Last-lap 2008 title-decider not like “manipulated” 2021 finale – Hamilton

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton says there is no comparison between the stunning circumstances of his 2008 championship success and controversial defeat last year.

In brief

‘Someone made a decision’ to manipulate 2021 finale – Hamilton

Ahead of Formula 1’s return to Yas Marina this weekend, where the championship was decided in deeply contentious circumstances a year ago, Hamilton made it clear he believes the title was taken away from him in 2021.

Speaking to Timo Glock in a feature for Sky on the 2008 championship decider, Hamilton said the dramatic turn of events in that race “was different [to 2021] because this one wasn’t manipulated by anybody – someone made a decision for that result to be the way it was, basically.”

Hamilton said there were “similarities” to “the pain of losing in 2007” and his fear during the final laps of the 2008 race that the championship had slipped through his fingers again. He clinched that title after passing Glock, who had lost grip as he was still running on dry weather tyres in wet conditions, at the final corner.

Race start, Interlagos, 2022
Poll: Rate the race: 2022 Brazilian Grand Prix
Following the finale Glock received abuse from some who claimed he had deliberately slowed to let Hamilton pass him. The now seven-times champion told his former rival: “I’m sorry at the time that I didn’t understand what was going on for you in your world.

“I was very young, I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to support you in that time. If that was today I know I could be there and support you. But anyways, you’ve dealt with it amazing.”

Bearman lands Prema F2 drive

Ferrari Driver Academy member Oliver Bearman, who missed out on the Formula 3 title by just seven points this year, will move up to Formula 2 next season. Bearman, who won Formula 4 titles in Italy and Germany last year, will remain with his Prema team as he steps up a category.

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

Comment of the day

Hamilton’s early second pit stop on Sunday made sense but was still a disappointment, says @Adrianmorse:

I was a bit disappointed when Mercedes called in Hamilton in reaction to Perez’s pit stop. Their reasoning made sense, of course, to protect track position (which would not have been needed as Perez was unable to keep drivers on soft tyres behind) and that the soft tyre would have been faster throughout.

However, it negated any benefit Hamilton had from going long in the first stint. Moreover, if they had dared to wait, he could have pitted during the safety car. That might have put him ahead of Russell, and even if he had still come out behind, he would have had a few more laps of tyre life, which may have made an attack feasible.

Don’t get me wrong, Russell fully deserved the win this weekend, whereas Hamilton had a poor qualifying and a tangle with Verstappen, but on the other hand, Russell has also benefited from a SC pit stop twice this year compared to his team mate.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Loki, Tom Watson, Deej92 and Forzarogo!

On this day in motorsport

  • 35 years ago today Gerhard Berger won the last race of the season at Adelaide, for Ferrari. It was the last race for TAG-Porsche and Motori Moderni engines.

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.

98 comments on “Last-lap 2008 title-decider not like “manipulated” 2021 finale – Hamilton”

  1. It’s not like Hamilton was on wet tires in the dry in Abu Dhabi. So yea, the comparison between them doesn’t make sense. Speaking of tires.. If Hamilton would have pit, or Mercedes called him to pit for fresh tires like Red Bull had done, the championship story would be over.

    They would’ve started the final lap on an even playing field, and the winner would’ve been the winner.

    No one would notice or remember the lap cars stuff except for a dope final lap on equal points to the championship. They would think “Oh that’s convenient. We can watch them race.”

    We wouldn’t have to hear about this every weekend in and out.

    1. RB would have stayed out for position and Masi would have ended the race by the rules. FIA wanted a new winner to spice things up and they were thinking that it would make this year even more exciting except RB was the only team to show up with a car.

      1. RB would have stayed out for position and Masi would have ended the race by the rules.

        I’m not at all surprised that people still put forward this argument – but to put it bluntly, it’s absolute garbage.

        Masi created the opportunity for them to race to a fair and sporting finish – he had absolutely no interest in who came out on top.

        1. Masi created the opportunity for them to race to a fair and sporting finish – he had absolutely no interest in who came out on top.

          That can never be proven, and it is a grey cloud that will hang over F1 for decades to come.

          1. It can’t really be proven either way, unless Masi himself proves it by saying so in his own words.
            In which case, everyone who disagrees will reject it anyway.

