FIA unmoved as Horner calls Mercedes’ lobbying of stewards “unacceptable”

2021 British Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said it was “unacceptable” for his opposite number at Mercedes, Toto Wolff, to lobby the stewards in person during the British Grand Prix.

However the FIA’s Formula 1 race director Michael Masi said he has no concern about team principals putting their cases directly to the stewards during races.

Horner visited the stewards after he learned Wolff had gone to put Mercedes’ case forward following the collision between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen.

“I saw Toto who was lobbying the stewards, which I heard that’s what he was going there to do,” said Horner in response to a question from RaceFans. “So I went to make sure that our view was represented because I don’t think it’s right that team principals should be able to go and lobby the stewards. They should be locked away so that they’re not influenced.

“For me, that was unacceptable that he had gone up there to lobby the stewards. So I wanted to make sure that there was a balanced opinion given, rather than trying to influence pressure on the stewards to make a menial sentence.”

Horner, Wolff and other members of their teams were heard exchanging radio messages with Masi following the collision at the start of yesterday’s British Grand Prix. In one exchange, Masi told Wolff to “feel free to go upstairs and visit the stewards”, which he did.

This was pointed out to Horner, who stood by his view that the stewards should not hear from team members during the race.

“I don’t think the stewards should be interfered with. They need to be there clear-headed to be able to make those decisions.

“I went to see the stewards because I heard that Toto was up there presenting a case and you want it to be fair and balanced but I don’t think anybody should be allowed to see the stewards during the course of a grand prix.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Wolff rejected Horner’s complaint, saying he got in touch with Masi after hearing about Horner’s message to the race director, which was played on the television broadcast.

“I was told that there was a rant on the radio to Michael about all the badness in the world,” said Wolff. “And then I went up and gave my opinion.

“I think it’s fair enough. I’ve been to the stewards many times in my life.”

Masi said he has not concerned about team principals speaking to stewards in person during a race, pointing out it happened at the Italian Grand Prix last year when Hamilton queried a penalty during a red flag period.

“If we have an incident after the race, we invite the teams and the drivers to come up and appear before the stewards,” said Masi. “We had the case in Monza last year when Lewis went and spoke to the stewards to understand and have a look at the whole thing. It’s during the suspension, so that ability exists, there’s no reason not to.”

He said he had “no frustration” at the series of messages he received from the two teams following the crash.

“Obviously, that’s part of what they do. It comes about in various waves, depending on what it is. Everyone’s looking after their own little patch of turf, so to speak, which you’d expect.

“But from my perspective, I treat them all equally and trying to balance up what we’ve got to do and set certain priorities within your own mind of what you’ve got and need to prioritise accordingly.

“There was a couple of times with Mercedes-Benz or with Red Bull at the time where I said ‘just hang five and I’ll get back to you’, which happened earlier, which you probably didn’t hear, you only heard the one that was broadcast.”

Masi isn’t troubled by the possibility of the FIA being drawn into the increasingly bitter contest between the two championship rivals.

“Whatever sniping might happen between Red Bull and Mercedes behind the scenes is not of concern to us,” he said. “We judge on what happens out there on the sporting field or on the track in our circumstance.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 British Grand Prix

Browse all 2021 British Grand Prix 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...
Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

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

175 comments on “FIA unmoved as Horner calls Mercedes’ lobbying of stewards “unacceptable””

  1. Amidst all this PR talk about inclusion and play fair etc etc Mercedes showed their true DNA. They are not living to any of these values themselves, just broadcasting them for socially desired brand building.

    1. Both Mercedes and Red Bull are as bad as each other.

      1. @ahxshades
        The reason why Mercedes are so much more pretentious is because they have a houllier than tho attitude.

        At least Red Bull don’t pretend to be something that they are not.

        1. OK lol.

          You did hear Masi getting quite agitated at the calls he was getting from RB? Repeating in no uncertain manner, “YES I AM AWARE AND LOOKING INTO THIS!!”

          But you treat RB as a Donald Trump and hang on every word

          1. That’s quite literally his point.

      2. How is red bull as bad as mercedes?

        1. One eye Helmut asking for Hamilton to be suspended a race isn’t lobbying the stewards? Red Bull are worse. It all depends on your perspective.

          1. Actually it’s not. Marko’s comments were stated in public after the stewards had passed judgement.
            Wolff’s tried to influence the stewards before they reached a decision. Formula One’s organization seems to be overly influenced by the Mercedes team. And Hamilton’s behavior is very predictable in light of what he did to Rosberg many times when they were teammates, running him off track and NEVER being penalized for it. One might imagine that the ‘race’ card is always in Hamilton’s back pocket and the FIA is in mortal fear of it.

          2. And Horner tried to influence the race director so what’s the difference and this “Hamilton has the race card in his back pocket” comment is nothing more than a sad excuse for a weak argument.

            And the incidents with Rosberg were often Rosberg’s fault, you talk as if they were all down to Hamilton.

          3. You are right

      3. Is Masi really okay with the teamleaders running to racecontrol during every investigation? Surprised to read that, can het quite busy there during the races.

        1. Yes he is, when Wolff asked Masi to look at some data he told Wolff he was free to go and see the stewards, as for Horner’s whinging, well everybody heard him on the team radio trying to influence the the race director so what’s the difference between that and a team principal talking to the stewards in person, Horner had the option to do the same thing. This is just another example of Horner’s hypocrisy.

          1. Precisely. If Horner had some data to present to the stewards about this, Masi would have told him the same thing, and Horner would have done the same thing. He would not be complaining about lobbying then.

            All the team bosses are just as much competitors in the competition as the drivers are. They want to win. Everything they say should be taken with a pinch of salt, because much of what they say is said to help their team win.

      4. David Windle
        20th July 2021, 8:20

        You are exactly right but can you blame either team when so much is at stake?

        Reply moderated
    2. Horner is F1’s leading hypocrite.

      1. @greenflag

        Horner: Lobbying of the race stewards is totally unacceptable.
        Also Horner: Excuse me while I go and lobby the race stewards.

        1. Fred Fedurch
          19th July 2021, 22:25

          What did you expect him to do? He had no choice but to go after Toto went running to them.

          1. “after Toto went running to them” – after having been told by the Race Director that he was totally within his rights to do that.

            Also after both Christian Horner and Jonathan Wheatley had been whining to the stewards. Whether it is in person on over the radio does not make any difference.

            I am getting increasingly sick of Christian Horner’s double standards – how many times has Max forced people off with his aggressive refusal to back down, but when someone does it back to him, suddenly it is disgraceful and Hamilton had a “hollow victory”.

            Max is a fantastic driver and I have total respect for him, but whingeing that Hamilton’s celebrations at winning his home Grand Prix for the 8th time was “disrespectful” is simply ridiculous. Horner saying that Hamilton had “put a driver in hospital” is just not true – Max went to hospital to get checked out – he was not “put in hospital”.

            Sadly, I used to totally respect Christian Horner. Now I cannot believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

          2. I used to totally respect Christian Horner. Now I cannot believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

            I was the same, back in the day. Now, I cannot stand him.

