Leclerc: “I thought I left a car width” for Hamilton

2019 Italian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

[gmsabu]

Charles Leclerc says he thought he left Lewis Hamilton sufficient space during their fight for the lead in the Italian Grand Prix.

The Ferrari driver was shown the black-and-white ‘unsportmanslike driving’ flag after squeezing Hamilton on the approach to the Roggia chicane on lap 23. Hamilton accused his rival of failing to leave him a car’s width, which he pointed out other drivers have been penalised for in previous races.

But Leclerc said he thought at the time he had left Hamilton enough space.

“To be completely honest, obviously I knew he was on the right, he braked a little bit early which I think was probably on purpose because he didn’t want to try around the outside,” Leclerc explained. “I thought I had left a car width.

“I haven’t seen the images to be honest. But I was pretty sure there was a car width.”

The Ferrari driver was subsequently told he had been given the black-and-white flag, but his team said the warning was for “moving under braking [at] turn four”.

Leclerc said he didn’t dwell on the warning signal during the rest of the race. “I knew it was on the limit but at the end I wanted to give absolutely everything to have this win.

“It was not in the back of my mind. I just gave it all, tried to be at the limit of what’s acceptable and that’s what I’ve done so I’m very happy to take the win.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2019 F1 season

Browse all 2019 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

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

95 comments on “Leclerc: “I thought I left a car width” for Hamilton”

  1. For sure, that’s a nice choice of photo there, Keith.

    Maybe for a 2016/earlier spec car, Charles.

    1. the track is between the white stripes, so technically that is less than a car’s width

  2. Technically speaking maybe there is just about a car’s width there

    1. 🤣 Peel P50 👍

    2. Not a Formula 1 cars width

      1. @philipgb
        Thank you, Captain Obvious!

        1. Woo, I made Captain!

    3. Doesnt even matter. FIA will never intervene with a Ferrari win

      1. like they didn’t in canada?

  3. Reap what you sow.

    1. Sorry to rise to the bait, but when was the last time Hamilton crowded a car out in the braking zone?
      I can remember many times running cars wide on exit, but not under braking for a corner since Massa in 2011.

      1. I think maybe he’s warning Charles about future moves that Hamilton and others might pull oh him.

      2. János Henkelmann
        9th September 2019, 22:02

        I assume he/she was refering to the stewards?!

        1. Not stewards but other drivers who might pull same tricks on Leclerc that he used to defend his position on sunday.

      3. I was refering to all the other defensive teicks which Leclerc used- hanging in middle of track after cutting corner, moving under braking, weaving on straights(in MotoGP it attracts a penalty immedeatly) apart from crowding another driver off the track. Since all of those were deemed legal by stewards I hope he is man enough to accept it as a part of racing and not throw a diva tantrum(highly unlikely since he is just as big of a Prima Donna as his teammate and there were glimpses after Austrian GP) if he is meted out same treatment by his peers(it most likely will be Verstappen) in near future.

  4. Charles is a fast learner. A couple of action like these are fine, but if it wasn’t for Hamilton this race would have ended in tears for him. It’s quite enjoyable to watch when everyone can continue to race.

    1. @mcbosch
      It is, isn’t it? So good to see them sort it out like adults, and even though Leclerc got it wrong, the Stewards’ decision not to alter the outcome of the race because of that, while clearly signalling that a critical threshold had been reached, felt exactly right.
      I think even many of those who wanted Hamilton to win the race would agree that, while clearly naughty, this wasn’t the kind of incident that would’ve made Hamilton a deserving winner. The window for an overtake was already closed shut when Hamilton was forced into the runoff, so a race-deciding intervention in his favour would’ve been too artificial and detrimental to an otherwise impeccable race by both drivers.

      1. The window for an overtake was already closed shut when Hamilton was forced into the runoff

        But Hamilton has over the years shown his ability to get up the outside and force someone on a suboptimal line, and pull the overtake a few corners later. This decision kills wheel to wheel racing. They’ve got to be able to go wheel to wheel and keep it clean on the corner entry.

        The simple rule is that the guy ahead is entitled to hit the apex on entry, and the guy ahead is allowed to use the full racing line on exit.

        You can be on the outside at entry, and only need cede on exit if you are behind.
        If you are on the inside at entry and behind you must cede before the apex.

