Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Silverstone, 2017

Hamilton’s pole position confirmed by stewards

2017 British Grand Prix Qualifying

Posted on

| Written by

Lewis Hamilton will start tomorrow’s British Grand Prix from pole after stewards confirmed that no action would be taken following the incident with Romain Grosjean.

The Mercedes driver was investigated for impeding the Haas after Romain Grosjean complained that Hamilton had held him up in the Vale at the end of his flying lap.

The stewards began to investigate the incident before qualifying had concluded, but confirmed that Hamilton had not illegally impeded the Haas driver and will start tomorrow’s race from pole position.

Hamilton will be joined on the front row by Kimi Raikkonen, with championship leader Sebastian Vettel directly behind the Mercedes in third.

2017 British Grand Prix

Browse all 2017 British Grand Prix articles

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2017 British Grand Prix, 2017 F1 season

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 114 comments on “Hamilton’s pole position confirmed by stewards”

    1. Sweet. Right result.

      1. If anything, Grosjean should thank Lewis for showing him the proper line around the S. ūüėÉ

      2. Because?

        Every other driver would have got some penalty. It’s politics without doubt.

        1. Because it was Hamilton and not anyone else

        2. ah another Hamilton hating armchair expert !

        3. @dutch-1, the flaw in your argument is that, in Q2, Vettel complained that Perez was blocking him on the entry into Copse corner whilst he was on a fast lap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtOtW21FHPA

          However, despite Vettel complaining to his team about it, the stewards took no action against Perez – so we know at least one other driver was not punished after being accused of blocking another driver only a few minutes earlier (unless you are going to claim that the stewards are biased in Perez’s favour as well?).

      3. Not a “right result”. But don’t come here yapping about Sebs favouritism with the stewards. Joke

        1. Let the hate flow through you…

    2. I wonder if they saw this video

      1. We kinda have to presume that stewards has access to every video imaginable. I mean, it’s not the Alabama Pickup Trucks Racing League.

        1. Alex McFarlane
          15th July 2017, 15:24

          Alabama Pickup Trucks Racing League, now there’s something I’d like to see….

        2. @mxmxd To be fair there was the HAM and VET thing after Fuji 2007

      2. It looks worse on that video but, if you cover Hamilton and just focus on Grosjean he doesn’t have to change direction or slow the car any more than usual. So while it’s close and distracting it’s not a block.

        1. +1 My thoughts exactly.

        2. Slavisa (@sylversurferr)
          15th July 2017, 15:17

          Considering that Grosjean improve by a lot next lap ,I would say Hamilton blocks him.

          1. But everyone improved on their next lap. That’s completely irrelevant.

          2. “Considering that Grosjean improve by a lot next lap ,I would say Hamilton blocks him.”

            Considering Ham improved by 6/10!, i wonder who was impeding him in his previous attempt?

      3. If it was the other way around, Grosjean probably would of been disqualified. Biased stewards are a joke imo.

        1. Maybe but remember 2006 in Italy when Alonso wasnpunished in quali for blocking Massa when there was a large gap. That wasvItaly helping Ferrari, this is Britain helping Hamilton. Its just the way it works. Better for the race as well. This will be a good Hamilton v Vettel race.

      4. I’m not a Hamiltonf fan, but that video clearly shows that Hamilton either slightly misjudged or timed it perfectly in order to put the hammer down right before Grosjean would have been impeded. Either way, he was quick enough to pull away in front of Grosjean, although I can understand that Grosjean might’ve found it weird since it looked like Hamilton was giving him space.

      5. “upper eshelon” organization that is…dam iPad editor.

    3. Hmm. This video https://streamable.com/anz6j shows that Hamilton should certainly have seen Grosjean coming, and he did leave it late to speed up a bit. Also, the FIA’s statement says that Hamilton impeded Grosjean, but didn’t block him. So that begs the question – where does one start and the other end? No one intentionally blocks someones lap (Well, apart from Rosberg at Monaco), so it’s intriguing to wonder what the line is.

