F1 2021 Season

diarm said:
Verstappen has to see a time penalty. For anyone saying it's unfair because he didn't have a chance to make up the 5 seconds in the race, he 100% did.

He knows what he did, just as he knows what he's doing when cheating pretty much every week these days. He would've known what the onboard footage was going to show after the race and had ample time to make up the 5 seconds from there on in.

If F1 doesn't stop enabling his behaviour, somebody is going to get seriously hurt.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more with this.
When he is under severe pressure or does not get his own way, he has a habit of driving too aggressively. And in motor racing, that is definitely a no no.
But he is fully supported by his RB team and so he believes that everything he does is perfectly acceptable.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
I find him to be an insufferable prick, moaning all the time.
Just think what he would have said if it was the other way round at Brazil and Lewis had forced Max off !
Click to expand...
Max wouldn't have given way so it would have been a highspeed crash and Horner would have wanted Lewis banned for it.
From what Masi said the other day the only way to get a penalty for Max is to stay on the racing line and let him hit you.
 
sun_tzu said:
yeah I dnt mind who wins but plese dont let it come down to the fact that it seems they didnt want to refund the racegoers at spa so tiptoed round in formation for just long enough to save themselves some money
Click to expand...

Fine margins. It has been a gripping season. And it is perfectly possible that that scenario could end up as a decider.
The last 3 will hopefully be a straight fight between Red Bull and Mercedes and Max with his 14 point lead and Lewis.
Just hope it is a fair outcome with racing being the decider and not some kind of anomaly.
 
Abizzz said:


He was actually accelerating when straightening out to push of Lewis. Bonkers. The cheek to call that racing. I hope someone does that to Horner on the highway :lol:
Click to expand...


Pause at 0:47. He's already past the apex and he's still on the brakes and turning in. He's obviously braked too late in order to try and outbrake but failed, missing the corner and pushing off Lewis as a result. Stewards should have told Max to give Lewis the position but they fecked up and said no investigation necessary. That's the big thing here. The question isn't whether or not Max pushed Lewis off, because it's obvious that's what happened (though I think it's ridiculous to say he was trying to crash into Lewis, if that's what he wanted to do he wouldn't have turned in at all and just locked up his brakes and went "oops" :lol:). The big question is what would be a fair way to handle this as the stewards fecked up by saying no investigation necessary to Max didn't bother to try and keep a certain amount of time between him and Bottas. If they had said we'll investigate after the race it would be a different matter entirely.

Abizzz said:
For anyone new to F1, this is how you're penalized if you aren't the FIA's favorite:


By that standard Max should sit out the last 3 races :lol:
Click to expand...


What Rosberg does there is worse and there's no question it's deliberate. You can clearly see he's not turning in at all, unlike Max. Did Rosberg get a retrospective 5s penalty for that after stewards said no investigation necesssary then? Or are you just trying to wind people up?
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
The big question is what would be a fair way to handle this as the stewards fecked up by saying no investigation necessary to Max didn't bother to try and keep a certain amount of time between him and Bottas. If they had said we'll investigate after the race it would be a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...

i think bringing back capital punishment is the only recourse from here.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
Pause at 0:47. He's already past the apex and he's still on the brakes and turning in. He's obviously braked too late in order to try and outbrake but failed, missing the corner and pushing off Lewis as a result. Stewards should have told Max to give Lewis the position but they fecked up and said no investigation necessary. That's the big thing here. The question isn't whether or not Max pushed Lewis off, because it's obvious that's what happened (though I think it's ridiculous to say he was trying to crash into Lewis, if that's what he wanted to do he wouldn't have turned in at all and just locked up his brakes and went "oops" :lol:). The big question is what would be a fair way to handle this as the stewards fecked up by saying no investigation necessary to Max didn't bother to try and keep a certain amount of time between him and Bottas. If they had said we'll investigate after the race it would be a different matter entirely.