          3. Horner was actually the first to call the stewards imediately after the incident. So i don’t know what he is complaining about. This is confirmed with the radio chatter streamed here:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSypQcWixhA

        2. And annoy Masi. You could clearly hear Masi was not amused by the RB team’s Lobbying “over the radio”

      2. I think Christian is no more hypocritical than any other F1 Team Principal. If you were responsible for spending hundreds millions of dollars building prototype cars, and regularly spend many hours beyond the time you should have gone home working on what you perceive as unnecessary problems, I’m fairly sure you’d take it personally if someone did something which resulted in your car being trashed, especially if you believed that person wasn’t obeying the regular rules of the sport. I wouldn’t be surprised if this crash has indirectly affected the development of next year’s car. The difference between Christian and the most of the other Team Principals is he makes himself available to receive phone calls from Sky Sports (or at least he allows Sky Sports to broadcast the conversation). There’s nothing to stop Toto also making himself available to receive phone calls from Sky Sports during the race.

        1. Christian’s style is more in your face while the others aren’t. That may be why he is perceived as the worst. Plus his one-eyed matey is always out playing the bad cop role as well.

    3. you don’t win 7 championships by being a softie… they always had these colours
      so did Red Bull

      1. Exactly. Probably why Horner is the most hypocrite, political, bad mouthing guy in the paddock. Up to the point he’s criticising his own behaviour when he sees it. Someone has to be…

    4. yourethenail
      19th July 2021, 21:34

      wut?!?! bro, get a grip. this has nothing to do with social issues. GET A GRIP

      Reply moderated
  2. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    19th July 2021, 12:19

    Team members, especially ones that are being investigated for an incident really shouldn’t be able to talk to the stewards making those choices at all.

    1. Then you obiously where not watching the race or paying attention to the broadcast. Horner and his pitwall where constantly lobbying the race director. Toto talked to the race director and offered a data print out showing evidence of obeying the rules. He was the DIRECTED BY THE RACE DIRECTOR to go and give it to the stewards. FYI – the race director has no power over penelties, only the stewards and Red Bull know this so, like drivers who always blame the other guy on the radio after an incident, they know that all radio is monitoered BY THE STEWARDS, So, Red Bull were aiming everything at being heard by the stewards and offereing no proof but just trying to throw their toys out of the bed and influence them.

      Red Bull do this political stuff all the time if it suits their adgenda. Horner is a vacuous little winging toadie. Marko is just a man with no brain and a megaphone. What Toto / Merc did was offer asistance ( yes in the cause of their driver ) but never moaned and behaved with PERMISSION..

      Class act against dross and no driver, who saw the incident has come out and critisised Lewis as being in the absoloute wrong. The penalty waas a sop to Red Bull and Lewis went and threw it back in their face like the champion his is.

      Reply moderated
      1. You are completely right. I’m getting pretty tired of Horner’s constant whining. All this talk about the punishment bot fitting the crime is nonsense. It has been a guideline for years that any incident should be judged solely on its merits, not on the outcome. Horner has been an advocate of that philosophy, especially when it suits his purpose. When it doesn’t, he behaves like a spoiled brat.

        So far as the incident is concerned, there was fault on both sides. On balance, there was more fault with Lewis, but I would call it 60:40. Lewis was actually completely alongside MV, and then backed out of it as Verstappen tried to chop him off.

        By the time Verstappen drove into him, Lewis’ front wheel was level with MV’s rear, hence the spin. It was genuinely a racing incident.

        Anyway, Verstappen is no saint. He has shown that he is prepared to barge other people of the circuit (leclerc, Raikkonnen) whenever it suits him, or drive off the circuit if he thinks he can gain an advantage and get away with it. When he doesn’t get away with it, he whinges.

        Of course it is completely right and proper for the team principlals to put their case. It would be ridiculous for it to be otherwise. Hats off to Masi for taking a calm and measured view of it all.

        And, unlike all of these armchair experts, I am a regular racer, have been for the last 20 years. I’ve raced on that circuit many times, and what Horner is saying is just BS.

        One final point. Do you suppose Horner would have been so incensed if it had been Lewis, not Verstappen, who had had to retire after the contact? No. He would’ve shrugged his shoulders and called it a racing incident, and complained if MV had been given a time penalty. One rule for him, one rule for everybody else. Presumably that’s what it’s like in spice world.

        Reply moderated
        1. +1 – Could not agree more !

          Reply moderated
        2. Agree with you both…
          Used to like RBR in the Webber days ..
          But years of second fiddle have made Horner a bitter old lady, gossiping over the garden fence.
          Thes become really irritating.

          And the reason the contact was where it was, was because LH was backing out as he could see that MV was closing the door.
          60:40.

          Reply moderated
      2. Somebody should tell Horner that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones! His comments about Hamilton were bordering on libellous. That was a racing incident if ever I saw one and we all saw Verstappen take some turn off the wheel then tighten the turn again. He knew he was there alright just expected Hamilton to back out as he had already started doing. Verstappen has been doing this for years and banking on other drivers ‘bottling it’.
        Hamilton had every right to put his car there and had verstappen overtaken someone on the inside of Copse, he would have applauded his bravery. I’ve always respected Horner but his comments will come back to bite him when Verstappen next becomes petulant on track and mark my words he will!
        Great race from Hamilton and he had every right to celebrate in front of the fans. 👏

        Reply moderated
        1. richEQ (@richcaldwell)
          19th July 2021, 18:45

          Couldn’t really have said it any better than that.
          Racing incident.

        2. Verstappen has cultivated this image of himself as someone no one messes with. He’s the first to ‘send one’ down the corners. Here he was looking to boss the race, and not expecting the other drivers to stand their ground.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66xbAfKHll4&t=7s

          The story of that first lap was Max squeezing and weaving. You look at the ‘respect’ Hamilton showed him in the corner out of wellington. Hamilton was well ahead and could have just cut across but he knew Max was there and left enough room. Come to Copse and its Max who driving as if Hamilton wasn’t there sharing the same track. That ‘i don’t see you’ move was all Max. It was Max again looking to put the squeeze on.

          You look at the history of formula 1, the champions are those who know when to get their elbows out, and when not to take unnecessary chances. Max still has a lot to learn about the sport. Max tried to play chicken with Hamilton and like others before him, came off 2nd best.

        3. ‘It’s a racing incident, entirely Max’s fault but it say racing incident’

          Right.

      3. David there is a big difference talking to the race director or talking directly to the stewards. The race director is like the police who only put cases to the stewards in this analogy the judges. It’s fine when parties talk to the police but you shouldn’t be able to persuade stewards aka “the judges” when they deliberate the sentencing.

        1. Lawyers don’t try to persuade judges? Dumb analogy. Dutch bias is insane toward your Belgian driver.

        2. If the cops tell you to go speak to the judge (i.e. summons you) then you certainly can and should talk to the judge.

    2. What @rocketpanda? Off course the stewards should hear directly from the people involved as much as possible!

      Those statements, taken together with all the telemetry and video footage available is what best allows the stewards to decide on the merits of a case.

