Masi breaks silence on departure from FIA after Abu Dhabi controversy

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Former Formula 1 race director Michael Masi has spoken publicly about his decision to leave the FIA following confirmation of his departure.

In brief

Masi explains FIA departure, eight months after Abu Dhabi

The FIA announced in February that Masi had been replaced as F1 race director following the controversy over his handling of the championship-deciding Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. The governing body of motorsport then confirmed earlier this week Masi had decided to leave and would return to his family in Australia.

In a statement published Speedcafe Masi explained his reasons for leaving but did not address the controversy which overshadowed last year’s title-deciding race.

“It has been a pleasure and honour representing the FIA as the single-seater sporting director and FIA Formula 1 race director and safety delegate since Charlie [Whiting’s] unexpected and tragic passing in Melbourne 2019,” said Masi.

“I am proud to have worked in partnership for many years with the various FIA member clubs, Formula 1 Group, the competitors, promoters and circuit operators and my colleagues and team internally at the FIA. I will always treasure these lifelong relationships and friendships that I have developed throughout my journey to date.”

Directly-dyed carbon fibre could be solution to livery paint weight-saving

A type of composite resin that contains dye could be a solution to Formula 1 team’s current paint-stripping attempts to save weight.

Hypetex’s water-based resin allows colour to be worked directly into carbon fibre (or other materials like flax composites) and so doesn’t require paint or a vinyl covering over the top.

Asked by RaceFans, Hypetex said there was no weight difference between composites using its resin and conventionally-coloured carbon fibre.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

As driver complaints about stewarding inconsistencies continue, sometimes at apparently great length, Slowmo says that guidance for outside overtakes needs to be clarified to prevent any debate:

There are clear contradictions in the guidance. Perez was not ahead at the point the drivers chose to brake.

He pulled ahead after the apex as he accelerated, Russell left him half the track to his left but Perez insisted on the tight late apex to squeeze Russell. Once you’ve started braking your line is set in stone for the minimum angle yet you can always open out your line which Perez didn’t do.

I’m not saying it’s Perez to blame, what I’m saying is that by his decision to not open his line up he guaranteed an accident and he was the only one who could have stopped it.

The problem with the current guidelines is they mention whoever is ahead at the apex largely can get away with anything. The problem here is its arguable they were level at the apex depending on whose apex you’re referring to. The second point is Russell had left enough room on exit to fulfil any requirement if he was ahead.

The current rules of engagement will guarantee more accidents like this until they’re changed. I would say though that Perez didn’t leave this mythical room on exit, he squeezed Russell with as much lock as his car would allow. He left no space and if you check the replays you’ll see he even had his car pointing at a line that was always going to intercept with Russell’s car.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Ryanmack09!

On this day in motorsport

  • 20 years ago today Patrick Carpentier won the ChampCar round at Cleveland for Forsythe

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

50 comments on “Masi breaks silence on departure from FIA after Abu Dhabi controversy”

  1. Great CoTD!

    As they say round turn 4… “Tis better to pass on the inside than never pass at all” ;-)

    1. I guess this corner shows more clearly if you are truly skilled or not..

      1. But again, Perez having fulfilled his obligation couldn’t very well devine what GR could or couldn’t do with his car.

        That was my response to the cotd when it was originally made. As slowmo says he’s not blaming SP but then goes on the explain how he left no room, and in general I think slowmo is using hindsight when as it was happening there is no way Checo could know to what degree GR was or wasn’t in control of his car. Hence the penalty for GR and not the victim who fulfilled his racing responsibility until he was hit.

  2. I luv chicken
    14th July 2022, 1:25

    Hand painted #39 on that Ferrari

    1. @I luv chicken
      To me, that number doesn’t hugely seem any more hand-painted than other numbers used.

  3. The problem with the racing guidelines is that they have to exist at all in the form they have now taken.

    We never used to have all these guidelines because we never needed them as the drivers learnt what was/wasn’t acceptable & what they could/couldn’t get away with by actually racing & the officials rarely needed to get involved because drivers policed themselves.

    It often feels to me that as the FIA have begun to come up with these guidelines & as the stewards have become more involved with investigation & penalties for bits of contact over the past 10-ish years that driving standards & driver spatial awareness has only got worse.