What Rosberg does there is worse and there's no question it's deliberate. You can clearly see he's not turning in at all, unlike Max. Did Rosberg get a retrospective 5s penalty for that after stewards said no investigation necesssary then? Or are you just trying to wind people up?
Click to expand...

Hamilton got a 10s stop and go penalty for missing the apex at Silverstone. This incident really isn’t dissimilar except Max didn’t avoid the collision at Silverstone but Hamilton did at Brazil (unless we are making the laughable conclusion that Hamilton purposely hit max at Silverstone?) and obviously the extent to which Max missed the apex is far more significant than Hamilton at Silverstone. In my view that should have no bearing on punishment - it’s exactly the same offence regardless of whether they collide or not or whether the other driver gave way or not. Perhaps extent could have an impact. How a 10s stop go matches in terms of post race punishment I don’t know, but the stewards messed up by not sorting it out in the race. And your suggestion that it is a simple case of handing over the place would also be an inconsistent and hence insufficient punishment.
 
Video of the new Abu Dhabi revisions…if Mercedes take another new ICE here you’d have to assume they’ll have zero issues overtaking anyone on that super long straight with DRS. I don’t see how you could defend it - no wonder Red Bull are searching for reasons to get something banned! Next two races are massive I think.

 
Mickeza said:
Video of the new Abu Dhabi revisions…if Mercedes take another new ICE here
you’d have to assume they’ll have zero issues overtaking anyone on that super long straight with DRS. I don’t see how you could defend it - no wonder Red Bull are searching for reasons to get something banned! Next two races are massive I think.

Click to expand...


The Abu Dhabi track is changed this year?
Edit: I didn’t know this was happening, interesting. Just read the full article. Seems like they’re eliminating a number of corners.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
Pause at 0:47. He's already past the apex and he's still on the brakes and turning in. He's obviously braked too late in order to try and outbrake but failed, missing the corner and pushing off Lewis as a result. Stewards should have told Max to give Lewis the position but they fecked up and said no investigation necessary. That's the big thing here. The question isn't whether or not Max pushed Lewis off, because it's obvious that's what happened (though I think it's ridiculous to say he was trying to crash into Lewis, if that's what he wanted to do he wouldn't have turned in at all and just locked up his brakes and went "oops" :lol:). The big question is what would be a fair way to handle this as the stewards fecked up by saying no investigation necessary to Max didn't bother to try and keep a certain amount of time between him and Bottas. If they had said we'll investigate after the race it would be a different matter entirely.



What Rosberg does there is worse and there's no question it's deliberate. You can clearly see he's not turning in at all, unlike Max. Did Rosberg get a retrospective 5s penalty for that after stewards said no investigation necesssary then? Or are you just trying to wind people up?
Click to expand...
What Rosberg did is no worse. It is at a slower speed so actually much less dangerous than Max's manoeuvre.
 
2pm Thursday Mercedes present their evidence to officials that max should have been punished for the brasilian GP incident. Red Bull will be present at meeting.
 
dinostar77 said:
2pm Thursday Mercedes present their evidence to officials that max should have been punished for the brasilian GP incident. Red Bull will be present at meeting.
Click to expand...

That would be incredible to watch. Imagine how awkward it’s going to be :lol:
 
rpitroda said:
Hamilton got a 10s stop and go penalty for missing the apex at Silverstone. This incident really isn’t dissimilar except Max didn’t avoid the collision at Silverstone but Hamilton did at Brazil (unless we are making the laughable conclusion that Hamilton purposely hit max at Silverstone?) and obviously the extent to which Max missed the apex is far more significant than Hamilton at Silverstone. In my view that should have no bearing on punishment - it’s exactly the same offence regardless of whether they collide or not or whether the other driver gave way or not. Perhaps extent could have an impact. How a 10s stop go matches in terms of post race punishment I don’t know, but the stewards messed up by not sorting it out in the race. And your suggestion that it is a simple case of handing over the place would also be an inconsistent and hence insufficient punishment.
Click to expand...
The incidents are similar in a way yes, though as @Fluctuation0161 says about the Rosberg one, you could argue speed or better yet level of risk or danger could also be a factor in the punishment. The Silverstone one was obviously very high speed and thus dangerous. But then I suppose there are other factors as well. Anyway, you could be right that just giving up the position would be a mild punishment. I could have lived with a 5s penalty for Max during the race as well. That would have been fair enough. I agree they should have dealt with it during the race. But if the stewards say no investigation necessary that should be that for the race. You can't expect Max or Red Bull to factor into their strategy a penalty for an incident that's already been dealt with by the stewards. I feel Max could easily have kept Bottas 5s+ behind him if he needed to. It would probably have put more strain on the car but that would have been worth it. For that reason a retrospective 5s penalty is not the same as a 5s penalty during the race. Not when the stewards have said no investigation necessary. It would be a massive shame for everyone who loves the sport if the championship gets decided this way.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
The incidents are similar in a way yes, though as @Fluctuation0161 says about the Rosberg one, you could argue speed or better yet level of risk or danger could also be a factor in the punishment. The Silverstone one was obviously very high speed and thus dangerous. But then I suppose there are other factors as well. Anyway, you could be right that just giving up the position would be a mild punishment. I could have lived with a 5s penalty for Max during the race as well. That would have been fair enough. I agree they should have dealt with it during the race. But if the stewards say no investigation necessary that should be that for the race. You can't expect Max or Red Bull to factor into their strategy a penalty for an incident that's already been dealt with by the stewards. I feel Max could easily have kept Bottas 5s+ behind him if he needed to. It would probably have put more strain on the car but that would have been worth it. For that reason a retrospective 5s penalty is not the same as a 5s penalty during the race. Not when the stewards have said no investigation necessary. It would be a massive shame for everyone who loves the sport if the championship gets decided this way.
Click to expand...

Doubt you took this view about the .5mm mishap over the weekend?
 
What a brilliant season this is. Controversy, drama, hard core over the limit racing between 2 unlikable tw@t’s and a title fight till the end. Fantastic, how F1 should be.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
The incidents are similar in a way yes, though as @Fluctuation0161 says about the Rosberg one, you could argue speed or better yet level of risk or danger could also be a factor in the punishment. The Silverstone one was obviously very high speed and thus dangerous. But then I suppose there are other factors as well. Anyway, you could be right that just giving up the position would be a mild punishment. I could have lived with a 5s penalty for Max during the race as well. That would have been fair enough. I agree they should have dealt with it during the race. But if the stewards say no investigation necessary that should be that for the race. You can't expect Max or Red Bull to factor into their strategy a penalty for an incident that's already been dealt with by the stewards. I feel Max could easily have kept Bottas 5s+ behind him if he needed to. It would probably have put more strain on the car but that would have been worth it. For that reason a retrospective 5s penalty is not the same as a 5s penalty during the race. Not when the stewards have said no investigation necessary. It would be a massive shame for everyone who loves the sport if the championship gets decided this way.
Click to expand...
In the same way Hamilton received his penalty, and others in the past, if you break the rules you break the rules and you should receive the appropriate penalty. Being in a title fight doesn’t and shouldn’t impact that. For the spectator it would be a shame, sure, but stewards and race officials can’t make decisions based upon that.

There are of course a variety of factors to consider. You could be pedantic about a whole host of things. Silverstone was faster, more dangerous. Max was potentially deliberate (not even in question for Lewis), was far wider, and a collision which could still have been dangerous only avoided because of the sensibility of Lewis. Some go one way, some the other.

I also disagree you can’t consider it retrospectively. If a mistake is made it should be looked at. I agree if there is nothing new, it creates an awkward precedent. But the stewards didn’t have the onboard and telemetry to sync at the time. Now they do, it should at least be evaluated.

On the penalty itself, I’m struggling on why this should be a 5s time penalty whereas Lewis effectively got what amounts to a 20-30s penalty if not more. Not to mention his advance was then also prohibited by having to overtake as a result of the penalty. I don’t think the two are proportionate to the incidents. If you set that precedent with Hamilton then you should apply it to Max.

For me, a grid penalty at the next race is the most effective way of correcting this. Something like a 5 place penalty. It’s at the start of the race so it’s not like it’s punishing him directly by losing those places, it gives the chance for him to make them up - just like if he received a penalty during the race and was then having to overtake to get back to second.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
Pause at 0:47. He's already past the apex and he's still on the brakes and turning in. He's obviously braked too late in order to try and outbrake but failed, missing the corner and pushing off Lewis as a result. Stewards should have told Max to give Lewis the position but they fecked up and said no investigation necessary. That's the big thing here. The question isn't whether or not Max pushed Lewis off, because it's obvious that's what happened (though I think it's ridiculous to say he was trying to crash into Lewis, if that's what he wanted to do he wouldn't have turned in at all and just locked up his brakes and went "oops" :lol:). The big question is what would be a fair way to handle this as the stewards fecked up by saying no investigation necessary to Max didn't bother to try and keep a certain amount of time between him and Bottas. If they had said we'll investigate after the race it would be a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...
Retrospective punishments are well established in F1.
ArjenIsM3 said:
What Rosberg does there is worse and there's no question it's deliberate. You can clearly see he's not turning in at all, unlike Max. Did Rosberg get a retrospective 5s penalty for that after stewards said no investigation necesssary then? Or are you just trying to wind people up?
Click to expand...
Rosberg actually makes the corner.
 
rpitroda said:
In the same way Hamilton received his penalty, and others in the past, if you break the rules you break the rules and you should receive the appropriate penalty. Being in a title fight doesn’t and shouldn’t impact that. For the spectator it would be a shame, sure, but stewards and race officials can’t make decisions based upon that.

There are of course a variety of factors to consider. You could be pedantic about a whole host of things. Silverstone was faster, more dangerous. Max was potentially deliberate (not even in question for Lewis), was far wider, and a collision which could still have been dangerous only avoided because of the sensibility of Lewis. Some go one way, some the other.

I also disagree you can’t consider it retrospectively. If a mistake is made it should be looked at. I agree if there is nothing new, it creates an awkward precedent. But the stewards didn’t have the onboard and telemetry to sync at the time. Now they do, it should at least be evaluated.

On the penalty itself, I’m struggling on why this should be a 5s time penalty whereas Lewis effectively got what amounts to a 20-30s penalty if not more. Not to mention his advance was then also prohibited by having to overtake as a result of the penalty. I don’t think the two are proportionate to the incidents. If you set that precedent with Hamilton then you should apply it to Max.

For me, a grid penalty at the next race is the most effective way of correcting this. Something like a 5 place penalty. It’s at the start of the race so it’s not like it’s punishing him directly by losing those places, it gives the chance for him to make them up - just like if he received a penalty during the race and was then having to overtake to get back to second.
Click to expand...
I agree if you break the rules you should get a penalty, that's what the stewards are for. I just don't think Max should be made to pay for the stewards messing up. Which is exactly what you'd achieve if a retrospective 5s penalty is handed out. It would be unfair punishment. I'm not saying retrospective action should be completely off the table, I'm saying if any retrospective punishment is necessary it should be dealt with the next race. If punishment is necessary a grid penalty the next race would be the fairest option So we agree on that bit.

How did Lewis get a 20-30+ second penalty in your mind? A 10 second stop and go is exactly that right? You pit but your team has to wait 10 seconds before working on the car. It would only amount to 30s if you get the penalty in your out lap right after pitting or something as you then don't really have anything to gain from the pit stop. But since you don't have to stop right away that never happens. Considering his move was more dangerous due to the extremely high speeds and Hamilton actually taking out Max (causing a collision) it makes sense that he would be given a bigger penalty. I'm not sure if you want to factor in the damage you've caused to the opposition with your error, in this case Lewis being held up for 11 laps. If you want to do that consistently, it would have meant the only proportionate penalty for Lewis at Silverstone would have been a DSQ. Not sure that's the way to go.
 
rpitroda said:
In the same way Hamilton received his penalty, and others in the past, if you break the rules you break the rules and you should receive the appropriate penalty. Being in a title fight doesn’t and shouldn’t impact that. For the spectator it would be a shame, sure, but stewards and race officials can’t make decisions based upon that.

