What rule changes should the FIA make after Abu Dhabi?
Discussion
This question came up in the immensely long Abu Dhabi GP thread, but it swiftly descended to point scoring and I thought it was an interesting topic that might be worth wider discussion
It seems to me that there is clearly a difference of opinion about what the existing regulations say, or, perhaps are intending to say. Accordingly it would probably make sense to actually clarify the wording of the rules and ensure everyone is starting from a common understanding.
It would be great to keep this to a discussion about the actual changes required rather than fighting over who was at fault (or not).
The relevant document is the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations (currently issue 13 2021/12/08) published here: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2021_formu...
General
I find it interesting that there is no definitions section in this document and there is a strange protocol for the use of capitalised and non-capitalised terms used almost indiscriminately throughout.
Also what is a "Competitor"? At first I thought it was the manufacturer/team, but Article 3.1 says: If a Competitor is unable to be present in person ... which suggests it is an individual.
Given how much money they have at their disposal I am amazed at how sloppily this document is drafted - including lack of clear definitions, weird capitalisation, inconsistent use of full stops, missing apostrophes, etc..
Specifics
The relevant Articles are (I think):
15 OFFICIALS
47 INCIDENTS DURING THE SPRINT QUALIFYING SESSION OR THE RACE
48 SAFETY CAR
49 VIRTUAL SAFETY CAR
(capitalisation taken from the Sporting Regulations).
In addition there are Articles 35 to 45 that are all about the Start Procedure, restarts and variations thereof which might also need to be considered.
a) that it does not include the Virtual Safety Car in 15.3, so although the Race Director has overriding authority over the Safety Car (described in detail in Article 48) the same does not apply to the Virtual Safety Car (Article 49)
b) that clauses d) and e) do not say in accordance with the Sporting Regulations although the other clauses do
I'm not going to quote the entirety of 47, 48 and 49 as they are very long but some extracts:
Article 48 sets out in some detail the operating procedures for the Safety Car. Section 49 does the same for the Virtual Safety Car.
Note that in Articles 48 and 49 any directions about the safety car are always given upon the order of the clerk of the course, e.g.:
Bearing in mind the disagreement between the FIA and Mercedes (and lots of other people) about the intent of 15.3 I suggest that the main change that is required is clarity about the intent of clause 15.3 and then the rules should be amended to reflect that clarification.
I suggest there are two options:
Option 1 - If the intent of 15.3 is actually that the Race Director has full discretion over all aspects of the Safety Car (and presumably the VSC) then I would suggest 15.3 is amended to read something like:
Option 2 - Conversely if the intention of section 15 is to define the respective roles and responsibilities of the clerk of the course and the Race Director, then I would suggest re-wording 15.3 something like this:
I'd also suggest that someone qualified actually do the drafting rather than me!
I personally prefer Option 2, as I am pretty sure that reflects the intent of the regulations, otherwise why would you include the later Articles that set out the procedures in such excruciating detail if your intent is to allow the Race Director to make decisions based on the specifics of the situation in front of him?
However, I think the key point must be to clarify the intent of 15.3.
It seems to me that there is clearly a difference of opinion about what the existing regulations say, or, perhaps are intending to say. Accordingly it would probably make sense to actually clarify the wording of the rules and ensure everyone is starting from a common understanding.
It would be great to keep this to a discussion about the actual changes required rather than fighting over who was at fault (or not).
The relevant document is the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations (currently issue 13 2021/12/08) published here: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2021_formu...
General
I find it interesting that there is no definitions section in this document and there is a strange protocol for the use of capitalised and non-capitalised terms used almost indiscriminately throughout.
Also what is a "Competitor"? At first I thought it was the manufacturer/team, but Article 3.1 says: If a Competitor is unable to be present in person ... which suggests it is an individual.
Given how much money they have at their disposal I am amazed at how sloppily this document is drafted - including lack of clear definitions, weird capitalisation, inconsistent use of full stops, missing apostrophes, etc..
Specifics
The relevant Articles are (I think):
15 OFFICIALS
47 INCIDENTS DURING THE SPRINT QUALIFYING SESSION OR THE RACE
48 SAFETY CAR
49 VIRTUAL SAFETY CAR
(capitalisation taken from the Sporting Regulations).
In addition there are Articles 35 to 45 that are all about the Start Procedure, restarts and variations thereof which might also need to be considered.
FIA Sporting Regulations Article 15 Officials said:
15.1 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the FIA:
a) Three stewards one of whom will be appointed chairman.
b) A Race Director.
c) A Permanent Starter.