      1. Adam (@rocketpanda)
        19th July 2021, 15:11

        Hear as evidence, sure. Hear as in placing pressure, lobbying or coercing? Absolute no.

        Mr. Pratt clearly doesn’t like Red Bull much, especially given I heard Mercedes arguing on the TV feed more than Red Bull did. They even said Wolff was sending Masi emails about it so while sure, Horner can whinge, I’d say Wolff’s doing the same if not worse? Like chill out. Also the penalty was 100% deserved.

        I’m arguing the point that a 7 times world champion with arguably the highest profile and popularity in the sport really shouldn’t be talking to the stewards judging whether he did something wrong or not unless he’s just there to give evidence. Same with Wolff who obviously has significant sway and influence within not just Mercedes but F1 as a whole. Horner’s arguably small fry compared to both of them, but even he shouldn’t be doing it either.

        Only reason a driver or team principal should be talking to a steward is if their presence was requested. If they go knocking on the door to plead their case they should get turned away.

        1. He was requested. He was invited by Masi.

          Reply moderated
        2. Verstappen should be given a five place grid penalty at the next race, for causing a collision by driving into a car which had a legitimate overlap. Not because he necessarily deserves it – although he does, completely – but just so that we can see Horner’s head explode.

          Reply moderated
        3. @rocketpanda I get what you are saying and I don’t entirely disagree with you or Horner, but obviously we now know as confirmed by Masi, that when the race is over, or when there is a stoppage such as a red flag, it is fair game to go to the stewards room to plead one’s case. The stewards and Masi are not stupid and of course they know that each TP or driver is going to plead their case skewed towards themselves, and we all have to trust that the stewards are the referees here and are not going to be influenced by one side’s case over the other.

          I think it is natural for each side to want to present their case, and each side has to accept the penalty the stewards deem appropriate. We and Horner now know that it is fair game to try to lobby the stewards during a race stoppage or after the race, and yes often after the race the stewards want to here drivers’ intentions over an incident, so the drivers are invited to do so. Indeed I think sometimes requested to do so.

          Bottom line too, TW was unsuccessful in his lobbying attempts. And of course CH is going to say the penalty was too lenient, just as TW would have said the same if the situations were reversed.

        4. @rocketpanda Maybe consider that the only party that considers it lobbying is the side who stands to gain by the other side being sanctioned?

        5. Horner’s arguably small fry compared to both of them, but even he shouldn’t be doing it either.

          You are underestimating Horner’s and RB’s influence in the paddock. They wanted the engine freeze and successfully got it (“freeze the engines or we leave”). With Mercedes dominance, they even gain some influence as being the only credible opposing force that should not be hindered for the sake of competition.

          All in all, Horner is no small fry @rocketpanda.

          1. i wonder if that engine is really frozen. Im guessing there was a lot more to come from that design of engine, and didnt want the others to ‘catchup’ or overtake them with another engine spec before their engine came good. talking about having your cake and eating it.

    3. Whinger Spice strikes again. Its not right for anyone to do exactly the same as he does on a race by race basis. Funny that.

      Reply moderated
    4. Why not? The stewards regularly invite driver and team to see them after the race. Whats the difference, they are all free to speak to them at any time. As Masi pointed out.

      Reply moderated
  3. is it just me or is everyone also enjoying this controversy more than the season itself

    1. Sorry its not everyone. I personally like to see people win on merit. That’s why I warch F1

      1. Wrong sport, buddy.

      2. Would you be as upset if the roles were reversed and Verstappen won after Hamilton hit the barriers?

        1. If then also afterwards Max also wouldn’t simply say ‘sorry, got a bit of understeer’, I would certainly think less of him as a sportsman.

    2. Yes, especially Keith lol

    3. Yes. I love all the off-track drama. Makes the time between races go faster.

      Still, It’s amazing how this has really drawn everyone offsides. It seems like everyone is lining up on Team Max or Team Lewis. It’s concerning how hateful everyone has suddenly gotten. I know sports bring out passion, but it would be great if we could keep it somewhat civil. I know, it’s a hopeless wish.

      1. It doesn’t help when Christian Horner is acting like a hysterical drama queen, because another driver dared to use the same driving tactics as his driver. Some of the ridiculous comments he was spouting were embarrassing. It was a racing incident, where apparently Lewis was more to blame, not attempted murder!

  4. Funny how he seems to think it’s wrong yet he was straight up there doing the very thing he claims he shouldn’t be able to do.

    In other words, he wanted a harsher penalty, and now he’s getting stroppy…

    Reply moderated
    1. Funny, isn’t it @minnis.

      I really had fun with these back and forth lobbying from the teams during the boring wait of the red flag myself.

      Also really dug the deadpan answers from Masi in those exchanges “I don’t open my e-mails during the race Toto” :-)

      1. Benn Berrigan
        19th July 2021, 15:02

        Yes Masi was so funny in those messages, it definately showed him to be a cool cucumber. Must’ve been quite stressful in those situations, lots of moving parts, but the “Toto you know I don’t check my email during the race” comment was classic.

        Reply moderated
        1. I must admit that bit did make me laugh. It made Toto come across as a bit of a Karen. I think it’s all good for the entertainment to be fair. As a neutral in this Lewis / Max battle this is exactly what the doctor ordered after the last 7-8 years of Merc dominance

    2. @minnis He only got in touch after Toto started harassing the stewards and sending emails. If you don’t defend yourself at a trial you are guaranteed to lose.

      1. @paeschli well he said that nobody should be interfering. Including him. Or are there different rules for him – you can go to the stewards to defend yourself? Well isn’t that what Toto was doing?
        And unless you’re party to data that none of us are, you can’t say for certain that he only got in touch after Toto did.

        Reply moderated
      2. He had already been trying to influence the decision, through Masi. If he’d had data to share with the stewards, Masi would have directed him to the stewards the same way he did Toto, and he would have been there in a flash. This is all partisan grandstanding, them saying whatever they need to say to gain themselves an advantage.

  5. Barry Bens (@barryfromdownunder)
    19th July 2021, 12:28

    “I’ve been to the stewards many times in my life.”

    Gee, have you tried playing by the rules so you don’t get called to them so often? It’s like boasting with ‘I was suspended 16 times when in highshool!’ (I wasn’t personally, jsut saying).

    1. Well, he sure enough has also been at the stewards as part of requesting a rival gets punished too though @barryfromdownunder. Just like any team principal worth his salt.

  6. I don’t think anyone’s covered themselves in glory in this whole situation (other than perhaps Masi)…but it certainly adds some spice to the season
    * Lewis went for an ambitious move, and wasn’t helped by the understeer he got
    * Max must have known he was there and left no margin for error

    AFAIK, that’s a pair of brilliant aggressive racers pushing the limit and this time they touched. Lewis rightly got the penalty and thanks to all the work F1 and the FIA have done over the last years Max was uninjured. However the move was certainly possible as shown twice later in the race.