There are of course a variety of factors to consider. You could be pedantic about a whole host of things. Silverstone was faster, more dangerous. Max was potentially deliberate (not even in question for Lewis), was far wider, and a collision which could still have been dangerous only avoided because of the sensibility of Lewis. Some go one way, some the other.

I also disagree you can’t consider it retrospectively. If a mistake is made it should be looked at. I agree if there is nothing new, it creates an awkward precedent. But the stewards didn’t have the onboard and telemetry to sync at the time. Now they do, it should at least be evaluated.

On the penalty itself, I’m struggling on why this should be a 5s time penalty whereas Lewis effectively got what amounts to a 20-30s penalty if not more. Not to mention his advance was then also prohibited by having to overtake as a result of the penalty. I don’t think the two are proportionate to the incidents. If you set that precedent with Hamilton then you should apply it to Max.

For me, a grid penalty at the next race is the most effective way of correcting this. Something like a 5 place penalty. It’s at the start of the race so it’s not like it’s punishing him directly by losing those places, it gives the chance for him to make them up - just like if he received a penalty during the race and was then having to overtake to get back to second.
Click to expand...
All fair points. I tend to agree.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
I agree if you break the rules you should get a penalty, that's what the stewards are for. I just don't think Max should be made to pay for the stewards messing up. Which is exactly what you'd achieve if a retrospective 5s penalty is handed out. It would be unfair punishment. I'm not saying retrospective action should be completely off the table, I'm saying if any retrospective punishment is necessary it should be dealt with the next race. If punishment is necessary a grid penalty the next race would be the fairest option So we agree on that bit.

How did Lewis get a 20-30+ second penalty in your mind? A 10 second stop and go is exactly that right? You pit but your team has to wait 10 seconds before working on the car. It would only amount to 30s if you get the penalty in your out lap right after pitting or something as you then don't really have anything to gain from the pit stop. But since you don't have to stop right away that never happens. Considering his move was more dangerous due to the extremely high speeds and Hamilton actually taking out Max (causing a collision) it makes sense that he would be given a bigger penalty. I'm not sure if you want to factor in the damage you've caused to the opposition with your error, in this case Lewis being held up for 11 laps. If you want to do that consistently, it would have meant the only proportionate penalty for Lewis at Silverstone would have been a DSQ. Not sure that's the way to go.
Click to expand...

My mistake, apologies - I thought he took an extra pit stop because of the penalty.

When you say Hamilton took Verstappen out, it seems like we are trending back to hyperbole / strawman arguments here. Just to be clear, in Silverstone, Hamilton missed the apex (by a couple feet), Verstappen was not willing to give more than a little bit of extra room, and so they collided and Max went off. In Brazil, Max missed the apex by many many feet and ran wide well off the track, Hamilton instead of continuing on his trajectory, sensibly ran wide with him to avoid the collision, hence they did not crash.

Therefore I really do think any objective person cannot suggest that the fact they collided or the fact there was damage should be considered a factor (in this circumstance). What you’re saying there, is because Hamilton was sensible and they did not crash, he should be double punished because by being sensible you’re now saying the penalty on Max should be reduced as a result. So what, Max benefits because Lewis was sensible? If you hand on heart can’t understand why that is simply not correct, then we can be done with this discussion.