15.2 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the ASN and their names sent to the FIA at the same time as the application to organise the Event:
a) One steward from among the ASNs nationals.
b) The clerk of the course.
15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:
a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedure.
e) The use of the safety car.
15.4 The stewards, the Race Director, the clerk of the course and the Technical Delegate must be present at the start of the Event.
15.5 In exceptional circumstances, should any stewards not be present at the start of the Event, they must be available and contactable at all times to
fulfil their duties.
15.6 The Race Director must be in radio contact with the clerk of the course and the chairman of the stewards at all times when cars are permitted to run on the track. Additionally, the clerk of the course must be in race control and in radio contact with all marshal's posts during these times.
15.7 The stewards may use any video or electronic means to assist them in reaching a decision. The stewards may overrule judges of fact.
For clarity I have extracted just 15.3, as most relevant:a) Three stewards one of whom will be appointed chairman.
b) A Race Director.
c) A Permanent Starter.
15.2 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the ASN and their names sent to the FIA at the same time as the application to organise the Event:
a) One steward from among the ASNs nationals.
b) The clerk of the course.
15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:
a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedure.
e) The use of the safety car.
15.4 The stewards, the Race Director, the clerk of the course and the Technical Delegate must be present at the start of the Event.
15.5 In exceptional circumstances, should any stewards not be present at the start of the Event, they must be available and contactable at all times to
fulfil their duties.
15.6 The Race Director must be in radio contact with the clerk of the course and the chairman of the stewards at all times when cars are permitted to run on the track. Additionally, the clerk of the course must be in race control and in radio contact with all marshal's posts during these times.
15.7 The stewards may use any video or electronic means to assist them in reaching a decision. The stewards may overrule judges of fact.
Article 15.3 said:
15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:
a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedure.
e) The use of the safety car.
The most interesting aspects here are:a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedure.
e) The use of the safety car.
a) that it does not include the Virtual Safety Car in 15.3, so although the Race Director has overriding authority over the Safety Car (described in detail in Article 48) the same does not apply to the Virtual Safety Car (Article 49)
b) that clauses d) and e) do not say in accordance with the Sporting Regulations although the other clauses do
I'm not going to quote the entirety of 47, 48 and 49 as they are very long but some extracts:
FIA Sporting Regulations Article 47 INCIDENTS DURING THE SPRINT QUALIFYING SESSION OR THE RACE said:
47.1 The Race Director may report any on-track incident or suspected breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code (an Incident”) to the stewards. After review it shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation
As far as I can see there is nothing to cover the situation where the Race Director decides not to refer an incident to the stewards. He appears to be allowed not to (use of may in the Article) but there is no description of any alternative approach. Thus raising questions about the bartering exchange with Red Bull about the restart in Saudi Arabia interesting.Article 48 sets out in some detail the operating procedures for the Safety Car. Section 49 does the same for the Virtual Safety Car.
Note that in Articles 48 and 49 any directions about the safety car are always given upon the order of the clerk of the course, e.g.:
Article 48.3 said:
The safety car may be brought into operation to neutralise a sprint qualifying session or a race upon the order of the clerk of the course.
Article 48.12 said:
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 ...
Article 48.13 said:
When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP" will be sent to all Competitors ...
Article 49.1 said:
The VSC procedure may be initiated to neutralise a practice session, sprint qualifying session or a race upon the order of the clerk of the course.
As far as I can tell there is no provision for the Race Director to authorise this directly, it must be done by the clerk of the course, but obviously (see 15.3) he has the overriding authority for the Safety Car, but not, apparently, for the VSC.Bearing in mind the disagreement between the FIA and Mercedes (and lots of other people) about the intent of 15.3 I suggest that the main change that is required is clarity about the intent of clause 15.3 and then the rules should be amended to reflect that clarification.
I suggest there are two options:
Option 1 - If the intent of 15.3 is actually that the Race Director has full discretion over all aspects of the Safety Car (and presumably the VSC) then I would suggest 15.3 is amended to read something like:
Option 1 new 15.3 said:
The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have complete authority and make all decisions in respect of matters a) to e) below and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:
a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedures.
e) The timing and procedures for the release, operation and withdrawal of the of the safety car and virtual safety car.
And then sections to 35 to 45 (which are all about the start), 48 (Safety Car) and 49 (VSC) should all be deleted entirely as they would become completely redundant. I suggest they should be replaced by guidance from the Race Director and could be common or specific to each race (Event in Sporting Regs parlance) as appropriate.a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedures.
e) The timing and procedures for the release, operation and withdrawal of the of the safety car and virtual safety car.