      1. Surely someone on the pit wall will/should have informed him that Grosjean was close behind on a fast lap?

      2. At full speed, it looks worse than the onboard but frame by frame I can understand why no penalty was given. If you ignore Hamilton ( cover him with a finger ) and play it again you can see that Grosjean doesn’t have to change his line or speed. The closest Grosjean gets is mid corner when Hamilton starts to pull away much quicker. There’s a second where they look close but it’s the natural closing effect of a slow corner. If Hamilton wasn’t there Grosjean couldn’t enter any faster and by the time Grosjean gets back on the power, Hamilton is already gone. It looks close and would have been distracting for Grosjean but that wasn’t a “block”.

        1. “There’s a second where they look close?” That’s exactly the second that Grosjean expects Hamilton to stay out of the way on the right side. And then Hamilton pulls in front of him and speeds away but then Grosjean has lost his momentum and his lap. It not only looked close, it was close and any other driver would have got a penalty. But not Ham and especially not at this home circuit.

          1. I am sure stewards have data for both drivers’ telemetry and position data!
            Anyone saw Gro braking early? or proof of it? anyone seen him locking up? anyone seen him waving around to avoid anything? anyone saw gro missing the apex and taking an unusual line to avoid a collision?or everyone are expert at Video games?

      3. Rosberg didn’t block on purpose, same thing happened to him the year after and he could only lose from it. I think you meant Shcumacher in 2006.

    4. I had expected at least a reprimand or a monetary fine. I guess FIA is making up for the Vettel gaffe.

      1. Slavisa (@sylversurferr)
        15th July 2017, 15:19


        1. -1 they just looked at the evidence and saw Hamilton did nothing wrong. But of course its Hamilton so we’ll now have a 3-week discussion about it…

          1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            15th July 2017, 15:46

            +1 to Tom’s comment :-)

            1. Further proof that the stewards are awarding the right penalties, since they have access to more info than we usually do right?

    5. Ridicilous. The clearest case of impeding I’ve ever seen. Should’ve been penalised.

      1. Learn to spell. “Ridicilous” indeed.

      2. @huhhii At which point during entry, apex or exit was Romain’s lap time compromised?

        1. @ninjenius All of the above, but especially entry

          1. @huhhii

            The video evidence shows that Romain is still able hits the brakes and turns into the apex at normal speed, and as for exit, Lewis was already gone by that point. I’d like to know what your reasoning behind the “all of the above” is.

            1. @ninjenius

              Cars can be affected by dirty air running as much as 2-3 seconds a lap behind another. By that reasoning the majority of cars have been impeded by dirty air. Come on…

            2. @huhhii (oops!)

              Cars can be affected by dirty air running as much as 2-3 seconds a lap behind another. By that reasoning the majority of cars have been impeded by dirty air. Come on…

          2. Where though @huhhii ? You say the entry but he hits the apex perfectly. Any more speed in and he’s running wide.

            1. @ninjenius & Tom I think others attacked that corner with greater entry speed (when there were no moving chicane ahead like in this case). Surely GRO lost time there. And at the turn apex and turn exit dirty air surely limited Grosjean’s traction. Ever heard of dirty air having an impact to the handling of an F1 car?

            2. Yes @huhhii, but dirty air doesn’t equal an illegal block. I also disagree that others attacked the corner more. Grosjean doesn’t slam on the brakes or change his line to avoid Hamilton. There was only 1 frame in the video where it looks close but that was mid corner after Grosjean has picked his line and entry speed.

      3. It wasn’t really blocking, yes he was very slow entering the corner, but, massively quick leaving it. Just RG having a Vettel moment in my viewpoint with Hamilton doing his fast lap prep (and possibly underestimating the closing distance behind him very slightly).