        2. I’m not surprised you disagree with it, but your disagreement is absolute garbage.

          1. Do you truly believe that with everything that happened throughout the entire season, the agreements with the teams in place and all the commercial pressures within F1 and related media, the FIA (or just Masi) only wanted Verstappen to win?
            With at least a thousand other potential ways to rig it, they (he) chose the most obvious way to make it controversial?


        3. While we’re engaged in revisionism, you don’t think Wheatley’s call to Masi (that he subsequently parroted to Wolff) would’ve been slightly different?
          Or that Max would have hesitated putting Hamilton off the track?

          1. I think both Mercedes and Red Bull were equally unacceptable in their communication with Race Direction.
            But that doesn’t make any difference – it was the Race Director’s call to make. And he did, with or without suggestion from either party. Given that both teams were arguing (for opposing things) it was inevitable that one would appear to get what they wanted and the other would appear to be ‘compromised.’
            Their communal agreement was to give preference to finishing under racing conditions, which is what Masi referenced over the radio. It was a race, and they went racing – not trundling around behind a SC.

            If Verstappen had punted Hamilton off the track, he would have been penalised for it, wouldn’t he.
            Unless you also believe that the FIA/Masi were out to make Verstappen champion regardless…

        4. If

          FIA wanted a new winner to spice things up

          then why did Michael not pass to Stewards the first lap incident where Lewis cut the chicane and gained a position?

          1. Cause Lewis didnt gain a position, and he didnt cut the corner but was driven off the track by the crashkid.

        5. It’s not a garbage argument. The garbage argument is that Hamilton had the ability and reason to pit which is always clouded in the hindsight of Masi changing the rules. Strategies can’t be formed around assuming the officials will change the rules, after all.

          1. No hindsight needed. Foresight was needed at the time.

            There were more than enough laps left at the time to restart under green. It was a 50:50 gamble to pit or not to pit.
            Being several seconds a lap faster on fresh tyres kinda stacks those odds, though…

          2. You’re wrong but I’m sure you’re feeling vindicated in getting attention.

        6. Part of what makes the sport what it is, is the risk calculation within a given set of circumstances, and given set of rules. Crash can happen, SC can happen, rain can happen. However, the race director rushing and bypassing SC protocol, without any precedent, was never part of the realm of possibility. Masi did not create a chance for a fair finale. He affected the natural play of circumstances, which could have likely favoured Hamilton, and manipulated the game such that that possibility was entirely removed. So, Masi made sure that the coin would only land on tails, never on heads. Everyone with a minimum sense of fairness and respect for a game, knows that Masi chose the outcome, willingly or not. He did. It was the consequence of his actions. Fairness would have been to show red flags and neutralise the race. Everyone would have put on fresh soft tyres and raced to the end on equal footing.

    2. That old, long discredited, chestnut still thought to have legs?

    3. If Hamilton would have pit, or Mercedes called him to pit for fresh tires like Red Bull had done,

      If Mercedes had pitted, Red Bull wouldn’t and then had Masi followed the rules (only reasonable thing for the RD to do, follow the rules) , Max would be the champion.

      Hence Mercedes didn’t pit.

      But Masi didn’t follow his rules.

    4. @heidenh This comment has more truth than Lewis’ claim. Mercedes and Lewis are sore losers and keep bringing up excuses for their mistake. Probably not a popular opinion on this website though. Mercedes have made 3 tactical errors in the last 3 GP’s. They could have won with the right decision, just like last year.

      1. In AD2021, Mercedes tactical call would have been a mistake in many circumstances, but it actually wasn’t in the end. It look longer than expected to clear the Williams, and by the rules the race should have finished behind the safety car. It would have been exactly the right call, had Masi not thrown the rulebook pot of the window and handed the races to Max on a silver platter.

        So please stop with the drivel that it was all a Mercedes mistake and the rest was all fair and dandy.

        1. Please stop suggesting that Mercedes were completely free of all responsibility for the consequences of their strategic choices.
          If they’d pitted for fresh tyres, they’d have been much faster than Verstappen on the final lap.

          The strategic call was little more than a 50:50 gamble. Nobody knew at the time whether it would finish under SC or green – but both outcomes were totally viable at the time the strategy choice was made.
          Mercedes chose track position, Red Bull chose speed.

