planetf1.com

Exediron wrote:

JN23 wrote:

JN23 wrote:Was Norris unlucky with safety car timing or was his pace poor (or both I guess)? How did he end up multiple places behind Sainz after starting 10 places ahead?

Anyone?

His side of the garage got the strategy wrong. He (like Bottas) committed to a one-stop on the Hard early on, but was forced to abandon it after it became clear the tyre was too slow. Sainz made the idea one-stop strategy work, and did indeed benefit from the safety cars bunching the field twice.

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

mikeyg123 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

mikeyg123 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

Greenman wrote:.

Re. Vettel/Leclerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

Asphalt_World wrote:The speed advantage Seb had over Charles along that straight, if he'd have kept it straight for another half a second or so, he'd have cleared Charles cleanly and not needed to move across at all.

Covalent wrote:I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...

F1_Ernie wrote:

pokerman wrote:I've just got in and read all the posts to see if they tally with my views of the race, I managed to watch the race on a phone but with no sound so there might be certain things I'm not aware of.

First point of interest is why the SC for Bottas' car, and that seems a unanimous opinion, I even question if it needed a VSC, a local yellow would have sufficed, I'm sorry but all I see here is it allowing Ferrari back into the race.

Second point is yet again the woeful strategy from Mercedes in regards to Hamilton, the first stop was good but I have to say with the benefit of minutes to work it out, when the suspect SC gets called and a decision has to be made in seconds rather than minutes then Vowles can't make a decision. Hamilton could have made a free pit stop on to fresh tyres but having to think quick yet again Vowles gets stuck in the headlights. For Red Bull it was the immediate obvious thing to do, they probably thought it would be the obvious play by Mercedes?

This then left Hamilton vulnerable to all the cars behind him on fresher, softer tyres which then also seemed to trigger the pit stop after the second late SC to make amends for the earlier error, a crazy thing to do with only 5 laps to go and losing Hamilton 2 positions on the track. I understand that was Hamilton's call but damage had already been done with Hamilton making an unwise call perhaps because he can't 100% trust Vowles?

The third point is the collision between Vettel and Leclerc, I instantly called it as being Vettel's fault but now it's a rule that if you crash your teammate out then it doesn't matter?

For comparison I instantly called the 5 second penalty on Hamilton for hitting and spinning Albon and that seemingly was administered within minutes, not the hours it took to penalise Leclerc for basically crashing Verstappen out of a race.

Yet again I'm unimpressed by Masi's decisions, an uncalled for SC, penalty points on Hamilton's license whilst Vettel gets nothing.

I think Hamilton pushed for the undercut at the first stop, there was the issue with the battery what got Hamilton angry then at the final stop Mercedes believed Hamilton would lose just 1 place when he actually lost 2. Red bulls pitstops are also excellent.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/17/ham ... des-admit/

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

sandman1347 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

P-F1 Mod wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

The "out of harm's way" argument seems to no longer exist in F1. I can see the logic from a safety angle, but it causes these messes. Of course, if they left a car at the side of the road and someone managed to hit it, there'd be uproar.

da4an1qu1 wrote:

Covalent wrote:I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...

Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.

SlipstreamF1 wrote:How ironic how the real racing didn't begin until after the championship was decided. Every man for himself. Even Lewis who really had nothing to prove other than to prove that he's fastest of the pack. I would've preferred Lewis take things easy and coast to finish. There was no need for him to get into the thicke of things

Flash2k11 wrote:Really not happy with the way the stewarding is going this year. I don't think i'm the only one who thinks the stewards had half an eye on Vettel's ever increasing penalty point count (which now doesn't decrease until the middle of next year) when deciding no further action.

Driving into someone like that is surely the textbook definition of an avoidable incident?

The SC call was pretty bogus too, Bottas' car was fine where it was. Then we have the blind eye turned to driving like the move Leclerc pulled on Norris at the start of the race. If that kind of chop is now deemed acceptable conduct then it wont be long before we have another car getting launched into the air via tangled wheels. They gave Verstappen an inch in Austra and now a lot of them are taking the whole mile with this kind of driving.

da4an1qu1 wrote:

Covalent wrote:I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...

Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.

mikeyg123 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

So that renders the reasoning as being totally mute.

Siao7 wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

Re. Vettel/Leclerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...

da4an1qu1 wrote:

Covalent wrote:I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...

Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.

da4an1qu1 wrote:

Covalent wrote:I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...

Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

Re. Vettel/Leclerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...

Maybe he should have gone full English and called him Shoemaker?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

So that renders the reasoning as being totally mute.

This is far from the first time. There is only two possible explanations at this stage.

1. Michael Masi is an idiot.

2. The safety car is not being used in good faith.

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

Re. Vettel/Leclerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...

Maybe he should have gone full English and called him Shoemaker?

That would be a cobbler wouldn't it?

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

Re. Vettel/Leclerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...

Maybe he should have gone full English and called him Shoemaker?

pokerman wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

The "out of harm's way" argument seems to no longer exist in F1. I can see the logic from a safety angle, but it causes these messes. Of course, if they left a car at the side of the road and someone managed to hit it, there'd be uproar.

I would venture that were it was parked made it almost impossible to hit in the natural cause of an accident.

Siao7 wrote:So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems

Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems

Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.

Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems

Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.

Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems

Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.

Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though

No one is saying that the mistake occurred yesterday. The mistake occurred whenever the policies were made that allowed them to chuck in easy SC periods like this. The key takeaway is that incompetent 'mistakes' are still being made that interfere with purity.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems

Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.

Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though

Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems

Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.

Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though

Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?

They are recovered ASAP and SC takes some time to bunch up, so I'm not sure what you mean there. I am not sure if Masi wrote this policy or not. Not sure who is responsible for writing the policies either

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.

Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though

Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?

They are recovered ASAP and SC takes some time to bunch up, so I'm not sure what you mean there. I am not sure if Masi wrote this policy or not. Not sure who is responsible for writing the policies either

I think that is his point though.

If the SC is presumably required for 'really unsafe situations' say, then if that is true, work needs to be delayed by the marshalls in addressing the 'really unsafe situations' until all cars are close up being the safety car. This is because for the first 10%-20% of an SC period the race effectively functions as a VSC period anyhow, so marshalls need to be disciplined and wait until the final 80% of the SC period before moving stricken cars etc.

It just shows that really it is all BS and the likely underlying motivation is to decrease purity/increase fake entertainment.

Further evidence to back this up is their reluctance to add a pit stop time levy on cars pitting under the SC or VSC to prevent unfair time advantages to be gained by having cheap pit stops and taking advantage of a safety procedure in an unsporting way. That and allowing lapped cars to get out of the way so that everyone is nose-to-tail for position, again says to me that these are all sneaky attempts to decrease purity/increase fake entertainment.

And yes, I know the sport will never be 100% pure, but that doesn't mean that it should facilitate unnecessary actions that decrease purity even more than needs be.

It still sickens me that it is seen as a legitimate 'tactic' to try and run long and take advantage of a potential safety procedure to win a race through the use of a cheap pitstop, it is tantamount to cheating and is unsporting, but it's currently viewed as a 'tactical masterstroke' in the F1 community when you pull it off.

Asphalt_World wrote:I've read some interesting stuff on this forum before, but the attempt to call the Ferrari crash a racing incident, and in one case where it seems Charles is to blame, is simply beyond staggering!

F1 Racer wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:I've read some interesting stuff on this forum before, but the attempt to call the Ferrari crash a racing incident, and in one case where it seems Charles is to blame, is simply beyond staggering!

Of course, and like someone else mentioned before, why didn't the Sky pundits have the balls to ask Binotto what he thought CL had done wrong etc. It would have been good journalism because Binotto would have struggled to answer and not been able to present a convincing case against CL.

It just goes to show that all the interviews around the race weekend are just boring cliched PR drivel and none of it really means anything, they are all just being politically correct.

The team radio stuff is real and can be trusted, but very few of the interviews can, they are just boring spiel most of the time.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems

Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.

Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though

Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?

They are recovered ASAP and SC takes some time to bunch up, so I'm not sure what you mean there. I am not sure if Masi wrote this policy or not. Not sure who is responsible for writing the policies either