Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Silverstone, 2021

Hamilton penalty “harsh” for move within FIA’s overtaking guidance – Allison

2021 British Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Mercedes’ chief technical officer, James Allison, has defended Lewis Hamilton’s overtaking move on Max Verstappen last weekend, saying it complied with the FIA’s overtaking guidance.

Hamilton was issued a 10-second time penalty and two penalty points on his super license after colliding with Verstappen on lap one of the British Grand Prix. Verstappen crashed out of the race, suffering an impact of more than 50G with the barrier at Copse. The race was red-flagged and stewards deliberated on who was to blame for the accident until shortly after the restart.

During the red flag period, team principal Toto Wolff was heard contacting F1 race director Michael Masi saying that he had sent him an email with information Mercedes thought was important to the stewards’ investigation into the incident.

Allison revealed more of what Mercedes wanted to draw attention to in a video issued by the team. “We were concerned after the incident and prior to the restart to make sure that the stewards had read and were following the FIA’s internal guidance to stewards on the rights and wrongs of overtaking because as far as we are concerned, the manoeuvre that took place, the manoeuvre that Lewis did was absolutely in line with the FIA’s overtaking guide,” he said.

“If you are on the inside of the corner, overtaking on the inside of the corner, then the guidance requires that you are substantially alongside. It is not required that you are ahead, it requires that you are substantially alongside as you arrive at the corner.”

“Lewis definitely was substantially alongside – he had his front axle well beyond the midpoint of Verstappen’s car,” Allison added.

The FIA’s guidance also stipulates that any car making such a manoeuvre should be on a line whereby they would be safely able to get around a corner, without a collision, Allison explained.

“What that means is not that you have to emerge in the lead, what it means is that you do not have to cede your position, you do not have to back off and the other car has a duty to avoid hitting you,” he continued. “So, if you follow the notes that are provided to the FIA stewards and you look frame by frame at what happened with Lewis, he was substantially alongside, he absolutely would have made the corner and indeed, did make the corner and therefore there was no need for him to cede any ground.”

Allison has previously praised Hamilton’s driving as exceptionally clean, saying before the start of last season he has an “utterly unblemished record” in terms of incidents. He disagreed with the stewards’ decision to penalise him on Sunday.

“I did feel that it was harsh to get the penalty. I realise not everyone agrees with that, but I still believe that to be the case and I certainly think that whether Copse is a fast corner or a slow corner makes no difference.

“This is about what are the rules to do with overtaking and I didn’t see that Lewis did anything wrong with respect to those rules. Indeed, later in the race, Lewis made two further overtakes at Copse using exactly the same guidance and there wasn’t a contact in either of those cases.”

“I personally feel it was a harsh decision,” he emphasised. “In the end, for our outcome, it didn’t make any difference but I can understand people who maybe don’t understand there is no obligation on you to hit the apex of the corner, that you don’t have to have your whole car in front of the other car, I can understand that if you are seeing it from that perspective you might think that the car coming from behind has some sort of obligation to make sure that no crashes take place, but if you look at the stewarding document then I think that Lewis did nothing wrong.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

Author information

Hazel Southwell
Hazel is a freelance journalist who roams the paddocks of Formula E, covering the technical and emotional elements of electric racing. Usually found at...

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

146 comments on “Hamilton penalty “harsh” for move within FIA’s overtaking guidance – Allison”

  1. Who cares James!? To many worshipers of the holy cow to make the difference.

    1. Still though, nice to see a well-reasoned, clearly explained argument that utilizes the rules, as opposed to Horner’s rabble-rousing screed that Lewis is an idiot who tried to kill Max.

      Reply moderated
    2. Better “worshipers of the holy cow” than “Mercedes – WW2 nazi war machine producer”… if you want to be nasty about it.

      1. Just when you thought things couldn’t sink any lower…..

        1. Don’t stir $hlt if you can’t handle the stink.

          1. Lol.. perhaps you should read this.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda#History

          2. @f1-plossl Yes, same $hlt as Mercedes.

          3. Lol Necro’d

    3. Allison: “I think that Lewis did nothing wrong.” – “the other car has a duty to avoid hitting you,” Aahhh.. well ‘the “other” car’ in this case was car nr.33 In that case Allison thinks that Max Verstappen did something wrong. If that is the case, what could Verstappen have done to avoid hitting Hamilton? Or more precisely..’to avoid Hamilton hitting him’? Should car 33 have done the same as car 16 (Leclerc) or as car 5 (Norris)? Which would have come to stop defending his position and giving up his leading position in the race. Be my guest Ham, I just take second.

  2. Unsurprisingly, agree 100%. It was a racing incident but Verstappen was the one who cut into the corner, knowing Hamilton was there. Which really places the blame more on him. That, of course, depends on precisely these regulations about overtaking. My view: Red Bull were calling to send him to the back or a DSQ. FIA stewards thought it was more or less a racing incident but compromised on 10 seconds to pacify Red Bull. If so, bad move. Ceding to histrionic pressure never works, as Red Bull have shown by now threatening litigation. Just apply your own regulations and common sense, consistently and forget the ill-thought out demands for penalties to fit consequences. Or it won’t be just Red Bull contesting every result in the courts. I mean, seriously? If Formula 1 goes that way, it’ll be the end.