        Leclerc broke that and this sets a bad precedent.

        1. But Hamilton has over the years shown his ability to get up the outside and force someone on a suboptimal line

          Not from three quarters of a car’s length behind he didn’t.

      2. The issue is not about Hamilton winning, it is about setting a standard for racing.
        If it means he keeps the win but gets a fine for bad racing conduct, I would be happy with that. But the FIA can’t come tomorrow and penalise a driver for doing something similar because it will appear stupid.
        The whole not moving in the braking line was created to avoid such incidents and then there was the weaving all along the straight.

      3. I wanted Charles to win.

        His move was disappointing because not only was it illegal, but it was unnecessary since he had the inside line and could legally just run Hamilton wide on the apex of the chicane. I think Charles genuinely thought he left enough space and made a mistake.

    2. Let them race!

      Maybe he was lucky it was Hamilton, but then again only Hamilton ever got close. There is not much luck in his driving. Max gave him the ropes early in season and now he graduated from the school of “Let them race”.

      It is Hamilton who now has to review his degree from Alonso era of “All the time you must leave space”.

  5. i wonder of leclerc heard of the story about what thought did….

    1. I wonder what you wonder ;)

  6. But Leclerc said he thought at the time he had left Hamilton enough space.

    Its very possible. In Monaco he had the same problem, and ripped the rearend of his car. He does not seem to know the width of the car this year.
    Or its a very bad excuse for a F1 driver.. Not sure.

    1. If he doesnt know the width of his car, then he shouldnt be in F1 maybe playing video games at home is much better option for him.

      1. He doesn’t play games maybe he should join Lando and Max on Iracing.

        Charles his racing craft is more flowing so when he turn left he moves a bit to the right. I think that is why he thought there was a car wide space.

        1. Max and Lando seem to be playing of football these days. Those live stream sessions are quite funny.

  7. On a good day it is hard racing and we’ve enjoyed such over the years. But there is a line that mustn’t be crossed even when emotions are high. His action was on the border of being slightly too much but not overtly reckless. At the same time, the actions of the second prevented a much bigger incident, in orderwords, there was still a very small margin for a kinder outcome.
    The FIA are responsible for the current state of affairs, where viewers now call for penalties, justifiably or not, because they have applied penalties to even more benign race incidents as such we as an audience are notified by the seeming lack of rationality behind these penalties.
    The dynamic nature of motor racing itself ensures only that incidents are only similar but never exactly the same.
    Vettel got a penalty in Canada for coming back on track and running another driver off track, even though it was marginal if he had full control over his car at that specific moment. In this instance, Leclerc had full control over his car, to which one can only then question his motive.
    It is also worthy of note, that Lecture himself was also weaving across the track, a gray area that had no specific rule, but for which a driver or two had been given reprimands for.
    It was a great win that I wanted to happen and also felt well deserved, both for him and for Ferrari.
    Which begs the question of it the drivers action that is in question, or of its the FIA, with their constant meddling with arbitrary and inconsistently applied rules, that has destroyed the viewers perception of what professional motor racing really is.

    1. I’m sorry I don’t get it, when Ham does this, there isn’t a single drop of ink on the subject, when Max does it, he’s great and anyone complaining is a loser, when someone does it do Ham there’s conspiracy, dangerous driving, bias all thrown into the mix.
      Honestly cutting turn 1 like charles did or how Ham did is more of a contentious point to me. Ham lost way more time.

      1. The dynamic nature of motor racing itself ensures only that incidents are only similar but never exactly the same.

      2. When was the last time Ham did this @peartree?

        1. just a quick example

          2015 United States Grand Prix.

          Hamilton came to the United States knowing he needed victory to claim the title that weekend. Hamilton very aggressively forced Rosberg wide at Turn 1

          1. I see that you also don’t know the difference between running a driver wide on the exit of a corner vs. running him off the track on the entry when the other car cannot even bail out without going off track or into the wall.

            Also what Hamilton did was at the start of the race when their brakes are cold, and the track was very damp. Leclerc had no mitigating circumstances for his block.