    * Christian Horner dramatic comments about “throwing a wheel up the inside” and “no-one over takes there” are clearly nonsense implying at best that Lewis did something knowingly dangerous, and at worst that he’d crashed deliberately
    * Helmut Marko saying that Hamilton should be banned is Bernie Ecclestone level nonsense
    * The Mercedes team radioing that Lewis was clearly alongside as an attempt to influence the stewards decision was clumsy and pointless when it’s a front/rear wheel touch
    * Lewis celebrating to the extent that he did could be seen to be somewhat insensitive, but he referenced that he was glad Max was OK first in almost every interview I saw, so maybe he didn’t have the info that Max was still being checked out.

    I don’t think that the teams should be able to lobby the stewards, unless they have some new pertinent info to add. Wolff claims he did, although none of us know what it was, so perhaps introduce a flag system like in the NFL. You wanna talk to the stewards and think you have something new to add, throw the flag and present your case. If they think you’ve added new info you get your flag back to use again, otherwise sorry, you have no flag for next time.

    1. The most sensible comment

      Reply moderated
    2. I agree with a lot of what you say, but not all of it.
      Although it was a rear/front touch, at the beginning of the incident the front axle of the Mercedes was forward of the centre plan of the Red Bull. Although the FIA don’t publish the “guidelines to stewards” to the public (presumably to stop people like me marking their homework), the BBC were shown a copy and reported that that is considered the “watershed” point as far as blame is concerned. So according to the FIA guidance to stewards Lewis acted within allowable limits. However, it is only guidance and the stewards can disregard it – did disregard in this case and penalised Lewis.

      From Lewis’s point of view, having done the crime and done the time (i.e. served the penalty that the stewards agreed was appropriate) he had gone on to win the race on merit. From Lewis’ point of view he had done nothing wrong, had been penalised anyway, and had overcome all the adversity thrown at him and won the race. Why should he not celebrate at his home race? 140,000 people spent upwards of 300 pounds a ticket to see him race and win. He had to share victory with them – its a contractual obligation.

      Lobbying the stewards is within the rules. You just need to do it before the race, whilst the race is suspended, or after the race. Masi said this himself, and also said he had no problem with it.

      Other than that, I agree with everything you wrote.

      Reply moderated
      1. Agree with most, although I dont class getting the car in front to pull over so you can go by unchallenged ‘winning the race on merit’. If there had been no team orders, then it would have taken Lewis at least 3 more laps to legitimately overtake Bottas as we know the Merc is terrible in dirty air, which would have given Charles enough time to stay in 1st place. IMO Leclerc was the only deserving winner of that race. Not even really bothered about the 1st lap incident, Lewis made a mistake, it happens to the best of drivers, but the call to Valteri to get him to swap positions considering Bottas was running 2nd on merit, and we are only halfway through the season is the part that really grates on me. If you are quicker Lewis, then do the decent thing and overtake your teammate!!! Oh and anybody surprised by Merc/Lewis tactics (and Red Bulls for that matter) off track havent really being paying attention to F1 over the last 10 years. After 8 years of winning everything, the most dominant period in F1 history, Toto and Lewis are struggling to deal with ‘competition’, hence all the mud throwing this year towards the Red Bull car/engine/wings etc.

      2. And the beautiful glory is that this particular trophy was dedicated to Murray walker who absolutely loved LH.
        So it’s fitting he won it…

        Reply moderated
    3. Great comment, so many online just want yo rage against their favoured drivers / teams perceived challengers / enemies. It gets draining

      Reply moderated
    4. @jodrell

      * The Mercedes team radioing that Lewis was clearly alongside as an attempt to influence the stewards decision was clumsy and pointless when it’s a front/rear wheel touch

      But Lewis was clearly alongside Max at the moment that Max decided to turn in and commit to the racing line. The relative positioning of cars at the point of impact should not be the only factor. Mercedes were right to highlight this, as it’s the reason why Lewis was judged as “predominantly” to blame and not “wholly” to blame.

      1. while he was at one point further alongside than when the impact happened, he never reached the point often talked about where his front wheel was in front of the other car’s front.

        However the point I was trying to make was that it felt like Mercedes we’re trying to overemphasise how alongside Lewis had got, telling the stewards something that they could clearly see, or not in this case, from the TV pictures. This wasn’t any new information to them, and certainly nothing matching the emphasis that Mercedes seemed to be giving it.

        1. @jodrell As has been explained a lot of times during this weekend by drivers, analysts and team bosses who give facts, the driver on the inside line who is at least halfway up the car on the outside has the rights to the racing line. Hamilton was fully alongside and therefore had the right to the line.

          1. I’ve just spent some time trawling through the FIA sporting and technical regulations and can’t find a single mention of what overtaking means, or when a driver owns the racing line, or any of the phrases that are being trotted out…

            Everyone “knows” what the “rules” about overtaking are…can anyone show them to anyone to assure everyone that everyone isn’t thinking something different to suit their own circumstances?

          2. @f1osaurus and @jodrell

            Firstly Jodrell the Sporting regs are no use to you here. You’ll want the International Sporting Code, Appendix L Chapter 4 if my memory serves me correctly.

            The real issue is that the FIA don’t publish the overtaking guidelines publicly. Sure it would mean that they might get people on the internet, as someone says above, ‘marking their homework’ but isn’t everyone doing that already. As someone also mentioned above, the BBC have apparently seen these guidelines that may paint the picture in a different light. I expect the diagrams the BBC mention are probably the same ones Mercedes mentioned to Masi. However, the more cynical part of me thinks that, maybe, it was Merc who provided these guidelines to the BBC as the FIA do seem to be quite keen on them not getting out into the wider world. If this is the case it may be, and this is not backed up by any proof (just cynical old me), that Mercedes only provided some of the story to the BBC. I wouldn’t put it past them, but nor would I put it past Horner if the situations were reversed.

            These guidelines also apparently mention ‘as long as they [the car on the inside] makes the corner clearly’. Which is classic vagueness from the FIA. The question from that is what does ‘makes the corner cleanly’ mean?

            As Krichelle puts below, I think both drivers can and hopefully will learn from this. At the end of the day the penalty had no effect other than making Lewis’ drive look a bit more spectacular. He was given a penalty which I think was fair, others may disagree, which he served (I think Merc messed up their timings a bit as well, he seemed to be stationary a couple of seconds too long) , recovered from and won the race. I wouldn’t call him driver of the day or the weekend because Leclerc drove brilliantly all weekend.

            I’m not trying to start another row or disagreement, I’m just trying to state the facts to help others form their own opinions. I think f1osaurus and I have had enough disagreements for a lifetime now ;-)

          3. @jodrell and @randommallard. This is not about regulations, but instead about the “directives” or explanations the stewards use for how they judge (or are supposed to judge) overtaking situations.

            That’s what Wolff referred to with his “diagram of where the cars should be” and the F1 drivers when they talked about Hamilton being more than halfway up on the inside giving him the racing line.

            Here it’s explained in video made after the questionable stewards decisions in Austria:
            https://youtu.be/T_-NNXnV2JQ?t=224

          4. @f1osaurus Those “directives” sound like what I was trying to describe with the overtaking guidelines. As I said a couple of days ago, now my emotions are a little calmer and I can take a look at it a step removed, I now think it is a racing incident with pretty much equal blame on both drivers.

            Also, my interpretation of what that video is saying is that if you are fully alongside on the outside, or halfway on the inside, they are entitled to space, not the racing line. I guess the stewards interpreted this as one cars width, which Max left.

            The real problem here in my opinion is that the FIA haven’t made public what those overtaking guidelines are, and without that they’re just going to face question after question about the move.

          5. @randommallard It goes a bit further than being entitled to space though. The point is that the one who is entitled to the racing line does normally not need to leave space for the other car. They completely run each other off the track all the time and that’s totally allowed.

            It actually makes sense since the car on the inside really can not be expected to take a tighter line after braking and turn in. At that point he’s committed to a line and cannot suddenly go tighter. The car on the outside can pretty much always go a bit wider still.

            Although now suddenly they seem to have added another clause to these things that you must hit the apex. or whatever.

            It’s also hard to fathom how they allow Verstappen to run Leclerc off the track in Austria 2019 and penalize Perez and Norris for pretty much the same situation this season. Or penalize Hamilton for going slightly wide in Copse when he has the rights to the line. While for Sainz and Grosjean it was deemed a racing incident in 2018. Clearly someone didn’t leave enough space then either.

            Or how Verstappen was allowed to go so wide in Bahrain 2018 running Hamilton off the track far away from the racing line. In fact he ended his own race in pulling that stunt clipping Hamilton’s front wing, but still. Rosberg got penalties for doing that twice. Funnily enough, Verstappen blamed Hamilton for that incident. At that point you are not missing the apex by half a meter or meter, but pretty much missing the whole corner.

            I get that it’s hard to judge situations and it’s different people stewarding every time, but there should be some consistency or at least properly explain why they decide the way they do if it’s so controversial.

          6. @f1osaurus

            completely run each other off the track all the time and that’s totally allowed

            I think they seem to be clamping down on this running out of road, as seen by the penalties Norris and Perez both received in Austria. Whether they’ll keep it up I don’t know, but it does sound a bit like someone has said enough is enough, after incidents like Max vs Charles in Austria, and they’re trying to clamp down on it a bit more. I don’t really know though, and I agree that this is somewhere the FIA need to improve their consistency.

            The Bahrain 2018 incident was definitely Max’s fault. He does miss miss apex, but Alonso is parked on the apex making it quite hard to hit. But Max then runs Lewis too far wide. He, as you say, retires from that race. I’m not really sure about penalising a move that ends your own race though. I would argue the DNF is punishment enough, as long as the other person is able to carry on (comes back to do youbpunish the incident or the outcome). Maybe a reprimand so you don’t pull that move too many times in the future. Also with regards to Rosberg’s penalties, where was the second? I’m assuming the one of them was Austria 2016, but I wasn’t an F1 fan at that point so I can’t think of the other.

            I think the Sainz vs Grosjean incident needs a different outlook really. It is a role reversal, i.e. the car on the outside (Sainz) is the one making the overtake, while Grosjean on the inside is defending. I would argue that on that occasion Sainz doesn’t leave enough room (it appears from the onboards that he leaves less space on the inside than Max did), and Grosjean gets a massive hit of oversteer (that he may have been able to put down to dirty air) midway through the corner, suggesting that both had an equal role in the incident. But again, had Grosjean been able to carry on, it would have been interesting to see if he had been penalised. (There is also the mysterious “clunk” on Grosjean’s onboard audio that comes just before his oversteer that I still don’t think has ever been explained).

            As I say, I no longer agree that Hamilton was predominantly at fault, and see it as a racing incident. I don’t think Max could have really turned in much later and still made the corner, but I don’t think Lewis should have been forced to conceded as the stewards imply he should have. It’s one of those rivalry defining incidents that happen in pretty much every major fight. Two drivers at the top of their game determined not to concede. People have been expecting this one for a while.

          7. @randommallard Yeah maybe it’s that they want to stop the running each other off. Still Verstappen and Hamilton did that on several occasions and no one batted an eye.

            I get that Sainz vs Grosjean was reversed, but in essence it’s the same thing. Two cars alongside going into that corner and then touching. Sainz doesn’t give enough space, Grosjean goes wide. And they collide. I really don’t see a difference worth a 10s penalty there. Well maybe that Hamilton survived, but Masi claims that’s not part of the penalty.

            Maybe it’s because Emanuele Pirro was again involved. Last time he made a controversial decision going against a hooligan fanbase (Vettel unsafe re-entry Canada) he was hounded for weeks. Maybe he didn’t want to go through that again and decided to try an appease the orange hooligans. Or perhaps he’s a total stickler for anything even remotely unsafe even if it’s the smallest nudge in the wrong direction.

            In my mind the same influenced the Austria 2019 outcome. It was such an outlier compared to any other decision at the time. Verstappen also didn’t get anywhere near the apex as he simply ran for the outside of the corner blocking Leclerc from staying on track.

            Rosberg blocked Verstappen in Hockenheim 2016 and Hamilton in Austria 2016. He simply didn’t turn in until he ended up at the outside of the corner. Not sure what penalty he got, but he did get one for both of those incidents.

            And then Verstappen did the same thing to Hamilton a few years later in Bahrain and demanded a penalty for Hamilton when Hamilton really couldn’t go any further off line (the track ended) and Verstappen got a puncture running into Hamilton’s front wing.

      2. @ninjenius I don’t think you can speak for exactly why the stewards decided on the penalty they did. You weren’t in the room nor reading their minds. I think why LH was the penalized one is that while LH was very briefly alongside Max, he wasn’t there long enough to ‘own’ the racing line, and indeed at that corner it is wide enough to have a few racing lines, obviously, for if you want to argue LH was just owning his racing line, with all that room remaining for him inside, then indeed he was also owning a tighter racing line vs. CL.

        What I saw from the onboards is that both drivers were consistently steering towards the right for the right-hander, but from Max’s onboard it is when we see LH’s front wing briefly, that in fact Max jinks his wheel left, imho surprised that with all that room Max knew there was to the apex, that LH was so close to him. Max could reasonably have expected that he was being fair and giving LH tons of room on the inside, for he was. That is as plain as day.

        1. I’m just going by what the stewards said in their statement

        2. @robbie I agree I can’t speak for the stewards, but I’m basing this purely on previous incidents where stewards have used the word “predominantly” or “wholly”.

          There surely can’t be any doubt that, had Lewis not been alongside Max at all during that move, it would essentially have been treated as a divebomb, and the penalty would surely have reflected as such (a drive-thru or stop-go for example). I can’t pretend to know exactly why they decided on that particular severity/leniency of penalty, but it’s reasonable for one would assume that, since it was neither a drive thru or stop-go, they deemed that Lewis was mostly but not completely at fault. The fact that he was fully alongside before Max started turning in is the only reason I can think of as to why they chose not to give Lewis a harsher punishment.

          1. @ninjenius Fair enough. I do reject the notion though that Max ‘started turning in’ for from the onboards we see he was always turning in for that is what both drivers were doing for the right-hander. I’d agree with you if Max was moving his wheel even more as LH was alongside, but indeed if anything Max jinks his wheel left at the same time that his onboard is showing LH’s front wing in the picture. I think it only looks like Max was turning in because LH was approaching him, not the other way around.

          2. Perhaps, at any other circuit, a drive through penalty would have been given. However the Silverstone layout means a drive through the pits does not lose much time. A stop go penalty is way too harsh, so a 10 second time penalty was the most appropriate.

      3. And MV rear wheel hit LH front wheel from behind… Not the other way…
        LH was along side and was breaking for the corner… Max wasn’t braking as hard if at all.. it was reckless from him too.

        Reply moderated
    5. @jodrell

      Nice comment, and no irony for that. Toto Wolff said that the rule in which a driver along the inside with more than half of the full car’s length alongside another car must have been in Mercedes’ defence, because it was mentioned by Wolff in the Mercedes website. Because Hamilton was not ahead, but he had more than half of Verstappen’s car when he was besides him on the inside. Here’s the quote: “ if the front axle is over the middle of the car on the outside, it is your corner.”

      I will not comment on the incident further because it’s tiring to do so, but I hope both Max and Lewis learn from this point to race with more respect and discipline, because it’s both their fault that this incident occurred.

    6. @jodrell The best summary I heard (and I now forget who gave it!) was: Both drivers could have done more to avoid a collision, but neither did. A racing incident.

      Clearly the stewards thought that Hamilton was more to blame (but not wholly). Hence the penalty.

      It seems to me that Verstappen struggles to learn – his “I will not concede any corner” attitude is great when he has nothing to lose and is averaging less than two wins per season. But this season is different – for the first time in his career, when it come to wheel-banging and fighting for a corner, he now has more to lose than the other driver.

      He failed to see the big picture at Silverstone.

      1. @scbriml Except that you could say the same of LH who could afford a dnf even less, and would have had it not been for the red flag.

        1. He could afford a DNF less, but he had much more to gain than Max by claiming a win (or to loose by finishing 2nd). Being so far behind going into this weekend he needed to be finishing higher than Max, whereas Max could afford quite a few 2nd place finishes and still win the WDC.

          Put it this way: If Max had finished 2nd, Lewis 1st, Max would still have been a full race victory with fastest lap ahead of Hamilton. If Hamilton had been 2nd to Max’s first, he would have been even further behind.

          When you add to that the fact that Max would have had a very good chance of passing Hamilton later in the race and still claiming victory, the sensible thing to do was to back out and let Hamilton have that corner.

  7. Team personnel including race drivers are at liberty to speak to Race Control, Director, etc during stoppages. As it has been since Whiting’s day. But the rules need changing after all this time according to Horner because Merc used that facility; with his argument being if the teams and drivers have relevant information that may inform their deliberations, then that information should be kept from the stewards.

    1. I really don’t see the point of team personnel playing the advocate of their driver. Let the stewards make their decision independently. Only interaction should be providing data when requested to do so by the stewards

  8. Christian “files complaints constantly” Horner complaining about pressuring stewards. This has all went a bit ridiculous now.

    1. indeed @emu55 – the team principal who clearly said he thought Norris vs. Perez in Austria was a racing incident, at the same time confirmed that he had complained Norris there to get him penalised …

  9. I agree with Horner in that team members should not be allowed to lobby or otherwise interfere with the stewards’ decision making during a session. However that should apply not just to visiting the stewards, but also the transparent attempts to influence them through radio messaging which we heard Horner do himself along with other members of his team.

    If the teams want to draw attention to a subtle event that the stewards might have missed then that’s one thing. But something like the Hamilton/Verstappen crash was obviously being investigated so there was no need for either party to interfere.

    Outside of a competitive session then I am OK with teams offering their arguments since the stewards then have more time to review all evidence before coming to a decision, but not during a session when they have too much to deal with already.

  10. ROFLMBO @ the biggest ever now, hypocrite in F1. CH.
    Bleating, whining, berating Michael Masi clear as a bell more than once!!!!

  11. Totally agree. Stewards should be free from outside pressure.

    1. @balue Yet Horner is the last person who can complain about this, seeing how he is always lobbying to the stewards pressuring them into giving penalties to Mercedes, Hamilton, Norris or whoever dared not jump out of their way.

      1. @f1osaurus Horner plays the political game before and after a race, it’s Mercedes who started this whole trend of trying to influence stewards during a race

        1. @paeschli Go to the F1 youtube channel find “Mercedes And Red Bull Post-Crash Radio With The FIA | 2021 British Grand Prix” and listen to the rant from Horner to Massi that Hamilton was 100% to blame.

          Feeling embarrassed now? Well you should.

          1. @f1osaurus What’s embarrassing is that you still don’t know that Masi is not a steward. He is the race director.

          2. @balue Lol, yeah and Masi is the only one who hears the radio traffic? That why they have this whole rant about who is to blame?

            Dude seriously just sit under your bridge

  12. This Horner dude will never cease to amaze.
    He was the first to call on Masi which forced Wolff to respond.
    I guess he believes he wasn’t also trying to influence the stewards by his initial message.

    1. Nope toto allready sended an mail :/

      Reply moderated
      1. That’s part of the process, and it was private. What Horner instigated was a public PR move that he now hypocritically condemns if his opponents do it.

        Another poster above made an absurd criticism about Hamilton And Mercedes defending their move over inter-team radio. They aren’t even allowed to voice their defense (regardless of merit) between themselves? Shaking my head.

        Reply moderated
      2. masi hadnt seen the email…so your point is void.
        horner was the first one on the radio to masi complaining,and thats a fact.

        1. when you say fact…you mean it’s a fact that his was the first one you heard FOM broadcast, or that you’ve got access to the radio transcripts with time codes to know ??

          1. @jodrell We know that Wolff walked to the stewards after Horner was ranting over the radio lobbying to the stewards for a penalty for Hamilton.

    2. Keep telling that to yourself :)

  13. Those the gods wish to destroy they first make ridiculous.

  14. The race was one on merit. Christian Horner along with all other team bosses agreed that all incidents should be penalised on the incident not on the consequences of the incident. Yet now he decides because its his man that went into the wall the penalty should be harsher because it was a 51g shunt. Thank god Max is OK. But it’s a high octane sport. Have you looked at Max’s career mistakes???

    Reply moderated
    1. In reality the stewards did already penalize Hamilton based on consequences because had Max continued unharmed, there would have been no penalty. Heck, had Lewis been sent into a big spin, Max could have been penalized. Horner and Helmut are just displaying nothing more than irrational sour grapes. It’s hilarious to watch them make fools of themselves though.

      Reply moderated
    2. Max could have chosen not to turn in, exactly as Lewis did at Barcelona. Remember the Christian Horner comment “that was Max being 100% Max Verstappen”. Well, it wasn’t. It was Lewis being Lewis giving room to a driver whose attitude is “give me the corner or crash”. You can’t do that forever though.
      But your post is correct. Horner along with all the other principles agreed that each incident is judged on the incident and not on its outcome.

      Reply moderated
      1. Yes, it seems that overly aggressive driving is perfectly OK as long as the other driver jumps out of the way and Horner’s driver gets ahead.

        Verstappen forgot to moderate his aggression in a situation where he had more to lose than the other driver.

        Reply moderated
    3. You can’t have a penalty that eventually makes no change though. At that point let’s just overtake people by cutting the chicane at monaco, then drive away, 5 sec penalty, and we’re ahead, let’s pretend a mistake and take out hamilton with perez, or verstappen with bottas etc.

      1. @esploratore1 Hamilton simply held his line and Verstappen could have finished (and probably won) the race had he not cut it so close. Plus the risk that Hamilton lost his front wheel was quite high too.

        But yeah Brazil 2019 would be a case for this. They told Albon over the radio to do everything he could to keep Hamilton behind him. Then he leaves the door wide open (to lure Hamilton in?) and at the very last moment Albon turns in taking the apex. Is that the kind of scenario you are thinking of?

  15. Just ban lobbying full-stop then. No “making your case” allowed on the radio or in-person for incidents being investigated, unless the stewards themselves request it.

    But as to Horner’s complaint about Wolff, it’s just more playing of his tiny violin, since he’s well aware what team bosses can and can’t do with respect to these incidents, including going to the stewards. Same as when he claimed the severity of Max’s crash should have been taken into account when issuing the penalty, which he knows full well is not how it works (nor should it).

  16. Two faced sour grapes hypocrite.

    Stick to the womanising and leaving your wife and new baby for a spice girl Christian.

  17. No no no. This is not football. Team members should not be able to go lobby stewards in person. That’s a slippery slope and huge red flag.
    The stewards have got all the data and information necessary to make a decision, they don’t need Toto or anyone else pleading their case in person.
    That’s just plain wrong and should be curbed right now in my view.

  18. horner did it before toto got involved,,so what is horner talking about.

  19. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    19th July 2021, 14:38

    I don’t understand Horner. His driver didn’t get a penalty weaved left and right before the corner and didn’t get a double move penalty (again). In the corner, he clipped Lewis’s car and nearly retired Lewis. Lewis minimized the impact and Max had a much smaller collision than he would have had if Lewis pulled a Max and went full speed into the corner. Then Red Bull got a sympathy penalty that seemed to take victory away from Mercedes.

    Mercedes and the FIANCÉ built him a palace andhe’s asking for more.

    1. (@freelittlebirds) ah the weaving narrative again.
      You obviously missed the explanation lewis gave about his dummy.
      It seems difficult for some to follow F1. Its somthing FIA/FOM needs to work on so that people like you understand the sport.

      1. Doesn’t matter that Verstappen fell for the dummy, it’s still weaving.

    2. Rob (@realnigelmansell)
      19th July 2021, 19:35

      I just hope max takes to heart that he can completely miss an apex to wreck lewis and only get a 10 sec penalty

  20. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    19th July 2021, 14:39

    Wow autocorrect FIA = Fiancé! Red Bull’s fiancé:)

  21. We know horner and marko call Lewis the n-word behide closed doors.. this guy called lewis a criminal.. classless

    1. stop there… keep the discussion clean and do not make up storys.

  22. What a miserable clown. After he called up Masi 3 times to beg for a penalty, he complains about Toto.
    Masi told Toto to go see the stewards if he wants to, so Horner should stop spewing garbage out of his mouth.

  23. I guess Masi deleted Horner’s email.

    1. Goes straight to spam.

      1. “I assume this is spam. Please do not try to contact me again.”

    2. Or read the Express the other day where Horner said he is the only one in F1 who stands up to Wolff, as everyone else in F1 has a ‘conflict of interest’. Horner must think the best way of getting people onside is to rubbish them all publicly.

      1. No offence to anyone who does read the Express, but I would advise against taking everything it says as gospel.

  24. Dave Stringer
    19th July 2021, 16:15

    Of course, Horner wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing himself. I was a big fan of his, but he has talked nonsense a few times this year and was yesterday, more or less, accusing Lewis of trying to injure or kill Max.

    This was always going to happen this season because Max and Lewis are both hungry to win and the cars are pretty equal.

    Reply moderated
  25. Just to be accurate, the first person we heard whinge to Masi was Jonathan Wheatley from Red Bull who suggested they had watched several replays and he was very annoyed.
    I dont actually think we heard Horner to Masi but once ive watched it all again tonight i will correct myself if wrong.
    It was several minutes after this that we heard Toto asking about his email.
    We can only speculate that Toto did this in response but it seems a reasonable assumption.
    As for Max comments later regarding lewis behaviour on the podium being unsportsmanlike, Lewis was interviewed in the pen afterwards and at that point he was unaware that Max had been taken to hospital.
    Though since it was for a precautionary check up i fail to see what difference this makes.
    Horner IMO deliberately worded his comments and stopped just short of saying Lewis had put Max in hospital, factual it might be but not in the way Horner was trying to portray it.
    Generally they all moan about each other but Horner is very deliberate in what he says and i wouldnt trust him as far as i could throw him.

    Reply moderated
  26. I think Horner’s parents simply spelled Hypocrite wrong. Or if not then they really should have named him that.

    1. To be fair he always says whilst being broadcast a handful of times from the pit wall every session of every race. ‘We do our talking on the track’. And fair play to them, we have hardly heard from them lately.

    2. @f1osaurus For once, I nearly completely agree with you. Horner is the last person who can complain about this. I don’t think bringing his parents into the matter will help anyone’s case. Anyway, everyone knows he’s really called Racing Spice…

      It does raise an interesting question about influencing the stewards though. Both Merc and Red Bull were doing it yesterday, and McLaren were doing it at Baku and there have been a few other instances of this. And it isn’t just in the broadcasted messages to the FIA, but in the comments made to the TV channels as well. I think deals between broadcasters and team principals are done independently, as C4 only seem to have an agreement with Horner while Sky have definitely talked to Szafnauer and Steiner before, maybe others as well. I think the FIA should consider bringing in a charge similar to being in contempt of court. They should not be able to be discussing an incident either on TV or to the FIA while it is under investigation unless they are summoned by the stewards. In terms of policing this, they could go perhaps for a 3 strike system, where they receive a warning after the first offence, then a team fine after the second, and after the third they could go as far as removing them from the pit wall for a race (if this doesn’t cause a safety issue), similar to managers being sent to the stands in football.

      1. Knowing Horners love of the camera I’m sure he pays both Sky and C4 to be interviewed repeatedly whilst on the prat perch. As someone once mentioned, he would go to the opening of an envelope if he knew the cameras were there.
        As for sending them to the stands, Toto doesnt sit on the prat perch, and I doubt RB let Horner anywhere near the sharp objects when a race is on.

      2. @randommallard Heh.

        They all do it. Also the drivers. It’s only Horner who now pretends to have an issue with it since I guess he feels that it actually swayed the opinion of the stewards to be more lenient instead of a race ban.

        Which is actually odd since 99% of the pundits and race drivers (besides Verstappen and Hamilton) say this was a racing incident and overtaking happens all the time in that corner (3 times in this one race). So the stewards actually ruled more severe than the vast majority of the people who are “in the know” feel about it. So if anything it’s Horner’s post crash rant that swayed them to be more severe than they should have.

        Although to be fair it was probably Emanuele Pirro who insisted on the penalty again.

  27. I’m really not sure about broadcasting team principals during races, it does seem to be essentially ‘whine radio.’ Hearing each other pleading for harsher penalties surely just makes this situation worse.

    Horner was truly unpleasant in his overblown remarks about Hamilton and the incident. Max contributed to some extent to the incident himself by refusing to yield at a corner where he knew he was being challenged by a faster car, as the stewards seem to have recognized. Horner’s refusal to acknowledge that point means maintaining or increasing the likelihood of similar incidents with his driver in the future. Not good.

    1. .

      where he knew he was being challenged by a faster car,

      Thats why he was in front i guess.. ;)
      Your storyline does not hold up against the facts here. Max was increasing the distance but Lewis lost control (partly because of the dirty air of maxs faster car_

      1. True, the Red Bull is the faster car, but Hamilton is the faster driver.

        1. I wondered how Ham got from behind Max at the start of that straight and ended up alongside him at the end. It was Ham all along, not the car.

          1. It generally known that F1 cars don’t drive themselves. If Lewis’s car ended up alongside Max’s car, Lewis drove it there. That wasn’t too hard, was it?

      2. erikje, I’m sure you’re aware of the concept of a faster car being behind a slower car – on a circuit, it’s actually inevitable :)
        The point is that Hamilton was chasing Verstappen closely from the start, close enough to get alongside and even ahead at various points before Copse, so Verstappen had every reason to suspect Hamilton might challenge the corner alongside him (which is why he moved defensively before it). That’s the point. ‘Increasing the distance’ and ‘losing control’ both seem big exaggerations rather than facts on your part. Max could have avoided the collision too, presuming he had some awareness of where Hamilton was (likely) but chose not too. Whether he was right or not to choose not to is another question (on which the stewards ruled in his favour).

      3. At what point did Hamilton “lose control” of his car?

    2. I just turn off the audio when we hear teams talking with stewards, it really kills my enjoyment to hear adults whining like it’s kindergarten.

  28. Horner is a hypocrite. He and another senior member of the Redbull team was clearly in contact with Massi and Stewards to influence their decision and asking for the biggest punishment. They are upset because they didn’t get what they wanted.
    I am sure had Lewis retired or scored just a few points, Horner and company wouldn’t be so upset and would move on.

    Such incidents happen regularly in the mid to back of the field and all get resolved quickly and no body even mention them. This happened at the front of the field between title contenders and that is why some are making it a bigger issue than it actually is.

  29. Oh come on Christian you were doing the exact same thing. I think anything more than 10 secs would probably have been way, way too harsh, and 10 secs was probably already a bit on the harsh side. But all the team principals do need to learn to grow up a bit. Except maybe Steiner.

  30. “Rant on the radio about all the badness in the world.”

    Or in other words: his driver being shunted into a barrier by a Mercedes at very high speed, requiring medical examinations.

    Keep it classy, Wolff.

    1. @cashnotclass His own driver was partly to blame for that too. So maybe he should have a talk with him rather than egg him on and be proud that he almost put Hamilton in the fence in Spain.

  31. In recent years how many red bulls cars has lewis put his nose where it doesn’t belong? If it’s ok for his actions to put other humans life in danger over and over what are we really watching?

    Reply moderated
  32. Jeffrey Powell
    19th July 2021, 18:34

    The description shunting a driver off seems a serious exaggeration ,the Mercedes clipped the Red Bulls rear wing which itself shows it was close to not happening. Whilst I think it was a risky move against Max as Lewis would know how he would react , Horner describing it as criminal should not have been accepted by his mates DC and Webber as professionals they should have made it clear that sort language is not acceptable about a sporting incident similar to incidents they had both had in their long careers. The nature and contour of the gravel trap obviously needs a serious redesign I think that is the most serious concern to come from yesterday’s crash.

    1. Jeffrey Powell
      19th July 2021, 18:38

      Sorry obviously Mercs front wing clipped red bulls rear tyre.

    2. I think the main problem with the gravel trap there is that Verstappen’s tire, one of the four parts of the car that are the grippiest (along with the other 3 tires!) came off the wheel. No tether failed, but it meant that the asphalt and had a much lesser effect on slowing the car down than it normally would with 4 tires on. The problem is exacerbated by the rear-right falling off also causing the left-front to lift up, meaning the car has close to just 50% of the friction it would normally have to slow it down.

    3. It wasn’t the wing it was Hamilton’s front wheel. They were side by side and Hamilton actually tried to avoid Verstappen when he turned in on Hamilton and went for the “crash or let me stay in front” action.

      That’s the problem with open wheel racing, you cannot expect the other car to disappear when they are alongside, because they can’t as the wheels will connect.

  33. Extremely unprofessional by Masi. Either invite them together or refuse both of them entry.

    1. Masi like Whiting and most RDs have an open door policy. Its not Masi’s or Wolff’s problem that Horner would rather grandstand on the prat perch for the cameras than do his job.

  34. I think that these are exactly the conversations that need to be made public by the FIA. Full transcripts of the stewards conversation, who said what would make the handing of penalties a lot more transparent. I dont see why they should be kept from the fans. There are no corporate secrets there. The only “closed door” stuff should be elements that reveal somehow details of the car systems etc. but driver incidents like the Ver Ham incident should be made fully transparent of every word that is said in that room and how the final decision is made, not just a small statement. Those would be far more interesting than Ham complaining about the tires on lap 10 or another driver pointing out someone “pushed him out the track” while his competitor saying “he didnt leave me space”

  35. NeverElectric
    20th July 2021, 4:37

    Horner, whingeing moaner.
    Cry us a river.

  36. Lol I just came past this quote from Horner:

    “The incident with Checo and Lando was racing,” he said. “If you go round the outside, you take the risk — particularly when you are not in a position where you are ahead [going into the corner].

    I guess he doesn’t care about Perez enough for his fake outrage act.

    1. Hahaha! What an hypocrite is Christian Horner! Gosh, how low can he go?!

  37. I agree with Horner.

    There are 2 solutions in this.

    1. What Horner proposes.
    2. All the teams will have a representative in the Stewarts Room during the race.

  38. Horner is the biggest hypocrite on the grid, there is no one that lobbies the stewards harder than he does. I am so tired of him behaving like a toddler. He is the worst manager in F-120,

  39. Both sides have a view on the incident and the stewards made their call, and both sides have a view of whether the call was right. It’s time to move on. Horner making an absurd claim that teams don’t or should not go to the stewards about incidents on track and Wolff litigating the issue answering back is just tiresome. Both sides can leave the battle to the keyboard corps now.

  40. Christian Horner should star in the movie “Armageddon 2” as news reporter who reports the fall/arrival of Armageddon. Christian could win an Oscar award for his role!

  41. The reguations require that competitors have right of reply on stewarding matters under consideration. Christian Horner pretending not to know this is unimpressive – as was both Mercedes and Red Bull trying to lobby Masi over the FIA radio (which was broadcast), which has never been the correct method of helping stewards make a correct decision.

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'.