          1. Sorry S, your point about the whole tyre strategy is complete nonsense here’s why. If Mercedes pitted Hamilton and lost track position, Rbr would’ve most certainly stayed out. Rbr sporting director would’ve probably encouraged finishing under the safety car instead of suggesting to only allow the lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to unlap, since Masi effectively did exactly what Rbr wanted for the ending we all saw. Main point Masi didn’t make the decision it was made for him by one of the competing teams. Yes Rbr were main benefactors and Mercs the aggrieved, the real losers were F1, Max’s first championship (the manner in which it was won) and Hamilton denied his record 8th.

          2. Ah yea, the guy that you are defending has been fired from his job after an investigation of the race. So if the governing body doesn’t think his descision making skills aren’t good enough, I don’t know how you can justify it. They removed him from his post so stuff like this wouldn’t ever happen again. FIA ended this arguement for you and everyone.

          3. If Mercedes pitted Hamilton and lost track position, Rbr would’ve most certainly stayed out.

            Correct, @icarby. The two teams were always going to oppose each other strategically and one of them was bound to win as a result of that decision, while the other was bound to come second.

            Rbr sporting director would’ve probably encouraged finishing under the safety car instead of suggesting to only allow the lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to unlap

            So? You mean like Wolff was doing?

            since Masi effectively did exactly what Rbr wanted for the ending we all saw. Main point Masi didn’t make the decision it was made for him by one of the competing teams.

            Masi made his own choice, and would have done so even without any communication from the teams.
            Really, the number of people who seem to seriously believe that Red Bull’s comment to Masi was more powerful than Toto’s are unbelievable. Wolff was shouting at Masi, while Red Bull simply reminded him of their collective prior agreement (all teams + FIA) to prioritise finishing under green.

          4. Ah yea, the guy that you are defending has been fired from his job after an investigation of the race. They removed him from his post so stuff like this wouldn’t ever happen again.

            Removing Masi hasn’t actually solved any problems though, Alberto.
            The FIA changing approach in certain areas has – and Masi could easily have done that. Change a few rules, lay down a few guidelines and have stricter enforcement of them. Any Race Director can do that.
            The current system certainly isn’t perfect either, as they’ve sacked one of the new ones this year too.

            When you know how the role of the FIA F1 Race Director works, you understand that it isn’t in isolation. It’s a collaboration with the other FIA members and F1’s competitors. It was last year, and it still is this year – you just don’t hear all the communication between them anymore because it isn’t made public.

          5. They were all expecting the crash to be cleared up in good time for a green flag finish. I bet there was a sweat on down in the Merc garage before the track marshals delays gave them hope of a SC finish.

          6. As mentioned, RBR had the luxury of just being able to do the opposite of Mercedes. So, Mercedes had the option of being behind on slightly fresher tyres or ahead on old tyres. Neither were a good option, and had the race ended under the safety car (as it should have done by the rules in this situation) then sacrificing track position would’ve been rightly seen as an idiotic move.

            Had things been the other way around, assuming Masi still broke the rules as he did, it would have been a very hard fight to the line. Max’s tyres would still have been very good, so they’d have been fairly evenly matched for the last lap.

            Mercedes were in a no-win situation. There was no right call when the safety car came out. In the end, though, the Mercedes call was the right call… Until the officials threw the rules or of the window and handed the win to Max on a somber platter.

    5. I disagree with all of the speculations! lol

      Were I in the position, rule-book thumping whinos and people who supported the 16 year child to the end of the earth to be champion all can keep speculating.
      Because, were I in race director position.. Siding with 1 driver is the last thing on my mind. (The media can point fingers as to who I root for all they want. But racing is racing. On the other hand – safety car finish’s are not racing.) The season was crazy, ups and downs. Battles, and controversary from start to finish. The last thing I would want on a season like that would be to finished with a tied championship under safety car. Masi did what he had to do.
      Proof of concept:

      Put away speculation, with…. some more speculation – except the race always finished under safety car.
      RBR pits, Merc stay out. Safety car finish. BORING.
      Merc pits, RBR stays out. Safety car finish. BORING.

      Either version of the situation is a load I wouldn’t want in my sport.