    1. @david-br
      You have a view, but most of your comment is based on a theory with no evidence that a disqualification was on the table and that the stewards were unduly pressured by one team. I think that whole idea of Red Bull somehow having a direct line to the stewards during the race – but Mercedes not having a similar ability – is pretty fanciful. That’s the premise most of your comment is based on, and I really don’t think that is likely at all. But that’s just my view.

      1. Not at all, I’m just basing my comment on the demand to black flag Hamilton (for a deliberate crash or ‘professional foul’) on what I heard said by journalists about the radio comments and angry pit lane comments being made at the time of the incident. We know Wolff and Horner both expressed their views directly to the stewards, right? I’m surmising from the Red Bull ‘data’ on Hamilton not making the corner that they still believe it was deliberate. That’s only a guess, obviously. But it would seem to be central to the allegation that either LH was reckless or deliberately took Max out.

        1. @david-br
          Yes they did both express their view and I don’t agree with either of Mercedes-AMG’s or Red Bull’s view on the issue. I don’t think the stewards would have bought into either of their views too, knowing they both have an agenda in this case.
          The point is that your ‘theory’ hinges upon the stewards being pressured by Red Bull’s view, but not similarly pressured by Mercedes. That is the part that I find unlikely and one that doesn’t have evidence to back it up.

    2. @david-br

      Ceding to histrionic pressure never works

      Rear wings, tyre pressures, pitstops etc. I’m not trying to criticise Mercedes, but RB are not the only team to do this. I agree that it reflects badly on the sport, and shows just how much team-to-team bureaucracy is involved in modern F1.

      1. @randommallard That’s true and the politics of Formula 1 isn’t rosy clean for anyone. However, I’m talking specifically about the hot-headed accusations of ‘professional foul’ by LH, which were a real low. Nobody credible in Formula 1 remotely believes Hamilton collided on purpose.

        1. @david-br I agree. It was a racing incident between two drivers locked in a battle, both of whom made miscalculations and neither of whom wanted to concede. No one did anything deliberately. As much as I doubt they will, I am hoping RB and Max apologise for what we’re some pretty strong accusations.

          1. No they sound not. As long as Hamilton is not taking any blame for his part of the crash. Even worse he is fully blaming Verstappen for what happened and RB and Max sound make excuses and learn from what they did wrong. Well that is just wrong. So neither will take any responsibility for it and for sure it will happen again.

      2. What?! RedBull has spent the last 15 years vehemently protesting features on other’s cars. Where have you been?

    3. Rodric Ewulf
      22nd July 2021, 0:45

      @david-br
      It’s quite funny how sir Still-I-Whine fans come to new posts like tabula rasas, they never drop not even a single argument no matter how many times it was refuted. They just ignore the refutation and go to another post with everything reset, the same cheap talk without anyhting new. They seem to never learn, and they not even try to justify long enough their points of view after seeing opposing arguments. As soon as they can, they’ll move on pretending that had reached a undisputed enilghtment and then continue to wind up their “truths” like if the whole world should bend on Lewis’ disposal and everyone is trying to stab him on the back, paranoid stuff of the worst type.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBrWMQ3uhRo
      Graphical analysys: Lewis was found not in the apex’s direction through the corner without really completing the pass on Max, thus being held responsible for the collision. He was about half a car alongside, so not enough to have preference of the inside line. Why does Max need to back off if he’s still ahead? Not that Lewis couldn’t go slightly more close to the apex to avoid the collision either, as the normal procedure for proper racing. That’s the reason why the stewards came to the conclusion of applying the penalty. Here’s the document text with their statement.

      “The stewards reviewed video and telemetry evidence,” the stewards said. “Cars 33 [Verstappen] and 44 [Hamilton] entered Turn 9 with Car 33 in the lead and Car 44 slightly behind and on the inside.
      Car 44 was on a line that did not reach the apex of the corner, with room available to the inside.
      When Car 33 turned into the corner, Car 44 did not avoid contact and the left front of Car 44 contacted the right rear of Car 33. Car 44 is judged predominantly at fault.”

      Now if you want to contest that, feel free to point another articles on the sporting regulations that could come to a contradiction on the rules or a range for interpretation. If not, accept the stewards ruling. If you refuse to do so and keep up with this empty reasoning protest all you’ll do is spreading around delusional stuff of sore loser fans, crying for a lost cause.

      1. Rodric Ewulf
        I’m happy to engage in a civil conversation but as soon as someone starts with infantile remarks like ‘sir Still-I-Whine fans’, I immediately stop reading.

        Just so you know if you expect a reply in future.

      2. Still I whine? Lol i like it.

        What about the “Derranged Army? “

    4. Rob (@realnigelmansell)
      22nd July 2021, 1:35

      I think many see Hamilton winning like that the end of the sport, or something close. I’m not one of them but do find it disturbing that you can get a huge point swing in the championship by punting your opponent at high speed, which sets a dangerous precedent that will encourage similar incidents moving forward. Bear in mind that is far from the first time Hamilton has won after a controversial stewarding decision ala mexico 2016, Germany 2018, Canada 2019, to a lesser extent Bahrain this year. Also the same people calling this a racing incident wanted leclerc black flagged for far less dangerous driving at Monza 2019.

      Also an incident like this has implications for engine penalties later in the season and the cost cap, I think red bull have a right to be irate. I think poorer teams with similar incidents will have even more pressure on them to seek some form of litigation/restitution etc. If your driver causes an incident you should have to compensate the other team. Ofc there would have to be strict limits on this because otherwise the pressure on stewards would become insane and drivers may be instructed to be very sheepish etc.