        Even using the ‘damning evidence video clip’ it doesn’t really show much of a block as far as I can see. That’s from my unbiased non Hamilton fan viewpoint.

      4. @huhhii the most clear case i have ever seen someone didnt go to spec savers!

        1. @mysticus I know right? FIA should buy a new pair of glasses for the stewards.

          1. @huhhii it was meant for you, not for International Assistance for Ferrari… :)

    6. Right decision! Can’t wait for tomorrow.

    7. Home stewarding showing it’s ugly face. Not the first time I’ve seen that happen at Silverstone, the last major incident being the Hamilton-Massa collision on the final metres in 2011.
      But today’s case was so crystal clear, even I could see Grosjean being held up from way beyond the Channel. Farcical.

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        15th July 2017, 15:23

        It’s because he’s a championship contender and the stewards have admitted they treat them differently

      2. nase, the stewards today were Dr Gerd Ennser, a German national who is a permanent steward for the German DTM series, Nish Shetty, who was born and lives in Singapore and directs the Singapore GP, and the US born Danny Sullivan.

        With that in mind, unless all three of those men who are foreign nationals have, overnight, suddenly become British, I fail to see how they could be accused of “rooting for their home nation” with that decision.

        1. anon, that is precisely the reason why I wrote ‘home stewarding’, and nothing else. You could’ve argued against that, but I can’t help but notice you’ve twisted my words into something else before arguing against something I’ve neither said nor implied. You may have been influenced by my mention of the 2011 Silverstone GP, where the driver steward was indeed a Briton (Nigel Mansell, if I remember correctly), but this is not what I’ve said. That bit of sarcasm about foreigners who change nationalities over night and start rooting for their new home nation – the only thing it ridicules is your own misinterpretation of my words.

          A similar phenomenon, in which referees tend to favour the home team – wittingly or unwittingly – is known from football. In all these cases, the referee is not a local, or in the case of international matches, not even a compatriot of the home team. The assumed reasons for this kind of behaviour range from subconscious identification with the host of the event, or the feeling of pressure exerted by a large home crowd, to much more disreputable mechanisms.

          I do not want to speculate about the unspoken reasons for the stewards’ decision, but in light of the images that were broadcast, the ultimate ruling “The¬†Stewards¬†examined¬†video¬†and¬†telemetry¬†evidence¬†and¬†concluded¬†that¬†while¬†GRO may¬†potentially¬†have¬†been¬†affected¬†by¬†the¬†presence¬†of¬†HAM¬†at¬†Turn¬†16,¬†he¬†was¬†not impeded”, can only be described as a willful misrepresentation of the facts. Those are no weasel words, but a downright lie.

          1. Or we could look at it another way, Had Lewis slowed down further and pulled out of the way to allow Romain to finish his timed lap, would it not have compromised Lewis’s timed lap and meant he would have had to do another flying lap, which he may not have had time for. At that point Lewis had every right to be where he was and do what he did in terms of manoeuvres. Unfortunately the gap between the two was insufficient and why exactly should Grosjean’s attempt at a timed lap take precedence over Lewis’ or vice versa.

            The stewards don’t alway get it right, but in this instance the decision was finely cut and just as it may have been harsh on Grosjean if he did lose out in terms of timing. It would have been just as harsh if not more so to give Hamilton a penalty for not deliberately trying to impede another drive and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

            1. Kwaw, your first statement

              Had Lewis slowed down further and pulled out of the way to allow Romain to finish his timed lap, would it not have compromised Lewis’s timed lap and meant he would have had to do another flying lap, which he may not have had time for.

              has some truth to it – in a limited sense, as Hamilton would’ve only needed to wait for one more second, and Grosjean would’ve breezed past him.
              Your conclusion

              At that point Lewis had every right to be where he was and do what he did in terms of manoeuvres.

