Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve undoubtedly already heard about the controversial ending to the season finale of the 2021 Formula One season in Abu Dhabi. It’s a race that has sparked a lot of heated debate among fans, with people on both sides of the fence having a lot to say.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Mercedes felt they were robbed of their eighth consecutive World Drivers’ Championship title and they filed multiple protests against various elements related to the final safety car period that ultimately lead to Max Verstappen’s race victory.
There’s little point in wasting time talking about their protest in which they accuse Max Verstappen of overtaking under the safety car, which was certainly a last-ditch attempt at wrestling back the victory they feel they deserve. Instead, let’s dive deeper into the team’s second protest.
This protest is specifically related to article 48.12 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations, which reads in full:
If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message “LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE” has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, 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 will only apply to cars that were lapped at the time they crossed the Line at the end of the lap during which they crossed the first Safety Car line for the second time after the safety car was deployed.
Having overtaken the cars on the lead lap and the safety car these cars should then proceed around the track at an appropriate speed, without overtaking, and make every effort to take up position at the back of the line of cars behind the safety car. Whilst they are overtaking, and in order to ensure this may be carried out safely, the cars on the lead lap must always stay on the racing line unless deviating from it is unavoidable. 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.
If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable for overtaking the message “OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED” will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system.
Mercedes made two arguments referencing this regulation to support their belief that the procedure was not followed correctly. One of these was that the rule says “the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap”, which was not the case in Abu Dhabi. The stewards explained away this issue by saying that article 48.13 overrides that rule.
But it’s Mercedes’ second argument that interests me the most. They claim it’s unfair only five cars separating Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton were allowed to unlap themselves, as they believe the regulations state otherwise. The opposition argues that the word “any” in the first paragraph of the regulation does not mean “all” and by extension, that the race director can selectively allow some lapped cars to overtake the safety car.
Putting aside any precedent set by the countless other races in which this regulation was used, does this counter-argument actually hold up? Does “any” in fact not mean “all”?
The answer to the second question is both yes and no. Sure, the word “any” does not always mean “all”. For example, “pick any card” doesn’t mean to pick all of the cards. However, “any” can also mean “all”. For example, “any students who are late to class must report to the office” doesn’t mean that only some of the late students have to go to the office. It means all students who are late need to go to the office.
But does the argument that “any” does not mean “all” hold up in this case? I’d argue that it doesn’t.
In fact, the sentence about the late students can be rewritten to match the wording of the regulation in question, almost exactly. The sentence “any students that have shown up late to class will be required to report to the office” is pretty much the same as “any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car”.
The use of the word “required” in the regulation feels very deliberate. It’s the opposite of optional, which is an odd choice of words for something that people argue is up to the judgment of the race director. If that were the case, I think it would make more sense to replace the words “required to” with something that makes it sound much less obligatory, like “may” or “allowed to”.
I believe another shortcoming in the “any” does not mean “all” argument comes a couple of paragraphs later in the same regulation. The penultimate paragraph reads, in part, “once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap”. This section of the regulation specifically references “the last lapped car”, not “the last lapped car to pass the leader”. It again feels like a specific choice of words. If not all lapped cars are allowed to pass the leader, then that would mean that “the last lapped car” is sitting somewhere in the middle of the field and will never actually “pass the leader”.
Another wording choice that seems to discredit the argument against Mercedes’ protest is the repeated reference to “the cars on the lead lap”. It’s used twice in the regulations, in the sentence “Having overtaken the cars on the lead lap and the safety car these cars should then proceed around the track at an appropriate speed” and “the cars on the lead lap must always stay on the racing line unless deviating from it is unavoidable”.
Again, this seems like a specific choice of words. If not every car on the lead lap is required to overtake the safety car and leader, could there not be a situation where one lapped car is overtaking another lapped car? The very idea of this seems preposterous and seems to contradict other regulations about gaining positions behind the safety car. After all, if one lapped car overtakes another lapped car, is one driver not gaining a track position?
Not exactly. Assume a car is two laps down. We’ll say it’s a Haas driven by Nikita Mazepin (sorry, low blow perhaps). Let’s say he is directly behind the race leader. Behind him is another driver who is only one lap down. Now let’s say that the race director decides to allow only the drivers who are one lap down overtake the safety car. This should, theoretically, be allowed if the rules were interpreted as those in the “any” doesn’t mean “all” camp are insisting.
Does this mean that Mazepin can stay on the racing line when other lapped cars are passing? The way the rules are written, the answer would be yes. Since Mazepin is not a car on the lead lap, he doesn’t need to follow that part of the regulation.
All of this highlights a major issue not only the F1 regulations but regulations, rules, laws and even language in general. They are all open to interpretation. One group of people may believe that a sentence means something, while another group believes a sentence means something entirely different.
The argument could be made that the F1 regulations should be rewritten in such a way that they couldn’t possibly be misinterpreted. And sure, I’m almost certain changes could be made to improve the clarity, but it’s impossible to account for every possible situation. What seems clear now may not seem clear when applied to some other unforeseeable specific situation. There will always be room for interpretation.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organization, employer or company. Assumptions made in any analysis contained within this article are not reflective of the position of any entity other than the author.