      1. @realnigelmansell

        far from the first time Hamilton has won after a controversial stewarding decision

        Hamilton got a penalty this time, so I don’t see how he won, especially as the only realistic alternative was no penalty (racing incident). As for

        If your driver causes an incident you should have to compensate the other team. Ofc there would have to be strict limits on this because otherwise the pressure on stewards would become insane and drivers may be instructed to be very sheepish etc.

        Well, precisely! That’s why the idea should be a non-starter. I can’t think of anything more impractical frankly. Imagine Williams having to pay Mercedes for the damage to Bottas’s car from the Russell collision, teams with less resources would be quickly bankrupt. I guess they could take out insurance?! It would be litigation and counter-ligation all season. Stewarding decisions would become major economic decisions. It sounds an absolute nightmare and completely unfeasible. As for Red Bull’s financial losses, maybe they should advise Verstappen not to contest every corner to the absolute limit? Leave a bigger safety margin for his own benefit. Simpler all round. Plus he might pick up more points.

        1. Rob (@realnigelmansell)
          22nd July 2021, 14:36

          ‘Not moving out of the way for lewis is dangerous driving’ noone outside england believes this. The realistic, correct alternative was a dsq. That was a huge, dangerous mistake

          Also I don’t remember the fia penalizing either driver for the bottas/Russell incident, so neither would be to blame. I’m not saying in every incident where a driver is penalized the full costs should be given to the team at fault, just that it’s a new problem that will probably need to be addressed in some way.

          1. @realnigelmansell

            noone outside england believes this

            Except 90+% of the comments of F1 fans in Brazil I read who thought Hamilton did nothing wrong. I think you’re confusing Holland and its virtual extensions with the rest of the world. All anecdotal of course.
            In the Bottas/Russell case, Wolff blamed Russell for trying to pass (as futile) if not for the actual incident. The point is, though, that he emphasized the big cost to Mercedes. Now imagine that Mercedes could try getting recompense for that damage from Williams. Those stewarding decisions would come under far more pressure.

    5. You do realize Toto was 1st to go to the stewards room (there is no record what he was saying there) after both Red Bull and Mercedes called Masi and we all heard that?

      1. Why did you skip saying that Toto was instructed to present his evidence to the stewards my Massi?

        1. So let me start from the beginning. Toto Wolff was born January 12, 1972…
          Get a life, Masi was saying that to be polite and he has 0 input about penalties.

    6. @david-br According to the racing guidelines it was up to Verstappen to leave Hamilton space through that corner. So it was a foul from Verstappen for hitting Hamilton. I guess you can call that a racing incident since he was out of the race already, but it’s just mind boggling how they can make this a penalty for Hamilton.

      1. @f1osaurus
        It’s probably been said thousands of time on the site already, and is even referenced in the steward’s decision, but Verstappen left Hamilton space. End of story.

      2. @f1osaurus

        Max left enough space. He is not obligated to miss the corner because there is a car on the inside who refusing to turn in.

      3. The ultimate defense of Hamilton/Mercedes feature this article. It fails, with distortions of reality typical of fake news era. But it’s enough to manipulate their blinded worshipers who just repeat what they said. I don’t call in behalf of some childish Max fans who pretend Horner is a unbiased commentator (he just isn’t, that’s obvious) then I make my own research instead of going for what others dictate.
        https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-details-at-the-heart-of-the-hamilton-verstappen-debate/6634406/

        Mercedes’ trackside engineering director Andrew Shovlin made clear reference to these guidelines being in a document when he explained why Mercedes felt Hamilton’s penalty was not justified.

        However, there can be little doubt that at the maximum point Hamilton got alongside Verstappen on the run to Copse – which was his front wing being level with the Red Bull’s front wheels – that must surely be viewed as significant.
        But equally, having such a ‘significant overlap’ does not give the driver carte blanche to do what he wants in the corner ahead.
        The guidelines suggest that the driver still needs to ‘make the corner cleanly’, something which the stewards felt that Hamilton did not do.
        By running slightly away from the apex, and carrying too much speed that washed him out in to the path Verstappen was taking, it was felt that Hamilton had missed an opportunity to avoid the crash.
        The argument about hugging the apex was further enhanced later in the race when Hamilton tucked in much nearer to the inside kerb when he pulled off his race-winning move past Charles Leclerc.

        The omitted part by Mercedes, Hamilton and their cult is that the precedent in favour of the driver in the inside line who just have half of the car ahead only works if making the turn clean. Unless Verstappen also was found offending the regulations, it won’t apply. Lewis could have made more to avoid the collision (following a closer trajectory to the apex) as could Max (even though he gave plenty of space before the turn) but if the guy on the inside line rugged the curve he should be held responsible if the outcome is a collision, unless the other driver understeered and drove into him. This guideline is not overrun by the more simple rule of: not completing the overtake then don’t feel entitled of the racing line. The stewards took some minutes to decide that because of those nuances, but still penalty against the erratic car 44 is the right decision.

        Reply moderated
  3. @david-br

    It was a racing incident but Verstappen was the one who cut into the corner, knowing Hamilton was there. Which really places the blame more on him.

    Copse isn’t taken from the inside, it’s taken from the outside. I don’t agree when you say Verstappen cut the corner, he seems to have done so when you look at it from Hamilton’s onboard camera, he just held up to the normal racing line which he didn’t have to concede because Hamilton didn’t execute the move, he was still alongside him.