    I think in the past when the drivers were policing themselves for the most part when it came to how they raced that there was more respect between them & a better understanding of what was the right way to act on track. Yes you had some drivers who pushed things to the limit & sometimes over (Senna & Schumacher are obvious examples) but when they did it was always the other drivers who raised there objections between themselves & if it was something particularly egregious then the FIA would step in to try & stamp that out.

    And as I have said before I don’t think the modern circuits help because the layouts, Kerbs, Runoffs & widths all sort of lead to drivers putting there cars in places they would not have in the past & tried to keep there cars in situations they would have backed out of sooner in the past.

    1. I agree with most of your sentiment, @roger-ayles.
      The drivers are now no longer racing each other – but also ‘racing’ the rules, exploiting them as much as possible.

      Even when they know a particular move is risky, they’ll try it on knowing they are unlikely to be penalised for it – or even with the assumption that their competitor will actually now be penalised for it.
      It’s all got very dirty and unsatisfying. There’s no sportsmanship out there for the most part.

      That said – it’s really just a reflection of modern society and humanity these days. Even reverting the rules wouldn’t take this element away.
      It sure isn’t restricted to F1.

      I don’t think it really has much to do with the circuits – it’s just attitudes.

      1. @roger-ayles and S While I get the sentiment of your comments I don’t really buy into it. I think the main rules of engagement have existed for a long time and haven’t changed much and will continue to mainly be as they are, no matter attitudes or what have you. Each incident, if deemed marginal enough that it warrants investigation, is going to be adjudicated the same way now as it has been for decades.

        I don’t buy that they used to police themselves. If that was the case they’d still be doing it but by your opinions something has changed, therefore obviously they were not policing themselves or that has not been effective.

        It still all comes down to who was doing what in a corner and how fair/unfair the drivers were/weren’t towards each other based on who had how much of their car ahead/alongside and who left space and who didn’t and who took ownership of the real estate at the right/wrong time in order to call it either good hard racing or something that was unfair towards one driver.

        ‘Let them race’ (ie police themselves?) has been a thing for quite a while but of course there are always going to be incidents that need the stewards’ attention. That’s racing. I don’t think any drivers are intentionally pushing the boundaries on the rules of engagement assuming they’ll not be penalized, and of course there is always the ever-present self-policing mechanism that drivers are always well aware of…race altering or ending damage to their own car.

        1. @robbie
          I think the drivers did indeed police themselves to a much greater extent in the past, and while part of that could be chalked up to “driving culture”, I do think it’s also down to the tracks, as @roger-ayles argues. The tracks help shape the unwritten norms and etiquette. The tighter the confines of the track, the less freedom you have to run someone off the road without consequence. The extreme example would be oval circuits, where a wall physically prevents you from doing so. Then, there is no need to debate who has rights to a corner: If a car behind has any overlap at all, you cannot run them out of room without also wrecking yourself. Because of the lack of runoff in IndyCar, it’s not surprising to me that racing there is much more self-policing, even on road courses.

          I do agree with S that drivers are now “racing the rules” as much as each other, but I don’t chalk that up very much to an erosion of sportsmanship. The way I see it, modern F1 circuits are such vast, inviting seas of tarmac that it’s actually becoming more like sailboat racing. There, there are no physical track limits, and side-by-side racing, as it were, is all about establishing the right of way as defined by the rulebook and then exploiting it, often by forcing your rivals into taking a penalty. Especially with the new stewards’ guidelines in F1, the sorts of conversations about overtaking now are very reminiscent of how sailors talk about overlaps, luffing rights, boundary penalties, and room at the mark. While all of this has evolved out of necessity in sailing and is long-established there, I do not view it as a positive development for car racing.

          1. @markzastrow some drivers during the supposed “good old days” were pretty happy running people off the track with the sort of moves that are complained about today.

            Murray Walker used to note that Bruce McLaren had a story of such behaviour by Jack Brabham, who was notorious for his aggressive defences. Bruce was trying to pass Jack, and noticed that Jack was fiddling with his mirror quite a bit – eventually, the mirror snapped off in his hand, with Jack then chucking it onto the track in Bruce’s direction.