          2. Your one example is from 4 YEARS AGO??????!

            Embarrassing

      3. Dude are you serious. Hamilton can’t even fart within 100 miles of a car without detractors swooping in and having a go

  8. Doesn’t say much for Leclerc’s spatial awareness.

  9. Starting to look like football this

  10. The race was for me quite fun to watch with each Mercedes getting a chance to go at Charles but the thing that I noticed most was the mistakes being made from some of the top drivers. Two races in a row Max has left turn 1 with damage, Valtteri overdriving a faster car when it mattered most, and Vettel, what a joke he is fast becoming.

    1. Max says he was too carefull in both cases but here he was suprised how slow the cars in front were. If he didn’t had his reaction he would drive into Perez now he just clipped his rightside wing on the tyre the hit wasn’t that great.

  11. Do everything like a good boy and you end up second. Charles is learning quickly, he was correct with Max in Austria and finished second after being bumped out of the way. There was absolutely no way to win the race yesterday without staying on the edge, or even going over it; he did it, and indeed won.

    Hamilton backed up because he had everything to lose. Charles didn’t because a second place wasn’t an option. First or gravel, and I’m fine with that. Another non-first place, for what? At this stage, it really doesn’t matter if a Ferrari driver is third or fourth in the WDC. And we all know that this bursts we had from Ferrari in Spa and Monza were the final realistic opportunities to score a win this year.

    So I don’t know if Charles is pretending to be innocent or if he really is, but at the end of the day he scored two wins and put Monza on fire: in a way, he single-handedly saved a season that without those two wins would have been a total disaster. With an inferior car, you need to take some risks, you need to go over the line to get this type of results.

    Well done.

    1. “inferior car”?
      Inferior in what? Speed? Downforce? I saw nothing inferior in that Ferrari sunday. Not in Monza.

    2. he was correct with Max in Austria and finished second after being bumped out of the way.

      not sure what you mean here. He was not “bumped out of the way”. He decided to stay on his position but the track ended. He was the one that did the bumping. With HAM he just cut the way to short and as a result was warned for unsportmanship.

      in a way, he single-handedly saved a season

      you probably mean for Ferrari.

      With an inferior car,

      there was nothing inferior on the Ferrari on Monza. It was the quickest car and almost impossible to pass with the excessive engine power of it.

      1. To be fair Mercedes was the fastest car but the straitgh line speed of Ferrari was ridikulus fast nobody could overtake. That is why lewis almost got him on turn 3

  12. I’m a bit torn about this incident. It was great to see them scrapping on track, and have the order they crossed the line being the official order. But at the same time, the incident mentioned was clearly worthy of a penalty – you just can’t push another driver off track like that. Ideally we could find a solution where we can both, but it’s far from clear how we could achieve that.

    Maybe introduce much smaller time penalties – maybe 1s or 1/2 a second. Pick up one, and you’re almost certainly going to fine. Continue to be a naughty boy and you’ll have to make sure you pull a little bit of a gap before the end. Keep going with these little infringements (none worth a 5s or drive through by themselves) and you’re going to make life pretty difficult for yourself.

    1. Very well said. Great to see Ferrari and particularly Leclerc win at Monza but the way it went down was not entirely palateable.

    2. I am also with you.
      Leclerc pushed Hamilton off once, and blocked him once. I think at least one of these deserved a penalty, but what kind?
      5 second penalty is too much, I agree, it would have destroyed the battle for 1st.
      What about an stewards order: give your place up and continue fighting…

    3. Maybe introduce much smaller time penalties – maybe 1s or 1/2 a second. Pick up one, and you’re almost certainly going to fine. Continue to be a naughty boy and you’ll have to make sure you pull a little bit of a gap before the end.

      They have something similar already. It’s called the black and white flag, @fluxsource.

      Keep it simple; don’t try to solve every instance with new rules and penalties I’d say.

      1. @coldfly They’re not the same thing at all. With the black and white flag you can deliberately push another car off the track at corner entry once per race without an effective penalty. I’m saying that’s not ok. Additionally, with your second black and white flag, would that be a 5s penalty? Seems like a bit of a jump to go from 0s to 5s penalty.

        1. They’re not the same thing at all.

          Did I claim they were ‘the same thing’? @fluxsource
          What I did say is ‘Keep it simple’.

          1. What you said could be paraphrased as “Don’t try to solve everything with new rules, look how well this new rule worked”

        2. I do agree with that @coldfly – whether they officially gave it for crowding or moving under breaking, he did get that flag (hm, or should that have been two then maybe, ie. followed by the appropriate penalty as 2xyellow=red?) – black and white flag for that ‘do not do that again’; In a way they actually are @fluxsource, only, they did not give him that flag a second time, as they could well have done during the race (only, then he’d lose the win, and I don’t think they wanted to force that …).

  13. Well I personally loved this use of the “new” flag. Why haven’t they been doing this all this time?! I think it’s a good way to keep action exciting but let drivers know when they’ve started stepping out of bounds. The entertainment of the race would have been absolutely destroyed if Leclerc had received a penalty there. Yeah he went a bit over the limit but it happens. This time it favoured Charles, next time it could favour Hamilton. I think that’s what I want to see in F1 and them being given some leeway to race hard. If they go way over the line then apply whatever penalty as expected.

    Otherwise just about every exciting moment in the sport we will end up finding being ruled against. How many times did Hamilton and Rosberg squeeze each other off the track, but they just got on with it. Let them get on with it. If someone goes overboard and sends someone into a wall or into the gravel then penalise them if they tap wheels and carry in racing for several more laps then let it be.

    1. Here’s a great experiment for you, you said that Ham Ros showed exciting racing, you’ve posed the question: how many times. Tell you what, go back and count for yourself how many times they actually did squeeze each other off track in the braking zone on approach to a corner, without penalty and when you conclude that the answer is “0” then justify why we need unacceptably dangerous defensive manoeuvres now if we didn’t need them then for excitement

  14. The more I see it the more I think Leclerc should have got a penalty. But at the same time, I’m still glad he didn’t because it would have spoiled the fight.

    It makes sense if he thought he’d left a car width, because I don’t think he even needed to take the risk of squeezing Hamilton. He was half a car ahead and on the inside line, controlling the chicane and entering at a speed that would enable him to exit close to optimally. And I assume that he also knew that Hamilton didn’t have the necessary traction advantage to steam by on the very short straight before the first Lesmo. Unless Leclerc had gone bouncing over the chicane, Hamilton had no chance of passing anyway.

    1. I am replying the same here :-)
      Leclerc pushed Hamilton off once, and blocked him once. I think at least one of these deserved a penalty, but what kind?
      5 second penalty is too much, I agree, it would have destroyed the battle for 1st.
      What about an stewards order: give your place up and continue fighting…

    2. I quite agree with you as regards him not getting a penalty it would have killed a wonderful race.
      As regards his leaving a car’s width, there is no point questioning what he thought was a car’s width, because with so much at stake vision for accurate measurements become impaired for the driver under a lot of pressure. He absolutely needed to kill Hamilton’s momentum because each successive lap, Hamilton was getting closer to overtaking him.

  15. Including the curbs there was a car width but it was impossible to pass Leclerc from outside of that curve. When Hamilton understood that he could not turn with that speed he escaped from the curve. That’s what happened.

    1. Impossible? He passed Vettel at that exact spot in the same manner last year.

      1. If you rewatch the footage, you’ll notice that Hamilton was fully alongside Vettel on the approach to the chicane, very slightly ahead even. Getting to the apex first from that position was tricky, but definitely possible.
        Yesterday, however, Hamilton was nowhere near fully alongside Leclerc. It was more of a front wheel against rear wheel situation. He wasn’t gaining on Leclerc anymore on that stage, quite the opposite in fact. There was no way on earth he could’ve swung the momentum around, gone around the outside of Leclerc, to reach the apex before the Ferrari did. The attempt was over before they reached the chicane.

        This is not to say that Leclerc was entitled to force Hamilton off the track. He wasn’t, end of.
        This is only to say that handing out a penalty would’ve been a justifiable, but race-wrecking decision, because it would’ve amounted to an artificial re-arrangement of the running order. Leclerc would’ve kept the lead just like he would’ve done without forcing Hamilton wide, and the Mercedes driver who would’ve been able to stay withing striking distance until the end of the race (most likely Bottas, as Hamilton’s was bound to drop off anyway in case he didn’t make it past Leclerc) would’ve picked up a pretty lacklustre win. Canada all over again. No, thank you.

        Now, the question is how this kind of incident will be treated in the future. I hope they will keep an eye on the “what would’ve happened if they had kept it clean” criterion. In other words: You commit an offence, thereby gaining an advantage you wouldn’t have by respecting the rules -> immediate penalty. You commit an offence that more or less preserves a status quo that wasn’t overly likely to be overthrown even if you had behaved -> you get out of jail free. Once.

        1. There was no way he could… etc

          And you know this… how? The Merc had more grip due to setup and also had the softer tyres in this situation. HAMs position on track would have compromised the exit of LECs Ferarri in the latter part of the chicane and their run to the Lesmos. So there is no certainty of outcome to be had at all.

          In any case; the attacking car was entitled to space on the track during the braking phase.The issue is as simple as that!

          1. @runpower

            And you know this… how?

            Gosh, by looking at the situation.

            The Merc had more grip due to setup and also had the softer tyres in this situation.

            Yeah, and he was also 4 metres behind his competitor. We’re comparing different orders of magnitude here, Hamilton had a grip advantage that was probably worth tens of centimetres through that chicane, but not metres. That sort of advantage would’ve been plausible if Leclerc had been driving a Williams with tyres that hit the cliff.

            HAMs position on track would have compromised the exit of LECs Ferarri in the latter part of the chicane and their run to the Lesmos.

            Yeah, but only very slightly. Yes, we occasionally see drivers squeeze past into della Roggia, compromising their exit so badly that they get swallowed up on the run to Lesmo 1. In fact, we had one such event during the course of that same race, Albon vs. Sainz in the early stages of the race. However, this wasn’t even remotely comparable to Leclerc vs. Hamilton. Albon shot past Sainz by braking at the latest possible point, as far to the left as the track limits allowed. This compromised him so badly that Sainz was able to switch back with ease in a bit of a slapstick moment that exposed Albon’s lack inexperience.
            Leclerc, however, braked in the middle of the track (yes, even before he forced Hamilton off the track), so his exit wouldn’t have been compromised too badly. Additionally, Hamilton’s aforementioned relative position on the track would not have allowed him to perform a similar switchback as Sainz’s. Leclerc had the apex, therefore, Hamilton would’ve had to slot in behind him, losing the crucial momentum for a switchback. Contrast this with Sainz, who entered the corner behind and largely unaffected by Albon, which allowed him to carry as much speed at the second apex as he wanted.

            tl;dr:
            No. Just no.

            So there is no certainty of outcome to be had at all.

            Nothing in life is ever certain. But some things become so predictable through experience that assuming the contrary is nonsensical unless one likes to engage in epistemological nitpicking.

            In any case; the attacking car was entitled to space on the track during the braking phase.The issue is as simple as that!

            Which is … exactly the point I made. A point I haven’t seen anyone (much less anyone with a brain) dispute.

          2. Nitpicking every sentence feels like a way to obfuscate and straw-man the entire point.

            Not that I actually want to litigate the matter. But the facts of the situation dispute any point you are making. Even the comparison to last years Vettel-overtake is erroneous because of the particular circumstances at this particular moment.
            Namely:
            – vastly differing characteristics of both cars
            – the differing tyre compounds
            – the fact that both cars decelerated at the same rate despite one party was driving on the grass and destabilised

            These are all facts that undercut your certainty of outcome had both drivers had the opportunity to brake on the tarmac ie. Hamilton could brake a few minutes later and also have more momentum going into the corner. The possibility of an overtake or at the very least, continue pressuring LEC is closer to 50% instead of an impossibility.

            Because you state the chance of an overtake as an absolute impossibility is the part I take issue with! HAM was deprived of an overtaking opportunity, you are trying to argue that he wasn’t.

        2. If you rewatch the footage, you’ll notice that Hamilton was fully alongside Vettel on the approach to the chicane, very slightly ahead even. Getting to the apex first from that position was tricky, but definitely possible.
          Yesterday, however, Hamilton was nowhere near fully alongside Leclerc.

          Yes, because he was driving on the grass to avoid damage to both cars.

          1. That is nonsense, and you know it. But I’ll give you a straight answer regardless, just in case someone else reads this and confuses your confidence for having a point.

            Hamilton’s leaving the track was the very end of the incident, and by no means had a negative impact on how far alongside Leclerc he was able to draw on the approach to the chicane. In fact, the opposite is true: As soon as he left the track, Hamilton’s ability to decelerate was negatively affected, and by losing speed more slowly than Leclerc alongside him, he started gaining on Leclerc again, ultimately shooting past him. However, this had nothing to do with getting into a more favourable track position. This was just the blameless equivalent of missing a braking point: You gain unwanted, useless speed that makes you miss the corner.

            In other words: The fact that Hamilton couldn’t draw fully alongside Leclerc where it mattered (he managed to do it shortly after pulling out of the slipstream, but Leclerc’s higher straight line speed meant Hamilton was relegated to the aforementioned three quarters of a car length behind in the braking zone) was completely unrelated to his eventual being forced off the track. His attack had looked promising, but by the time they both applied the brakes, Leclerc’s lead was safe again.
            Yeah, I’m repeating myself quite a bit, sorry for that. I wish I didn’t have to, but I keep getting low-quality retorts.

      2. Oh, and I also don’t mean to say hamiledon is right in saying Hamilton wouldn’t have made the corner. He clearly would have. Just not in a position to overtake Leclerc.

  16. Three offences, moving under braking, not leaving sufficient room for Hamilton and missing the apex on a corner. The message is clear, Ferrari work to a different (or non existent) set of rules. Had anyone else (but Vetel) committed these offences they would have been penalised for at least one of them. It must be heart breaking for the other teams.

    1. Lol Ya , tell that to the 100,00 plus fans at Montreal this year.

      1. I would amend @skibomax by saying ‘at Monza’ @canadianjosh and somewhat agree; I think that it’s largely due to Canada and the subsequent ‘discussion’ (well, moaning?) that the rules have softened; as Leclerc said, he saw it used against him, somewhat (I still think he had already lost that corner by that time) in Austria, this weekend he maxed out the leeway he found.

        I do believe that had it been the other way around and Hamilton would have done those things (but, I don’t think he would, nowadays), he’d have likely had two or more of those black and whites, ie. a penalty, or just a penalty straight away. But, rightly or wrongly, Monza is special for Ferrari, and Ferrari is a bit more equal than others still.

    2. It is not a Ferrari thing otherwise Vettel would have won in Canada.
      It is just the stewards swinging between excessive punishments for minor infractions and excessive leniency for serious infractions.

  17. Don frika del prima
    9th September 2019, 16:28

    Nice cropping of that photo. So kerbs are within track limits as long as you don’t go with 4 wheels over them, but if it’s a move on Hamilton only the black stuff counts… And without cropping you could see that there was enough space for a car. Kicking up some dirt isn’t evidence that there was no room left.

    1. The kerbs aren’t considered part of the track under the regulations. The requirement to leave at least one car width when moving back after defending applies to the outside of the white line (seen just under Hamilton’s front wing), not the outside of the kerb.

    2. Kerbs are not part of the track. The 4 wheels rules does not include the kerbs either.

      1. I see tarmac and grass.

      2. who said that? kerbs are part of tracks. every driver free to use kerbs with two wheels are still in side the track line.

        1. Sporting reg 27.3: “… for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part
          of the track but the kerbs are not.”

    3. That’s an interesting point.

      Leaving the track is considered a case when the inboard wheels also cross the white line. However, not leaving enough room is a case when the outboard wheels touch/cross the white line, even in places where drivers can drive two wheels out.

      Is this an inherent contradiction in the rules, or as they are different rules are they both on their own valid?

  18. Leclerc should have been punished twice in that race but again ferrari get of with it if it had been other way round ferrari would have been knocking on the stewards door

  19. Spoiler: he didn’t.

  20. I suppose all hamilton fans will stay quiet when watching this video : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hamilton+blocking+ricciardo

    1. No because like many people, you don’t seem to understand the difference between squeezing a driver on the EXIT of a corner vs on ENTRY. The latter is indisputably illegal and way too dangerous.

      P. S. There was also JUST a car’s width left for Daniel. IMO, Hamilton should have been warned for cutting the corner in this instance if anything. You could argue that he gained an advantage for cutting the chicane.

    2. I was thinking about Monaco, as well. Ricciardo had to brake to avoid a collision and no penalty. I seem to remember Lewis whining about having to brake in Montreal and the win was taken from Vettel. There’s no consistency. I think Leclerc did squeeze him out A BIT but I don’t care because Lewis has done worse. If the cars were reversed he would have immediately radioed “I was on the racing line”

    3. I suppose all hamilton fans will stay quiet when watching this video

      Just a video of Hamilton leaving a cars width, unlike Leclerc :)

    4. Only the ones with a brain.

  21. I think Charles’ was lucky.
    The picture clearly shows that if Lewis braked, they both would’ve crashed (or at least banged wheels and catapulted airborne). As he was squeezed up till the point where his front wheel was between Charles’ right front and rear wheel.
    The most logical move for him was to bank to the right, despite there’s no space left. Hence, the skid and the escape/run-off route.

  22. From now on when someone else makes a dirty move you have two choices.
    1. Either back off and let the other guy away with it. No collision no penalty. You lose. Dirty driver wins.
    2. Do not back off because you are in the right but the resulting collision may break your car or spin you out. With good luck the car can take the collision and keep on going. With bad luck you are out of the race or need to pit for front wing or nurse a damaged car to the flag. You are out of the race, the dirty driver gets 5s penalty and finishes 2nd.

  23. The Red Bulls will be mighty in Singapore, while the Ferraris will struggle with the tight, slow corners of the street circuit – where Ferrari’s straight-line speed will be of little or no use. Max will be on a mission to earn some points after the last two races ended in tears for him.
    What that means is that, with the Ferrari not as fast as it was at Monza and the Red Bull reigning supreme in Singapore, Max and Charles will be very close to each other in quali and especially in the race. That means Max will at one point or the other likely be alongside Charles, and then Charles will realise that his “hard driving” against Hamilton will have set a precedent, and he will not like the results.

    1. What that means is that, with the Ferrari not as fast as it was at Monza and the Red Bull reigning supreme in Singapore, Max and Charles will be very close to each other in quali and especially in the race.

      Eh? The Ferrari will be nowhere in Singapore. Max will be up against Lewis, Bottas and hopefully his own teammate.

      1. Yes, if I have to make a further guess, verstappen vs hamilton and bottas vs albon, that is a track where the driver’s ability can make a huge difference and albon didn’t impress me, less than bottas even.

  24. The incident between HAM and RIC in Monaco is the perfect example. What LEC did in Monza in different turns and time, HAM did it within 2 consecutive turns. Yet HAM wasn’t punished neither for cutting the chicane nor for blocking RIC. And the least you can say is that is plain hypocrisy when someone complains and pretends to be Virgin Mary.

    I don’t care that LEC wasn’t punished, I didn’t care that HAM wasn’t punished also. What irritates me though is the use of double standards. When “my” guy does it, “He clearly didn’t”, when the “other” guy does it, “He clearly did”. It doesn’t matter whether you got the facts straight, all it matters is to defend your belief, using irrational arguments and fallacies. And when the other side uses the exact same arguments that YOU have asserted, you go “It’s different because…”. Tap dancing and vicious cycle.

    But I enjoy it. It applies on Politics and Religion also and it is always fun to witness a “war” between minds stuck on their belief and not on simple facts.

    – Bible is the word of God.
    – How do you know that?
    – It says so on…the Bible.

    – Quran is the word of God.
    – How do you know that?
    – It says so on…the Quran.

    Ok dudes, good luck defending your belief, your “God”, whether his name is LEC or HAM etc.!

    1. The incident between HAM and RIC in Monaco is the perfect example

      Yeah Hamilton left a cars width :)

  25. I’m watching Formula 1 for 29 years and saw all of drivers’ beginnings in it. Lewis was not an example of fair driving at all when he started he’ career. He literary pushed out a lot of opponents. He can’t say that “The new generation get away with a lot more”. But to be honest, Max is even worse than Lewis. Max’s beginning showed us at least 2 if not more F1 rules broken in each race. Leclerc is new driver and this “forcing out of the track” can happen, intentionally or not, this only he knows. But, let’s be honest, Lewis era is finished. Max and Leclerc are next champions for years.

    1. I think we got to a point where leclerc and verstappen are like 22 years old and hamilton is like 34 (I don’t know what months they get older), this reminds me of alonso vs schumacher, only that was with them being a little older, but the age difference was similar.

      This means hamilton still has the speed to compete with them with a similar car (atm his is stronger ofc) and that in a few years he might start to lose the edge, like I see a slightly younger schumacher win the 2006 title, also because a slight decline starts above 35 years old.

  26. Leclerc won in style last weekend in Monza. This is why there are lots of moan in British channels. He is as talented as Verstappen and is therefore a big threat for Brit based race environment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.