    I think it’s Hamilton who put a wheel in the middle of the corner which he didn’t have to given the fact that he will end up hitting Verstappen’s car who happened to be on the racing line.

    1. @tifoso1989

      Copse isn’t taken from the inside, it’s taken from the outside.

      Well except when it isn’t, as Hamilton has also successfully shown.

      1. And that time hé was on the inside at the appex of the corner. Which hé didn’t make with the move on Verstappen. Hé was Just to far of the appex as explained by the stewards. So hé is for sure to blame. Maybe not fully, but more then Verstappen Who left room.

      2. @david-br

        Lewis took the corner very slowly when he was on the inside of Leclerc. That’s what you have to do on the inside line, to make the corner and what Lewis didn’t do when on the inside of Max.

        The only reason why Lewis overtook Leclerc was due to Leclerc going in too hot and leaving the track.

    2. I think you’ll find Copse can be taken any way you want to depending on a number of variables including speed. Yes, outside may be he racing line, but if you want to go slower, you can take the inside line if that suits your circumstances.

      The concept that Red Bull are espousing whereby you can only overtake at certain prescribed corners pretty silly. We’d have missed out on so many exciting overtakes from talented drivers such as Alonso, Danny Ric and Max himself if you have to take every corner on the racing line.

    3. @tifoso1989

      You can’t just “take the normal racing line” if someone is already there. Both drivers have a responsibility towards each other to avoid hitting one another.

      In this case, it’s fairly clear that Lewis had a bit of understeer, as often happens on the first lap of a race with a full tank of fuel and tyres which are not fully up to temperature. However, even with that and colliding with another car he made the corner without leaving the track.

      Max, however, was looking to leave the absolute bare minimum space on the inside. He is entitled to do so, but it’s always going to be a big gamble on the first lap of a race with a full tank of fuel and tyres which are not fully up to temperature. The tiniest mistake from the other car, or a mechanical issue, or even a gust of wind, could mean a collision.

      This is not to place blame on Max, but it does highlight a lack of maturity on his part. He took a gamble he didn’t need to, a gamble which would not be very rewarding even if it paid off, and lost. Even if the reason he lost it was entirely the fault of someone else, it was still a gamble he didn’t need to take in the position he was in.

      1. @drmouse Are you having a laugh?

        “Max, however, was looking to leave the absolute bare minimum space on the inside.”
        You can’t possibly have typed that with a straight face.

        It is exactly the opposite, in that LH was the one gambling, knowing he could not lose another race, at Silverstone no less, with their upgrades, and with Max showing him up during the Sprint. With all that room on the inside, he went in too hot to make use of that room, and knowing he had a full tank and tires not fully up to temperature, he gambled like it was his only chance all day, but of course understeered into Max, Max having set the tone the day before.

        But ok sure, perhaps Max has now learned, racing LH is a gamble. Especially once you’ve put him in a desperate spot.

        1. @robbie

          Noe, I’m not having a laugh, completely straight face.

          Yes, Lewis was taking a gamble. However, in a car which doesn’t seem to be as quick as the Red Bull, if he wants to challenge for the WDC he has to take some risks, to push harder. He will not win by playing it safe, he will have to find every possible advantage he can.

          Max, on the other hand, doesn’t have to. He would still have had a significant lead if he had finished second, but still had a great chance of winning even if he’d “given” Lewis the corner. The analysis of his trajectory showed that Verstappen was heading to leave just precisely one car’s width at the apex, which is taking a risk. If the other car makes the tiniest mistake, having a little understeer, or any of the myriad things which could push them wide in the corner, they will hit you. We’ve seen it all the time, including from Max himself.

          So yes, Max took a risk. Not because it was Lewis, just because of how he placed himself. He’s perfectly entitled to do so, and Lewis does bear more responsibility for the accident, but Max did take a big risk that he did not need to. Had he given Lewis more space, he would probably still have been back in first within a couple of laps. He gambled for very little gain if he won, massive down side if he lost. Now, no matter who’s fault it is, his lead has been cut to only 8 points.

          1. @drmouse Easy to say in hindsight, but that’s just not reality. It is not what they are paid to do. We have seen all season RBR and Max not underestimating LH and Mercedes, just as I have also not assumed anything just because Max had a 33 point lead. I think you well know that with so many points to be had no leader just decides even before the summer break, that those points are going to stick and are something to take to the bank. RBR and Max were already well aware that anything could happen, and a dnf via any other issue and a win for LH would have put them right back in it.

            I would suggest that Max probably thought that by leaving the amount of space he did, and given that he and LH have been able to race each other up until then, he was not ‘gambling’ any more than it is simply a gamble to race a fairly close car in F1 in a WDC and WCC fight. The normal kind of gamble that comes at the start of every F1 race. To ask Max to suddenly settle for seconds, or assume he can just take LH up the road, less than half way through the season, knowing they’re fighting the dynasty of the hybrid era, is to ask Max to not act like a WDC level driver, nor the driver of the ilk of WDCs past, including LH. This is against LH and Mercedes I remind you, who can manage, with a 60 point lead with 4 races to go, to still claim to not be underestimating the competition.