              , however, is, in my opinion, a fallacy.
              The fact that you’re compromising your own efforts by moving out of other drivers’ way, is fairly self-evident. If that weren’t the case, there wouldn’t be any impeding. But the situation is rather well-defined: If you’re not on a timed lap, you are supposed to move out of the way of the drivers who are, irrespective of whether or not and how much this affects you (except for extreme situations that would e.g. require you to risk damaging your car). Additionally, Grosjean didn’t have any time to attack a new lap, either.
              This argumentation would only work if Hamilton’s upcoming lap were somehow inherently more important than Grosjean’s current lap. This is obviously not the case.

              Also, in my opinion, the consideration whether a penalty would be harsh shouldn’t be a factor as it purely subjective. You think it would’ve been harsh because a) it wasn’t deliberate and b) just a case of wrong place, wrong time. The way I see it, Hamilton did not maliciously impede Grosjean, but made conscious decisions that lead directly to impeding Grosjean – first indirectly, then directly – which, at the end of the day, amounts to the same thing, namely needless impeding.
              – He slowed to a crouch on the racing line – he could’ve simply not done that. The indirect consequence was Grosjean catching him at the worst possible place.
              – When he saw (or could’ve seen) Grosjean approaching, he chose not to try and move out of the way (which was stil possible, as he had plenty of room on the right), staying on the racing line and lining up the car for the best acceleration out of the final corner instead. This decision directly affected Grosjean by forcing him to compromise either his braking or his line through the last few corners, as he had all the reasons to believe that they’d end up occupying the same piece of tarmac, with potentially car-wrecking consequences.
              In light of these actions, for which there were viable alternatives, I do not think that a grid drop of 3 places would’ve been to harsh.

          2. nase, no offence, but you are coming across as unnecessarily aggressive with your response – the way in which you phrased your original comment (with the reference to “home stewarding”) did make it sound as if you were accusing the stewards of having a nationalistic bias, and I feel that you could have made that clearer rather than just ranting at me for misinterpreting an ambiguous comment.

            1. anon …. i agree with you, I also read the statement as “home stewards” favouring the home driver.

              Bottom line is though, the stewards have far more video evidence and technical data available to them than us armchair experts, most of whom appear to rely on YouTube as a basis for their judgement.

              I am a big Lewis fan and will be one of the first to admit he is not is not squeaky clean but on this occasion he did nothing wrong and did not BLOCK RG,and if RG was indeed impeded it was marginal and was caused by Hamiltons dirty air RG being slighty distracted by the presence of another car.

              Why does everything Hamilton does get blown out of all proportion.

    8. Michael Brown (@)
      15th July 2017, 15:10

      That would be interfering with the championship and we can’t have that!

      1. It think that’s spot on.

        The case was clear but the stewards didn’t have the guts.

        1. Blaize Falconberger (@)
          15th July 2017, 21:51

          There were grid penalties for the gearbox problems, Hamilton and now Bottas… clear as day. If they break the rules they get penalized, if they don’t (here’s the clever bit, concentrate now) they don’t! Wowzers! No amount of foaming-at-the-mouth will change that as potty-mouth Vettel, and now Grosjean have discovered.

    9. clearly wasnt blocking,lewis was on his warm up lap turning into a slow corner,so he couldnt get out of the way,without driving onto the grass.
      then after that his exit speed was fine.
      it might have been a distraction to gro,but it wasnt blocking.
      anyway the footage and data seen by the stewards proves this.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        15th July 2017, 15:44

        that’s how I saw it too – Lewis would have had to abort his lap to get out of Grosjean’s way – even then Grosjean would have called foul given his own circumstances. If Lewis didn’t get full speed out of the corner on the main straight, his lap was done.

        Just really bad timing for both drivers – the outcome was probably the best given the circumstances…

      2. Exactly how I saw things too…

      3. Rubbish. Hamilton could have easily taken the corner earlier, there was no need to wait for Grosjean to get right up behind him.