  2. Starting in Brazil everything about last season felt like a soap opera.

    Obvious penalties taking a full day to be issued, “let them race” in Brazil, that disgusting Saudi Arabia race and let’s not even start with Abu Dhabi..

    It’s a good thing this season was kind of a dud after 2021. Another season like that and Liberty Media would put them to fight in a cage.

    1. And guess which disgusting incident started the whole thing off?

  3. 2008 was what it was. The people who were there have learned to deal with that.

    And Fernando Alonso is still listed as the winner of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.

    1. I think that one came back on him in the 2010 finale as he followed Petrov too slow out of the hairpin lap after lap after lap after lap…

      1. @reg And we now have DRS because of that…

        1. Imagine that in the after the race show on F1TV the commenter brought up Abu Dhabi saying “passing is easy there” @geemac – And yeah, DRS did make it rather easier, although last year we did see some solid defences despite that.

    2. And Fernando Alonso is still listed as the winner of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.

      A disgrace, really. Massa was robbed. The 2008 WDC belongs to him

  4. I am disgusted by Ferrari and McLaren for their lack of action at Abu Dhabi as their drivers were negatively impacted by Masi’s actions and neither team said a word.

    1. Why would they? They had nothing substantial to gain from it.
      They also know that doing so would likely backfire on them in the future, as it always does in F1.

      1. @jimfromus Right. Only Sainz had reason to complain. He was denied a chance to attack Max and Lewis for a better spot on the podium.

        1. @marcusaurelius He was on older tyres than both, in a substantially slower car.

          1. So he wasn’t going to overtake anyone ahead of him, Craig.
            His final lap time was slower than both of the leaders.

          2. That’s utterly irrelevant, a motor race is about every driver on track not just whoever’s fighting for the lead. No one should be deliberately disadvantaged like Saniz, Riccardo and Stroll were (the latter 2 having also pitted but weren’t allowed to unlap themselves so couldn’t use their tyres).

          3. You’re right, they shouldn’t.
            But on that occasion, it didn’t matter. It really isn’t a big deal, and even everyone involved is over it.

            Maybe it’s time you were too.

      2. If you see someone being wronged, and you don’t do anything about it, because you “have nothing to gain” in your selfish narrow-minded world, you allow what’s wrong to grow to a level beyond that which you can handle, and then one day it will come for you, and you won’t be able to do anything about it. And nobody will come to your rescue.

  5. 2007 was contentious with Alonso gifting the WDC to an opposing team, and also whether the Mclaren drivers should have been allowed points at all.

    2008 had the Derek Warwick incident in Spa.

    In 2021 there was Masi and …

    1. It wasn’t Alonso who accidentally drove into a gravel trap on his way into the pits, or engaged his pit limiter while at racing speeds.

  6. Hamilton is right: ‘difference’ is, whilst 2021 was manipulated, 2008 was a fix. What’s common between the two, neither Lewis nor Max were responsible for what happened. But I guess Ted Kravitz is okay with it, eh?

    Now, would @keithcollantine and team do us all a favour and starting referring to 2008 as controversial every single time it’s mentioned as well, yes?

    1. How was 2008 fixed?

      1. I think that he refers to Singapore.

    2. It wasn’t a fix in any way, shape or form.

  7. Ah, Hamilton, little drama queen; you only say that because you won the 2008 title, but not the 2021 title. However, I hate verstappen even more after what he did to you yesterday.

    1. He said that because it is true. Hamilton overtaking Glock on the final corner was not down to manipulation or cheating or anything untoward. Abu Dhabi though is one of the biggest black stains on this sport (that doesnt include a driver death)

      1. The biggest black stain, except for all the other big black stains…?

        1. Prost 89, Schumacher 94, Verstappen 21.

          1. what did Verstappen do?

          2. Defeated Hamilton ;)

          3. Prost 89, which wasn’t dangerous, wasn’t ok, but not senna’s 90 at over 200 kmh?

  8. Everyone talks about what Masi did, but no one is trying to consider how difficult his position was.

    If he had not allowed them to race then instead of what happened we would be talking about how the championship was manipulated so that Hamilton would win the championship because he is their favourite, the FIA golden boy, to get the 8th championship, Mercedes own FIA blah blah blah…

    Damned if you do damned if you don’t…

    1. Let’s not forget that on pace Verstappen and red bull weren’t really there during that weekend @exeviolthor, so if ultimately Verstappen would not have been able to overtake Hamilton, the story might well have been that Perez ferocious defense and the late SC at least gave him the opportunity to try, as a last show of how strongly fought the season was, and how strong a comeback Hamilton and Mercedes had.

      And then rather than feeling like a bit of a damp squib of a fight with only Red bull fully in it full time, this season would be a vindication of Verstappens pedigree.

      1. Not really. If he had followed the written roles and procedures, he could legitimately point to them and show what he had to do. He could even point to his own previous statements about how he was obliged to handle safety cars.

        It’s specifically by ignoring the roles and procedures he opened himself up to criticism. If he followed the rules and there’s a bad consequence, the rules are to blame, not him. As he ignored the rules, the blame is all on him.

        1. @lucifer

          Yes, but RB would argue that there was time to let the unlapped cars pass the safety car earlier than they did and that the race could have resumed.

          What he did in the end was clearly wrong no matter how you look at it, but there was nothing that he could have done to escape from heavy criticism by the losing side.

          1. The problem was that by the time Masi ordered the 5 lapped cars past, the track was still not clear and the stewards were technically still clearing up Latifi’s accident. Of course, Masi doesn’t care what the marshalls think, so gave the order to end the safety car period.

    2. Everyone talks about what Masi did, but no one is trying to consider how difficult his position was.

      His job was to ensure that the race was run in a safe manner (as much as possible in F1) and according to the rules.
      He failed on the latter, whether by deliberate misdeed or by pressure from RBR to break the rules makes no difference.
      The result was not a fair and just result, and even Hans Christian has admitted as much.

      Can the Max fans not, finally, accept that MV 2021 was a lie?

      On topic for this article – Glock got abuse, like Latifi, for an imagined event.
      He was only in the position he was in the field because he hadn’t pitted for new tyres, as the conditions deteriorated his slick tyres were more and more of a problem, and he lost positions rapidly. One of those lost positions was lost to Hamilton.

      1. Horner did not admit what you say. He said that Masi’s only mistake was not to let all unlapped cars to unlap. This is very different to saying that Horner admitted that the result was not a fair and just result.

        If he wanted to let the unlapped cars to unlap he had all the time in the world to do it earlier. Doing this in the last minute was clearly wrong.

        In my opinion Masi is only guilty of buckling under pressure. On the one hand he had Mercedes who wanted the race to finish under the safety car and on the other he had Red Bull who wanted one more lap. Either choice would lead to him being branded as favouring the eventual winner.

        In hindsight, FIA should have intervened much earlier in the season and ban the teams from communicating with the race director. I cannot blame FIA either, though, as hindsight is a great thing…

      2. It’s very simple: hamilton deserved the victory in abu dhabi and verstappen the title, and if you don’t know where to find the other points for verstappen, you can dig in baku, hungary, imola, silverstone, monza (where verstappen would’ve finished ahead without any accident if not for a slow pit stop).

    3. Not really, his position was very easy to follow through with if he’d followed the rules as he had previously followed and clarified them as. Sure there would have been disappointment over a bit of a disappointing ending behind the safety car but we wouldn’t be talking about it now.

  9. Another lesson in how to give yourself emotional damage according to the Lewis Hamilton method.

  10. So is Sir Lewis Hamilton surrendering his 2008 championship in light of what happened in Singapore?
    He was a worthy champion then, Max is a worthy champion now.
    Maybe he should embrace his Brazilian citizenship more than the British one.

    1. What’s Singapore got to do with it? Ferrari messed up their pitstop on their own backs, no one else’s

      1. Ferrari may have messed up their pitstops, but they were forced by Briatore making Piquet crash with FA’s total knowledge and connivence.

        1. However this makes me think about baku 2021 ending: it’s pretty obvious if it weren’t for verstappen’s tyre problem, hamilton would’ve ended 3rd instead of out of the points: an opportunity to make a mistake was created by someone else, in both cases, and the team\driver took it.

  11. “was different [to 2021] because this one wasn’t manipulated by anybody – someone made a decision for that result to be the way it was, basically.”