            No Max and RBR have no choice, including before Silverstone, to act like Mercedes and LH are about to find something and turn up the heat for the second half of the season. Whether or not that may happen given RBR’s strength and the concept that Mercedes may have done their last upgrade and it may or may not have been enough, is irrelevant. The second Max and RBR assume anything, is the second they are done.

            Their job is to stamp their authority on it and put their feet to Mercedes’ throats, for that is exactly what Mercedes have been doing for seven years and are still trying to do. Of course I agree that there may come a time when Max can settle for second for the sake of not handing anything to Mercedes, but that time is far from now. And was even with a 33 point lead. As I say they already well knew the math of a 25-0 swing to LH by any means…blown tire…what have you.

          2. @robbie

            I disagree. Many racers have spoken in the past about having to change your approach when you are leading the championship, about the risks of continuing balls-out racing when protecting a significant lead.

            I understand that we are not sure half way into the season yet, and that Mercedes could make a comeback later. However, that’s even more reason not to lose their large advantage. If you look back, you will see many instances of a championship leader giving more space than needed, or even bailing out, rather than risking a collision. You will also see a fair lot of instances where a driver overtaking on the inside gets understeer.

            Max bet his house for the chance to win a mid-range car and lost. Even if that loss was completely down to the actions of another driver, he still lost, and he still has the same chances later on of a puncture/car failure/etc. It was the great, exciting wheel-to-wheel action and never-say-die spirit we fans all way to see on track, but it wasn’t a sensible decision for a championship leader in what appears to be superior machinery.

          3. @drmouse I agree that “Many racers have spoken in the past about having to change your approach when you are leading the championship, about the risks of continuing balls-out racing when protecting a significant lead.” It’s just that the start at Silverstone last weekend was not the time.

            Max didn’t bet ‘his’ house. The team went racing. They are in a battle to secure the Championship against the 7 year straight dominators, at ‘their’ track, with upgrades, and in pure pinnacle of racing form RBR and Max were there to try to stamp their authority on the season. It hasn’t been enough for them yet to win at a track at which they were expected to be strong. They need to keep proving they can win in Merc’s back yard too. But even at that you say “If you look back, you will see many instances of a championship leader giving more space than needed” and we only need see the ample space Max left for LH and it is obvious Max was trying to avoid a collision.

            I think you are using the perfection of hindsight to make your claim that “it wasn’t a sensible decision for a championship leader in what appears to be superior machinery.” As I’ve already said, there is no way RBR and Max were so sure of superior machinery at Silverstone that they could be as complacent as you would have them, and there is every bit the reality that they know 33 points with hundreds left to be had is nothing to take to the bank at this stage. They are racers racing. They did not sit there before the racing saying to themselves ‘oh oh what if Max races LH hard.’ That was never even a question. Maybe some day later in the season and Max has his 33 point lead back, sure, maybe then they say ‘not worth the risk’ but we/they are far from that point.

            Since you are using the luxury of hindsight, I’ll present another scenario. LH takes the space left him inside, doesn’t hit Max, and nothing is even mentioned of that corner’s action other than being a part of a super-exciting race start, because Max left him the required space and it was fair racing.

  4. Last time I say something about this hehe

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eF83m5cHlCk

    For me it looks like Max thought Lewis would take the outside at first. Gave him outside space. And then noticed he went for the inside. And gave him space again. All that in a couple of seconds going 300kph. Not much he could do better imo.

    1. Or as the majority would say, Ham threw Max a dummy, and Max fell for it. But then if you are stupid enough to close the inside off but still leave a gap wide enough for a bus to drive through, you deserve what you get.

      1. Lewis tried a dummy and lost control as a result is more correct.

        1. No evidence to suggest any loss of control. Analysts (Jolyon‘s in particular) proved that.

          Racing incident all day long.

          1. Rob (@realnigelmansell)
            22nd July 2021, 1:36

            Jolyon palmer is a massive Lewis fan. Almost everyone who works for sky and BBC is. He’s their country’s driver, I get it, but don’t act like they’re unbiased

      2. A dummy for the dummy.

  5. Lol. I’ve reached the point now that I don’t really care. The same feeling you get when you walk away from a conversation with a Flat Earther.

    1. Flat earthers are also in minority ;)

  6. It really should’ve been chalked up as a racing incident as per Sainz/Grosj crash. I think the hysteria from the RB camp pressured the stewards into penalising LH

  7. Nick English
    21st July 2021, 16:57

    Challenge for Racefans to get a copy of this overtaking document for stewards!

    1. They do their very best not to release these documents publicly. The BBC apparently got their hands on a copy, but didn’t publish it and some people believe it may have actually been provided by Mercedes, simply because of how much the FIA tries to stop them getting into circulation.

      1. I have always thought that there had to exist more precise rules than the very few which are published about overtaking. Isn’t it pretty bizarre that a sport’s governing instance is trying so hard to hide the rules of engagement which dictate the most important track actions ? Do they consider in their best interests to stoke those ugly arguments between racing fans who have no means to know the rules of engagement ? Keeping crucial things secret is not a way to fast improvement.

  8. I 100% agree with Allison.

  9. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    21st July 2021, 17:20

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much defence of someone after being punished for doing something obviously wrong.

    1. not everyone agrees that Hamilton did something wrong though. that’s just your opinion (and the stewards’ but we can have a different opinion)

    2. @rocketpanda Well it makes sense that the stewards defend their position, but I agree it’s 100% clear they gave the wrong verdict.

