The controversial conclusion to the 2021 Formula 1 season was something no one involved in running the championship should want to see a repeat of.
The title fight between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton was essentially decided by the FIA F1 race director’s failure to follow the series’ own rule book. A year-long competition undermined by a single, incomprehensible decision which was plainly at odds with the rules.It was never likely that particular situation would be repeated this year, for the simple reason that Verstappen has long been so far ahead that his second title win has been a foregone conclusion for weeks. No one could argue the events of Sunday diminished his claim to the title.
Yet a similar sense of incomprehension greeted some moments of yesterday’s often baffling title-decider. Teams were confused over fundamental matters of how the race was being run, such as how points would be awarded and even whether the race had finished. Meanwhile drivers were livid over a shocking lapse in safety standards.
It added up to another championship-decider which did not show F1 at its best.
Too wet to race
The race began on time but the circuit was drenched. Within a matter of minutes one car was in the barrier, another was pulled off the track, a third has driving around with an advertising board blocking the view ahead and the red flags were out. Drivers at the back of the field complained that visibility was non-existent.
Inevitably, this led many to question whether the initial start should have happened. Whether to race in the rain is a dilemma F1 often faces and it isn’t an easy call to get right. Later, during the subsequent suspension, race control made one attempt to restart proceedings which had to be abandoned when the conditions did not improve as expected.
However the decision to use a standing start in the first place has to be questioned. F1 has the option of commencing proceedings behind the Safety Car, which forces all drivers to use heavily-treaded wet weather tyres instead of intermediates, which are less effective at clearing water away. This was eventually done for the restart, which proceeded successfully.
The decision not to hold a standing restart is often unpopular as drivers such as Carlos Sainz Jnr acknowledged. But on this occasion it may have been the right call.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Crane on track
Unquestionably the most serious matter and the one which angered drivers the most was the presence of recovery vehicles on the track during the Safety Car period which followed the original start. Several drivers noted it and conveyed their concerns at the time including Sebastian Vettel, Sergio Perez, Zhou Guanyu and Nicholas Latifi.
But the most shocked driver was Pierre Gasly. While the others were part of the Safety Car queue, Gasly had pitted and was driving more quickly in order to catch up with them. When he saw a crane unexpectedly appear through the gloom with no prior warning, he was horrified – reminded of the circumstances in which Jules Bianchi suffered fatal injuries when he struck such a vehicle at the same track eight years earlier.
The conditions and circumstances yesterday were much the same: The track was wet and getting wetter, and drivers aside from Gasly were circulating on intermediate tyres which were increasingly unsuitable for the conditions. The race was red-flagged due to the deteriorating conditions as Gasly approached the crane and a marshal who was pulling Sainz’s damaged Ferrari out of the way. The crane was parked on the outside of a right-hand turn where it could easily be struck by a spinning car.
Gasly was later penalised for speeding under the red flag – not when he passed the crane. Following the outcry from drivers the FIA has said it will “review” why the vehicle was present by the trackside. However it noted “it is normal practice to recover cars under Safety Car and red flag conditions.” Drivers will no doubt want to know how the FIA considers that consistent with its conclusion eight years ago that “it is imperative to prevent a car ever hitting [a] crane.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Out of time
When the conditions finally improved sufficiently for the race to restart, the rules allowed only 40 minutes for it to be completed. As a result, just 28 of the scheduled 53 laps were run. How far was F1 a victim of the conditions, and how far was the lack of racing a consequence of the rulebook?
In 2012 a new rule was introduced stating races must end within a certain amount of time after they start. This was originally set at four hours, then cut to three last year. This has narrowed the window of time within which a race can happen, putting F1 at the mercy of the conditions on wet days like yesterday.
In the case of Sunday’s race, the scheduled starting time was just three-and-a-half hours before sunset, so postponing the race further wasn’t an option. But earlier in the day conditions were more favourable, and a full race might have been held had it been scheduled earlier.
F1 already needlessly shortened one race this year due to this questionable rule. Japan’s passionate fans, who many in F1 are rightly quick to praise for their devotion to the sport, certainly deserve the chance to see a race in full – especially after a three year wait.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Unexpected chequered flag
The three-hour time limit also caught teams out in other ways.
A week earlier in Singapore the race ended when the maximum two-hour race length duration was reached. In line with the rules, the chequered flag was shown on the lap after the race leader hit the two-hour mark.
But the three-hour limit appeared to be handled differently to how it had been at the Monaco Grand Prix earlier in the season, which caught out some teams who were expecting the race to continue for another lap. Some drivers carried on racing for half a lap and had to be persuaded by their teams that the race was indeed over.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Penalty call
Charles Leclerc’s five-second post-race time penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage proved the decisive moment which clinched the title for Verstappen. This wasn’t a particularly controversial decision – even Leclerc admitted it was deserved. The stewards wasted little time in handing down the penalty, though that produced an inconsistency which left Ferrari unimpressed following their long wait to learn of Sergio Perez’s post-race sanction under similar circumstances in Singapore.
Post-race penalties are an inevitable part of motorsport. But this one could have been avoided. Had there been a natural obstacle there such as a gravel trap, Leclerc might not have been able to gain an advantage in the first place. At chicanes on other circuits drivers are given specific instructions on how to rejoin the racing line in a way which loses them time – but there was no such arrangement at this corner last weekend.
F1 has introduced more consistent policing of track limits this year which on the whole has been a positive step, but as this case shows it still has work to do to stop drivers gaining an advantage by cutting corners.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Points confusion
Leclerc’s penalty was significant because it ended up deciding the championship. However this wasn’t widely realised at first due to confusion over which points system was being applied.
The FIA introduced a new points system for shortened races after F1 was criticised last year for its handling of the abandoned Belgian Grand Prix, where it awarded points for a race which officially consisted of a single lap behind the Safety Car. As 52% of the race distance was completed in Japan, it appeared the FIA’s ‘Column 3’ points system, used when 50 to 75% of a grand prix is completed, would apply.
Under the ‘Column 3’ points,Verstappen would have been one point short of taking the title by winning the race with Leclerc in third. Red Bull believed that was the situation, and during the final laps of the race were considering a pit stop for Verstappen to give him a chance of setting the fastest lap and claiming the bonus point which would make him champion.But to the surprise of Red Bull, plus their rival teams and many of those watching, the FIA decided to award full points for the race. This flew in the face of the post-Spa rules change, yet was supported by a clause in the regulations which stated the reduced points would only be awarded if the race “is suspended… and cannot be resumed”, rather than finishing at the time limit.
While many of the problems F1 encountered in its season finale was familiar, this one at least was new. But as was the case last year, at the moment F1 should have been celebrating its latest world champion, the focus was instead on the rule book.
Become a RaceFans Supporter
RaceFans is run thanks in part to the generous support of its readers. By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the same in whichever currency you use) you can help cover the costs of creating, hosting and developing RaceFans today and in the future.
Become a RaceFans Supporter today and browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:
2022 Japanese Grand Prix
- From F1 to Formula Ford, 2022 was the year of the championship anti-climax
- Suzuka points confusion didn’t take shine off title win – Verstappen
- FIA to publish findings of inquiry into use of crane during Japanese GP
- Does F1 only need slicks and wets? The case for dropping intermediate tyres
- Hamilton’s work ethic “has not changed at all” in face of difficult 2022 campaign
Sham (@sham)
10th October 2022, 15:29
Hard to argue with any points raised. The top flight of Motorsport where some of the rules make no sense, some of the rules seem to contradict other rules and some of the rules are not followed or enforced.
It really is difficult to justify this as a sport sometimes.
Don
10th October 2022, 15:42
Supposedly the top form of motorsport, when IndyCar is generally better in every way.
Sham (@sham)
10th October 2022, 17:10
It isn’t better – the fakery to close championships is no different and there is no technical competition.
S
11th October 2022, 6:32
But the racing is certainly much better, as is the championship competition.
It is a drivers championship – it’s not about the teams.
Nothing fake about it.
Don
11th October 2022, 15:04
The racing in IndyCar is always better than this joke of a way to determine a champion.
Tiberius Gracchus
11th October 2022, 23:46
I would agree that the racing in general has been better than F1, although F1 often rises to the same level, but less consistently. I like them both, but I would like to see F1 return to the pinnacle of racing. The big difference is Indycar is a spec car series with identical cars with two engine options. To me, this is the downside of the Indy cars, I miss the variety and the innovations (rear engines, turbine cars, wings,etc.) of many different makers during the 60s-early80s that for me added a lot of interest.On the other hand, many races in that era were not very exciting or competitive. What I really like about the Indy cars now is the push -to-pass system; I have come to see that this adds an extra dimension of strategy, also preventing the “DRS train”. I just wish F1would quit shooting itself in the foot.
Leroy (@g-funk)
10th October 2022, 15:36
Just an awful weekend for the FIA and F1. From Wednesday’s punting of the budget breach to everything Keith pointed out, it just looks at best like amateur hour or at worst like a concerted attempt to crown Max this weekend by any means necessary. Now we need for further news about the budget breach, which is just taking away even more space to celebrate Max. It’s a shame the FIA and F1 have screwed this up so badly because it has overshadowed a really dominant championship by Max. I’m not his biggest fan, but is undeniable how dominant he has been this year. Well done to him.
slowmo (@slowmo)
10th October 2022, 15:58
Imagine how much better this would have been as a story as a year of redemption and finally winning his first and richly deserved WDC. Instead they’ve managed to overshadow his victory with the budget certification being pushed back and the farce they made of the race. On top of that of course the budget stuff just brought up all the chat from last year which just reopened old wounds. I think they’ll make amends some what at the next race and you’re right that Verstappen is fully deserving of the title this year on his driving but what a mess they’ve made of it.
Manto
10th October 2022, 15:38
Now we get the truth about scapegoating Masi: nothing changed
M
11th October 2022, 3:27
Corrupt, inept – but not alone.
jff
10th October 2022, 15:48
When you read an article edited like this, you know it’s Keith behind his typewriter.
The formal investigation showed that starting without the extra SC lap was fully legal (and requested by the teams before the race).
The only irregularity was that only five of the eight lapped cars were allowed to unlap themselves. Nobody knows what would’ve/could’ve happened, but leaving it open with speculative/obscure edits in articles like this keeps the clicks (including mine) coming.
Keith, let it go and return to your quality journalism of a couple of years age.
nickthegreek (@nickthegreek)
10th October 2022, 15:52
you must have not read the FIA report then… looks like Keith did…
jff
10th October 2022, 16:30
Then read it for yourself: https://www.racefans.net/2022/03/19/fia-confirms-masi-made-errors-in-championship-decider-but-states-result-cannot-be-changed/
You can limit it to:
And if you don’t believe the other factual statement I made:
S
10th October 2022, 15:59
Honestly, I went to the comments before the article – saw your quote and knew instantly who wrote it.
For Keith’s clarification – yet again – Masi enabled them to have a fair, sporting, on-track competition. He did not, in any way, influence or determine the outcome of it.
The deciding of the outcome of the championship was entirely down to the teams and drivers involved, their own strategic choices and their individual performances on the day.
A great addition to this site would be a heading at the top of each article stating whether it is based on fact or is strictly an opinion piece.
slowmo (@slowmo)
10th October 2022, 16:13
I suppose the counter to that is technically even a stewards ruling is an opinion pace as it can vary from steward to steward on their interpretation. Surely an article is an opinion piece unless it’s a spreadsheet of facts. Even then the presentation of statistics can be biased.
The statement is factually correct that the decision Masi made decided the championship as without that race restarting, Hamilton was champion.
S
11th October 2022, 2:22
That’s not factually correct at all.
The race could have restarted without fiddling with interpretations of the rules as far as the teams were concerned when they made their strategic calls.
Had Latifi’s incident been cleared faster, it would have been green for the finish anyway, and Vertappen would still have won it.
drmouse (@drmouse)
11th October 2022, 8:30
Yes, had Latifi’s accident been cleared faster, the correct and proper procedures could have been followed and that would likely have led to the same conclusion.
However, it wasn’t. They had trouble clearing the car from the track and, when it was done, there was no time to complete the procedure which was laid out in the rules. Then Masi decided to offer a few parts of the rules to give a racing lap.
Once Masi had given said orders, you are right that it had to proceed like that. This is similar to an early chequered flag. Once he’s called the safety car in, it has to come in.
However, just think about the uproar there would have been if the chequered flag had been shown a lap early, just after the safety car entered the pits, and had been done on the race director’s orders. It would have been considered a fix, because the race director would have manipulated the situation and changed the result of the race and championship in doing so. That’s what Masi did with his decision to ignore large chunks of the safety car procedures and rules.
S
11th October 2022, 9:52
‘Uproar’ is what gets people watching, interested and engaged. ;)
Look – here we are still talking about last season’s finale almost a full calendar year later! How often does that happen in F1?
Not nearly often enough, I expect you’ll agree.
And once again – “Race Director” isn’t just an ironic title… It does convey a sense of authority, doesn’t it?
drmouse (@drmouse)
11th October 2022, 16:39
Uproar also turns people off when it looks like the officials, rather than just enforcing the rules, have changed the results outside the rules. I very nearly didn’t come back to F1 after AD, and probably wouldn’t have if my wife wasn’t insistent on continuing to watch, and I know a fair number of people for whom that was the final straw.
The Race Director has authority, yes. However, he must be bound by the same rules as everyone else, not free to change them whenever he wants. If he is not, why bother having rules in the first place? Why not just allow the race director and/or stewards the freedom to decide on every incident, or just flip a coin? It would certainly be more exciting if the teams had no idea (at all) whether the officials would rule a move or a part illegal based on their whims at the time or random chance with no written guidance, but it wouldn’t be a sport (or even a legitimate competition) any more.
Again, if he had instructed the chequered flag to be waved early, in full knowledge that is was early, the rules and procedures lay out what happens from that point. It does not make the call to do so correct or within the rules, but the consequences are mapped out in the regulations. I doubt there is even a rule which specifically prohibits him from doing so, there are just rules which say when the chequered flag should be shown and how to deal with it if it’s shown at the wrong time. That’s very similar to the arguments about one article overriding another in the AD case: Once he had called the safety car in early, there was a clear procedure to follow, but calling it in early against the written rules and the procedure followed in every previous race for a long time (which he himself had previously said he had no choice but to follow) was wrong. Even if there is no specifically written rule saying he cannot do so, the fact that there are procedures laid out as to how the safety car must be handled makes doing differently against the rules.
S
12th October 2022, 2:55
If people are turned off by drama, maybe sports entertainment isn’t their thing.
The Race Director is of course bound by the rules – but they know them as well as anyone, and know that interpretation is applied to every single sporting rule’s application. As noted in the report – he wasn’t wrong, he just used a different interpretation.
Although you are being facetious – it’s exactly what they are there for. If you left it up to the competitors to sort it out with all of their own interpretations and motivations, it would never be settled.
Never forget that if you hadn’t come back to F1, they would never have known you’d left. Or that you were even watching it before, for that matter.
I’d suggest you relax and enjoy F1 for the good things it offers – if you focus on the negatives you’ll just let it frustrate you and drive you away.
For me personally, there are so many things I dislike about F1 – but at least it keeps me entertained occasionally. And that’s the only reason I still watch it. The more drama and controversy there is, the better it is, as I haven’t been able to take it seriously as a sport for decades.
slowmo (@slowmo)
10th October 2022, 16:04
No you’re just wrong jff. There were numerous failures and all admitted and detailed by the FIA in their report. The rules were completely ignored in favour of getting a green flag finish. The motivations are irrelevant behind the decision made, they clearly broke their own rules and even the FIA now accept this.
Strange why some fans still can’t. Maybe if people like you just accept the facts then everyone will ultimately move on but instead you choose to keep pedaling a false narrative because that was all you had to cling on to hoping your man wouldn’t be stripped of the title. He’s not going to lose the title due to Masi’s behavior now so you may as well just drop the lie. You can argue till your blue in the face about other incidents not going in his favour prior to Abu Dhabi but that doesn’t make what happened right or fair (on either driver).
jff
10th October 2022, 16:42
Then read it for yourself: https://www.racefans.net/2022/03/19/fia-confirms-masi-made-errors-in-championship-decider-but-states-result-cannot-be-changed/
And make sure you don’t miss point 13.: That although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message “Safety Car in this lap” has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap.
The rules weren’t ignored, but some (including you apparently) had a “misunderstanding regarding the application of this procedure at the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP, pursuant to Articles 48.12 and 48.13 of the F1 Sporting Regulations.” (from the report)
And next time you accuse others of “peddling(!) a false narrative” you might want to include some proof/facts.
Based on the links above it seems that it’s you who is mistaken!
grapmg
10th October 2022, 17:13
@ jff Good point but I guess that all the arguments just keep on repeating so pointless to start it all over again
skydiverian (@skydiverian)
12th October 2022, 4:53
It still remains the case though that the rules weren’t correctly followed as the safety car in this lap message shouldn’t have been displayed until all lapped cars passed the safety car…. and the FIA then gave itself a free pass which has led to the wrong driver winning the championship.
jff
12th October 2022, 10:57
Not unlapping all cars was clearly (and admitted by FIA) a mistake.
But the ‘SC in this lap’ decision is totally independent of that, which is clearly defined in the rules and well explained in the report.
My problem with Keith’ reporting is that he keeps on linking this specific mistake (not all cars unlapping) to the outcome of the championship.
There is no direct link between the two, other than that both happened at the end of the last race.
There were many more mistakes and inconsistencies by Masi throughout his career. Why not edit those in a way that readers see them as directly linked?
sethje (@seth-space)
10th October 2022, 16:22
i agree, its getting boring and annoying.
Qeki (@qeki)
10th October 2022, 16:10
Somebody want to go “james bond” to the FIA office and see what is going on there
Fred Fedurch
11th October 2022, 11:46
Good idea. I want to know just how Toto “knew” RBR was over the cap definitively, not just the rampant speculation.
Sam
10th October 2022, 16:12
It brought back memories of waking up early to see a championship decider and my lack of sleep leaving an edge of confusion to the race, except this time is was 1pm and I was watching the highlights on channel four.
Silfen (@silfen)
10th October 2022, 16:57
> This flew in the face of the post-Spa rules change, yet was supported by a clause in the regulations which stated the reduced points would only be awarded if the race “is suspended… and cannot be resumed”, rather than finishing at the time limit.
This part of the rule exists since 1994, so it has nothing to do with the changes in the rules because of Spa, which only was about a different distribution of points and the change to two laps of racing instead of completed.
RandomMallard
10th October 2022, 17:49
@silfen Yeah I noticed this as well. The rule for half points in 2021 also only covered when the race was “suspended… and cannot be resumed”, so had this occurred 12 months ago or 5 years ago, the outcome would have been the same.
I think the key differentiating factor here is the 3 hour time limit introduced last year. This was originally introduced as a 4 hour time limit in 2012 (after Canada 2011), which gave a bit a little bit more leeway for suspended races in wet weather. My understanding is that the clock was only shortened to 3 hours mainly for TV reasons, so broadcasters could have more confidence in their broadcast schedules or something. However, since this was the first race to end due to the 3 hour time limit and not reach 75% (as they reached this threshold in Monaco), this is, as far as I can tell, the first time there has been a need for this rule to be implemented.
It doesn’t really make sense, and it’s a stupid rule, but by the letter of the law it was the right decision.
grapmg
10th October 2022, 17:07
We shouldn’t make more out of it than it actually was. This wasn’t a “title decider” because only one man could win the WDC at that point. There is also no reason to make a reference to 2021. Yes there was some confusion about the points and the chequered flag, but was that confusion really the fault of the race director? The safety standards needs to be reviewed that is clear and maybe next year we can start 2 hours earlier so we have a longer time window for a full race.
Fred Fedurch
11th October 2022, 11:52
No. Maybe we can start on time. 1pm local was always the start time. Now they fiddle with it to placate broadcasters or make sure some fans don’t have to wake up too early or stay up too late.
Grapmg
11th October 2022, 15:53
I’m sure they started 2 pm local time. I still remember 1990 when they started earlier. Woke up early only to see the championship decided in 10 seconds. So maybe this weekend wasn’t that bad.
Grapmg
11th October 2022, 16:00
Now I read your comment again and understand that’s what you meant with “start on time”
Edvaldo
10th October 2022, 18:12
F1 have been producing way too many farcical races lately.
These last 2 were absolute dreadful events on every sense of the word.
The category should not go in disarray every single time it happens to rain during a session, and that’s exactly what’s happening now because the blue tyres are too bad and useless and that’s apparently good enough for them. To have a compound just for show
Electroball76
10th October 2022, 20:45
The pinochle of motorsport
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
10th October 2022, 23:18
The decision at Abu Dhabi was absolutely not sporting in anyway regardless of what the report says from the organization trying to minimize what actually happened. The reasons why it was allowed to stand hinged on the following conditions:
1. People were sick of HAM winning.
2. People don’t want HAM to beat a certain record set by a legend.
3. The actions of the race director did not impact the finishing order of the constructors’ standings 1 thru 10.
4. The actions of the race director only impacted the finishing order of 1 and 2 of the drivers’ standings and did not impact 3-20.
If a race director ever tried to restart a race the same way, at any other point of a season, there would have been outcry from almost all teams and drivers. Shame on the other teams for not supporting Mercedes last year. They deserve the FIA, they still have.
S
11th October 2022, 6:43
If the FIA says it was, then it was. Their opinion is the only one that officially counts in this.
All 4 of your points are just nonsense, but your last paragraph is worth debating.
I’d suggest that if it had happened at any other point of the season, it would have been largely forgotten about in 2 weeks.
Just as it was with Spa’s wet race.
And seriously – why would the other teams support Mercedes?
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
12th October 2022, 0:26
They should have supported Mercedes because the following year it could have been them. In Abu Dhabi, RIC pitted for fresh tires but was not given the same opportunity to race from right behind the driver that was in the place ahead of him. That happened to all of the drivers not named Max. Again, if that restart procedure is followed during a race where teams are still fighting for standings, it would not be forgotten and would be challenged instantly. If the WDC is all that matters, FIA should cancel the remainder of the season as none of it matters and they will save the planet from excess carbon.
S
12th October 2022, 13:13
F1 teams don’t work that way. They will always do only what is in their own best interests “now.”
Ricciardo (and others) could not change positions in the championship either – so it was largely unimportant for them. Again – that was a legitimate (though unusual) interpretation of the way the regs were written (the famous “any/all” that has since been re-worded).
The reason it matters to people so much is because it was the championship-deciding finale. It would be a minor issue at any other time, but soon forgotten otherwise. People move on pretty quick when there’s another race next week…
So many other events throughout the season also featured championship-altering events (both from stewards and the competitors themselves) and there simply isn’t the fuss made over any of them that there is over Abu Dhabi.