The FIA is Still Making Terrible Mistakes
During the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, the FIA, its race director, and stewards show little to no improvement over the decisions and judgements usually made during a race. The FIA has been at the center of the storm ever since its Formula 1 race director, Michael Masi, made the controversial decision to override Article 48.12 regarding the safety car procedure. During the final race of the 2021 season on Abu Dhabi, Masi decided to relaunch the last lap of the race on green flag, despite not all of the cars passing the safety car, which Article 48.12 states.
A point of inflexion
Article 15.3 gives the race director power to override Article 48.12, and other rules as he sees fit. Regardless of the rules, his decision was heavily questioned, especially by Mercedes’ side, which ended up losing the Drivers’ Championship. It was important to them to win both championships to show their superiority.
After that, everyone was scrutinizing the FIA over every decision during the 2022 season. Masi was replaced by a team of three race directors that would not be involved with the team principals anymore; at least not on live radio like it was done during the 2021 season. This would allow the director and stewards to work silently, and without the unnecessary pressure of being heard by millions, live, during each Grand Prix.
Certainly, that element of drama was lost, but in my opinion, it's for the better. Race directors are not here to provide a show. It felt something more along the lines of the infamous Netflix show Drive to Survive rather than a serious motorsport championship sanctioned by the FIA. It seems like Formula 1 wanted to attract audiences and engage them in social media by having them go at each other because of what was said on the radio during the most recent Grand Prix
Michael Masi had to deal with this pressure every race. The 2021 championship was very close and was decided during the last race. Imagine having Toto Wolff and Christian Horner pester your ear every time you made a decision. The team principals even sent emails to Masi’s team appealing every decision. These sorts of things don’t make the sport look good, it feels more like a show, and everyone gets in character. Objectivity can be lost at times.
The result of all this show reached its peak point during the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, as mentioned before, Masi had to made a decision that favored motor racing and the show. Ironically enough, it ended up costing him his job. The FIA revised the position and role of the race director; they also modified the wording in Article 48.12 to avoid any ambiguity.
The Formula 1 Championship would now have three race directors, rotated accordingly; also, radio communications with the team principals were banned, relieving the director and the team of stewards of any unnecessary pressure. The FIA also revised a lot of procedures to ensure a fairer judgement by the stewards.
It was a point of inflexion, FIA and F1 were committed to improve. 2022 seemed to be better in terms of less drama, but the stewards and race director still made a few questionable decisions. To their benefit, the season was totally dominated by Red Bull and Verstappen, so their mistakes were not magnified, or scrutinized like in 2021.
What went wrong in Saudi Arabia?
There were three main things that the FIA race director and stewards did wrong during the 2023 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. Let’s go in order:
Race Launch
There were a few cars misaligned before the race started, including Fernando Alonso in his Aston Martin. It is common for F1 drivers to purposefully misalign the car at an angle so they can get good exit speed once the green flag waves. We saw this during the launch of the Grand Prix, a few drivers did this, but only Alonso got the penalty.
You can interpret this how you can. Even Fernando Alonso complained about this during the post-race interview. It seems that the decision only benefited Mercedes, since the only team to be penalized for it was Aston Martin; the rest of the drivers that misaligned the car during launch were back markers and did not receive any sanction.
Safety Car
During lap 18 of the race, Lance Stroll suffered from engine failure and was forced to retire the car; he managed to quickly place the car in a place especially designed for it. The race director deployed a Safety Car unnecesarily. The FIA implemented a Virtual Safety Car for situations like this.
The difference between them, apart from the obvious lack of a real car during the VSC procedure, is that the gaps during the yellow flags are kept during the latter. A VSC makes the process more agile and keeps the gaps between the drivers.
A Safety Car makes everything slower, and the gaps are lost. Everyone has to wait for the back markers to unlap the Safety Car and it can take a few laps to do so. This process of calling a Safety Car should be reserved for situations that really need it, like when there is a multiple car crash, a lot of debris on the track, or a car poorly placed outside the track.
It seems that the decision benefited Mercedes because the gap to Alonso was cut. Russell was fighting him for that last podium spot.
Penalties not executed on time
Alonso received a 5-second penalty for misaligning the car during race launch. He served the penalty on pits but apparently it was not done properly; it seemed that one of the mechanics touched the car before the 5 seconds passed. As a consequence, Alonso received another 5-second penalty.
The FIA failed to announce this issue having more than enough laps to do so. It’s like they wanted Mercedes to grab the last place on the podium no matter what. Alonso and his team raced blindly because they were unaware of this issue. Keep in mind that drivers have to manage tires and a few other things during the race. No one really pushes 100% all the time.
That is why it was very important for the FIA to let Aston Martin know about the wrongly served penalty with time. That way, Alonso would have been able to try and make a 10-second gap to the car behind. For the looks of it, it seems he did have a car good enough to push for a significant gap.
Alonso was aware of a possible 5-second penalty and managed to build a 5-second gap. If he and his team were told of the full 10-second penalty, they probably would have pushed to get it. Racing blindly meant the team did not do what they needed to be safe.
The FIA failed to do one of the simplest things they are expected to do, which is to inform the teams and everyone about the penalties. They take too long, or lack the proactiveness to inform everyone about things like this.
After the race, and podium celebrations, Alonso was stripped of his 3rd place trophy, and was handed to Russell. Aston Martin had to appeal the decision, which was later reversed.
MaFIA?
You can misinterpret the errors made by the FIA, its race director, and the stewards. I’m sure it’s not the case this time, but if you put on your tinfoil hat, you can see a team clearly benefiting from all of this: Mercedes.
If Alonso got a penalty for misaligning the car, you are forcing him to a slow pitstop. Why was he the only one penalized for it? So that Mercedes could make an undercut, and gain track position.
Why was the SC called unnecessarily? To close the gap between Alonso and Russell; that way Mercedes would be close enough for DRS and could make an artificial overtake on the Spaniard.
Why did the FIA not inform Aston Martin about the other 5-second penalty? So that they could not build enough gap to Russell and lose the podium spot to him on the desk rather than on the track.
Fortunately, the FIA reverted its decision after Aston Martin appealed the case. After many hours of deliberation, common sense won, and Alonso was reinstated as the 3rd fastest driver of the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix.
A bitter-sweet taste for Alonso's 100th podium in Formula 1. Justice was served.
The FIA and its stewards are the big losers from all of this. They are still perceived as questionable and reactive, rather than clear and proactive. They are not consistent with rule application, and they seem to be bereft of knowledge on when and how to properly apply a procedure, or when to make the calls.
Commentaires