  10. There are 2 problems here:

    1. The overtaking guidance isn’t distributed publicly, so without seeing that from an official source people can only hear from the respective sides, each of whom have some sort of interest in the matter.

    2. The overtaking guidance contains phrases such as “substantially alongside” and “make the corner cleanly”. What does this mean? Substantially alongside at which point? What does cleanly mean without a proper definition?

    I’m not saying that these rules should be set in stone with exact measurements or positions, but surely someone can come up with slightly clearer wording than that?

    1. For the record, I now believe this is roughly a racing incident. Both drivers made miscalculations and the penalty was harsh. But it made Hamilton’s drive even more spectacular.

      1. @randommallard
        I agree, actually having the overtaking guidelines would be very helpful here.

        To me, the crucial part here is this phrase in the story:

        The FIA’s guidance also stipulates that any car making such a manoeuvre should be on a line whereby they would be safely able to get around a corner, without a collision, Allison explained.

        Now, I can’t actually find Allison saying anything about the overtaking car having a duty to avoid a collision in the video. What he does say is what’s quoted immediately after in the story:

        “What that means is not that you have to emerge in the lead, what it means is that you do not have to cede your position, you do not have to back off and the other car has a duty to avoid hitting you,” he continued.

        If that is actually what the guidelines say, then yes, you can say Lewis had the right to be there and did nothing wrong.

        Still, the assertion that he had no obligation to make the apex is interesting to me. On the one hand, you can argue that, like any other car on the inside of another car, he has the right to push the other car wide at corner exit (although, as we’ve seen recently, the stewards’ position on that is evolving). But is pushing a car wide to the point of collision allowable at the apex of a corner? Do cars have free reign to cause collisions with other cars even when they themselves are off the racing line?

        I think I can recall one penalty handed out in the past for a car on the inside missing the apex and colliding with the outside car — Rosberg at Austria, 2015 — even though he would have “made the corner”. Of course, in that case, there was clear intent to miss the apex; is there any obligation in the guidelines to at least try to hit the apex? That would absolve Hamilton under any standard of reasonable doubt. But it also raises thorny questions about intent; many drivers have been penalised for causing a collision by accidentally missing an apex, even though they still would have “made the corner”.

        One more point:

        “So, if you follow the notes that are provided to the FIA stewards and you look frame by frame at what happened with Lewis, he was substantially alongside, he absolutely would have made the corner and indeed, did make the corner and therefore there was no need for him to cede any ground.”

        Would he have made the corner? Of course, I presume Mercedes have simulations that can make a prediction based on telemetry and available grip, etc. But the evidence that Allison cites that is available to us — that Hamilton “indeed, did make the corner” is not convincing. He made the corner in part because the collision and his subsequent lifting slowed him from over 300 km/h to 200 km/h. Would he have still made the corner — having missed the apex — while being flat out with the aero wash from Max’s car? I think that’s hard to tell.

        Regardless of what the actual FIA guidelines say, in my mind, it’s still mostly a racing incident, but Hamilton does carry a bit of blame for missing the apex. I’d say the 10 second penalty — which some would call lenient — was about spot on.

        1. Oops, of course, that was Rosberg on Hamilton in Austria in 2016, not 2015. Must have had a momentary flashback to Austin 2015.

        2. I will assist with this statement just once because it appears racing fans critics and apparently even stewards who issue written guidelines confirming such.

          There is absolutely no obligation for a driver overtaking or otherwise to “hit the apex”

          None whatsoever. In any form of four wheel racing

          Further this accident happened significantly before the late apex

          LH was more than substantially alongside entering the start of the corner. 95% or so. Thus and here is the written obligation, the driver being overtaken must leave racing room in the corner for that vehicle just like LH did two corners previously for Max to get around Brooklands. It can be tight but it must be left

          Max did no such thing, he saw LH and turned away then assumed LH would back down and be bullied as previously (even on the same lap!) LH did not and MV turned sharply in and the rest is history.

          A penalty was a sop and sets a terrible precedent particularly for the fans of late braking of which DR and MV are or rather we’re good at. It is a particularly sad fact that previously in the lap, MV had left the track and came back on banging wheels and displayed his usual terrific if completely over the top defending ability only to undertake, when they were not really working, a rather foolish chop move after being completely sold a dummy that LH was going to go down the outside as he attempted in the previous sprint race.

          Looking over the previous half lap you can clearly see LH was thinking about corners after the currently disputed ones and his car placement for them.

          MV had lost a little perspective by the Copse corner and was getting desperate.

          Shame.

          1. @drgraham To me you lose your credibility when you say MV turned sharply. He did no such thing. And as well, it was not Max that was desperate it was LH who was acting so when he overcooked it and couldn’t take the ample space Max left him inside and understeered into him, as per the stewards ruling.

            To me I don’t think we need to see any further F1 or FIA wording than we already know. And of course every incident is different and has it’s nuances and so has to be adjudicated with that in mind, which is why there are stewards.

            To me there is no question that LH had enough of his car alongside Max enough of the time, even if sometimes it was fleeting, to have earned the right to a car’s width of track. Max left him that. But in this instance, that’s where it ends. Of course nobody is suggesting LH ‘had’ to cede. Nor that he had to hug the apex. But LH never lead either. Only Max lead at all times. Max as the leader had the right to his racing line. LH had the right to have room to race and he didn’t meet up to that obligation when he failed to use the space left him, and instead ran into Max and therefore was penalized.