            Whilst Bruce wasn’t entirely sure if Jack had been trying to throw it at him, what he was certain about was that, when he tried to pass Jack, Jack promptly and quite intentionally ran him clean off the track. When Bruce confronted Jack about it afterwards, Jack then tried to innocently claim “oh, I’m terribly sorry – I couldn’t see you because my mirror fell off”, despite the fact that Bruce had seen Jack looking in his direction just before he ran him off the road.

            There were other drivers who had a reputation for being extremely dangerous to be around as well. Regazzoni was another such driver – he’d already been accused of deliberately causing a fatal accident in junior series, and Fittipaldi did later claim that, during the title deciding race in 1974, Regazzoni pushed him partially off the track when he overtook him, with Fittipaldi suspecting that Regazzoni would have been prepared to fully push him off but for the fact that Regazzoni was probably scared of killing himself in the ensuing crash.

          2. Good stories, anon. There will always be drivers that flout the norms of their era, but there are likely few places on the calendar today that elicit the sort of fear that forced Regazzoni to back off. It also speaks to the aspect of this that is attributable to “driver culture”—instead of seeking and receiving redress from authorities, the drivers dealt with it on their own.

        2. @robbie I think whats happened is a sort of snowball effect.

          One incident was looked at & a penalty handed out which set a precedent which then started them looking at every similar thing which then led to them looking at more things & then as you started to see calls of inconsistencies that led to the FIA laying out more detailed guidelines which then led to more investigations & more penalties been handed out.

          I think probably 90% or more of the things you see result in penalties today wouldn’t have even been investigated 20 years ago because back then the stewards never used to get involved in racing incidents unless it was something obviously intentional or reckless. It was more things like jump starts, Pit lane speeding, Ignoring blue flags & stuff which picked up investigations & penalties.

          If there was contact, If a driver was squeezed off on corner exit or other such racing incidents then the drivers would discuss it post race & maybe raise it at the drivers briefing at the next race where the drivers would discuss it. The FIA wouldn’t get involved again unless it was something intentional, reckless or really dangerous at what point they would let drivers know they didn’t want to see that again.

          I can’t remember a penalty been handed out for a ‘racing incident’ until that silly penalty Montoya got for the contact with Schumacher at Sepang turn 1 in 2002. That may have been the catalyst?, A wrong penalty that created the precedent that they then felt they had to follow.

      2. Even when they know a particular move is risky, they’ll try it on knowing they are unlikely to be penalised for it – or even with the assumption that their competitor will actually now be penalised for it.

        F1 teams and drivers do their best to exploit the limits of the rules. The technique for getting the other guy penalised worked for Max last year and worked for Perez this year, so you can’t really criticise them for using it, can you?

    2. @roger-ayles Racing drivers had to police themselves in “the good old days” because racing was so dangerous. Now that the cars and tracks are build around driver safety, the life or death penalty of an unsporting move is much lower, so competitive people push the rules. Thus, rules need to be enforced by stewards. Until they start making racing more dangerous again (not going to happen), we are stuck with such rules.

  4. It seems incredible that the weight of paint on a car makes a significant difference. It would be interesting to know what saving this will result in. Thinking about the tins of paint I use for painting doors etc, and the amount of coverage you get, I suppose it could be two or three kilos of paint to cover an F1 car. I also wondered if highly polished paint has better airflow qualities than naked carbon fibre, would it still be quite as slippy through the air?

    I think it was back around 67/68/69 when Jackie Stewart drove for Matra and Ken Tyrell was in charge, the Matra car turned up at the opening GP (South Africa I think) in a terrible drab green colour scheme. According to the caption underneath the photo in Autosport magazine, which was the only real source of info back then, the car was redesigned at the last minute and they’d painted it with the primer but simply didn’t have time to finish the paint job. Or maybe that was just one of those myths and it was really meant to be that colour, but I think later on they were blue.

    1. It’s not the first time paint weight is an issue. When Jaguar debuted in 2000, they presented the car with a glorious-looking British racing green livery. For the first race they turned up with completely different shade of green as it turned out that it’s 1 or 2 kg lighter. And in those days there were also no overweight cars, they were all at the limit of 600, but any weight saved was put in ballast at the bottom of the cars.

    2. I know for sure that McLaren used special paints to give the car more slipperness (sharkskin) even that gave 0.1 each lap if you have a weightreducement of 0.3kg is also 0.1 each lap you know why teams try to get that minimum weight….
      Paint is very heavy indeed.

  5. I do a lot of sim racing racing, particularly in Austria albeit with F4 cars.
    That corner is tricky because when you are in the outside you can basically throw yourself ahead of the guy on the inside, but I have learned the hard way that the guy on the inside will almost always understeer on the exit because he is having to do a much tighter turn than usual.

    The thing is, if you have the speed it is always better to live to fight another lap

  6. Re: CotD

    Once you’ve started braking your line is set in stone for the minimum angle yet you can always open out your line which Perez didn’t do.

    This is something in perception that puzzles me. You seem to say that once a driver starts braking his line trough the corner is determined, which isn’t true. There’s always an option to brake harder or longer to go even slower. Or in case of the driver on the outside line: to release the brakes a bit after initial braking, to carry more speed through the corner (which you can do because your line isn’t as sharp).

    At the braking point however both drivers can determine that they’re far enough alongside that they can’t just take the corner as if the other one isn’t there. For the driver on the outside that means they cannot steer towards the apex as usual. For the car on the inside that can mean two things: they can either run a wider line, which will prevent the driver on the outside from turning in, but that will compromise the amount of speed they can carry through the corner and ruin their exit. The other option is to stick to the corner and hope to solve it with exit speed. However, at that point you have some responsibility, because every mistake you make will make you slide away from the apex and that’s where they know the other driver already is.

    1. If Russell had braked harder or longer then he would have understeered into Perez and definitely caused a collision. Once they got to the apex side by side, the only one that could avoid a collision was Perez as anything Russell did was going to make him slide further out wide.

      I stand with CotD that the guidelines are not clear once beyond the braking phase as seen with the difference of penalties between Silverstone and Austria.

    2. But you can’t expect drivers to avoid collisions because their competitors can’t manage to keep their car under control?
      I agree that it’s not a very smart move to put it all on the line on the first lap, in a corner that’s notoriously difficult, via the trickiest line. But when it comes to rules that doesn’t make Perez the one who should avoid a colleague who’s understeering (hence not in control of his car).

      I think that, regardless if there’s more specific guidelines or not, there will always be discussion about whether they were applied correctlly or not. The stakes are higher, there’s replays and comment sections everywhere…so I’m not sure if it’s going to solve much.

      1. This is where a difference of opinion occurs. You believe Russell wasn’t in control of his car while I believe he was. To me it was a racing incident and essentially two cars fighting over the same bit of tarmac and unfortunately Perez lost out. Not every incident needs to be penalised, especially when it was clear there was no malice behind any of it.

        1. Oh I do agree with that last part. I don’t think Perez had the intention to drive Russell off the road or vice versa.

  7. Asked by RaceFans, Hypetex said there was no weight difference between composites using its resin and conventionally-coloured carbon fibre.

    ….soo, where’s the savings ?

    1. Presumably that you don’t then need to apply a weighty layer of coloured paint over the top

      1. I read conventionally colored as the adding of pigment on top (ie. paint), as you cant color carbon fibre without compromising the structural integrity. Must look into this further

        1. You right BUT this is something new so you can color the carbon so you don’t add weight. I think this proces is before molding the parts more in the basic matrial.

    2. Conventional colored carbon fiber doesn’t come in Prepreg ( pre-impregnated) form. The new one is compatible with the heat involved in the cure process (does not outgas) and does not interfere with the chemical reaction of the resin. It can therefore be used in a “one shot” process as a surface layer.

  8. Not proud to be Dutch after this weekend but most certainly not after reading the article about the disgusting criminal John Paul

    1. I didn’t thought it was the Dutch as none said so but you know every country has his scumbags even the Dutch. But we have to reframe to blame everyone of that country!

      I always say you have the real Dutch and the other half of import, inbred stupid ones.

      Being Rude is something in the eye of the beholder as i have many friends from Vlaanderen (Flemish), England and Americans. Even i was visited them and went for historical places they told me i was loud and rude and that was not done.
      That was a shock to me as for me i was respectful, attend and enthusiastic to learn things. After talking with al of them (the Beldian was the one to say that to me the others didn’t dare to say anything but agreed) I gave them a example if i was what they thought they found that scary but noted the difference.

      Nowdays I am even more restricted around them and reduced my loudness, rudeness was hard as that was not me. I stopped talking the most of the times untill they speaking nonsenses.. But it doesn’t feel nice as it feel i am restricted a lot……….

    2. These generalizations have little value. But having visited the Netherlands and worked with Dutch people, I have the impression that the Dutch are the most friendly, open, cosmopolitan people you can meet. Also their mastery of US and UK English language idiom is uncanny.

      That said I had one Dutch person give me some brutal side eye when I suggested that the Dutch language sounded a bit like German with simplified grammar. Probably deserved.

  9. Of course, he didn’t bother clearing his image by giving his story side for last season’s ending.
    Oh well, hopefully in a more distant future, if not sooner.

    People are willing to call others by all possible names live on air.

    As much as I’d be happy about Spa staying, something has to give way because no space for all at once.

    COTD raises valid points. Guidance indeed needs improving.

  10. CotD does that thing that so many people do. They start analysing at the braking point, and not before it.
    That’s the point where Russell got it wrong, and that’s what he was penalised for.
    Gasly made the same choice, which is why he received the same penalty.

    The biggest problem behind these incidents is that the same basic circumstances, actions and consequences have happened dozens of times, but have only rarely been penalised.
    Inconsistency sucks, and always leads to controversy.

    1. Exactly.
      The Redbull drivers almost all of them behave this way every yeaer. At the very last minute they pull slightly ahead once the other driver has committed to a racing line then they try to block at the same time essentially changing their lines and if the stewards can’t see this then they have no business being stewards.
      Russell essentially had nowhere to go and as such isn’t responsible for the accident.

  11. Did anyone catch the alarming comment by Ted Kravitz on Sunday in a similar vein to the autistic comment? Pretty sure he used a physical disability to describe a car’s handling.

    1. @webbo82
      I haven’t heard that, but referring to a car or any non-living object with a physical disability is a non-issue.

      1. I have no idea what @webbo82 is talking about either – but it wouldn’t be the car taking offence that would be the problem, @jerejj. It would be the people suffering whatever ailment is supposedly being referred to, as it’s being referred to in a negative way.
        Speaking about the ailment or condition as a negative is the problem.

        Anyway – it’s probably nothing, and just someone looking for something else to be offended by.

        1. I think it depends. If you said a car handled like it has some kind of specific congenital disorder I think that’s potentially offensive to a lot of humans and their families. If you said it looks like it has a sprained ankle, then that’s different.

          1. Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone really wants to be categorised by their condition, regardless of what it is.

    2. @webbo82 sky is always gotten away with things like that.

  12. Briefly he thanked everybody for his opportunity to be a race director

  13. Masi managed to counter the Mercedes control of F1. Hat’s off.

    1. He is a hero.

  14. I watched Palmers analysis and I’m more on Russels side now. And I think he successfully distinguished the Gasly case. However I still don’t think anyone can articulate a rule governing both cases.

    To Palmers argument, Russell was up on the curb and from the point he braked he did everything possible to not have a colisión. To those who say, he should have foreseen being passed on the outside and brakes earlier and simply given up the corner in advance, 1. He can see the future and know how hard Perez will brake or whether he will lock up or whatever and 2. To paraphrase a famous Race Director, it’s a motor race.

    He also looked at the Hamilton incident in the same corner and i would say that was more avoidable because it was farther along and Hamilton basically chose, post apex, to try to accelerate under Albon and misjudged it.

    1. Russell didn’t need to foresee anything, because it was already starting 300m before the corner, and was a complete certainty by the 150m point. They brake at around the 90m there on the first lap.
      I’m not saying Russell should have given up the position – but I am saying he should have braked a little earlier to leave some margin for error in case Perez did squeeze him. Some people are erroneously stating that Perez was taking all the risk, but that simply isn’t the case.
      Nobody seems to have recognised just how easily that contact could have torn off Russell’s own front wing or caused a puncture. And with the way they are currently applying the rules, they probably would have called it a racing incident if Russell’s car had been damaged.
      Further to that, if we analyse Russell’s own line – where would he have been on exit even without the contact? I’d suggest he’d be squeezing Perez off the track anyway, which would still be a penalty regardless.

      Are you saying that Masi was right all along? Just let them go at it amongst themselves?
      That approach is often more entertaining, isn’t it… But it just so happens that it gets people very upset these days.