    10. Neil (@neilosjames)
      15th July 2017, 15:20

      Thought it was 50/50 whether he’d take a penalty, looking at how impeding is dealt with – it looked borderline between ‘usual’ and ‘slightly naughty’.

      No doubt he cost Grosjean a bit of time, but if everyone who cost a rival time in qualifying got a penalty, there’d be a dozen of them given every race.

    11. Reddest Baron
      15th July 2017, 15:35

      Dear Oh Dear – there are some desperate people clutching at straws here. Firstly, why would Hamilton impede Grosjean, who is considerably slower in quali and not a threat to the Mercedes? Secondly, as many have pointed out, Hamilton was slowing for the final kink and then speeded up immediately after. Yes the closing speed makes it look like Grosjean caught up quickly but Grosjean still made the corner perfectly and was NOT impeded or slowed by Hamilton’s presence. A non-event.

      1. Exactly, this is the closest Grosjean has been to Hamilton. Lewis did nothing.

      2. Blaize Falconberger (@)
        15th July 2017, 21:45


    12. I would hate to be a Steward…the investigation concludes “that Hamilton had not illegally impeded the Haas driver” which may suggest that the did infringed the rule, but did not do so with fore thought or malice and on perhaps a more lenient note concluded that the impeded driver had not lost a position or it was unlikely that he may have gained a place. Although these decision frustrate fans I think it is an absolute daunting task for stewards to keep fans happy. If this was another another driver, then his clan would be up in arms. And yes, Perhaps if the effected driver was Kimi, Vettel, Bottas or Max I think we would have seen a penalty of sorts.
      And I am not saying that because Roman is currently a lesser driver (for whatever reason) the rules are allowed to be skewed

      1. And yes, Perhaps if the effected driver was Kimi, Vettel, Bottas or Max I think we would have seen a penalty of sorts.

        Or not


    13. Guys… British GP, British driver… What were you expecting? Had it been any other driver, the conclusion could’ve been different, but it’s Hamilton at Silverstone. Had it been Grosjean impeding Lewis’ flying lap, it’d been a race ban, eheh. That’s the way F1 is. Nothing to see here. I laughed when I saw on screen that they’d actually “investigate” it.

      1. The head steward was Danny Sullivan, the same steward from Baku. Oh, he’s American

      2. Of course…

        What were we thinking? I mean in today’s f1 you can drive up alongside the safety car and smack into it and get nothing other than a stop and go!

        I mean LH impeding anyone in qualifying should surely of added points to his championship tally? I mean it’s the least they should do.

        Terrible shame he DID NOTHING WRONG – unlike a few others recently not least the main challenger.

        No doubt in your mind the guy that just historically owns this circuit is the bad guy…

    14. Aldo Costa is a genius, great that Mercedes have always recognised his work. Watching Hamiltons lap is like watching a magic carpet, the car rides the slow speed corners just as well as the super high speed, where the Ferrari and the RBR just bounce on their super inflated wide tyres, in contrast the Merc looks soft and smooth, its these compromise, contrasting layouts where their suspension system truly shines, tracks like Barcelona Silverstone and most Tilke tracks.

      1. I need to borrow your glasses. Ferrari look better than Merc, Merc have pole through Hamiltons inspired lap.

      2. probably a new version of the illegal system then ;)

      3. @peartree
        Aldo Costa is a very good Chassis engineer, the Mercedes is actually designed by Geof Willis. Ferrari have always recognised his work though, but his firing from the team was his own making. In Ferrari Aldo Costa failed as a technical director, he wanted that position badly and he got it he was never a technical director and that was his weakness because he always thought he was.

        Ross Brawn knew that too and hired Costa on that basis. He put him in his natural role, Bob Bell was the technical director who was replaced by Paddy Lowe who himself was replaced by James Allison.

