Michael Masi should be replaced
Discussion
Teddy Lop said:
How the race(sic) was handled yesterday appears to the casual fan such as myself to be biblical ineptness. I hear talk that it was a team that informed masi he had the authority to stop the clock. But it'd be wrong to single masi out.
We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
I would agree with this.We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
I'd also ask the question that if a tin-top safety car is faster / better in the wet than a current F1 car, F1 itself has taken a big step backwards.
Just thinking out loud here but maybe a way to overcome the visibility issue in such conditions would to have a significantly brighter rear fog light on F1 cars whereby you could see it from upto 100m+ away even in the worst of conditions?
It's not THE solution perhaps a step closer in the right direction?
Or maybe develop a monsoon tyre with wider and taller tread blocks which could raise the ride height suffeciently to prevent the cars from stalling and bottoming out on the straights?
It's not THE solution perhaps a step closer in the right direction?
Or maybe develop a monsoon tyre with wider and taller tread blocks which could raise the ride height suffeciently to prevent the cars from stalling and bottoming out on the straights?
Schermerhorn said:
Just thinking out loud here but maybe a way to overcome the visibility issue in such conditions would to have a significantly brighter rear fog light on F1 cars whereby you could see it from upto 100m+ away even in the worst of conditions?
It's not THE solution perhaps a step closer in the right direction?
Or maybe develop a monsoon tyre with wider and taller tread blocks which could raise the ride height suffeciently to prevent the cars from stalling and bottoming out on the straights?
They used to have ‘extreme’ wet tyres. A step above regular wets.It's not THE solution perhaps a step closer in the right direction?
Or maybe develop a monsoon tyre with wider and taller tread blocks which could raise the ride height suffeciently to prevent the cars from stalling and bottoming out on the straights?
They never got to use them because the safety car was (rightly) always out in such conditions.
Muzzer79 said:
They used to have ‘extreme’ wet tyres. A step above regular wets.
They never got to use them because the safety car was (rightly) always out in such conditions.
Monsoon tyres weren't they?They never got to use them because the safety car was (rightly) always out in such conditions.
Extreme wets was just pirellis daft branding of regular wets when they renamed inters as wets.
cc3 said:
Direct quotes from the article you have linked to:article said:
Just before half distance, the rain got so bad that even Senna - now 37 seconds ahead - started gesticulating that the race should be stopped.
Senna - “for sure the race should have been stopped”
Senna - “for sure the race should have been stopped”
Muzzer79 said:
cc3 said:
Direct quotes from the article you have linked to:article said:
Just before half distance, the rain got so bad that even Senna - now 37 seconds ahead - started gesticulating that the race should be stopped.
Senna - “for sure the race should have been stopped”
Senna - “for sure the race should have been stopped”
Teddy Lop said:
How the race(sic) was handled yesterday appears to the casual fan such as myself to be biblical ineptness. I hear talk that it was a team that informed masi he had the authority to stop the clock. But it'd be wrong to single masi out.
We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
It’s not just about the amount of rain and the ability of the drivers and cars though. For a race to run the medical helicopter must be able to take off under VFR - not possible in foggy heavy rain. Marshals must be able to have visual sight of their neighbouring marshal post. You must be able to see the light boards unobstructed. We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
It’s not just about “can they drive the cars around in this?”
parabolica said:
Teddy Lop said:
How the race(sic) was handled yesterday appears to the casual fan such as myself to be biblical ineptness. I hear talk that it was a team that informed masi he had the authority to stop the clock. But it'd be wrong to single masi out.
We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
It’s not just about the amount of rain and the ability of the drivers and cars though. For a race to run the medical helicopter must be able to take off under VFR - not possible in foggy heavy rain. Marshals must be able to have visual sight of their neighbouring marshal post. You must be able to see the light boards unobstructed. We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
It’s not just about “can they drive the cars around in this?”
StevieBee said:
MitchT said:
Yesterday's farce was all about money.
