Breakdown of the Safety Car Fiasco in Abu Dhabi: what happened, why it was controversial and why the FIA’s ruling is unsatisfactory

An already-bonkers F1 season reached new heights in Sunday’s finale as the driver’s championship was decided by the Race Director exploiting ambiguous sporting regulations to ensure the most dramatic conclusion to the race.

To take both casual and hardcore fans through the key point of controversy – the safety car fiasco – I have broken this piece into three parts:

• What happened with the safety car during the race
• Mercedes’ protest and FIA ruling after the race
• Analysis of arguments

If you are already clued up on what happened, then I recommend skimming through to the analysis part, where I attempt to make sense of the arguments offered by the FIA and Red Bull in response to Mercedes.

WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SAFETY CAR DURING THE RACE?

Controversial Point #1 – Lapped Cars:

On Lap 53, Nicholas Latifi crashed his car into the wall at Turn 14, causing a safety car to be deployed. This gave the rest of the cars on track an opportunity to pit without losing significant time to their rivals. Some cars could take advantage of this without losing their track position -e.g. Max Verstappen – while other cars could not – e.g. Lewis Hamilton.

After such time, the cars then bunched up behind the safety car in the following order:

1. Hamilton (P1)
2. Norris (P7 – lapped by Hamilton)
3. Alonso (P8 – lapped by Hamilton)
4. Ocon (P9 – lapped by Hamilton)
5. Leclerc (P10 – lapped by Hamilton)
6. Vettel (P11 – lapped by Hamilton)
7. Verstappen (P2)
8. Ricciardo (P12 – lapped by Hamilton and Verstappen)
9. Stroll (P13 – lapped by Hamilton and Verstappen)
10. Sainz (P3)
11. Bottas (P4)
12. Schumacher (P14 – lapped by Hamilton, Verstappen, Sainz & Bottas)
13. Tsunoda (P5)
14. Gasly (P6)

Note: Cars which had NOT been lapped are in bold.

You can see this detailed in the driver tracker below:

According to Article 48.12 of the 2021 Formula One Sporting Regulations, “…any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car”.

This is standard procedure under a safety car, allowing lapped cars not to interfere in battles when the race restarts.

However, in Abu Dhabi, we saw the unprecedented situation where the five lapped cars in between Hamilton and Verstappen – Norris, Alonso, Ocon, Leclerc and Vettel – were ordered to overtake the safety car, while the other three lapped drivers – Ricciardo, Stroll and Schumacher – were told to remain where they were.

This created the following order behind the safety car:

1. Hamilton (P1)
2. Verstappen (P2)
3. Ricciardo (P12 – lapped by Hamilton and Verstappen)
4. Stroll (P13 – lapped by Hamilton and Verstappen)
5. Sainz (P3)
6. Bottas (P4)
7. Schumacher (P14 – lapped by Hamilton, Verstappen, Sainz & Bottas)
8. Tsunoda (P5)
9. Gasly (P6)
10. Norris (P7 – unlapped themselves, making way around track)
11. Alonso (P8 – unlapped themselves, making way around track)
12. Ocon (P9 – unlapped themselves, making way around track)
13. Leclerc (P10 – unlapped themselves, making way around track)
14. Vettel (P11 – unlapped themselves, making way around track)

Again, you can see this in the detailed driver tracker below:

This meant Verstappen was now clear behind Hamilton without any lapped cars in between them, while the former still had the luxury of two lapped cars in between himself and Sainz in P3. Bottas in P4 also had an advantage over Tsunoda in P5 thanks to the lapped Mick Schumacher in between them.

So you can already see how an unequal field was created whereby a driver was given a clear route of attack at a car in front of him, while others were not afforded the same generosity.

Controversial Point #2 – Timing of the Safety Car Ending:

Also within Article 48.12 it states that “unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap“.

Now, this is when the second unprecedented decision happened. Instead of waiting for the end of the following lap, the safety car was told to enter the pit lane at the end of the lap that the unlapped cars had overtaken it (one lap earlier than 48.12 stipulates).

This allowed there to be one final lap under racing conditions before the chequered flag, which is when we saw Verstappen – on a fresh set of soft tyres – overtake Hamilton – on 40-lap hard tyres – to win the race and the Driver Championship.

MERCEDES PROTEST & FIA RULING AFTER THE RACE

Understandably, Mercedes were furious that Article 48.12 was not followed fully, resulting in their driver losing the world championship. So they protested the decision, claiming two breaches of the Sporting Regulations (as detailed above).

As an interested party, Red Bull was allowed to attend the protest discussions and argued the following five points in defence of the decisions:

1. “Any” does not mean “all”
2. Article 48.13 of the Sporting Regulations states that the message “Safety Car in this lap” is the signal that it will enter the pit lane at the end of the lap
3. That, therefore, Article 48.13 “overrides” Article 48.12
4. That Article 15.3 gives the Race Director “overriding authority” over “the use of the safety car”
5. That even if all cars had been lapped (8 in total, of which 5 were allowed to overtake the safety car), it would not have changed the outcome of the race

Race Director Michael Masi – who made the decision regarding the unlapping of cars and when the safety car came in – also provided evidence in the protest discussions:

1. The purpose of the Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would “interfere” in the racing line between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one that applied in this case
2. It had long been agreed by all the Teams that, where possible, it was highly desirable for the race to end in a “green” condition

After several hours of deliberation, the FIA stewards offered their conclusion, dismissing Mercedes’ protest. They ruled:

1. That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in their determination includes its deployment and withdrawal
2. 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
3. That notwithstanding Mercedes’ request that stewards remediate the matter by amending the classification to reflect the positions at the end of the penultimate lap, this is a step that the Stewards believe is effectively shortening the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate
4. Accordingly, the Protest is dismissed; the Protest Deposit is not refunded

Case sorted right? Wrong. Mercedes immediately lodged their intent to appeal the decision (giving them 96 hours to decide whether to proceed).

So, to understand why we have arrived at this point it is necessary to untangle which justifications fit which alleged rule breach.

ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENTED ARGUMENTS

Unlapping of Cars:

In defence of the unlapping decision, Red Bull argued that “‘any’ does not mean ‘all'” while the Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would “interfere” in the racing line between the leaders.

But the problem with their argument is that it is completely unprecedented to only allow some of the lapped cars to unlap themselves. All eight relevant cars had only been lapped once and it would have added mere seconds to the wait to allow the three other cars to overtake the safety car.

So when Masi, the Race Director, says that the purpose of unlapping cars is for the benefit of the leaders, where does this come from? It certainly isn’t explicitly stated in the rules (nor is it, may I add). And is it common knowledge between teams? Because it isn’t just the leaders who are fighting for track position.

Here is where some previous comments made by Masi regarding these regulations could come back to haunt him and the FIA. Explaining why the safety car took so long at the Eifel GP in October 2020, Masi said: “There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations, to wave all lapped cars past“.

Note the use of “all” there. It certainly raises questions as to the interpretation of Article 48.12. Essentially, if X amount of safety cars have been deployed while Masi has been Race Director and in all X amount of cases, all of the lapped cars have been able to unlap themselves, why should X+1 be any different?

Timing of the Safety Car Ending:

Meanwhile, in defence of the safety car ending decision, Red Bull argued that “Article 48.13 of the Sporting Regulations states that the message ‘Safety Car in this lap’ is the signal that it will enter the pit lane at the end of that lap”.

Why that message was signalled one lap early was due to Article 15.3, which gives the Race Director “overriding authority” over “the use of the safety car”.

Why did Masi decide to override Article 48.12? His argument hinges on the fact that “it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible it was highly desirable for the race to end in a ‘green’ condition“.

This means that unlike in other races, where a safety car finish would have happened, it had been agreed by all teams that it would not happen in this circumstance. Why? We can only guess, but the reasonable assumption is because there was a championship on the line and it would look bad to have it decided under safety car.

Now, I feel most people would agree that it is reasonable request. Any F1 fan wants to see the championship decided on a racing lap rather than a safety car lap. The only way to ensure this happened was to call the safety car in a lap earlier than Article 48.12 stipulated.

So while the reasoning for ending the safety car seems justifiable, it leaves us returning to the unlapping issue as the main sticking point.

Returning to the Unlapped Car Issue:

Above, I highlighted how the arguments put forward by Red Bull and Masi over why the decision was taken to only let the lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen through were unsatisfactory because it has never happened before.

However, the one argument I did not present for it was the same argument used to justify ending the safety car early: Article 15.3 – the Race Director has “overriding authority” over “the use of the safety car”.

The reason I did this was to show how both decisions are firmly rooted in this sporting regulation (despite arguments otherwise). And this is where the FIA ruling leaves more questions than answers.

To have such a stipulation where the rules and regulations can be changed at the discretion of the Race Director seems difficult to comprehend. Yet there is a clear purpose for its inclusion.

Safety.

In a sport as dangerous as F1, there needs to be a lever to circumvent rules and regulations if it were to prevent a disaster from occurring.

However, should that overriding authority be used for any other reason? That is where many people feel uncomfortable.

Sure, finish the race on a racing lap. There is no problem there. But why let only the five lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen through?

I struggle to find a satisfactory answer to that question. It is not provided in the FIA ruling on Mercedes’ protest. And that is the part that feels most engineered. It was set up to create a last-lap showdown between Lewis and Max for entertainment purposes.

Yet Lewis and Max were not the only two drivers racing. Why was Sainz in P3 not allowed a clear route of attack on Verstappen in P2? Why were Ricciardo and Stroll in P12 and P13 cast so far away from the P7-11 drivers who were allowed to unlap themselves?

Red Bull argue “that even if all cars had been lapped (8 in total, of which 5 were allowed to overtake the safety car), it would not have changed the outcome of the race”. But that is pure speculation. And it should have been up to the drivers on track to determine whether that was the case, not the Race Director.

In that one decision, Masi set a precedent that it is only the drivers at the front that matter. And they only matter when they can provide entertainment to people watching. That is a very dangerous precedent to set.

So while I don’t think the result will – or should – change as there is enough ambiguity in the sporting regulations to cover Masi’s decision-making, I hope Mercedes do appeal the decision, to provide impetus to change Article 15.3 so that a Race Director can never use it for entertainment purposes again.