Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Formula 1 final.

I gave up watching F1 years ago when it became obvious that the skill of the driver had little to do with the outcome of the race.

I tuned into watch the F1 Grande Prix finale yesterday to watch the ultimate race of the century, to decide who would be World Champion.

I thought I was in for a treat. But no. What a load of old ……..!!!! The drivers don’t even have to stay within the confines of the track it would appear, and as for all the other rules and penalties together with the complete and utter fiasco at the end……. What a load of old tosh! Having watched on TV I regretted wasting the money on the electricity!
I won’t make that mistake again, I’d rather have pins stuck in my eyes.

No argument from me on any of that. I didn't bother watching it.

From what I read, it ended what in football would be a penalty shoot out. Which is why I never watch football either.

Well I thought it was brilliant, a well deserved win in the end for Max. Horses for courses I suppose.

I enjoyed watching the race. Not sure about the outcome though. Looks like there will be controversy over the winner for some time to come.

Ditto the First two comments. Having not watched F1 for years - and making an exception yesterday because of all the hype around the Hamilton vs Verstappen contest, what struck me most was the visual similarity with either (a) a video game, or (b) a Scalextric race. Were there actually drivers in the cars? Racing under lights on a synthetic middle eastern (could have been far eastern for that matter) track increased this impression of unreality for me. In fact it was a surprise to see that the spectators in the grandstand were actually alive and moving!

I haven't watched in 10 or 15 years.

Its become a boring procession of overpaid steering wheel attendants passing each other in the pits.

Give me Clubman level motorsport any day.

Arwyn

As expected, a very diverse load of posts, all valid in their way but as an avid F1 watcher ( and I've even paid good money to go to races live especially Monza ) I thought it was brilliant. I wouldn't like to be the chaps in charge of sorting out the rules but for sure they really do need sorting and quickly. No rules should be left to one persons interpretation so I would like to see the rule book as it stands thrown away and new set of basic, sensible rules laid down which don't allow for any deviation and the number one rule should be "Let them race" Max was quite brilliant in taking his chance and without anything other than sheer racing ability took his car by the scruff of the neck and won. I'm sure the discussion will go on for ages but now lets look forward to next season and Ferrari's new championship winning car.!!!!!

Regardless of your position on F1 - From the Daily Telegraph today. I fully agree with the words. (I hope I am ok reproducing the article here?)

Lewis Hamilton was cheated out of an eighth F1 world title – this race result cannot be allowed to stand

You can always tell when an argument has been lost. The goalposts are simply uprooted and we see the debating equivalent of playing the man but not the ball.
And so we come to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix where, almost 24 hours after an outrageously manufactured ending, most of those in favour of Max Verstappen’s world title win are still not attempting to explain or defend the decisive intervention of race director Michael Masi.
Refuge has instead been taken in a series of utterly irrelevant observations. Like how Verstappen had lit up this year’s Formula One world championship. Or how he had won more races earlier in the season. Or how it was about time that someone ended Lewis Hamilton’s dominance of his sport. Or, indeed, the repeated claim that Red Bull had somehow “deserved” some luck.
Some of this might be true but it has absolutely nothing to do with how, from Hamilton leading by a comfortable 12 seconds with six laps remaining (even after being disadvantaged by one earlier safety car), he was suddenly presented with a rival directly in his wing-mirror on a third set of newer, faster tyres.
It was like interrupting the Olympic marathon just as Eliud Kipchoge was entering the stadium with a 30-second lead and telling him with a straight face to wait for his nearest competitor, let that rival change into some track spikes and then have the gold medal decided by a 100m sprint.
Good television? Maybe. But fair? Just? Not in the slightest.
And that is why, even those who want to hail Verstappen as the rightful world champion, are often doing so not with reference to the logic of what actually happened in the final minutes of the race but an entirely subjective perception of the two drivers.
Theirs is instead a woolly, developing narrative about Verstappen deserving it because he had a decent season and the even more feeble reference to “letting them race” as if Hamilton had somehow accrued his lead with wheelspins in the nearby desert.
The relevant facts are only these: Hamilton had driven himself into a virtually unassailable position. The race was then interrupted through no fault of his own. He could not leave the track for new tyres because he would have given up first place to Verstappen (who was already on a newer set of tyres).
Verstappen could stop, however, because he did not have the lead to lose and, with the safety car out, could soon make up any lost time. Hamilton had also already had his lead cut by working through five additional lapped drivers.
These five drivers were removed so that Verstappen could start the final lap directly behind Hamilton. But the other three lapped drivers behind Verstappen were not given the chance to pass the safety car, presumably because this would not have left enough time for the final-lap shootout.
So, in one stroke, we saw three huge advantages handed to Verstappen and one enormous great unfathomable inconsistency. The race had been condensed and all the gaps were reduced. Verstappen was given another brand new set of tyres while Hamilton was left on rubber that he had last changed 44 laps earlier. And, just for good measure, five cars that Hamilton had lost time passing were removed for Verstappen. Oh, and there was also the illogical situation of letting some lapped drivers overtake the safety car but not others.
What happened was an affront that felt like either the consequence of the pressure Masi was being placed under by Red Bull or simply a desire to create a spectacular finale to the season.
The implications, however, have not been thought through. The casual fan is not stupid. They know right from wrong and the idea that such drama will naturally result in a more loyal fanbase is flawed. While some might have enjoyed the show, it is a good bet that rather more will have questioned why they invested two hours in watching an event that might as well have been staged over two minutes.
There is a reason that Arsenal’s 1989 league-title win over Liverpool has lived so long in folklore. It was because it was a freak, once-in-a-lifetime event, that occurred quite naturally. It was not artificially created thanks to a ruling that the race director has “overriding authority”.
Wider questions also arise. If a race lead, and other advantages can be wiped out so easily, what is to stop teams being tempted into instructing drivers to tactically create incidents? What suspicions would be going through people’s minds this morning if it had not been Nicholas Latifi who crashed, but Verstappen’s team-mate Sergio Perez?
It all leaves a horrible situation. Nobody wants to see a sporting event dragged through courts and further appeals. And the impulse is indeed to just accept that injustice is part of sport. But should that really apply in a situation so manifestly unfair? Mercedes are right to be carefully weighing up their options. To simply accept that ‘the show’ should take precedence over natural justice would set sport on a dangerous path.

A well thought through and accurate article based on fact and not emotion.

Thanks for posting.

A very good and level-headed summary I think.