I personally think what Max did was worse. Potentially deliberate, even if it wasn’t he simply knew he would never make the apex there, and even if he thought he could he missed it so significantly that it endangered himself and Lewis. I know we will never agree on that, but to my mind it is incredibly shady the difference in how the two incidents were dealt with by the stewards. And I’m yet to see one truly rational reason as to why. So really I’m not even most annoyed with Max although it was very dickish, I’m mostly just annoyed with the stewards who, if they acted appropriately, would very quickly eliminate that type of racing from Max. And actually that’d be to Max’s betterment in the long run.
 
Last edited:
rpitroda said:
My mistake, apologies - I thought he took an extra pit stop because of the penalty.

When you say Hamilton took Verstappen out, it seems like we are trending back to hyperbole / strawman arguments here. Just to be clear, in Silverstone, Hamilton missed the apex (by a couple feet), Verstappen was not willing to give more than a little bit of extra room, and so they collided and Max went off. In Brazil, Max missed the apex by many many feet and ran wide well off the track, Hamilton instead of continuing on his trajectory, sensibly ran wide with him to avoid the collision, hence they did not crash.

Therefore I really do think any objective person cannot suggest that the fact they collided or the fact there was damage should be considered a factor (in this circumstance). What you’re saying there, is because Hamilton was sensible and they did not crash, he should be double punished because by being sensible you’re now saying the penalty on Max should be reduced as a result. So what, Max benefits because Lewis was sensible? If you hand on heart can’t understand why that is simply not correct, then we can be done with this discussion.

I personally think what Max did was worse. Potentially deliberate, even if it wasn’t he simply knew he would never make the apex there, and even if he thought he could he missed it so significantly that it endangered himself and Lewis. I know we will never agree on that, but to my mind it is incredibly shady the difference in how the two incidents were dealt with by the stewards. And I’m yet to see one truly rational reason as to why. So really I’m not even most annoyed with Max although it was very dickish, I’m mostly just annoyed with the stewards who, if they acted appropriately, would very quickly eliminate that type of racing from Max. And actually that’d be to Max’s betterment in the long run.
Click to expand...

that’s not very f1 of you. double down on it. tell everyone else it was just hard debating and fits under the credos of “let them argue.”
 
rpitroda said:
My mistake, apologies - I thought he took an extra pit stop because of the penalty.

When you say Hamilton took Verstappen out, it seems like we are trending back to hyperbole / strawman arguments here. Just to be clear, in Silverstone, Hamilton missed the apex (by a couple feet), Verstappen was not willing to give more than a little bit of extra room, and so they collided and Max went off. In Brazil, Max missed the apex by many many feet and ran wide well off the track, Hamilton instead of continuing on his trajectory, sensibly ran wide with him to avoid the collision, hence they did not crash.

Therefore I really do think any objective person cannot suggest that the fact they collided or the fact there was damage should be considered a factor (in this circumstance). What you’re saying there, is because Hamilton was sensible and they did not crash, he should be double punished because by being sensible you’re now saying the penalty on Max should be reduced as a result. So what, Max benefits because Lewis was sensible? If you hand on heart can’t understand why that is simply not correct, then we can be done with this discussion.

I personally think what Max did was worse. Potentially deliberate, even if it wasn’t he simply knew he would never make the apex there, and even if he thought he could he missed it so significantly that it endangered himself and Lewis. I know we will never agree on that, but to my mind it is incredibly shady the difference in how the two incidents were dealt with by the stewards. And I’m yet to see one truly rational reason as to why. So really I’m not even most annoyed with Max although it was very dickish, I’m mostly just annoyed with the stewards who, if they acted appropriately, would very quickly eliminate that type of racing from Max. And actually that’d be to Max’s betterment in the long run.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Lewis took Max out deliberately, I don't think that at all, but it was Lewis' mistake (according to the stewards) that resulted in Max flying into the wall at high speed. I agree Max missed the apex by a lot more but luckily it's a relatively slow corner which allowed Hamilton to spot Max missing the corner and react accordingly. You're right they would have crashed if he hadn't reacted. I'm not saying Lewis should be double punished at all because we've already established the stewards messed that up. They could have told Max to give Lewis the position so Lewis could be on his way (standard for leaving the track and gaining an advantage) and/or given Max a time penalty during the race (for forcing another driver off the track). I do think stewards look at the incidents differently though, as one is causing a collision and the other is forcing someone off the track. No idea whether the penalty is or should be the same.

One thing though, I think it would be better if we skipped the deliberate or not bit and leave that to the stewards. Of course Lewis and his fans are going to say what Max did was deliberate. Just as Max said what Lewis did at Silverstone was deliberate. They just want to see the other get a penalty.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
Pause at 0:47. He's already past the apex and he's still on the brakes and turning in. He's obviously braked too late in order to try and outbrake but failed, missing the corner and pushing off Lewis as a result. Stewards should have told Max to give Lewis the position but they fecked up and said no investigation necessary. That's the big thing here. The question isn't whether or not Max pushed Lewis off, because it's obvious that's what happened (though I think it's ridiculous to say he was trying to crash into Lewis, if that's what he wanted to do he wouldn't have turned in at all and just locked up his brakes and went "oops" :lol:). The big question is what would be a fair way to handle this as the stewards fecked up by saying no investigation necessary to Max didn't bother to try and keep a certain amount of time between him and Bottas. If they had said we'll investigate after the race it would be a different matter entirely.



What Rosberg does there is worse and there's no question it's deliberate. You can clearly see he's not turning in at all, unlike Max. Did Rosberg get a retrospective 5s penalty for that after stewards said no investigation necesssary then? Or are you just trying to wind people up?
Click to expand...

Great assessment.
I have looked at lots of the video's posted since the GP. And as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing to support the stewards stupid decision.
As bad as anything I have seen. And one without any logic at all.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
I'm not saying Lewis took Max out deliberately, I don't think that at all, but it was Lewis' mistake (according to the stewards) that resulted in Max flying into the wall at high speed. I agree Max missed the apex by a lot more but luckily it's a relatively slow corner which allowed Hamilton to spot Max missing the corner and react accordingly. You're right they would have crashed if he hadn't reacted. I'm not saying Lewis should be double punished at all because we've already established the stewards messed that up. They could have told Max to give Lewis the position so Lewis could be on his way (standard for leaving the track and gaining an advantage) and/or given Max a time penalty during the race (for forcing another driver off the track). I do think stewards look at the incidents differently though, as one is causing a collision and the other is forcing someone off the track. No idea whether the penalty is or should be the same.

One thing though, I think it would be better if we skipped the deliberate or not bit and leave that to the stewards. Of course Lewis and his fans are going to say what Max did was deliberate. Just as Max said what Lewis did at Silverstone was deliberate. They just want to see the other get a penalty.
Click to expand...

Fair on the deliberate or not point. I also don’t think it’s hugely relevant anyway, so agree, let’s move on.

I think I generally agree with your post on the whole. The only part I struggle with is the bit in bold. Only reason being, in a rather odd way, the reason one ended in a collision and one didn’t was primarily because the one being wronged in the first place made the decision to avoid the collision. In other words, the collision wasn’t avoided because Max did something better or more legal in Brazil vs Lewis in Silverstone, it was because the one wronged took action to avoid it themselves. This is why I think the collision point should be moot in this instance.
 
rpitroda said:
Fair on the deliberate or not point. I also don’t think it’s hugely relevant anyway, so agree, let’s move on.

I think I generally agree with your post on the whole. The only part I struggle with is the bit in bold. Only reason being, in a rather odd way, the reason one ended in a collision and one didn’t was primarily because the one being wronged in the first place made the decision to avoid the collision. In other words, the collision wasn’t avoided because Max did something better or more legal in Brazil vs Lewis in Silverstone, it was because the one wronged took action to avoid it themselves. This is why I think the collision point should be moot in this instance.
Click to expand...
I think that's the point Arjen is trying to make though.

The stewards see it that no contact was made - but they're ignoring the reason there was no contact. If Hamilton turned into the corner like normal and collided with Verstappen, they'd HAVE to give him a penalty (and probably would have).

The fact that Hamilton swerved to avoid the contact shouldn't be important.

I also agree with Arjen that the stewards should have demanded to give the place back to Hamilton. That would have solved all the problems and allowed them to keep racing fairly.

Instead they've now made a big mess for themselves and may be forced into giving Verstappen a penalty that he can no longer do anything about. It's really poor officiating.

Pretty much in every example in the past, if you force somebody off the track when defending/make a mistake yourself and run off but keep the place - it's seen as gaining an advantage. I really don't know what they were thinking. This excuse of not having the correct camera angles either? pull the other one :lol: if these guys can't tell what happened from the overhead footage alone they shouldn't be stewarding!
 
Adam-Utd said:
I think that's the point Arjen is trying to make though.

The stewards see it that no contact was made - but they're ignoring the reason there was no contact. If Hamilton turned into the corner like normal and collided with Verstappen, they'd HAVE to give him a penalty (and probably would have).

The fact that Hamilton swerved to avoid the contact shouldn't be important.

I also agree with Arjen that the stewards should have demanded to give the place back to Hamilton. That would have solved all the problems and allowed them to keep racing fairly.

Instead they've now made a big mess for themselves and may be forced into giving Verstappen a penalty that he can no longer do anything about. It's really poor officiating.

Pretty much in every example in the past, if you force somebody off the track when defending/make a mistake yourself and run off but keep the place - it's seen as gaining an advantage. I really don't know what they were thinking. This excuse of not having the correct camera angles either? pull the other one :lol: if these guys can't tell what happened from the overhead footage alone they shouldn't be stewarding!
Click to expand...
Yeap, it's a mess. Questions should be asked of the stewards in my opinion.
 
Interesting analysis on how much the DRS wing discrepancy on Hamilton’s car might’ve helped his lap time by Mark Huges & Giorgio Formula 1:

But this theory of Red Bull’s is not directly connected to the DRS discrepancy which got Hamilton thrown to the back of the sprint grid. That was because the DRS gap was found to be 0.2mm wider than the regulation 85mm at the right-hand extremity of the gap. Any effect of this on lap time would barely be measurable so goes no way to explaining Hamilton’s huge qualifying advantage.
If the DRS is worth around 0.5s of lap time at 85mm, then at 85.2 (even if the 0.2mm was uniform across the width, which it wasn’t) it would theoretically be worth 0.5001s, i.e. an extra 0.001s over a full legal lap.
Click to expand...

At the time it was reported I totally agreed with the DSQ; if you’re out with the legal parameters then it’s fair game. It has to be black & white.

But the fact only part of the wing was a tiny bit out does make it seem more it was damage-related.

Ultimately didn’t matter I guess, but I’d rather seen on track battles decide this title than penalties & stewarding decisions.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
Yeap, it's a mess. Questions should be asked of the stewards in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't know why, it feels they're using a different ruleset for both Hamilton/Verstappen. I just want a fair championship fight with the rules applied properly. Whoever wins should deserve it on merit.


Wicked_Badger said:
Interesting analysis on how much the DRS wing discrepancy on Hamilton’s car might’ve helped his lap time by Mark Huges & Giorgio Formula 1:



At the time it was reported I totally agreed with the DSQ; if you’re out with the legal parameters then it’s fair game. It has to be black & white.

But the fact only part of the wing was a tiny bit out does make it seem more it was damage-related.

Ultimately didn’t matter I guess, but I’d rather seen on track battles decide this title than penalties & stewarding decisions.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter what the advantage was, it's against the rules. You have to put the line somewhere, it is what it is. Similar to how Vettel got kicked out for not having enough fuel left in the system for them to test.
 


Shaping up to be an interesting gp

Will be interesting to see how the tyres hold up... and especially if like the video says you get a bit of dew on the track at twighlight... (on shot to pieces tyres with high speed corners!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.