If that were true, they'd have run the full race regardless - as they did in Fiji in '76, a decision that was certainly about the money.Refunds to spectators are the responsibility of the promotor, not F1 or the FIA. The promotor may seek compensation from either of these though I would imagine there's clauses that exclude natural events for the grounds of rebate against which insurance would kick in.
Yesterday was about keeping everyone safe.
As to the call for Masi to go, I would say that F1 is currently being governed and run with levels of efficiency, transparency and quality never seen before. I'm sure that if they could go back, a few things would have been done differently but I cannot recall a race in F1's history that has been affected so badly by the weather.
Yesterday they also put their commercial interests first, to the greatest extent they could. It's 2021, they obviously can't shrug and send drivers out come what may these days... But they can maintain regulations that allow a non race to be classified as a race for the sake of saving them AND the venue from expense. With those regs in place, they can go through the charade of doing exploratory laps 'in order to see if it was safe to go racing', when in truth all they were doing was getting the laps in to required to classify as a 'race'.
When they ran the final two laps under SC the weather and track were plainly worse than three hours before when they tried, so there was zero value in running those laps for any purpose other than to technically claim a 'race' was held.
None of the above is Masi's fault, he knows what is expected of him in certain situations.. The sport made a self serving choice though, and it did so at the expense of it's fans. With some forethought measures could have been put in place that would have meant they could have cancelled the race (as they should, on safety grounds), divied the half points out based on quali, which I agree is fair enough and refunded the venue -> who can then refund the fans, and without anyone losing money. They could have done that via a mutual fund that acts as an insurance policy for the 1 in a 100 times a race really can't be run.
It wouldn't have required much forethought to plan better for situations such as this.
I think people forget the amount of experience Charlie had.
I posted this in the GP thread, but he'd been race director for nearly 25 years and had been working for the FIA for 30 years.
He wasn't immune to bad decisions (Suzuka 2014), but we learn from our mistakes. I'm sure Masi and the FIA will look into what happened, and hopefully look at changing something.
I posted this in the GP thread, but he'd been race director for nearly 25 years and had been working for the FIA for 30 years.
He wasn't immune to bad decisions (Suzuka 2014), but we learn from our mistakes. I'm sure Masi and the FIA will look into what happened, and hopefully look at changing something.
I was quite surprised at the rule re-writing they were doing yesterday.
They did not technically start the race the first time the cars went out, so the two hour race timer did not start.
However, the three hour time window did start at the original race start time, but this was then paused to enable an hour of racing, which itself is completely arbitrary and unnecessary, given a race distance is already given as two laps.
It was a crazy day not helped with a changing rulebook.
They did not technically start the race the first time the cars went out, so the two hour race timer did not start.
However, the three hour time window did start at the original race start time, but this was then paused to enable an hour of racing, which itself is completely arbitrary and unnecessary, given a race distance is already given as two laps.
It was a crazy day not helped with a changing rulebook.
I’m not sure he needs to be replaced. But he has a bit of arrogance / self importance that I don’t think is helpful.
The “I don’t read e-mails during a race” one, it was amusing, but it had been red flagged due to an incident that needed review. I thought it oddly dismissive in the context of what had happened and with the race being suspended.
And he did similar with RB yesterday, was very dismissive of their claim, and then when he decided it may have merit said something along the lines of ‘take it up with my stewards’.
They’re not huge issues, but I think there might be a little too much ego involved.
The “I don’t read e-mails during a race” one, it was amusing, but it had been red flagged due to an incident that needed review. I thought it oddly dismissive in the context of what had happened and with the race being suspended.
And he did similar with RB yesterday, was very dismissive of their claim, and then when he decided it may have merit said something along the lines of ‘take it up with my stewards’.
They’re not huge issues, but I think there might be a little too much ego involved.
Bernie would have held the race. Interesting comments from John Watson too
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.gpblog.com/en/a...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.gpblog.com/en/a...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk...
