now has a short chip onto the green and an easy up-and-down.

Hamilton's caddy comes on the radio ' Michael, no that's wrong.' The director responds 'It's called playing golf'.

Verstappen makes his easy up-and down, Hamilton makes his approach and two-putts putting the two players on equal scores. Verstappen wins the title on count-back.


Was that fair and sporting - or was the situation manipulated to make it a contest to the end, that was loaded in favour of Verstappen?

[chavez]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I have been trying to consider where a similar situation may occur in other sports.
Typically, most sports are decided on a time basis as opposed to a physical measure such as distance, and so a direct comparison is difficult.

However - the closest I can think of is Golf, where the distance of the course is covered by all competitors within a certain ruleset.

So imagine the following situation:
Prior to 2019, the rules for a lost ball were written so that competitors had five minutes to search before having to declare lost ball and receive a penalty. From 2019, this was amended to being three minutes, to improve the pace of the game (a better 'show').

So Verstappen and Hamilton are lining up on the 18th tee of the final round. Over the course of the tournament, Hamilton has built up a one stroke lead. Off the tee, Hamilton sends a steady iron down the middle of the fairway. Verstappen knows he has to make up the stroke and goes for a Hail Mary Drive which flies out of sight and into the trees.
Verstappen goes searching for the ball and three minutes pass without him finding the ball. At this point, lightning strikes near the course and play is suspended for safety grounds, before Verstappen has chance to take the penalty.

At this point, the director of the tournament is now in the same situation as Masi was when Latifi crashed. The director is considering how to make this a contest to the end, and decides to allow Verstappen to continue his search for the ball. Remember - the rules have been agreed by all as being designed to finish with a contested result wherever possible, so he's working within the intent of the competitors.

Eventually, Verstappen finds his ball, but it is a long way off line, and his route to the green is blocked by a tree. In theory, there is still scope for Hamilton to make a catastrophic error, but everything looks like an inevitable win for Hamilton. Verstappen's caddy radios the director and says 'Michael, we need to get this ball moved so that Verstappen has a chance of reaching the green'. The director agrees, and the ball is moved to the side of the tree on a nice flat patch of land, where Verstappen now has a short chip onto the green and an easy up-and-down.

Hamilton's caddy comes on the radio ' Michael, no that's wrong.' The director responds 'It's called playing golf'.

Verstappen makes his easy up-and down, Hamilton makes his approach and two-putts putting the two players on equal scores. Verstappen wins the title on count-back.


Was that fair and sporting - or was the situation manipulated to make it a contest to the end, that was loaded in favour of Verstappen?

Never once have I wrote that what occurred at Abu Dabhi was fair and sporting.

What is fair and sporting is a set of rules that allow for races to finish under racing conditions. A set of rules that are followed and implemented as designed.

[Akrapovic]

Does anyone read Race Car Engineering? Here's a snippet from 2021. From Austria.

A three place grid drop and penalty points, however, was in my opinion grossly unjust. There was risk to McLaren personnel, granted, but probably less than a car locking, or losing, brakes and overshooting on pit entry. Such decisions are the responsibility of the race stewards, but Michael Masi undoubtedly has considerable influence upon the process. The increasing issue of Technical Directives, together with the farcical inability to come up with a clear and consistent track limit rule is frustrating the teams. The impression is inevitably forming that Masi is letting authority go to his head, and acting outside of his race director brief.

- Mike Blanchett

[Tourer]

I've seen writings like that before, across a number of different series, number of different stewards and race directors.

It ignores the fact that FIA structures have the stewards as the "ultimate authority" at any race meeting - they make their own decisions. For sure, in some circumstances, they may take evidence from the race director and also for sure, the race director refers incidents to the stewards for adjudication but that is very different from influencing or directing stewards, which runs against FIA structure.

Think it is more a case of seeing reds under the bed IMHO.

[Adam43]

I don’t know whether he does or not, but that quote does not ignore it as it directly references it.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I don’t know whether he does or not, but that quote does not ignore it as it directly references it.

I would agree Adam43.
This is a direct concern by a person who understands the process and questions the process and what might be happening, intended or not.

One of my disappointments in Mercedes not going ahead with the formal appeal was that whatever is wrong in the 'system' and the way the process is being enacted is that we may never see the clear delineation of process and responsibility that we would require from a governing body.

It's not about Masi as much as it is about the FIA taking responsibility for its rules, the way the representatives they appointed interpreted them, and whether any injustice was done to any competitors as a result of any infractions of process as delineated by the rules.
Not doing that, pursuing an appeal, allows the FIA a free pass, so to speak, where it can appoint a commission of inquiry under its own reference terms and cover over a multitude of infractions and injustices that may have taken place.
Corporate companies will often step back rather than cause an offence that may result in a disadvantage in the future.
We know that issues have resulted in the past from the way the FIA functions in the Balestre era and the Mosley era, so for Todt to obliquely avoid the the issue and lay the result at the incoming presidents table enabled him to walk away with his record 'unblemished' for whatever that is worth.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

One of my disappointments in Mercedes not going ahead with the formal appeal was that whatever is wrong in the 'system' and the way the process is being enacted is that we may never see the clear delineation of process and responsibility that we would require from a governing body.

You must remember that there is very little about how Formula 1 is truly governed that is completely transparent, and hasn't been since at least the time that Mosley and Ecclestone took the reins.

One thing that they don't like to do is wash their dirty laundry in public, and it surprised me that the "spygate" issue was mostly aired in full view of the media rather than being settled behind closed doors.

So the fact that the FIA and Mercedes reached a compromise using private channels doesn't come as a shock, under the circumstances, rather than using the appeals process.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You must remember that there is very little about how Formula 1 is truly governed that is completely transparent, and hasn't been since at least the time that Mosley and Ecclestone took the reins.

One thing that they don't like to do is wash their dirty laundry in public, and it surprised me that the "spygate" issue was mostly aired in full view of the media rather than being settled behind closed doors.

So the fact that the FIA and Mercedes reached a compromise using private channels doesn't come as a shock, under the circumstances, rather than using the appeals process.

I understand that Mike, having worked in the system, but I had still hoped that at this point something more open and honest would come forward.
That may still happen, and if it does I will cheer for them, but I'm not holding my breath....

[Plantagenet]

If I may, can i make a comment more akin to the start of the thread, that of the impact of the 22 regs.

Since ground effect was effectively banned in the early 80s, alot/the majority of downforce has come from things that are easily visible - wings obviously, but also diffusers. As a consequence, the quick cars are often copied, usually within a few races but certainly within a season. A good example being the Brawn of 2009 which was clearly the fastest car at the start of 09 but the double diffuser was adopted by other teams and they became less competitive as the season went on.

Roll on 2022, and the majority of downforce will now come from the underside of the car.....which is not visible. Therefore, I wonder if the faster cars will have a longer period of competitive advantage because understanding the aero working of the faster cars will be more difficult. Clearly, as engineers switch teams, and with perhaps some dubious dealings (2007?), knowledge will percolate through the paddock but this will take longer than it does currently.

So, I hope my forecasts aren't correct but we may see a season again marked by the dominance of 1 or 2 teams whilst the others work out what they are doing right. I hope to be proven wrong and despite the excitement of 21, it would be better to have a broader roster of winners and competitive cars.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Plantagenet

If I may, can i make a comment more akin to the start of the thread, that of the impact of the 22 regs.

Since ground effect was effectively banned in the early 80s, alot/the majority of downforce has come from things that are easily visible - wings obviously, but also diffusers. As a consequence, the quick cars are often copied, usually within a few races but certainly within a season. A good example being the Brawn of 2009 which was clearly the fastest car at the start of 09 but the double diffuser was adopted by other teams and they became less competitive as the season went on.

Roll on 2022, and the majority of downforce will now come from the underside of the car.....which is not visible. Therefore, I wonder if the faster cars will have a longer period of competitive advantage because understanding the aero working of the faster cars will be more difficult. Clearly, as engineers switch teams, and with perhaps some dubious dealings (2007?), knowledge will percolate through the paddock but this will take longer than it does currently.

So, I hope my forecasts aren't correct but we may see a season again marked by the dominance of 1 or 2 teams whilst the others work out what they are doing right. I hope to be proven wrong and despite the excitement of 21, it would be better to have a broader roster of winners and competitive cars.

I agree with your line of thinking. The extra complexity is that I believe they FIA has said they will act quickly to squash any dominant loopholes. And because of this, I think the teams have been asking the FIA to review ideas before they implement them. That if the FIA gives thumbs up, then good, if thumbs down, then they don't do it. And I also think there may have already been some clarifications on design ideas? The rules allow for the shut stuff down. The problem is that with financial caps, it is risky to try something really out of the box if a removing it becomes costly.

I really wonder if there may be drama of something being outlawed (via rule clarification) mid-season. Which will create lots of drama. I suspect they are trying to avoid this.

I "hope" that the deciding factors is mostly about the team that are best prepared and well run. Meaning, they have their ducks in a row, they make good strategy calls, cars that are easy to setup and quick at most track, drivers that are able to extract the most from the cars. Overall team execution and cohesion. And less about specific technical tricks that give a team a huge leg up.

Richard