            We also have seen LH countless times leave a bloke barely enough room on the outside, forcing said bloke to either back off, go off, or hit him, and indeed upon exiting the corner we have seen LH fully at the outside of the track with only grass or gravel beside him, applauded like the Champ he is for owning the real estate and stamping his authority on his opponent by forcing him to make up his mind…back off, go off, or hit me…you decide…and the crowd cheers. That is a thing in F1 too. And is fine by the stewards.

            Max did everything required of him by the rule book and by what is accepted largely and that is why LH was the penalized one in this instance.

          2. You can talk about credibility when you have won a few four wheel slicks and wings championships @robbie

            It is quite clear Max knew he was there twitched the steering away then immediately back.

            To suggest he did not turn in sharply on a 200mph corner is a bit naive.

            Max wnt for the sharpest run to the apex regardlesss of where or who was there. He has done it before even this season and it’s a high risk move that failed this time. Given even Lewis has previously pointed out to him that such moves when you have much to lose are detrimental, you wonder at his temperament and the actions of his mentors.

            I get it that he can do no wrong in your eyes, you don’t like
            LH and love RB but honestly ask yourself if this incredibly talented driver who has the rather disingenuous mark of having a rule implemented after him was driving with a sensible view of the championship?

            The penalty argument is separate.

          3. @drgraham Not sure what four wheel slicks and wings championships means, but I do know that unless you have been a WDC level F1 driver it is naive of you to claim Max turned in sharply at 200mph. There is simply nothing to support what you are saying from what we have seen. Nor does your racing experience make you an expert on what Max’s reality was in those split seconds.

            “Sharpest run to the apex?” How does that even make sense with all the room he was leaving LH, and even LH was nowhere near the apex? I think you are grasping at straws to blame Max as much as possible. High risk? Yes, this is all high risk when you have two combatants in a close battle for the Championships. Was it not obviously even more high risk for LH to overcook it and not even be able to take the space Max left him on the inside? Let’s talk about LH’s high risk move, since he was the penalized one. Let’s recall who hit who, as per the stewards wording.

            As to the ‘Verstappen rule’ to which I believe you are referring. Let’s be very clear that this came about, in terms of nomenclature, in 2016 when Max was 18 and was reprimanded for moving on Kimi while Kimi was under braking. But to be clear Max didn’t invent this move, but he did remind F1 about times when Schumacher, for example, used it and was also reprimanded for it. Max didn’t invent the concept of moving on someone while they are already committed to braking into a corner, but he did make the amateur mistake of doing it when he was 18, and he and we were all reminded of why drivers just for the most part instinctively know not to do that.

            When I googled for this a bit earlier, I came across an article referring to how they dropped the so called ‘Verstappen rule’ in 2017, in that they were no longer going to investigate all similar looking incidents, for as always there are nuances to every incident for none are identical, but rather they decided to only investigate the dangerous ones, and would bank video on similar incidents with which to refer what is dangerous and what is not.

            Bottom line, Max didn’t invent this concept, he just reminded F1 to remind the drivers that is a no no, and then even at that they lightened up on it the next year. As we have seen it is actually quite rare that a driver jams up another by moving in front of him while he is committed under braking and therefore handcuffed. It is why drivers know and understand the concept of leaving a car’s width, so that under braking a driver isn’t to jump in front of another car and call that fair racing and expect to not be hit. Drivers know that if you jump in front of another car committed under braking you are asking for trouble. Max hasn’t done it since, nor other drivers really, or you can be darn sure we would have heard the term ‘Verstappen rule’ used again, and yet it hasn’t since 2017. And it was only ever a reminder of what drivers already knew anyway.

    2. @randommallard At 1, the guidelines have been made clear by Mercedes and several F1 drivers. So it’s not like it’s just Mercedes saying this.

      “substantially alongside” has been described as the attacking car having the front wheels halfway up on the outside car or being fully alongside the inside car (if overtaking on the outside)

      1. @f1osaurus Mercedes and other drivers’ interpretation has been made clear by them. But other drivers (most notably Ricciardo) think he wasn’t alongside enough. When you use vague wording like the FIA have, a knife cuts both ways.

        As I say, I think it is a racing incident with both drivers just not willing to give up.

        1. @randommallard No, they don’t use vague wording. The guideline is that when overtaking on the inside, the front wheel of the overtaking car needs to be alongside the middle of the overtaken car at turn in. At turn in is where they decide their line and you can’t expect a car to take a tighter line after that. The outside car can take a wider line or cede the corner if no space is left at all.

          As Wolff implied there even is a diagram of this in the guidelines of where the cars need to be in overtaking situations.

          Ricciardo never said Hamilton wasn’t far enough alongside to own the corner. He said that when side by side like that he’d lose aero and this might have helped make him go slightly wider.

      2. Also the FIA don’t really seem to have specified at which point in regards to the corner you need to be alongside. Is it the approach to the corner, or is it turn in, or is it at the apex?

        1. @randommallard What is even the apex? From where Hamilton is turning in, the regular apex is not on his ideal line anyway.

          1. @f1osaurus That is the kind of vagueness I’m on about. The rules often seem like they’re written for cars on rails and they often don’t take into account any chance of variation. I’m not annoyed at Hamilton and Merc, but the lack of transparency from the FIA (why can’t we see the documents?).