Option 2 - Conversely if the intention of section 15 is to define the respective roles and responsibilities of the clerk of the course and the Race Director, then I would suggest re-wording 15.3 something like this:
Option 2 new 15.3 said:
The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:
a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedure in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
e) The use of the safety car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
d) The use of the virtual safety car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
This would make it clear that the Race Director has the ultimate decision making authority but that the actual procedures are set out elsewhere in the Regulations and should be followed.a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedure in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
e) The use of the safety car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
d) The use of the virtual safety car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
I'd also suggest that someone qualified actually do the drafting rather than me!
I personally prefer Option 2, as I am pretty sure that reflects the intent of the regulations, otherwise why would you include the later Articles that set out the procedures in such excruciating detail if your intent is to allow the Race Director to make decisions based on the specifics of the situation in front of him?
However, I think the key point must be to clarify the intent of 15.3.
Jasandjules said:
There is no ambiguity in the rules, that is a red herring. The rules simply need to be correctly applied.
OK, keeping to the specifics of the rules if that is the case, why do 15.3 sub clauses a) b) and c) all include the phrase in accordance with the Sporting Regulations but d) the starting procedure and e) Safety car do not?tertius said:
OK, keeping to the specifics of the rules if that is the case, why do 15.3 sub clauses a) b) and c) all include the phrase in accordance with the Sporting Regulations but d) the starting procedure and e) Safety car do not?
Rule 15 is regarding the seniority of the officials and in essence who has the authority to make a decision. Same as any other rule book/legislation etc. Then the subsections i.e. 48 apply to the process once that decision is made i.e. once the decision is made that a situation requires a safety car, then those rules apply.
Jasandjules said:
tertius said:
OK, keeping to the specifics of the rules if that is the case, why do 15.3 sub clauses a) b) and c) all include the phrase in accordance with the Sporting Regulations but d) the starting procedure and e) Safety car do not?
Rule 15 is regarding the seniority of the officials and in essence who has the authority to make a decision. Same as any other rule book/legislation etc. Then the subsections i.e. 48 apply to the process once that decision is made i.e. once the decision is made that a situation requires a safety car, then those rules apply.
Additionally I think if nothing changes in the rules, not even clarification of the intent of Article 15 then I don't see what is to prevent another incident like the one we have just seen.
tertius said:
I absolutely agree that is the intent of Article 15, however, I think not including that clause (in accordance with ...) in d) and e) is unfortunate and possibly contributed to the situation.
Additionally I think if nothing changes in the rules, not even clarification of the intent of Article 15 then I don't see what is to prevent another incident like the one we have just seen.
The requirements of the rules are clear, that is why they have headings for each section. It enables the reader to ascertain to the remit of said rule. It is not difficult to interpret and there is no need for any "intent" etc. The rules are perfectly clear. Additionally I think if nothing changes in the rules, not even clarification of the intent of Article 15 then I don't see what is to prevent another incident like the one we have just seen.
As I said at the start, the suggest otherwise is a red herring and has been started by the FIA and/or Redbull I assume to attempt to bull**t their way out of the complete farce that robbed Lewis of his 8th WDC.
Masi knew the rules when he had to explain it before when he said this:
"Asked as to why he was unable to act on these comments sooner, Masi replied: “Quite simply, there is a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past."
To suggest this was suddenly forgotten when it has been applied extensively in the past is simply ludicrous.
Jasandjules said:
tertius said:
I absolutely agree that is the intent of Article 15, however, I think not including that clause (in accordance with ...) in d) and e) is unfortunate and possibly contributed to the situation.
Additionally I think if nothing changes in the rules, not even clarification of the intent of Article 15 then I don't see what is to prevent another incident like the one we have just seen.
The requirements of the rules are clear, that is why they have headings for each section. It enables the reader to ascertain to the remit of said rule. It is not difficult to interpret and there is no need for any "intent" etc. The rules are perfectly clear. Additionally I think if nothing changes in the rules, not even clarification of the intent of Article 15 then I don't see what is to prevent another incident like the one we have just seen.
As I said at the start, the suggest otherwise is a red herring and has been started by the FIA and/or Redbull I assume to attempt to bull**t their way out of the complete farce that robbed Lewis of his 8th WDC.