    And we even know the name of that someone – it’s Sir Lewis Hamilton, who made ZERO attempt to defend his position into Turn 5. Any other driver who is fighting for the championship, would defend his position for that 1 single, 5.281 kilometre lap. Not Sir Hamilton though, apparently The GOAT, who left all the space for Max to attack. The only person responsible for result of that race was Sir Hamilton and his manipulated lack of defence against driver running in 2nd postion, giving away the win without a fight.

    1. I hope Massi get to know this and comes out swinging. He needs to clear his name and sue these people for a zillion $’s.

    2. This is it for me……….. Lewis was in the lead on that last lap, if he had defended like Perez did to him earlier in the race, he would be an 8 time champ. He didnt/couldnt, so Max overtook him and was champion. No manipulation, no title being handed to anyone. Its not Max’s fault Merc rely too much on the computer mathematics rather than listening to their own drivers when it comes to calls from the pit lane.

      1. He does attempt to defend. However, he was on cold, dead, hard tyres against Max’s brand new softs. He had no grip. The chances of keeping Max behind him were infinitesimal.

        1. He could have shown him the outside and ran him wide a bit at least. I think he was caught napping.
          If he had even exited the corner level instead of behind he would have breezed past Max.
          I don’t think the RB had the straight line speed to get past any other way.

          1. Knowing Max’s desperation in Saudi Arabia, it really doesn’t matter if Hamilton somehow kept the lead on the final lap. Without a doubt, even if they were both on fresh soft tyres, it would have ended with contact and damage.

        2. I think hamilton, not only in abu dhabi but for example also in usa this year, doesn’t defend as aggressively as other drivers too, and sometimes he loses out, think about russel’s or verstappen’s defensive moves.

    3. To be fair to Hamilton, it was largely down to his team’s choice of strategy.
      There was no reason to believe that the race would certainly finish under SC. They took a gamble that it would, stayed out and maintained track position. Red Bull did the opposite, as everyone would expect.
      Race went green, they were slower, Verstappen took the lead. Gamble failed.

      Even without Masi bending some rules, it could still easily have finished under green and the result would be the same.
      Hamilton fans would be lamenting the team’s choice of strategy rather than trying to shift the focus away from their part in the result and blaming someone else.

      “Be on the right tyres at the right time” is one of the older phrases in motorsport. Mercedes weren’t, on that occasion.

      1. Race went green, they were slower, Verstappen took the lead. Gamble failed.

        The gamble would have succeeded if Masi had followed the rules. It only failed because the officials broke their own rules. That’s not “losing a bet”, that’s not far off race fixing… Just see the number of bookies who paid out on or refunded bets placed on Hamilton.

        1. The gamble would have succeeded if Masi had followed the rules.

          But could equally have still failed, depending on how the Latifi recovery played out.

          It’d be really great if more people considered the circumstances rather than just the outcome.

          There was no race fixing. Hamilton lost on the track because his tyres were stuffed and Verstappen had fresh ones.
          Team choices.

          1. Hamilton lost on track because the officials broke the rules, end of.

            Had the incident been cleared quicker, the rules followed and the race restarted, it would be the team’s responsibility. With the incident taking as long as it did to clear, had the officials followed the rules the race would have ended under the safety car. The only reason it didn’t was due to the officials ignoring the rule book. That’s not the team’s responsibility, it’s all down to the officials.

            As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the team were in a no win situation. There was no optimal call to make. They chose what they thought was best and, as it turns out, they made exactly the right call in the circumstances… Except that the officials chose to break the rules, which suddenly obliterated the advantage of that correct call.

          2. Hamilton lost on track because the officials broke the rules, end of.

            That’s only the ‘end of’ if it can be proven that Verstappen was going to be awarded the win regardless of any other circumstances.
            If it can’t be proven (and it never will) then it’s not the ‘end of.’
            However, the championship is over and a winner has been crowned – that is the ‘end of.’

            As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the team were in a no win situation.

            I don’t agree. The only way they couldn’t win, as I just said, is if the results were to be rigged.
            And if you believe that to be the case, why are you watching something that calls itself a sporting competition?

            They chose what they thought was best and, as it turns out, they made exactly the right call in the circumstances…

            Well, clearly not, because they didn’t win. They chose a strategy that made them the slower car after the restart.
            IF it hadn’t restarted, Hamilton would have won and Verstappen would have lost. However, it did restart (and could have anyway even without fiddling the rules) and the result would have been the opposite.
            The teams made their strategic choices based on their assumption of how much time was left and whether or not the race would restart, and they enjoyed/suffered the consequences of such.

            Look, you are clearly focused more on the circumstances (imagined or otherwise) that created the final racing lap rather than the simple fact that there was one.
            You have your opinion on why that lap was run under competition, and you believe it was rigged against Mercedes.
            With that in mind, there is no sensible discussion to be had. Your mind is closed and you refuse to see it any other way.

          3. Hamilton lost because Masi decided to change the rules mid race. Had he followed the rules the race would have either ended under SC or restarted with unlapped cars, in which case it’s fair to assume LH would have opened enough of a gap to cruise to the flag (we will never know for sure but it seems like the most likely scenario). Mercerdes did what they had to do, they could not have, nor shouldn’t have to factor in the possibility of Masi bending the rules to gift MV the win.

            If in the world cup final a team A is winning 3-0, then team B gets a penalty kick and suddenly the referee decides that the next team to score wins the game, are you going to say that team B won on merit? Sure, the ref did not give them the game, but it handed it on a silver plate.

          4. If Lewis had won then I’m guessing there would have been race fixing allegations about the lap1 incident.
            I remember Brundle at the time saying Perez should get onto Max’s gearbox for when Lewis inevitably has to give the place back. But it never happened.
            Merc got away with that decision but then lost out on the next.

    4. made ZERO attempt to defend his position into Turn 5.

      Give it a break. Yep, Sir cannot drive wheel to wheel, does not have any spatial awareness and is really not good enough for F1. But might still learn a little and improve somewhat, it is never too late.

  12. The 2008 season was more affected by what happened in Singapore…

  13. yes, let’s discuss this ones again, so much no being said yet

  14. « I’m over it, i don’t live in the past, i only watch the future »
    Oh ? Is he, really ? …

    If i admire his driving skill, i really can’t stand his drama personnality, kind of hypocrisy .

    Always words, words words, and differents actions .

    Sorry, but i won’t shred a tear for you, Lewis.

    Move on, it’s been a year, it’s over, live on present !
    It’s super boring and heavy now.
    Always the same story over and over and over.
    Whaaaaa, Masi, blablablablablablablablablabla.
    MOVE ON !!!

  15. Of course, Glock/Toyota didn’t manipulate anything.

    F1 can’t make a China return if the country never moves on from COVID, as the rest did a little while ago.

    Max passed his driving test on the first attempt, but apparently, the approach to errors is more lenient in the Netherlands or Belgium because failure to give way should be an automatic test fail.

    If Haas are truly going to let Mick go in favor of a semi-retired driver, they’ll shoot themselves in the foot.
    I’m just unconvinced he could realistically be an improvement from Mick, considering he hasn’t raced actively post-2019, while Mick already competes in F1 & in the relevant team, so weird logic.

    I share COTD’s views.

  16. You can’t smash your direct rival out of a race and gain a 26 point swing, then complain about losing 7 points down the line.
    He was not robbed of the title, just the AD race win.

    1. Absolutely, that’s what I always said as well. Btw, it’s probably 14-15 points in abu dhabi but we’re talking overall 45 in hamilton’s favour, so the 2021 season’s score still ended up talking up hamilton’s performance.

  17. Will not shed a tear for the spineless Timo. I do not mean that he gave up his position deliberately, but did not make the slightest effort to defend it. Not a racer. The infamy will never be forgiven nor forgotten.

    1. Given the pace difference between the two it is not surprising he didn’t put up a fight.

      1. Exactly the same scenario as Abu Dhabi. 2 cars on different strategies facing the consequences of their decisions.

        1. However there were only 2 sec in abu dhabi between their tyres; much much more in brazil.

          1. Enough for a position change. That’s ultimately all that matters.

    2. I think he was on slicks in conditions that could basically be defined full wet in the last lap, there’s recently been an onboard by f1 about his full lap, you will see he’s losing 15 sec or more in the whole lap and that he can barely stay on track, I doubt you’re really in a position to defend.

Comments are closed.