Edited by cc3 on Tuesday 31st August 07:42
Teddy Lop said:
How the race(sic) was handled yesterday appears to the casual fan such as myself to be biblical ineptness. I hear talk that it was a team that informed masi he had the authority to stop the clock. But it'd be wrong to single masi out.
We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
As a casual fan, I'll forgive your lack of understanding We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
Question 2: Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
No.
No racing car is. In the the US, if it rains, they don't race. In F1, using a combination of tyres, technology and regulation, wet weather racing is permitted in a manner which keeps the additional risks within an acceptable tolerance. Where those risks exceed acceptable tolerance is when one car cannot see the car in front, even the rain light. This is what we had on Sunday.... all day.
Added to which is that brakes operate in a narrow temperature band of around 1,000 degrees. On Sunday, the air temperature and rain prevented most of the teams from achieving this, but not all. This would have meant that you could have had one car having got its brakes up to temperature able to brake at say 60m before the chicane at the the end of Kemmel behind a car - that it cannot see - that has to start its braking at 100m or sooner. Thus the car behind would have smashed into the car in front with a closing speed of anything upwards of 100mph. At that level, you're not just endangering the lives of drivers but marshals and spectators as well.
Masi was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Anyone could see that by 3.00pm the weather was set in for the rest of the day. But if he abandoned the race and then an hour later, the sun came out and the track dried, he'd have looked a chump. If he'd allowed the race to start and carnage ensued, he'd have looked a chump. He ran a few laps to call it a race - and looks a chump... but all things considered, probably the least worse chump of the three.
The closest example I've experienced was back in the early 90s when I marshalled Rallycross at Brands Hatch. Horrid February day, constant rain all day, heavy mist, poor light..... from the startline (and crucially control tower), you couldn't see Paddock. During a race, a car conked out on the hill running down the infield section of paddock. Heats were only two and a half laps. That heat finished and in a bid to get all the other races done before it got dark, they started the next race whilst marshals were still on track recovering the stricken car from the previous race, not being able to see what had happened. The first they knew about the race starting was when they heard them heading down the hill. How no-one got hit remains a mystery to this day.
Hungrymc said:
I’m not sure he needs to be replaced. But he has a bit of arrogance / self importance that I don’t think is helpful.
The “I don’t read e-mails during a race” one, it was amusing, but it had been red flagged due to an incident that needed review. I thought it oddly dismissive in the context of what had happened and with the race being suspended.
And he did similar with RB yesterday, was very dismissive of their claim, and then when he decided it may have merit said something along the lines of ‘take it up with my stewards’.
They’re not huge issues, but I think there might be a little too much ego involved.
I like Masi. He's a no nonsense guy. I actually feel sorry for him. He's like the new teacher at school and all the pupils are trying to find out how far they can press his buttons, except he's got team personnel hassling him left, right and centre. The “I don’t read e-mails during a race” one, it was amusing, but it had been red flagged due to an incident that needed review. I thought it oddly dismissive in the context of what had happened and with the race being suspended.
And he did similar with RB yesterday, was very dismissive of their claim, and then when he decided it may have merit said something along the lines of ‘take it up with my stewards’.
They’re not huge issues, but I think there might be a little too much ego involved.
So what if Masi doesn't read e-mails during a race? He's in radio contact with teams and smart enough to know that he's being hassled and trying to be influenced. Which begs the question why do senior team members continue to pester the race director when it isn't their remit but the stewards? Perhaps the race director is an easy target.
entropy said:
I like Masi. He's a no nonsense guy. I actually feel sorry for him. He's like the new teacher at school and all the pupils are trying to find out how far they can press his buttons, except he's got team personnel hassling him left, right and centre.
So what if Masi doesn't read e-mails during a race? He's in radio contact with teams and smart enough to know that he's being hassled and trying to be influenced. Which begs the question why do senior team members continue to pester the race director when it isn't their remit but the stewards? Perhaps the race director is an easy target.
He’s an easy target because he is the one with a radio to the teams. The stewards don’t have radios - so speaking to them means the team sending someone to sit outside the headmaster’s study, and wait to be invited in at a convenient (for them) time. So what if Masi doesn't read e-mails during a race? He's in radio contact with teams and smart enough to know that he's being hassled and trying to be influenced. Which begs the question why do senior team members continue to pester the race director when it isn't their remit but the stewards? Perhaps the race director is an easy target.
Yes, it’s been good this season to hear Masi’s radio, and realise just how much hassle he gets from the teams during the race. Maybe Netflix could spend one weekend in the race control room?
entropy said:
So what if Masi doesn't read e-mails during a race? He's in radio contact with teams and smart enough to know that he's being hassled and trying to be influenced. Which begs the question why do senior team members continue to pester the race director when it isn't their remit but the stewards? Perhaps the race director is an easy target.
Trying to be influenced / Or having valuable points brought to his attention? Comes across as unprepared to explain his decision or consider additional information (bearing in mind RedBull were vindicated in their position on Sunday having initially been told by Masi they were wrong) To use your teacher analogy, poorer teachers do that when they are uncertain of themselves or can’t cope with the thought of being wrong on something.
StevieBee said:
Teddy Lop said:
How the race(sic) was handled yesterday appears to the casual fan such as myself to be biblical ineptness. I hear talk that it was a team that informed masi he had the authority to stop the clock. But it'd be wrong to single masi out.
We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
As a casual fan, I'll forgive your lack of understanding We live in a world of creeping saftyism. What we called acceptable risk yesterday is unacceptable today. F1 wants safe because that's seen as the right thing to do, but you can't have your cake and eat it. In light of what we call safe in 2021:
1) Is the circuit compatible with the safety level they want, yes or no.
2) Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
If the answers were yes then the race should have gone ahead. If either answer is no then fix what are predictable issues. F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge, canny thinking, adapting to challenges.
While masi & co handled the minute pretty poorly, it strikes me his ultimate choice was playing his luck and risking damnation or playing safe and being damned.
Question 2: Are the cars safe to drive in the rain, yes or no.
No.
No racing car is. In the the US, if it rains, they don't race. In F1, using a combination of tyres, technology and regulation, wet weather racing is permitted in a manner which keeps the additional risks within an acceptable tolerance. Where those risks exceed acceptable tolerance is when one car cannot see the car in front, even the rain light. This is what we had on Sunday.... all day.
Added to which is that brakes operate in a narrow temperature band of around 1,000 degrees. On Sunday, the air temperature and rain prevented most of the teams from achieving this, but not all. This would have meant that you could have had one car having got its brakes up to temperature able to brake at say 60m before the chicane at the the end of Kemmel behind a car - that it cannot see - that has to start its braking at 100m or sooner. Thus the car behind would have smashed into the car in front with a closing speed of anything upwards of 100mph. At that level, you're not just endangering the lives of drivers but marshals and spectators as well.
Masi was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Anyone could see that by 3.00pm the weather was set in for the rest of the day. But if he abandoned the race and then an hour later, the sun came out and the track dried, he'd have looked a chump. If he'd allowed the race to start and carnage ensued, he'd have looked a chump. He ran a few laps to call it a race - and looks a chump... but all things considered, probably the least worse chump of the three.
The closest example I've experienced was back in the early 90s when I marshalled Rallycross at Brands Hatch. Horrid February day, constant rain all day, heavy mist, poor light..... from the startline (and crucially control tower), you couldn't see Paddock. During a race, a car conked out on the hill running down the infield section of paddock. Heats were only two and a half laps. That heat finished and in a bid to get all the other races done before it got dark, they started the next race whilst marshals were still on track recovering the stricken car from the previous race, not being able to see what had happened. The first they knew about the race starting was when they heard them heading down the hill. How no-one got hit remains a mystery to this day.
We used to attend the Group B at Brands Hatch. In any level of rain & mud they were spectacular races
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff