Lewis Hamilton, Alexander Albon, Red Bull Ring, 2020

Why stewards ruled Hamilton-Albon collision wasn’t a “racing incident”

2020 Austrian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

FIA race director Michael Masi has given insight into the stewards’ decision to penalise Lewis Hamilton for his late-race collision with Alexander Albon.

Hamilton said the collision – his second with Albon in three races – was a “racing incident”. But the six-times world champion was given a five-second penalty and two penalty points on his licence for the incident, which dropped him from second place on the road to fourth in the final classification.

While Masi does not rule on incidents himself, he can refer them to stewards for their deliberation. He believes the positioning of the cars at the time of contact prompted their decision to penalise Hamilton.

“I think from what the stewards saw and having looked at it, obviously Alex had some momentum around the outside,” he said. “And the fact of the contact point, from what I’ve understood from their explanation, from Lewis’s front-left to Alex’s rear-right, was why they did not deem that a racing incident.

“They felt that Alex effectively was on the edge of the track, give or take, and had completed the overtaking manoeuvre. So for them, there wasn’t anything more to add, it was a quite simple driving infringement for causing a collision.”

Masi also explained the delay in issuing a five-second penalty for pit lane speeding to Sergio Perez. The Racing Point driver was penalised 20 minutes after the infringement took place.

“Quite simply, there was obviously a lot going on at that point in the race I think as everyone will acknowledge,” said Masi.

“It was just the first opportunity, with looking at incidents and so forth, that the stewards came across over the radio and said ‘time penalty for speeding’.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 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.

162 comments on “Why stewards ruled Hamilton-Albon collision wasn’t a “racing incident””

  1. Verstappen has been let go on numerous occasions in similar circumstances without any penalty.

    Just for the sake of argument.

    1. Because max is their money maker so obviously the rules don’t apply to him, also Albon did the exact same move to lewis on lap one in the same corner

      1. Lap One Albon was in front of Lewis and not behind him completly different. Maybe you notice Stewards said Albon completed his overtake then is there is contact they are watching who is responsable of the collision. And that was Lewis in this case.

      2. Yeah, Hamilton hardly attracks a crowd

    2. you are wrong sir. enlighten us with these ‘similar’ circumstances. or stop trolling

      1. max hit lec off the track in exactly the same situation and even had the cheeks to blame lec for turning on him…! max did many weird things and never is fault, brazil 2018? ocon in the inside max has jupiter size space on his left, ocon penalized… red bul did every possible whining multiple times this weekend! baku moved under braking caused crash with team mate… japan? i think turned in on late diving vettel… bahraign pushed ham off, but he got the puncture and blamed ham still… you want more examples?

        1. There’s a certain urge to bring Max into this and blame him for situation he obviously done nothing wrong.
          Max vs Charles in Austria last season was attacker vs defender, the very opposite of Lewis vs Albon… a defender has to yield, the attacker not when he’s at least halfway along side, which both Max and Albon where.
          Brasil… you can not fight a race leader as a back marker.. the verdict was quite clear.
          Baku was not moving under braking, it was as the FIA explained a subtle move on the straight, both driver received a warning for causing a collision… moving under braking was never an issue.
          Japan…? You mean with Lewis… I believe even Lewis was ashamed and didn’t want Mercedes to protest…Japen was the best example of the ‘evasive action’ rule was a farce and was gone shortly after.

          …..Last but not least in Bahrain, Max was more than halfway along side… Lewis got away without a penalty for whatever reason, but when the attacker is at least half way along side the defender has to yield… that one keeps on coming back… Maybe you could add Bottas and Max in Brasil last year…another defender that did not yield, gave Max a very slow puncture and ruin his race.

          A lot of what you mentioned is simply not accepting the rules of racing

          1. @matn

            “a defender has to yield, the attacker not when he’s at least halfway along side, which both Max and Albon where.”
            mind if you watch this and explain your sentence again, then again, tell me why albon went scot free for the exact situation twice, not even a single warning. yet ham is always at fault? take your blinkers off after the video pls

            bahrain, ham himself explained, you have to give him space otherwise he will crash into you, max is known to dive bomb at all costs! this was no different, if ham didnt back out of it on time, max would t bone him! ham is the one of the absolute if not the best late braker! everyone knows this! max is a known road hazard whether he is behind you or ahead of you! they dont call him crashtappen for no reason!

            japan 18 is max vs vettel incident! vettel dived inside max closed inside late, collision! max blames …
            brazil 18, is max ve ocon, ocon dives inside, max closed the inside late, max blames again!
            austria 19, max dives inside of lec, crashes lec on the outside, he blames again!
            max hun 16, moves gaziliion times under braking and causes a collision with kimi
            max spa moves into the path of overtaking kimi at highest speed, almost causing a catastrophe…
            whether he is in the inside, or outside or ahead or behind, he is always blaming other party!

            i hope albon does not turn into next max!

          2. Starts have different regulations, we all know that, many driver go of track, cut corners and hardly anyone get’s a penalty… the examples are numerous.

            Bahrain was nowhere near a dive bomb, Max launched his overtake about 100 mtrs before the corner and they went into the corner side by side…. considering they where side by side, the attacker again was at least halfway along side…. Mercedes and Ferrari fans gave Max that nice nick name…but objectively he is a much cleaner driver than them all together…. cause you push a driver in a corner as biased fans doesn’t make it all true. In 5 years of racing Max has taken out only one driver and hit two more….
            Monaco 2015, Grosjean…. no damage no positions lost for Grosjean’
            Hunagry 2017, Max cause Ricciardo to DNF
            China 2018, Vettel…. no damage two positions lost.

            Maybe you should accept rules as they are, you blame a driver cause you don;t like ‘m

  2. 119/5000
    I know it is not the topic, but it is too important:
    “Fernando Alonso to return to Formula 1 with Renault in 2021”

    1. Exactly.
      Perhaps Keith is waiting for the formal confirmation.

    2. @trindade Source or website?

  3. Hamilton’s front left tyre made contact with Albon’s right rear and the Red Bull driver was pitched into a spin that saw him drop down the field.

    That is ridiculous.
    I have watched the clip several times. It was Albon who stepped on the gas too early. His right rear hit Hamiltons. left front. Hamilton did not move one Jot.

    Was the penalty for Hamilton hitting him or not giving him enough space?
    1. They cannot argue “not enough space because Hamilton was ahead going into the corner and was entitled to take
    the racing line.
    2. They cannot argue Hamilton Hit him because he did not .

    1. Agreed, it felt very harsh to penalise Hamilton for that. Live I thought he had clumsily punted albon off but the onboard clearly showed Hamilton did not change steering position I.e. He didn’t open the steering. Albon was obviously extremely unlucky – it was a brilliant move and he didn’t really have much space on the outside, if any – but that’s not a reason to punish the other guy. Racing incidents can be unfortunate. I wonder if Hamilton had lost his front wing or punctured, would be have received a penalty?

      1. I’m borderline on this incident. I think it is harsh but not unreasonable that HAM got a penalty. What bothers me over the last season, however, is that so many penalties seem to be based on if there is a crash or not. Look at LEC vs HAM in Italy last year. LEC forced HAM off track on one occasion, got a warning, then forced HAM to step on the brake again to avoid a crash. LEC still got away without a penalty despite the warning flag (which was supposed to be more strict) was shown.

        On another occasion, as LEC drove with a badly damaged car spreading debris all over, one which almost hit HAM in the face but “only” took one of his mirrors with it, the stewards basically said it themselves – because nothing worse happened, we are letting this go. That’s just a terrible way of stewarding IMO.

      2. Rick Virdee
        9th July 2020, 8:37

        This is the most accurate information in all the conversations about the whole incident. It’s as clear as daylight and I believe the reason for the controversial decision is simply to start the what’s left of it season with a BANG. The second race will be even more interesting and I’m certain the driving will be outstanding from all the drivers especially now the MCLAREN is playing part of the serious challenge. Brilliant Races 🏁 are on the way.

    2. 1. They cannot argue “not enough space because Hamilton was ahead going into the corner and was entitled to take the racing line.

      Seems like you arent clear on the rules here. Corner entry has nothing to do with corner exit.

      The guiding principle is that the driver on the outside should be at least level (front axle in line with front axle) with the driver on the inside to have a claim to the racing line on corner exit.
      Its only a guiding principle, because its actually not stated in the rules.
      Every ruling in this case since 1977 have been like this, so unless FIA specifically comes with a rule change, The car behind ON CORNER EXIT has to yield and has the responsibility to make sure there is room.
      The contact point was on Albons rear half, with Hamiltons front tyre. This means that Hamilton had the responsebility to make sure that they didnt collide. This is why he got a penalty.

      2. They cannot argue Hamilton Hit him because he did not .

      They are not saying he hit him. They are saying he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

      The rules are free for everyone to read, you should take the time and get to know them.

      1. William Jones
        8th July 2020, 10:27

        The racing line at that part of the track is up on the kerb, with your right hand wheels barely touching the white line. Hamilton was not on the racing line and neither was Albon, they were both inside of it. Therefore, Hamilton had every right to be there as he left space.

        1. Tommytintop (@)
          8th July 2020, 15:56

          @Wilson you are totally correct in your explanation. It was really harsh not to call it a racing incident.

      2. Disagree mostly….Hamilton was simply holding line and not yet conceding the pass, and Albon had enough room on the outside to run alongside already. Albon simply turned in to quickly and clipped Hamilton’s front left. I agree with Hamilton that it was a racing incident. Albon is talented and quick, but his lack of experience puts him in a lot of these type of situations. This is not F3, and a 6 time WDC is not some snot nosed kid afraid for his ride…..he is not just going to roll over and let you by, you are going to have to earn it.

    3. Jacir Dalle Grave
      9th July 2020, 2:18

      Your explanation is perfect. Realy I’m convicent now.

  4. Bring back the drive throughs for serious offences

    1. isaac (@invincibleisaac)
      7th July 2020, 16:36

      Why are drive through penalties no longer a regular thing anymore?

      1. @invincibleisaac Because back then, not a long time ago, before the 5sec penalty was introduced, drive-throughs were used for most of the penalties, even the minor ones. The 5 & 10 second penalties are a good addition for minor incidents.
        When an incident like the Hamilton-Albon crash happens that is just above the “racing incident” category, so it’s punishable, but there are some mitigating factors like Hamilton understeering, not being intentional etc, making it more like Hamilton’s fault but like 60/40 or 70/30, then the simple 5sec or 10sec penalties are just.
        When something is more serious or idiotic, like Vettel rejoining the track without looking in Monza last year and crashing into Stroll, the traditional drive-through (~20sec) and the more severe stop&go (~30sec) are appropriate.

        The 5sec is very minor penalty, it only cost Hamilton 2 places at the finish because the incident happened near the end and after a SC period that bunched up all the drivers. Had the crash happened near the start, he would have easily made a 5sec buffer to the next car.

      2. @invincibleisaac @freelittlebirds @thegianthogweed It’s a shame – 5- and 10-second time penalties were introduced for instances where a drive-through was overkill, such as track extending or speeding in the pit lane. Originally, punting the driver in P2 off and carrying on without any damage would have still been a drive through (for Hamilton, of course).

    2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      7th July 2020, 16:55

      I think it would have been overkill to make Albon do a drive-through, although they used to do that a while back.

      1. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
        7th July 2020, 17:48

        I remember when Bottas made Hamilton spin in Bahrain 2016. IT did cause Hamilton a bit of damage, but initially, it only made him loose 6 places and in the end, it didn’t really cost him that much.

        This was quite a different incident, but if you think Hamilton just got 5 seconds for something that the stewards consider Hamilton responsible for, given that this spun albon and made him lose a great deal of position and time, 5 seconds seems very mild in comparison. I personally think Penalties often used to be way too harsh, but now are about right. In this instance, 5 seconds for what Hamilton is right IMO. The safety car just made the field bunch up which made is seem more harsh than it was.

        In Canada last year, Vettel got a 5 second penalty for his mistake. His mistake was going wide, but his penalty was for the way he rejoined the track which I don’t see how he could help. Hamilton attempted to get by while vettel was coming back on track clearly not in control. The penalty I can accept, but I think it was a bit harsh.

        They are very different incidents, but I certainly don’t think that Hamilton’s penalty was harsh. Hamilton will have been aware that Albon was there based on the fact he nearly got passed at the previous corner. Albon got a very good drive out of that corner and Hamilton should have been aware that it will have been easy for albon to attempt something, but you obviously can’t guess what he would do. He went around the outside but carried too much speed given that it should have been obvious by then what Albon was trying to attempt. Albon was successful enough to get his car pretty much ahead and by then despite it being hard for hamilton to have known exactly where albon would position his car, in the end, it was a mistake from Hamilton as he should have backed off more than he did when Albon was along side with the extra speed he had.

        From your comment it almost looks like you put more blame on albon which I can’t quite understand.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          7th July 2020, 18:47

          From your comment it almost looks like you put more blame on albon which I can’t quite understand.

          I explain it below. I’m actually really surprised that anyone would ever view this as Lewis’s (place any driver in his position) fault. I’m beginning to understand why Albon didn’t make it to F1 to begin with. I’m usually 1-2 years ahead of the rest in spotting troubled drivers and Albon definitely seems to have trouble racing. Last year LeClerc was forced off by Max in what seemed to completely illegal and the stewards didn’t give a penalty.

          That’s clearly illegal but the stewards took a liberal racing. Lewis’ move was 100% legal and the stewards giving a penalty to Lewis instead of Albon is a travesty of stewardship…

          1. I have tried to read this a few times now but can’t do it without laughing..

            I’m usually 1-2 years ahead of the rest

            You’re a bit full of yourself mate?

          2. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
            7th July 2020, 19:42

            haha baasbas it seems so. I respect anyone can be a fan of any driver. Most will have noticed that I’m a Bottas fan, but I can accept he is to blame for some of his incidents. Based on the past on this site, It does seem that freelittlebirds can virtually never point out any negatives towards Hamiltons mistakes. Even in Baku 2016 when he drove into the wall in qualifying, I think I remember them saying that if drivers don’t make mistakes, they don’t make a complete driver which was pretty much trying to turn it into a positive.

            To many people make it look like they no everything. I personally think the stewards have got better in some areas, but worse in others. But we need to respect that they will have more access to things that we will never get to see. It seems that some almost get angry that some agree with the stewards that they are against Hamilton. All drivers can make mistakes and as has been pointed out, Hamilton has made mistakes including penalty points more than any other driver in the past 12 months.

          3. Hahahaha – Breaking news: Michael the armchair expert announced as Helmut Marko’s replacement

          4. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            7th July 2020, 21:51

            You’re a bit full of yourself mate?

            You sound like my wife :-). I’m not 100% right but I’ll be the first to admit if I’m wrong. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear one rule that was broken, a decent argument or even the mildest of justifications for the penalty.

        2. FYI in Canada Vettel opened on the steering wheel while checking in his mirror Hamilton it was deliberate crowding which the rules explicitly forbid

    3. Agree, 5 seconds is a ridiculously small penalty for bumping someone off and ruining their race + costing them and the team a heap of points. In this case likely a maiden win on the team’s home track (stuff of dreams). It’s basically giving people an incentive to do it more.

      1. Good point. If you rule someone at fault (not going into this specific case, which is arguable but if the verdict is ‘guilty’) and the result of this action is some-one else DNF, then the penalty can’t just be 5 seconds. It then becomes a business case worth pursuing. As a team boss I would agree on a code/sign language indicating ‘please bump this guy off’ since the netto gain as a team is much bigger than the minor loss of some points. Albon/RedBull went to -16 at least and possibly -25. That is an important gain for Mercedes in the constructors championship. Especially in a short season. So a drive through would be more appropriate imho

    4. Well when a serious offence occurs we might get one.

  5. I’d say it’s marginally more Hamilton’s fault, maybe 60/40, simply because it was so avoidable for Albon. When you see a driver in heavily worn hard tyres, trying to scoot round the outside of them is always going to be a risk. I watched it thinking that a more experienced driver would be backing off, or maybe going for a cut back as Lewis inevitably slides wide.

    I was so gutted for Alex though. A first podium and a possible win lost to a clumsy incident. But he can’t just take it as some bad driving from Lewis, and assume that he was in the right, and Lewis was in the wrong. While that may be true, being in the right is no consolation when you’re stuck in the gravel. I really want to see Albon getting some success, so I hope he can learn something from this.

    1. Plenty of other drivers did the same overtaking manoeuvre there without a problem, this collision was fully on Hamilton and that’s all there is to it

      1. What exactly would you like him to have done differently?

        1. @mralexbarr not crash into Albon, perhaps?

          1. I asked what would you like him to do, not what would you liked to have happened. I’m talking about actions not outcomes. Actions are things like turning left and turning right, speeding up and slowing down.

            Want to try again?

          2. @mralexbarr sure, turn right a bit more, he had some steering lock remaining. Other drivers managed it

        2. @mralexbarr Hamilton could have accepted that he was going to be overtaken, reduced throttle input and tightened his line (maintained/increased steering lock to the right). He would have been marginally slower out of the corner, and would not have run wide enough to collide with Albon. He wasn’t willing to accept that his was the slower car, took the corner as he usually would and he collided with Albon. He’s certainly allowed to choose the course of action that he did, but the outcome is a penalty for him.

          1. William Jones
            8th July 2020, 10:32

            Had he let off the throttle his car would have washed out immediately with the loss of downforce. Come on, this is the bare basics of how aero cars work!

      2. indeed. Norris and Leclerc for instance

        1. Absolutely correct. Norris knew he had to yield and did so quite dramatically. Norris did the right thing. The outside was owned by Leclerc. Hamilton should have shown the same respect to his fellow competitor – Albon. Simple as that. Norris managed it because he chose to. Hamilton was more like – “nah stuff you! How about have some of this? Where did you go? My bad?” lol

    2. yeah I’m with you on this one @jackysteeg. Marginally Hamilton’s fault, if at all.
      I think Albon is an excellent driver, a fresh and open personality with no edge, and one of several who are bringing a lot of unalloyed pleasure to watching F1 now, so I’d like to see him get his podium and I’m sure it will come, and this was a disappointment. But whilst accepting the judgement that the manoevre was completed to the extent that ALB had won the position, it’s hard to see what HAM could actually have done to avoid the contact. The touch happened because (a) there was overlap and (b) ALB’s car was travelling faster than HAM’s car. Could HAM have gone faster? No, I think not, that would be the reason he was overtaken – any faster and he might simply have slid into ALB instead. Could he have avoided the overlap? I’m not clear whether he could have applied any more steering lock, but to expect him to apply more in order to allow for a car that had moved to his outside seems silly. And he didn’t open the steering up at all, he just kept constant lock on. So if there was literally nothing he could to to avoid contact once ALB had put his car there it’s hard to see how he cops the blame. Albon, by contrast, did theoretically have choices, albeit unpalateable ones: go a bit wider; or to not accellerate whilst there was overlap.

      1. That’s exactly how I see it.
        Which is why I think the stewards made a juvenile decision

        1. yeah TBH I’m with you

      2. Maybe cause it was the second time around is why the stewards decides to penalize Lewis, what Lewis could have don is anticipate…. he’s one of the most experienced drivers out there and knew Albon was much faster.
        Norris did anticipate when Leclerc came along side, like Albon, Charles was also much faster….
        I figure if Norris can, so can Lewis, Lewis however kept his foot down eventually cause them to collide

        1. No, keeping his foot down is exactly not what caused them to collide – because it’s the fact that Albon came out of the corner faster that caused his rear to hit Hamilton’s front wheel. Albon came into the corner behind, drew level in the corner and had his nose ahead – with overlapping wheels – as they came out. Which is why it seems basically impossible for Hamilton to have done anything to prevent contact by the time Albon could actually be argued to be ahead – he couldn’t speed up or turn tighter, and slowing down when overlapped would have just made that contact happen sooner

          1. Now Lewis is a victim..?
            Albon was making his move starting around 50 meter before the corner…. Lewis could do nothing…?
            I keep reading all sorts of things Albon could have done… what he did is overtaking a slower driver in a rather perfect way. If you read the stewards reason to penalize Hamilton, it was because to them Albon’s overtake was finished…he was fully ahead.

          2. Now Lewis is a victim..?

            no, I don’t see anyone as a victim, I see a racing incident where the consequences were worse for one party than the other. It’s not relevant where Albon started his move. It’s relevant where he changed from being behind to being ahead. At that point – which was not 50m before the corner but most of the way around it – the two cars were in a position where there doesn’t seem to have been much Hamilton could do about avoiding contact, given that he couldn’t go slower, faster or tighter. Before that point he was more than entitled to take his line whilst leaving a car’s width.
            You’re right, it was a great overtake, and it was one that was a calculated risk (as they all are). Part of the risk evaluations in racing concern whether the other party will do something or not – back down, notice you’re there, make a mistake – and like all gambles they may or may not pay off.
            FWIW I think highly of both drivers and wish the outcome had been different. I just think the penalty was suspect – even though I’m delighted that it meant at least one of young guns got onto the podium at last!

      3. @picasso-19d-ftw

        These cars have a slow pedal, that Lewis could have used.

        1. At what point?

          1. Tommytintop (@)
            8th July 2020, 16:05

            Lewis was ahead going into the corner he was entitled to take the line he took. It was a clumsy move by Albon.

  6. Fact: Car 44 and car 23 collided in turn 4.
    Offence: Involved in an incident defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting
    Decision: 5 second time penalty; / 2 penalty points imposed, total of 7 in the 12 month period

    Reason: The Stewards reviewed video evidence showing that cars 23 and 44 were side by side approaching the apex of turn 4. They negotiated the turn side by side, but car 23 had a better exit and was in the process of passing car 44. Car 44 was drafting to the outside at the exit of turn 4 and consequently making contact with the rear right wheel of car 23, causing car 23 to spin. The Stewards determined that the driver of car 44 is predominantly to blame for the collision.
    Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 10.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

    1. “Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 10.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.”
      Exactly: if Mercedes/Hamilton truly feels it was a racing incident, they can protest. And they didn’t. Which says a lot. People should wonder how they would feel it the situation was reverse: Hamilton passing Albon and Albon hitting Hamilton, on his way to victory. My oh my, people would be going nuts.

  7. I questioned what happened at the time as Hamilton never varied on his line out of the corner. Ocon took a shot in the dark maneuver that could only find success with a very lucky move. The article states Ocon had completed the pass when Lewis drove into him. If you completed the pass how can that damage happen ??
    Ocon created the accident and Lewis is blamed? Ocon should be penalized not Hamilton. It’s absolutely is Ocon’s fault for creating a situation with such high risk.
    I see it this way. Somebody convince me why Hamilton should be penalized?
    It should be reversed before Friday.
    The FIA is completely off base on this one.

    1. @Holmzini What does Ocon have to do with this incident?

    2. Holmzini again
      7th July 2020, 16:32

      Evidence of Ocons decision as immediately questioned as a stupid moment when he wrecked Lewis comes from the very voice of Martin Brundle who made it clear Ocon needed to be more patient as it was happening. A respected drivers comments speak so much truth when they react to such risky moments behind the wheel. Sorry Ocon. Kind of a Senna like desperate pass

      1. Brundle is a massive Lewis fan boy, who goes out of his way to find excuses for him.

      2. @Holmzini again This incident involved Hamilton and Albon, not Hamilton and Ocon. I don’t know how you’re mixing Albon with Ocon, LOL. Ocon and Hamilton were never even running to each other at any point during the race, nor the entire weekend for that matter.

    3. hamilton never varied his line… well the thing is hamilton knew albon was side by side, and passing him, so it was hamilton choice at that point to vary line or collide. hamilton at the end of the day was the one that understeered into albon who was 90% passed hamilton, and hamilton could have avoided the collision completely if he had braked about 5% earlier, since he knew a car was side by side with him, instead he chose to brake ultra late to defend, but that led to understeer, so hamilton did not let enough space in a side by side battle.

      1. lbon had plenty of space to his left and Hamilton was already on full lock to the right.

        When the driver is on the outside being squeezed by the driver on the inside, it’s his choice to yield position or eat grass.

        Now we’re asking the guy on the inside who’s already giving enough space, to brake, so the other guy who’s on the outside with better tyres and grip can finally conclude his overtake.

        This is a yoke. A yoke!

        1. James Coulee
          7th July 2020, 18:18

          The driver in front has the right to the racing line. The driver behind doesn’t.

          1. I guess some of Lewis fans don’t understand ‘being behind’ we can’t blame ‘m for that can we?

          2. yeah, man, that’s true. the dude is ahead for so much of the time things get tricky when he is not.

            if it was as simple as the guy behind doesn’t have the right to the corner, every single contact would demand a penalty, as someone is always behind.
            imagine how that would be.

          3. The driver behind has the right to the corner as soon as he gets at least halfway along side…if not, the other driver has the right to the corner… basic rules of racing

      2. Hamilton took no avoiding action. Just going straight and expecting the other cars to avoid him is not acceptable.

      3. @kpcart He indeed should’ve started braking a bit earlier given the state of his tyres compared to Albon’s.

    4. @Holmzini

      There is no rule that drivers may take any line as long as they keep a constant turning radius. Formula 1 isn’t bound by rules that you make up.

      1. Did you hear that there was a F1 race last Sunday.?

        1. @Holmzini I wouldn’t be going around questioning others’ understanding of the collision, given you haven’t even managed to correctly identify both drivers involved.

  8. I felt there was more to the debate than “front wheel touches rear wheel”, but I suppose if you want to reach a conclusion well before the end of the race, there is no time, or access to go over GPS and telemetry data.

    I do wonder, though, what your take on the incident was, @dieterrencken, @keithcollantine?

    1. Yes it’s Albon not Ocon. Sorry.

    2. would that change your take on it? in years to come, it will be simple: albon made a great pass, and hamilton defended too heavily that he understeered into a car that was 90% past his car

    3. I felt there was more to the debate than “front wheel touches rear wheel”

      I was expecting ‘not leaving a car width’ as part of the consideration, @adrianmorse.

      But maybe they were watching Ocon ;)

  9. Inconsistent stewarding.
    Of course Masi doesn’t want to bring their judgement into disrepute, so he is going to say it was Hamilton’s fault.

    Albon himself Has ran Perez off the track at the same turn, Literally pushing Perez out to the White line, exept Perez had enough race craft to see it coming and avoid the collision.

    1. What are you on about, Perez was never side by side with Perez. No did they even race except for the safety car restart. What race were you watching mate

      1. Perez was never side by side with Perez

        Dude’s got a point.

      2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        7th July 2020, 21:55

        Too bad he didn’t get a penalty for being too close to himself :-) What a wasted opportunity by the stewards to make a tongue-in-cheek joke.

        Race direction investigating incident with Perez impeding Perez on Turn 1

    2. @david-beau ”Albon himself Has ran Perez off the track at the same turn”
      – When? Albon almost overtook Perez before the SC-lights came on at the exit of T3 (T2 in my book), but didn’t force him off the track at the exit of the following corner at any point in the race. That’s the only time they were fighting for a position close to each other in green-flag conditions.

  10. I think the stewards need to remind Hamilton that you can only get away with this sort of thing if you are a RB at Austria or a Ferrari at Monza. Or am I being to cynical? :)

    1. Having watched this incident from multiple camera angles, particularly LH’s cockpit cam where Albon is unseen until he suddenly rushes by and clips LH’s front wheel, I feel perhaps the stewards are bending over backwards to not be seen as favoring Hamilton.

  11. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    7th July 2020, 17:11

    It’s a bad call by the stewards and a bad precedent – Albon could have avoided this collision and the one in Brazil and won both cases. He could have stayed ahead in Brazil and also overtaken Lewis in Austria.

    He’s just a little too greedy and wants position… and the full track… and that’s not F1. It’s unbelievable how drivers in F1 – his teammate is ridiculous when it comes to defending even against Ricciardo.

    Rosberg has 3 kamikaze moves across the entire track in Bahrain and Spain.

    Vettel has plenty of kamikaze moves – was it Vettel who pushed Alonso off track in Monza?

    This was a very gentlemanly defense by Lewis and for the stewards to fault him when Albon has 3 miles of space by F1 standards to avoid the collision is akin to giving a penalty outside the box in football. The ref called it and he has every power to do it but it’s a ridiculous call and one that the stewards should be ashamed for and request that they never officiate another race…

    I understand the impact to Albon as a driver and to Red Bull as a team but that’s no excuse for penalizing Lewis there. As I’ve said, this is the wrong message to send to Albon who now has found himself with 9 toes out of F1. They are ruining the kid’s career. If the stewards had made the right call in Brazil, then Albon who seems like a really nice and bright kid would have realized that he has to be more careful when racing wheel to wheel and he would have avoided this debacle and possibly gone on to win the race.

    1. in the same race, first lap albon did exact same move, one in first corner, and one in the exact same corner, ham avoided/aborted both overtakes to stay in the race! thats the difference between experienced driver and a kamikaze team driver… albon getting the message red bul is giving… crash as you like, we will find an excuse to make the other party be responsible attitude!

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        7th July 2020, 22:57

        If you’re in front, you can take the racing line. Hamilton backed out at the start because he was behind Albon.

        1. They were side by side actually

          1. How did Hamiltons front tyre hit Albons back?

    2. You have written in a couple of posts that Hamilton could not have avoided the contact but that is simply untrue. They were well behind the apex of the corner. Its physically almost impossible to understeer at the corner exit. Hamilton just lifting the gas pedal would have avoided the contact. By the time he hit Albon he was already done and dusted. Albon had a perfectly normal line to the outside of the track at the corner exit. There just is no reason for him to give more space.

      Albon made a great move and should be applauded for it. Hamilton was just clumsy and unwilling to accept defeat or he misjudged the situation.

      1. William Jones
        8th July 2020, 10:38

        “Its physically almost impossible to understeer at the corner exit”

        Wow. Just wow.

    3. @freelittlebirds The Brazil one was 100% clear cut LH’s fault. That move was never on given how far behind he was, so he would’ve been better off waiting for T1 rather than attempting a desperate move in the twisty 2nd sector of that track.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        8th July 2020, 13:52

        @jerejj Actually Albon left the door wide open (everyone saw the move happening before it happened) and then cut across as if he was practicing in a race by himself. If you’re going to leave the door open, then make sure you pay attention to the car as you turn. It happened to Perez twice but he didn’t cut across like a maniac.

        At first, I thought it was a one-time miscalculation by Albon. Obviously, it’s not.

  12. By this logic a driver following another heading into a corner could just brake ridiculously late, get ahead of the other driver at the apex, and then collide. It would be the other driver’s fault as at the point of collision he was behind therefore it was his fault.

    1. Hamilton Albon was after the Apex though.

    2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      7th July 2020, 17:30

      @mralexbarr +1

      I agree – being ahead means nothing unless you’ve cleared the car completely or the defending car intentionally steers into your rear tyre clearly leaving the racing line on the corner. Even then, though, the defending driver has EVERY right to push the driver to the edge of the track, as long as they leave a car’s width which most drivers don’t…

      In fact, I would be livid as a team principal if my driver just allowed cars to stroll by without forcing the driver to the edge of the track. If you push them as far out within track limits, there’s always the possibility that the other driver will make a mistake and will go over the limits on their own and spin or lose traction. The defending driver has simply done his job there and made sure that the driver overtaking is put to the test.

      Albon almost seemed to be oblivious to the fact that he’s racing and needs to use all tools at his disposal just like Lewis did.

    3. That’s a rather classic strawman example dude.
      Try again.

    4. You’ve just 3/4 described 3/4 of overtakes in F1 (omit the collision).
      What I saw was LH braking late to defend and then finding himself unable to not run Albon off the road.

    5. Bad example, as you can only get ahead going outside by having a lot more traction. Simply braking later will not get you ahead.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        8th July 2020, 14:03

        Sure, it will get you ahead.

        If you are on the inside, you can just use the other car to help slow you down :-) And don’t get me started on how many folks get ahead but can’t keep the car on track.

        But being ahead, means nothing. I’ve seen Lewis pull back many times even though he was marginally ahead like Albon was. It just depends on who you’re racing and what price you’re willing to pay to overtake.

        In Albon’s case, the pass was not complete. Lewis defended very nicely (not like Albon did in the same race) and Albon took a revised Lord of the Rings stance (“I shall not move”) for the 2nd time in his brief Red Bull career and ended up spinning.

        Lewis didn’t suffer any damage so no penalty for Albon.

        The larger question though is who will replace Albon if he does it again and will Red Bull be nice enough to let him finish the race that it happens in. I can definitely see Marko pulling him out of the car midrace and even helping him out of it once it gets to pits. If I were Albon, I’d teleport myself back to Brazil and fix my driving.

  13. I do think the collision was more Hamilton’s fault as Albon was ahead & with fresher tyres was always going to pull ahead further under acceleration. You have to know when to back out of it & Lewis should have backed out of it accepting that he wasn’t going to be able to fight back at that point.

    That said I do think the penalty was harsh. Yes as I said it was more Hamilton’s fault but I still view it as a racing incident between 2 cars racing hard for position.

    To me a penalty should be reserved for something caused by somebody driving stupidly/erratically/dangerously etc.. or of course doing something intentional. Simple racing incidents caused by hard racing that are somewhat marginal should simply be let go. Give a warning & maybe penalty points on the super license but I really am against in race penalties for that sort of thing.

  14. the problem with this explanation is that albon had 1-2 cars space left…………………..

    1. Exactly, at the moment if impact Albon wasnt even on the kerb. Normal racing line all drivers were using it

      Also he said himself he thought the move was done, not aware that it was only almost done

      I think it was 50/50.. so a racing incident. Albon could have ran wider as many do, just in case and perhaps hamilton was expecting this. Or he just carried too much speed..

  15. Yes, Hamilton was at fault. At the same time Albon perhaps should have known better and wait for safe DRS pass…how awful is that?

    1. Could a RB pass a Mercedes in a straight line even with DRS? I’d doubt it.

  16. GtisBetter (@)
    7th July 2020, 17:38

    Regardless what i think of the ruling, i wonder what would be considered a racing incident by the stewards. This is racing, people are going to take risks overtaking and people are going to defend and every collision (bar mechanical issues) one or both drivers can do things to avoid them. You can always claim one driver is predominately to blame for something, but it sucks the soul out of racing.

    1. I cant think of any example where a similar situation was decided as a racing incident but good point

  17. One minute posts demand more wheel to wheel racing, then in the next minute demand drivers do not overtake unless the car they are overtaking is compliant or it is so unchallenging to be boring.

    Albon made a good move. Hamilton did not try to avoid him, keeping to his previous racing line despite Albon being there and ahead of him.

    Shades of Schumacher.

    1. lol joker, did you watch the race? or playing mario carts still?

      albon did two moves carbon copy! 1st lap 1st corner, albon push ham off ham avoids clash , at the same corner albon went, he pushed ham off again, but ham saw it from miles away/behind and avoided crash! both are carbon copies, only difference is one is avoiding a crash at all costs, other is continuously kamikaze diving at all costs! ham did absolutely nothing wrong! only problem was he wasnt a dutch driver or racing for red bul! that was the problem! entire weekend we saw/heard redb bul protesting complaining and whining….

  18. The incident occurred not midway-through the corner, but at the end. Albon was already going in a “straight” line towards T5, Hamilton continued to go wider; he did not skid off the kerb or lock his front wheels. Hamilton had no reason to avoid contact: a 5s penalty was likely to change nothing at all for him (he was unlucky it cost him two places), but getting rid of Albon also secured Bottas’ and Mercedes’ win, as well as preventing their nearest rivals from scoring lots of points. It was such a gentle tap that it didn’t look like his car was out of control and ran wide on its own, but rather that he slowly tried to force Albon off track while doing no damage to himself.
    Of course had it been Vettel in the Mercedes he would have spun himself only…

    1. Albon did have space. Nearly a cars width on his left. The normal racing line all weekend but didnt take it for whatever reason

      1. Doesnt matter, Albon had track right, this is why Hamilton got a penalty.

  19. I agree HAM caused the collision, but consider this another example of the inevitable inconsistency of varying race stewards from weekend to weekend. Masi’s “Let Them Race” initiative is laudable, but it has no chance of being implemented consistently by different teams of stewards every race.

    If, for instance, the same latitude extended to LEC in his tussles with HAM in Monza 2019 were applied in the HAM v ALB incident here, the verdict would be different.

  20. I find it hilarious that Alex’s own teammate would have done the same as Lewis. If Alex had pulled off the move, it would be just as much a talking point from the weekend as the drive done by Lando. But looking back at previous races at this track, the best and most obvious place to try a move is into turn 3 at the top of the hill. So why couldn’t Alex wait and try to use the tire advantage with DRS going into turn 3?

  21. For me, there is no debate. Rules are rules and Hamilton was at fault. It won’t matter in the grand scheme of things as Hamilton has the superior car and will overhaul Bottas with ease in the championship. I hope am wrong! Plenty of time to right any wrongs despite being a shortened season. I hear 16 races perhaps? Perfect!, should not be any more than this anyway; in my humble opinion of course!

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      7th July 2020, 18:57

      @gruppeb86 Pray tell, what rule is that? I’ve heard a million opinions but no one here has provided a rule and neither have the stewards. They have obfuscated the incident in the almost laughable manner possible.

      What about this incident?

      Don’t worry about the drivers or cars… Just assume it’s Driver A and Driver B. Driver A is clearly at fault and has broken the rules.

      If we look at this week’s incident with Drivers A and B (the driver overtaking), it’s clear that Driver A (the defending driver) is at 0% fault. Driver B has to move, chooses not to, collides, and gets what he deserves. No penalty from the stewards because he’s already been penalized on track.

      However, had Driver B taken out Driver A, then a hefty penalty was certainly in order as Driver A is doing everything the right way and Driver B is not…

      1. @freelittlebirds
        this further proof that albon in the same situation did exactly the same and even blatantly drive/dive to crash, if ham was this obvious, i would call albon a great kamikaze apprentice learning from the best driver and best team who/which knows these moves the best… vettel graduated from the same academy!

        watch the video and you will see what would/did albon do in the carbon copy situations… of course excuses are endless for redbull and its fans!

      2. petebaldwin (@)
        7th July 2020, 23:04

        @freelittlebirds – It’s very simple – if you are in front of a car, you can take whatever line you want through a corner. That’s why Hamilton was in the clear when he pushed people off previously (Rosberg in Bahrain for example). In this case, Albon was in front (as evidenced by the fact that Hamilton’s front left made contact with Albon’s right rear) and therefore, he wasn’t free to take whatever line he wanted and he was at fault for the accident.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          8th July 2020, 0:54

          if you are in front of a car, you can take whatever line you want through a corner.

          Really? Is that a regulation?

        2. @petebaldwin, Maybe I am being pedantic but the contact was between the back of Hamilton’s front wheel and the front of Albons back wheel, therefore I believe it was Albon who hit Hamilton, not Hamilton hitting Albon.

      3. @freelittlebirds and the answer to the alphabetical formula is? ;)

        This incident should not be confused with other incidents.

  22. Its funny bow the stewards say car 44 understeered into the other car. To say understeer is to admit the driver had no control or alteast lost some control. While the albon having much better tyres who supposedly was ahead albeit not completely with more space on the outside chose to turn more in than required. Who also had more control due to newer tyres and a better exit. Defies logic i say.

    1. Yet all Lewis fans where perfectly okay with Vettel’s penalty in Canada 2019…. to me that wasn’t a penalty… this was however, Lewis just went into hard and crashed another driver out of a possible win, Vettel didn’t even touch anything back in Canada, yet Lewis was on the radio asking for a penalty right away.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        7th July 2020, 19:05

        Can’t you spot the difference between this incident and the incident in Canada? I’ve no clue why Vettel would ever expect not to get a penalty for that. He clearly broke 2 rules there and it was also dangerous.

        1. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
          7th July 2020, 19:51

          Vettel made a mistake, he then completely understandably will not have had control of his car when coming back on the track. If I’m honest, I’m not sure what clear cut rule he actually broke that he could easily avoid. He didn’t get instructed to give the position back, so he didn’t refuse that. And he also won’t have deliberately steered into hamilton. From the analysis on sky with chandhok, Vettel was correcting oversteer when he came back on track and certain;y wasn’t deliberately trying to run hamilton out of road.

          These two incidents were very different, but I see the penalty as far more harsh for Vettel than this one was for Hamilton.

          1. Vettel opened the steering to crowd of Hamilton its a lie he had no control, it hapened 100 meters after he rejoined…

        2. The stewards needed a microscope, much time and frame by frame videos…. they where looking for something to pin on him. More shocking, the stewards didn’t bother looking at all available footage when Lewis ignored yellow and fooled the stewards with an odd story about green flags…. at the spot of the incident there was only yellow… flashing on a very big screen.

          At least Vettel’s incident was dubious…even the stewards didn’t agree

          1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            7th July 2020, 21:36

            Vettel joined in an unsafe manner and literally squeezed Lewis into the wall. That was a penalty. A person has to be insane not to view that as a penalty.

          2. @freelittlebirds i think mercedes should officially protest the result, with this video https://youtu.be/IbleaPvjoYg
            and claim or get albon a race ban or something, or get hamilton’s penalty lifted!

            if the season will go on like this, i think we should very well be prepped for annoying season wide red bull whining!

      2. @matn
        i think you didnt watch the same race?

        watch the video till the end! albon did the same carbon copy move (so called understeer) twice! both in the same lap!
        1st one 1st corner, ok, he used his joker card, second one in the exact same corner? come onnnnn! you have to be blatant austrian fanatic/steward in an austrian/red bull track to claim ham willingly oversteered into albon, while albon did twice kamikaze moves by accident!

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          7th July 2020, 22:06

          @mysticus @matn I agree with you but I don’t think the stewards would actually look at those incidents when reviewing a specific incident.

      3. petebaldwin (@)
        7th July 2020, 23:07

        There was another one at Mexico last year – everyone blamed Verstappen when Hamilton tried to hang it around the outside of turn 1 and he understeered into him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buv9xJ5i868

        Unsurprisingly, that got a completely different reaction on here….

        1. Exactly that…. I can imagine some fans might find the penalty a bit harsh, but tjhose same fans defend Lewis anytime…even when he ingonered yellow and came up with the most weird story of yellow and green plus dust…
          Lewis sais he didn;t noticed yellow, I think after seeing the actual video’s no one really believes him

        2. William Jones
          8th July 2020, 10:58

          It did you’re correct, everyone – Max fans and Hamilton fans blamed Vettel.

    2. William Jones
      8th July 2020, 11:08

      Lmao – understeer is a loss of control now, what planet are you on! Every car understeers or oversteers in every corner. That’s how F1 cars are set up, that’s how they go fastest. You even instinctively control understeer in your car every time you take a corner. Don’t believe me – mount a gopro to your car pointed head on at the front wheels, drive normally and note the understeer. For further proof, mark the steering angle of a speed restricted corner at the speed restriction, then slow to half speed, to take it again and note the steering angle. How can they be so different? You’re controlling understeer.

      The mental gymnastics going on in here to justify a penalty are hilarious, when all you need to do is quote the rule broken. Because penalties can only be applied when a rule is broken.

  23. When ric drove into the back of ver in azerbejan( sorry about spelling) both drivers were to blame. Ric lost control or partial control of vehicle due to loss of downforce from vers car in front. Yet hamilton understeered(lost partial control) and albon could have taken a wider angle. Yet lewis got the penalty

    1. I think you’re wrong about the wider angle. In fact I believe Albon was very generous with leaving space on the inside. I don’t see how this is related to the incident in Azerbaijan

    2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      7th July 2020, 22:09

      Come on, the incident between Ricciardo and Verstappen was completely Verstappen’s fault – he moved twice.

  24. Pretty bad show by Albon after all that Hamilton has done for him :)


  25. They felt that Alex effectively was on the edge of the track, give or take, and had completed the overtaking manoeuvre

    Give or take? So basically admitting Albon had room still on track to avoid a collision.
    Had completed the overtaking manoeuvre? Really? So why did they collide if he had already overtaken?
    Hamilton was penalized for staying on the racing line. It’s up to Albon to complete the manoeuvre safely, not up to Hamilton to slow down so Albon could exit more quickly.

  26. The ruling is as it is, period. However, I’m more baffled by Masi’s logic: “They felt that Alex effectively was on the edge of the track, give or take, and had completed the overtaking manoeuvre.” Blimey if I can put these two things together! Completed overtaking and collision. Can anyone help?

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      7th July 2020, 22:10

      Lol, they just need to string some words together. Obviously, there is no penalty. T

  27. When stewards look at incidents, they look at whoever is predominantly to blame. If they cannot decide that someone is predominantly to blame, they call it a racing incident.

    For overtaking incidents I have found some guidelines years ago for determining who is to blame. About nine times out of ten I agree with the stewards on their decision based on these guidelines.

    In this case, as they were side by side (may be Albon just a little in front) at the apex the corner exit is the decisive factor and here Albon was more than half a car length in front, which is enough to have made the pass, which makes Hamilton predominantly to blame for the collision.
    If they where they side by side it would have been a race incident.

    The 5 second penalty was the same as in Brasil, so consistent with previous cases.

    1. Why does there need to be an accident for a ruling though, Albon clearly forced Hamilton off the track on the First lap when he was behind on corner entry and left no room yet the stewards did nothing. Red Bull clearly went crying to the stewards again, cant wait till the stewards start penalising their drivers for every slight indiscretion now the precedent is set.

  28. They felt that Alex effectively was on the edge of the track, give or take

    He wasn’t though. Footage shows there was room on the track, plus the kerb. Hamilton had left a car’s width and Albon wasn’t using it despite being the one passing with a massive overspeed. That space was certainly reducing as Hamilton ran wide, but it looks like Albon would have made it past before the space disappeared if he’d just been a little further from Hamilton.

    I’m not saying it was Albon’s fault. Both were clumsy, Hamilton running wide, Albon driving closer than necessary and forcing contact earlier than it might have happened if at all. The definition of a racing incident.

  29. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    7th July 2020, 23:02

    Pretty stunned at the white knighting of Hamilton here. Like the dude made a mistake and got punished, it happens. He’s still going to win everything anyway so why complain he lost (1) podium?

    1. William Jones
      8th July 2020, 10:56

      Strawman, people are complaining about inconsistent stewarding, not white knighting for Hamilton.

  30. Hamilton handled the situation optimally (I don’t blame him – it was perfectly executed) – defended precisely what was necessary to prevent Albon to gain track position, even though Albon made a fine bold overtake, and Hamilton then received a ridiculous 5 sec penalty. Only because of the SC and good performances of Leclerc and Norris was Hamilton demoted due to the 5 sec penalty.
    Change the short time penalties to Drive Through or demote 1 or 2 track positions, then these pushes of other drivers (which has been done by both attacking and defending drivers) will no longer pay off.

    1. It was a fantastic decision by the stewards.

  31. As a learned and practiced racer and pilot trainer, (my pilots have run Indianapolis successfully) I can appreciate a racing line as being the one describing the longest radius used in negotiating that corner. It goes from the outside to the apex to the outside of the corner. That is the way the highest speed is acieved in a corner or bend.

    If one is cruising because of a lack of challenge from other drivers, one can take things leisurely and use less of the available possible radius without losing position. However, when trying to keep a faster competitor at bay the pursued driver has to make use of the whole track if he is to retain the maximum speed possible and his position.

    If, on top of this, your tires are worn, you will certainly drift beyond the perfect line, even using the curbs to obtain speed by lenghtening the radius of the curve. While negotiating the corner at maximum possible speed, modifications to the racing line are not possible if they reduce the radius length which will cause higher centrifugal forces and loss of adhesion.

    As far as braking is concerned, any application of brakes will cause further drifting of the braking car extending the excursion of the vehicle towards the outside of the bend.

    Due to Albon’s fresher and softer tires, he was able to go faster through that corner than Hamilton even while describing a less than optimum trajectory. In other words, Albon could out accelerate Hamilton because he could put more power to the ground than Lewis’s tires would allow under the circumstances.

    Albon could have gone wider, even over the kerb, and could have avoided hitting Hamilton. Because there, the faster car,
    Albon’s, is the one that impacts the slower car, Hamilton’s.

    Albon did a passing move, a calculated risk, and lost. Hamilton defended. and came out unscathed.

    Until, of course, the stewards relegated him to 4th place.

    1. Greetings! Marvelous! Your comment is gold! On youtube I watched two channels assessment on the incident, and I’ve gotten to confess, they’d gotten me frustrated, and one of them is an, if I’m not mistaken, experienced driver, although I do not know if he race on one-seaters, anyway, he said the Hamilton getting back on throttle was the key factor to trigger the penalty, I struggle to agree, cause if HAM simply let his revs decrease I think his V6 (can’t state anything about the electrical thrust because I see no evidence he entered the curve after using the battery suplly) would had made he spin due to downshifting to avoid stalling.
      You seem to be the right people to ask:
      1) If lifting the throttle in a more aggressive way would worsen the whole situation, I mean, we’re talking about a rear drive vehicle and I read people suggesting Hamilton should had brake mid-corner while full committed to his line or lift more the throttle. I know I’m just a simcade guy, but even Forza6 or GT teaches us that’s not the way to behave on a curve – damn, skidding on kart isn’t about braking while applying steering wheel lock?;
      2) I really think Albon shut the door on Hamilton too early, all the weekend drivers used the kerbs and the runoff area to align their cars and not forcing or heating their tires too much.
      I think you were spot on, Hamilton did the best to guide his drive in such a manner he would have a good alignment towards the curve exit while allowing Albon to also doing so, but trying to not allow himself (HAM) to be kept at bay by the P4 car.

  32. All these opinions…….
    There’s a lot at stake for Hamilton and Mercedes.
    The 5 seconds penalty cost Hamilton quite some points.
    Hamilton can’t afford this; he has too many penalties, at the start of the season already.
    So, if this was a racing incident, why isn’t Mercedes protesting it?

    1. Exactly! Why?
      Because they have already accepted the decision, although they say it is exaggerated. Hamilton himself, at the end of the race, says that he assumes the mistake and apologizes to Albon. But then … he says he saw the images and that, after all, it looks like a racing accident.
      I mean, the first impression, experienced by himself inside the car, pure reality experienced at the time. It seems to me that there was a “right” speech here. The championship tends to be shorter than usual, so it may be smarter to anticipate other future decisions.
      By the way, RedBull itself has already said that it will face the rest of the races as if they were finals. Duels on the track are expected.
      And that’s why I love F1.

  33. My personal opinion is that it was a Racing incident – Hamilton was attempting to maintain his position while in full control of his car, while Albon was trying to overtake around a corner. Hamilton didn’t intentionally steer into Albon and there was sufficient room for Albon to overtake by taking more kerb – after all it was Albon attempting an opportunistic move!. Albon “chooses” to tighten his line and ends up with the 2 of them making contact….

    Especially harsh for the Stewards to award a 5 second penalty AND 2 penalty points to Hamilton! And if it was my driving be judged that way by the Stewards I’d be appealing their decision! There have been far more aggressive/stupid moves made by many other drivers that haven’t incurred this level of penalty at other races, so why penalize Hamilton for racing??

    1. My personal opinion is that it was a Racing incident – Hamilton was attempting to maintain his position while in full control of his car, while Albon was trying to overtake around a corner. Hamilton didn’t intentionally steer into Albon and there was sufficient room for Albon to overtake by taking more kerb – after all it was Albon attempting an opportunistic move!. Albon “chooses” to tighten his line and ends up with the 2 of them making contact….

      Especially harsh for the Stewards to award a 5 second penalty AND 2 penalty points to Hamilton! And if it was my driving be judged that way by the Stewards I’d be appealing their decision! There have been far more aggressive/stupid moves made by many other drivers that haven’t incurred this level of penalty at other races, so why penalize Hamilton for racing??

      I completely agree with this. The punishment was harsh. In real-time, this happens in the blink of an eye in a vehicle with terrible reward vision. Albon made a ballsy move that placed himself at risk and it didn’t come off that time. The live commentary on Sky suggested Albon’s move was risky and I believe Albon himself said as the same in post race interview.

      I get why Albon was mad, and that’s fine. I suspect he was a bit mad at himself as well as Hamilton in reality. Brundle said something similar to ‘patience Albon’ when the collision happened which is missing from the various replay clips. The outcome of the balsy move just happened to result in wheels coming together. Hamilton couldn’t avoid it. Albon made a move around the outside and it became an unfortunate racing incident.

  34. Watching the incident (youtube) from Ham’s cockpit cam it is hard to see any fault (or action) by Ham that caused Albon’s rear wheel to run into Ham’s front wheel, I feel that the stewards may be bending over backwards to not be seen as favoring the champion.

  35. Of course it is Hamiltons fault – he refuses to accept that he is so much slower on old rubber than Albon, that he don’t hold up enough – when the overtaking car is alongside or even in front of You, You do no longer “own” the racing line, and thus You have to provide room for the overtaking car, even his rear wheel. Those of You who talk about a harsh penalty – the 5 sec penalty is a farce – only because of the SC did it cost Hamilton positions. Most of the time these small punts to opponents pay of, because the 5 sec penalty is of little or no consequence, compared to gaining track position and maybe relegate an opponent several positions down the order due to a spin or other issue inflicted by the contact.

  36. I think a key line is this quote

    “They felt that Alex effectively was on the edge of the track, give or take, and had completed the overtaking manoeuvre”

    The fact is that Albon had not completed the overtaking manoeuvre as his car was never fully ahead of Hamilton’s car, if it had been then when Albon turned in he would not have clipped the front left of Hamilton’s car.

    I thought this should have been put down as a racing incident, if either driver was more to blame for the coming together it was actually Albon, but as he lost places due to the collision and Hamilton had kept second I thought they would decide to take no action and not punish Albon.

Comments are closed.