      1. Bottom line for me…Checo did the right things and could not have known how much control or out of control GR was with his car. All Checo could do was leave space which is the fair thing to do. Brundle ended up changing his mind and calling GR’s penalty harsh, but I agreed and still do with his initial reaction which was that Checo had earned the right to his racing line and to not be hit.

        GR’s claim that by then he was committed and there was nothing he could do is all well and good, but how was Checo to know that? Drivers are not going to ruin their own race by always going extremely wide just in case someone else is not in control of their car on the inside. Drivers have to presume much of the time that said inside drivers are controlling their car and not driving such that they are helpless and might go across the track out of control and either hit someone or go off. Drivers have to presume other drivers are out there to race hard but not take themselves out by driving into one another. At some point a leading driver gets to take his line and ownership of the corner and has to take the chance that other drivers are being fair and trying to preserve their own chances of finishing races too. Checo didn’t ‘turn in to GR’ he turned into a racing line he had earned to take unscathed through leaving room and hard racing. GR couldn’t accommodate that and was therefore penalized.

      2. A few years back, commentators would often say in this sort of incident that one of the cars (in this case Russell) was taking his usual or natural racing line, so the onus is on the other driver to avoid the collision. I don’t think all these penalties are in any way good for the sport, and I don’t think it is good if people can watch it over and over again from six different angles and still be arguing about which driver was at fault. If it is that contentious, the rules need changing so that they are objective, not subjective.

        I started wondering what F1 would be like if you had “lane markings”, even if there were just virtual marks superimposed on the TV screen. So imagine a corner and the straight leading into it and the corner itself had a dotted line one cars width wide around the inside, and the same around the outside. Then you could have a rule that if any part of another car was alongside you, you are not allowed to cross the dotted line on that side. If no car is alongside you, you can take whatever line you want through a corner, but if the guy behind has got his nose inside you on the way into the corner, you have to leave that inside lane for him all the way through, and equally he has to find a way to keep to that inside lane. If there is a collision, whoever is on the wrong side of their dotted line is at fault. Do away with all the arguments about racing lines and sliding under braking and didn’t see him, etc, just make it a black and white rule with no room for experts to come up with biased exceptions.

        Coupled with that, for many many years, I’ve wondered why F1 cars have not developed proximity alerts of some sort. So often we hear the ex-driver saying “well the mirrors on an f1 car are so small, he wouldn’t have known the other car was there”. There days, with all of our tech, wouldn’t it be possible in some way to put transmitters and sensors on the sides of cars and a pair of red lights in the cockpit to show drivers that there is another car with some part alongside you, so don’t pretend you didn’t know they were there.

  15. Comparing Stroll to Autistic person is an insult to all those who stand up against this ailment and fight to live and survive. The commentator is removed and should learn to respect those who struggle every moment of their existence to battle with this ailment. He should have hurled direct abuses instead and everyone would have lovingly accepted that. Some might even have joined in for the fun of it .

    1. I think a professional commentator should have known better. However, we should all look at our own use of language and not be too quick to cast the first stone. Listen to the world around you. If someone is making a meal of measuring something out, you might hear someone else making a disparaging remark about they must be OCD or something, someone swearing profusely because they’ve hit their thumb with a hammer might say “oops, I think I went all Tourettes there for a moment”, people who cannot be bothered to spell correctly use the excuse that they are a little bit dyslexic. All of these uses are bad because they all imply that a mental health condition is just an excuse for laziness or poor behaviour, a choice rather than a genuine affliction and illness. We’ve probably all said things in the past which, on reflection, we wouldn’t say again, but like I said a professional commentator who is choosing his words carefully and for effect really should know better.

  16. Cheers for COTD, I’ve been backwards and forwards on that accident in a few threads so I stayed away from commenting. I do think we’ll be discussing the rules of engagement many more times this year unless something is changed. Perhaps when different drivers are on the receiving end of penalties then viewpoints might change, time will tell.

    As last year proved at times, let them race resulted in some seriously unsporting behaviour (by more than 2 drivers). Hopefully they can find a better balance.

    The other thing that needs sorting is why first lap contact at the front seems to warrant a penalty while further back there is often no action taken. Also would be nice to clarify how Sainz was allowed to leave the track, floor it to gain an advantage and then not be penalised at all as it saved him a place.

Comments are closed.