Masi knew the rules when he had to explain it before when he said this:
"Asked as to why he was unable to act on these comments sooner, Masi replied: “Quite simply, there is a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past."
To suggest this was suddenly forgotten when it has been applied extensively in the past is simply ludicrous.
Regarding the headings, yes, I agree they perhaps have that purpose, but I am not sure that the simple heading "Officials" necessarily communicates that this is about respective roles and responsibilities and only that - it could mean almost anything. My experience of similar documents is that headings like that have no legal force, they are merely for clarity and if you want to bound the scope of a particular clause you need to say so.
MitchT said:
Jasandjules said:
There is no ambiguity in the rules, that is a red herring. The rules simply need to be correctly applied.
This.Everyone here who would read the rules knows that ambiguity was used as an excuse where there is no ambiguity. The interpretation is pretty straight forward, 15.3 SC can be invoked but then it follows the documented process as in all of section 48.
Changing the rules only serves to lessen the evil of crime.
Jasandjules said:
There is no ambiguity in the rules, that is a red herring. The rules simply need to be correctly applied.
Consistently. That’s what ruined the season inconsistency it’s not hard to be consistent it might be unpopular and the final race would probably have finished behind the safety car but that’s racing. Tyre manufacturers develop a tyre to go from start to finish. All cars start on the same compound but allowing each team to change to the same compound tyre should conditions change eg. rain to dry or dry to rain or anywhere in between. Changes allowed in race order with cars back out in race order.
Carlososos said:
Officials should implement the rules as they are written with consistency.
That’s it. It’s never really been a problem say for minor foibles.
I agree, but this season says they can’t manage it … and so I think something/s need to change to help them manage to achieve it.That’s it. It’s never really been a problem say for minor foibles.
Trophy Husband said:
Tyre manufacturers develop a tyre to go from start to finish. All cars start on the same compound but allowing each team to change to the same compound tyre should conditions change eg. rain to dry or dry to rain or anywhere in between. Changes allowed in race order with cars back out in race order.
We've had this in the past, albeit in the refuelling era. tertius said:
Carlososos said:
Officials should implement the rules as they are written with consistency.
That’s it. It’s never really been a problem say for minor foibles.
I agree, but this season says they can’t manage it … and so I think something/s need to change to help them manage to achieve it.That’s it. It’s never really been a problem say for minor foibles.
Carlososos said:
tertius said:
Carlososos said:
Officials should implement the rules as they are written with consistency.
That’s it. It’s never really been a problem say for minor foibles.
I agree, but this season says they can’t manage it … and so I think something/s need to change to help them manage to achieve it.That’s it. It’s never really been a problem say for minor foibles.
However, they aren’t very likely to do that, so I suspect that the best we can actually hope for is a quiet discussion that clarifies (albeit in private) what is expected.
My biggest concern is that if there are no rule changes and everything stays the same, then those who have taken the it was allowed in the rules interpretation will become entrenched into that view (almost forced by circumstance into it, IYSWIM) and we’ll see more weird decisions as a way of sort of justifying what happened.
The advantage (as I see it) of making some changes is it gives everyone a way out - those who made the mistake can say ”look the rules weren’t clear so it was an understandable error” and those who were disadvantaged can say ”at least they know now and there’s a decent chance it won’t happen again”.
remove safety cars/ red flag restarts & use a smart VSC ...which reinstates the previous gaps by getting drivers to drive to specific deltas before racing commences
I accept this may not be popular with fans of 'entertainment' ...but from a sporting & purists POV it should, as i know of no other 'sport' that removes hard earned advantages at various points to level the playing field (apart from other motorsports)
I accept this may not be popular with fans of 'entertainment' ...but from a sporting & purists POV it should, as i know of no other 'sport' that removes hard earned advantages at various points to level the playing field (apart from other motorsports)
I’m firmly in the “enforce the rules as they are written” camp, but clearly there is the need to clarify 15.3 as not being a massive cop-out for the RD to throw away Rule 48, which is the SOP for the Safety Car and should remain so.
I’m willing to consider the option of a red flag, if it looks unlikely that a race will restart without the safety car - a final short sprint race would at least retain some sporting integrity. The crowd in Abu Dhabi, of whom I was one, expected a red flag when Latifi hit the wall, as happened in Baku.
I’m willing to consider the option of a red flag, if it looks unlikely that a race will restart without the safety car - a final short sprint race would at least retain some sporting integrity. The crowd in Abu Dhabi, of whom I was one, expected a red flag when Latifi hit the wall, as happened in Baku.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff