2021 Bahrain Grand Prix Race Thread

The FIA didn't push back here—Hamilton is definitely getting some protection from the higher-ups

Here’s another one for you guys. Okon had all four wheels off the track while overtaking—and he did it three different times—yet the FIA didn't say a single word...

Jason Campbell70 said:Alright. Fine. Let's get to it.
Playing the victim. Should we actually respect the guidelines that the FIA Race Director laid out so clearly during the driver briefing right before the race?

I'm pretty sure the guidelines didn't exactly say you could just wander off the track whenever you felt like it.
They told the drivers they wouldn't be penalized for running wide at that spot. It was basically an "if it happens, don't sweat it" kind of deal.
There’s a massive difference between a momentary lapse in judgment and someone intentionally driving off track just to grab an unfair advantage. It really comes down to intent. You're either making a mistake, or you're playing the system.

The FIA screwed up, and now they're paying a heavy price for it.
If they saw Hamilton was gaming the pre-race directives, they should have shut him down immediately. There was no reason to wait until thirty instances had passed. They should have cut him loose after five, maybe ten at most.

If you want proof that Hamilton isn't exactly the saint he pretends to be, just look at how he handled that first warning. He basically ignored it, acting like it was nothing, and only backed off when they hit him with the second one. It wasn't even a choice; he just didn't want to deal with it.

As far as the polls go, the race was "fantastic."
A tense, nail-biting battle for the win right up until the final lap—honestly, we could use more of that.

Regarding the winner, I just don't get why a seven-time champ has to deal with this nonsense involving a spin-out.
Did he seriously have to go through that!?

Roger Wright94 said:The directive definitely wasn't an invitation to wander off-track whenever they felt like it.
What was actually communicated to the drivers was that they wouldn't be penalized for going wide at that specific spot. It was more along the lines of, "if this happens..."
There’s a massive difference between occasionally running wide and intentionally staying off-track to gain a tactical advantage. It comes down to intent—doing something by accident versus doing it on purpose.

The FIA made a mistake here, and now they're paying the price.
If it was clear that Hamilton was exploiting those pre-race guidelines, they should have stepped in much sooner. They shouldn't have waited until the 30th time; they should have shut it down after five, maybe ten laps at most.

The fact that Hamilton didn't act like the paragon of virtue he's often portrayed as shows he just ignored the first warning. He only stopped once he realized he had to.

Can you drop a link to that? Is that really what they said?

Red Bull's outrunning Mercedes
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/3...nger-round-one

So, how exactly did Red Bull jump ahead of Mercedes?
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/3...nger-round-one

👍

neonfox65 said:Here’s another perfect example. Okon went for an overtake with all four wheels off the track—and he did it three different times! The FIA didn't say a single word about it.

Look at that battle between Leclerc and Verstappen at Silverstone. The drivers aren't the problem here; the issue is the FIA failing to actually enforce the rules. Even Brundle pointed it out right after the duel, saying "he took the position outside of the track," yet there was absolutely no reaction from the officials.







It's just like FIFA and their nonsensical VAR calls. You have these vague rules that the ref interprets however they feel like in the moment, and then you see the exact same situation handled completely differently in two different games.

If they actually had Šoder out there in the runoff areas, we wouldn't need any of this—no refs, no rulebooks, no endless debating over technicalities. Šoder would just deliver justice, naturally.

But they don't have him. Because they're all fakes.

ruggedhawk20 said:If there were actual gravel in the runoff areas, wouldn't all these complications just vanish? One wouldn't even need referees, or a complex set of regulations, or endless debates over how those rules should be interpreted. A bit of loose gravel would simply deliver justice through the natural course of physics.

But they don't have any gravel, do they? Because they are nothing but frauds.

I couldn't agree more.

Richard Walker38 said:You could look at that fight between Leclerc and Verstappen at Silverstone—but honestly, you can't blame the drivers there. It’s the FIA's fault for not enforcing the rules properly. Even Brundle pointed out right after the duel, "he took the position outside of the track," but nothing happened... no reaction at all.

Even Leclerc was off the track here...

ruggedhawk20 said:If they just had gravel in the runoff areas, we wouldn't have any of these problems. Honestly, they wouldn't even need referees, rules, or some official interpreting the rulebook. Just a good patch of gravel would deliver justice naturally.

They don't have any guts. Total fakes.

graniteharbor502 said:I'm with you on that.

It’s not about being fake or making excuses, it’s just basic math. You don't build a track with gravel traps if it only serves one niche group of racers. Modern tracks are designed to be versatile, catering to all kinds of drivers—including the amateur crowd—and those guys don't want to be sliding through gravel every time they miss an apex, nor do they want to be inches away from a concrete wall. Think about how things work over here in the States. Look at any of the massive new stadiums popping up; nobody builds a billion-dollar arena just to host a football game once every two weeks. They build multi-purpose hubs meant for concerts, shopping malls, training facilities, and movie theaters. It’s all about the bottom line. It isn't some conspiracy or a lie; it's just a simple economic calculation. If it doesn't make money, it doesn't get built. Period.

wiredfalcon2 said:It’s not about being fake—it’s just basic math. Building a track meant for one single type of racing isn't profitable. Modern tracks have to host all kinds of stuff, including amateur events, where gravel traps aren't even ideal and walls are too close. Name me one new track being built in America that's designed specifically for just one or two motorsport categories and features tons of gravel. Even those massive new stadiums being built—they're designed to be multi-use hubs for concerts, training, shopping centers, and movies... not just a field for a game played once every two weeks. It's not a scam; it's an economic calculation.

Luis Salom, a MotoGP rider, died at the Barcelona track because of the asphalt runoff area. If that runoff had been gravel, Luis would still be here.

That's the reality.

Everyone knows why we don't have gravel. It's just so there are fewer DNFs—basically, so they can keep more cars on TV screens.

And since we're talking amateurs—amateurs don't even touch Grade 1 tracks because they're way too expensive.

Come out to a local track like Grobnik this weekend and you'll see it's packed with guys from all over. They aren't heading to Misano or Adria; they're coming here. And Grobnik is absolutely covered in gravel. You rarely see anyone actually end up in it, though.

ruggedhawk20 said:Luis Salo, a MotoGP rider, died at the track in Barcelona because of the asphalt run-off area. If that run-off had been made of gravel, Luis would've survived.

That's the deal.

It’s obvious why we don’t have gravel. It's just so they can have fewer DNFs, which means more cars on the TV screen.

And while we're talking about amateurs... well, amateurs don't even use Grade 1 tracks because they're way too expensive.

Come down to a local track like Laguna Seca this weekend and you'll see it's packed with people from all over. They aren't heading to Misano or Adria, they're coming here. And Laguna Seca is covered in gravel. You rarely see anyone actually end up in it.

Nah, it’s not really about that. Go read an interview with the director at Paul Ricard. Or better yet, read an interview with race organizers about where their funding actually comes from. It’s pretty clear this is all just a math problem, not the nonsense you're rambling about. Every infrastructure project these days has an investor behind it, and those investors want their money back. For most tracks, F1 is either a total money pit or they're just breaking even. Take Melbourne—without $30 million AUD from the local government, that race wouldn't even be worth doing, even if they lead the season and the stands are always full. For tracks like Paul Ricard, hosting an F1 race is all about prestige; they use it as a pitch to sell the track to other racing categories—basically telling them, "Hey, come drive on the same circuit where F1 races." They don't just survive off that one race, either. Look at Hockenheim—they almost went bankrupt despite having plenty of gravel.