        The technical director role is very different to the other engineering roles (Head of Aero,Chassis,Engine….) in F1 which involves requires a huge knowledge of every aspect of the car’s engineering. Just for example look at Adrian Newey at RBR, he draws the main concepts of the car’s design but when it comes to details it’s RBR guys who are doing the job. Adrian’s main strength come when integrating those ideas into the design which is similar to the the conductor’s role in an orchestra. I remember when all the teams struggled to copy the double diffuser,the f duct, the blown diffuser and especially the double DRS except RBR (the blown diffuser was RBR’s idea) who even went to optimize those ideas.

        1. I thought Ferrari’s wind tunnel was not working well and Costa was one of those to have complained.
          Nonetheless, Ferrari needed a scapegoat.

        2. @tifoso1989 I know that story you are talking about but apparently you are not aware that both in Ferrari and now at Mercedes, Aldo is the suspension man, he’s the one behind all their suspension iterations, Fric and afterwards.

          1. Hi @peartree and sorry for this late reply :)
            I’m aware that Aldo is the suspension man at both Ferrari and Mercedes, like I said in the beginning of my post “Aldo Costa is a very good Chassis engineer” !

    15. Yeah but you can’t just go barreling in on blind faith. As far as Gros knew, Hamilton could have had a problem. It would have been pretty stupid to just assume Hamilton was not gonna move and just floor it though there.

      1. Erik Torsner
        15th July 2017, 18:06

        +1 this

        GRO couldn’t know that HAM was going to floor it. A few tehths of uncerainty before seeing where HAM went would be enough to lose some!time on that lap. If it had been the last attempt in Q3, I’d say a penalty would be in order. Since it wasn’t, I guess the verdict is fine.

    16. confirmed that Hamilton had not illegally impeded the Haas driver

      Does that mean that he legally impeded Grosjean?

      1. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
        15th July 2017, 16:36

        That is a pretty good point! That wording suggests that Hamilton certainly did impede Grosjean.

      2. @johnmilk
        The actual words used in the decision were “The¬†Stewards¬†examined¬†video¬†and¬†telemetry¬†evidence¬†and¬†concluded¬†that¬†while¬†GRO may¬†potentially¬†have¬†been¬†affected¬†by¬†the¬†presence¬†of¬†HAM¬†at¬†Turn¬†16,¬†he¬†was¬†not impeded”. “Not illegally impeded” would’ve been a smart way of indicating that they saw what happened, but didn’t want to get their hands dirty. But no, the ruling was even more dishonest than that.

        1. A case of poor choice of words

        2. Lots of drivers are affected by having to pass other cars that are on slow-down or warm-up laps, it’s part of the scenario of qualifying. It’s only when they are impeded, ie they have to brake where they wouldn’t normally, that the guilty party gets penalised. Understand the difference and you have the reason for no penalty. It’s subtle, and if you seek to penalise a particular driver then I can easily see why you would fail to grasp this.

          1. @frasier
            Those last two sentences … I don’t know what effect you were aiming for, but a condescending imperative and a thinly-veiled accusation of disingenuousness resulting in intellectual deficiency? That really has helped your point and reached out to me on an emotional level.


            Sorry, but constructing a fortunately fitting semantic difference between those two words that mean a whole lot of different things while overlapping quite significantly (affected can designate a wide range of adverse circumstances, some of which can be judged to constitute impeding, in case one of these circumstances is deemed to be the result of a driver’s failure to ensure his actions do not affect other drivers’ timed laps), simply isn’t convincing. The definition doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as it’d mean that braking zones are a legal vacuum in which impeding cannot happen. Cue drivers preparing their laps by coasting through the last 50 metres before the final corner at a pedestrian speed. You have to brake around the 100 m sign anyway, so what’s the deal?

            Also, and I can’t help but be annoyed at myself for paying way too much attention to your last sentence, your assumption is wrong, plain and simple. The driver who set the second fastest time is the one driver in the grid whom I can stand the least, by quite a margin, and the driver behind him happens to follow him in that very subjective ranking as well, the pair of them being the reason why I ceased to be a Ferrari fan after over 15 years of rooting for that team. Do I want them to occupy the front row?

            Do I seek to penalise Hamilton in particular?
            NO again. I’m not at all likely to sleep in bedlinen that has the number 44 written all over it, but antipathy is definitely not the best word to describes my feelings towards him. Indifference, that’s more like it.
            So, why am I saying he should’ve been penalised, as well as calling the stewards’ decision to deny the fact that he has indeed impeded Grosjean?
            Because I honestly think he has broken the rule and has to be punished for it. I hold the rules dear, and I strongly feel that they should always be applied equally, irrespective of the driver who is under investigation, or any other circumstances. Rules like these are what defines Formula One as a sport, and every time the stewards bend the rules a bit to favour an important or popular driver, F1 becomes less of a sport and more of a mere entertainment show, in which the rest of the field, that does not benefit from such clemency, is treated as less valuable. This I cannot stand, and that is why I am so vocal about this non-penalty for a situation which, roles reversed, would’ve caused an uproar on the grandstands and resulted in a slam dunk penalty.

            1. @nase I disagree with your conclusion regarding whether Grosjean was impeded or not – I felt that any effect on his lap time was likely due to the presence of Hamilton in an unexpected place distracting him or making him unsure of where to go, rather than physically blocking the car. I feel this is the difference between a penalty or not – if you’re basing the penalty on a infringed drivers perception, then the same scenario could have different judgements applied depending on who the infringed driver is, which is clearly nonsense. Could Grosjean have taken his usual line and speed through the corner: if yes, then no penalty; if no, then possibly/probably a penalty.

              Anyway that’s not what I wanted to talk about. I mainly wanted to say that I appreciated you comment as being intelligent, thorough, articulate, mature and polite – even if I disagree with the conclusion.


            2. nase, first of all, have you ever heard the expression ‘less is more’? I dislike Twitter, but the discipline to get your message over in 140 characters is there to ensure people actually read and absorb your message, but anyway…

              This is the second time in three races that a rival driver has tried to persuade the stewards that Lewis has done something wrong, and it’s the second time they have found him innocent. Are they biased? Well, when there is a case to answer, for example when Lewis held up Daniel R in the pit entry earlier in the season, they applied a penalty.

              No amount of essays by the aggrieved will change any of these decisions. I’m simply glad that travesties such as Spa 2008 are rarer.

        3. …may potentially have been …

          The words “probably wasn’t” could also be used in that part of the sentence, as in “GRO probably wasn’t affected by the presence of HAM at Turn 16”.

    17. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
      15th July 2017, 16:34

      Fair enough that he didn’t get a grid drop, but surely he should have got a reprimand at leased. Verstappen got a reprimand in Canada last year for impeding Bottas and it was only practice. Q3 is a little more important and what Hamilton did was totally avoidable!

      1. Blaize Falconberger (@)
        15th July 2017, 22:44

        Hamilton didn’t do anything… go figure…

    18. Hamilton’s pole was never in question, Keith.

    19. Oh crikey! How long is this one going to run for?

      No he didn’t!

      Yes he did!

      Yes it is.

      It’s not fair!

      But but but if if if.

      Bwaaaah! Mummy mummy Lewis is a bully and he’s taken my sweets!

    20. Marian Gri (@)
      15th July 2017, 18:12

      Fair. I understand GRO’ situation, but “awarding” a penalty to HAM in this particular case would have been anything but not OK. That lap was pretty incredible indeed and it shows that the car is great indeed too… and it makes VET look extraordinary too. To lead the champ right from the start in an inferior car is something few could achieve.

      1. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
        15th July 2017, 22:09

        @corrado-dub, alternatively Ferrari looked on Mercedes pace in P3, but add in a smattering of rain and Hamilton trounces Bottas, Raikkonen and Vettel – the nearest to him was more than half a second off his pace and the slowest was over a second off. This was about the driver, not the car.

      2. You don’t remember that the Merc had tire temperature problems up until a few races ago? But, anything to skew reality and forge your point. Nice one!

    21. Of course. A british driver at his home race never will be penalized.
      And CryBaby Hamilton never never never…

    22. This is what I expected but I feel it’s wrong not to give a reprimand at least

    23. Blocking? What blocking? Lewis was miles ahead and was turning – where did you want him to go, onto the grass?
      Much ado about nothing.

      1. FrenchFarmer
        15th July 2017, 20:39

        Absolutey! +1

    24. Another example of favoritism in F1 . What a lack of class.
      Hamilton is a favored person because (1) ,he is British and F1 stewards have historically favored british drivers and (2) he drives for Mercedes which has a tax paying 1,500 employee center in brackley England.
      Juxtapose this with the fact that Grojean is (1) not British and (2) and worse as far as F1 is concerned ,drives for the AMERICAN UPSTART team ,Haas.
      The decision by Sullivan was made before the question was even presented. Its F1 politics ,plain and simple .
      Sullivan might have been a fine driver but he is a terrible Steward . I can’t say if he sold out or he just stinks but, he is a terrible steward.
      Anyway, another example of how F1 runs itself as an “insiders club”.
      They may make the Uk fans happy but,many of us in the rest of the world find it repulsive .
      Oh, how it is working out financially with the British fans ?

    25. Blaize Falconberger (@)
      15th July 2017, 21:18

      Grosjean has clearly taken a leaf out of the Vettel book of vocal interference… thinking having a potty mouth and doing a lot of shouting a lot will influence the stewards. It seems that only happens if you’re a championship contender, which Grosjean will never be.

      Does anyone else thing Vettel is in danger of getting a punch in the face of his team if he carries on with his radio criticism of the team, ref his post-quali comments? If Enzo was still on the team Vettel would have woken up next to a horses head long ago.

      1. And if Paddy Lowe was still at Mercedes…..

    26. Guys, I’m going to head over to some cycling sites now to avoid hearing about nationalism and bias in race stewarding. s/

    27. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      15th July 2017, 23:35

      Anytime someone says to Raikonnen that he’s too slow and he’ll be fired, he goes out there and drives the fastest:-)

      They should just tell him that before every race and he’d probably have 200 points this season…

    28. i think that driving slowly to ruin other drivers work is hamiltons standard repertoire by now. abu dhabi last year when he wanted to steal the word championship by driving slowly, baku behind sc and asking bottas to do the same and now this. plays the political game splendid too, has a formidable instinct to choose the best team. all important qualities if you lack consistency and spirit.
      jokes aside what a fantastic season. everybody has his or her favorite and sees everything in a hysterical polarised way. winning this will be truly glorious. not like 14 when the final race was decided by engine failure, or 15 when even hamilton lost interest…
      i’m in team vettel for now but just to povoke die hard hamilton-fans. (he really lost me with the cap throwing in 15. actually rooted for him until abu dhabi 14. that was by far the worst season since the schumacher years when i lost interest in the sport completly). plz don’t take my jabs personally or seriously. after all its just leisuretime for us and should be taken accordingly.

    29. Good thing Grosjean’s brakes didn’t fail.

      1. indeed. good point.

    30. Clear blocking, rubbish stewarding. Anyone would have had a penalty, it’s Lewis at home so no penalty, easy.

    31. But if the roles were reversed than “my god lewis’s lap was ruined”.”he lost this season just because of grossjean”.
      Din’t kid yourselves if the roles were reversed there would be a penalty.

      1. @knight You are 100% correct, most people are hypocrites but don’t know it :)

    32. Stewards than judged Grosjean who did wrong. Ham was way ahead. He wouldn’t braked before only in fear of seeing a car coming to brake from 300 kmh.
      Next time Gros will manage as the only one on track and he’ll do ok.

    Comments are closed.