            Anyway, I’ll re-propose the end of this discussion I initially offered the other day (it was my fault for breaking it!).

            I’m happy to put this entire incident behind me (I hope!) and will (hopefully) make no further comments on it unless either a) very big news about it emerges, or b) RB offer up an apology for the hugely over-exaggerated, very strong, and potentially libellous comments and accusations they gave after the race (and this is from an RB fan). Hamilton and Mercedes were polite enough to apologise to Raikkonen after they accused him of a deliberate crash at Silverstone in 2018, I just hope (albeit don’t expect) RB will offer a similar apology. I mean if RB are willing to hire a lawyer in hope of a stronger penalty, Merc might as well hire a lawyer and sue for libel (although UK libel law is pretty tough to win a case if you sue, but that’s for a different day and different forum).

            It has been very interesting and insightful to see how the different viewpoints see what I now consider a racing incident. So thank you for that. (I’ll also note that we’ve been mentioning one another so much that notification emails for mentions from you have been filtered into my spam emails automatically by gmail!). But seriously, it has been good to discuss the incident with people who may not necessarily see eye-to-eye with myself or others.

          2. @randommallard I agree that the stewards should related their verdicts to these guidelines rather than the reference to the generic sporting guidelines which give us no indication at all.

            Can’t even imagine what would be the motive behind hiding something like that. I guess they are afraid people will adhere to these guidelines to the letter while the stewards want to be able to deviate from them whenever they see fit. Which in itself seems like a bad idea and lacks transparency.

            Yeah I thought we already ended the debate about who’s fault it was, but trying to figure out how the stewards came to their decision still remains interesting to me. I truly struggle to understand some of the verdicts they give recently.

            I think especially starting with the Austria penalties it’s very hard place the verdicts in line with previous seasons.

            But seriously, it has been good to discuss the incident with people who may not necessarily see eye-to-eye with myself or others.

            Agreed, thanks for the discussion.

  11. I’m probably wrong but it seems to me that if your front wing hits his rear tire it’s not your corner.

    1. 1) It wasn’t his front wing, it was wheel to wheel.
      2) That was at the point of collision, and the driver on the inside will normally drop back through the first part of the corner because taking a tighter line must be done at a slower speed. At the point where they began turning in, Hamilton was almost completely alongside.

    2. @leejo Well, yes, self-evidently it could be wrong. If two drivers are side-by-side into a corner, the inside driver brakes to avoid contact when turning in, but the outside driver cuts across and gets clipped on the rear tyre anyhow, that doesn’t then automatically make the corner the outside driver’s (and so a penalty for the inside driver). Which seems to be the gist of many people’s argument. If one driver is further back, less than half way level, and tries a pass, clipping the front driver, then yes, that would be a case of the corner belonging to the latter. FIA stewards clearly didn’t think Verstappen ‘owned’ the corner, it was being contested fairly by Hamilton, they thought that the latter could have done more to avoid the incident and penalized him accordingly.

  12. Of course Allison is going to defend Mercedes. What do you expect him to say?

    Is Mercedes trying to persuade someone that HAM did nothing wrong or was Allison posed a question by media? I would think Red Bull would be the ones crying over the crash HAM caused and not Mercedes.

    HAM clearly took out VER. He got a penalty for causing this collision. To say he did no wrong is insane.

    If it exists, I would like to see video from HAM onboard when he hits the Red Bull. That is what I suspect the Stewards saw and thus handed HAM the penalty.

    1. What do you expect him to say?

      Indeed, and with James Allison being the guy who in 2018 put forward the inane conspiracy theory that Räikkönen had intentionally collided with Hamilton on the opening lap of the Silverstone race, he’s not exactly the person to take serious on these matters.

  13. Hamilton fan here, who agrees it was Hamilton’s fault, and called the 10 sec pen before it was given.

    But the blow up from all this is ridiculous. F1’s fanbase has gone to the dogs.

    1. Partly agree. It was no biggy. Its not so much the incident as the lack of accountability taken

    2. Exactly, my first reaction was 10s penalty or drive-through if they want to be harsh. It’s the first lap of the race, he made a slight misjudgement on how his car would handle into that corner, it wasn’t intentional or particularly reckless but it was a mistake.

    3. Opposite viewpoint here. Max fan in the context of the championship, originally thought it would be harsher than 10 secs, then thought 10 secs was about right, now I think it was probably a racing incident. But Hamilton served the penalty and then put on a great drive to win the race regardless.

  14. “Lewis definitely was substantially alongside – he had his front axle well beyond the midpoint of Verstappen’s car,” Allison added.

    Again, he only got substantially alongside because he got past time to reduce properly the speed to share the turn with another car, the very car that already had reduced speed and entered Copse first. The leader does not have to concede being ahead, the challeging car does. It’s no coincidence his front axle touched the leader’s rear.

    1. @niefer Not relevant. Hamilton was able to make that corner. So he wasn’t going too fast.

      1. @f1osaurus

        He used the entire track to make the corner, which was not the space that he was allowed to use, with Max next to him.

        1. @aapje Actually even that would have been OK.

          Just see this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABKY6nbKIL4

          1. @f1osaurus

            Only if you own the corner, which Lewis didn’t, because he was too far back.

        2. The contact with Max upset his line through the corner. Just watch the onboard cameras.

  15. Allison has previously praised Hamilton’s driving as exceptionally clean, saying before the start of last season he has an “utterly unblemished record” in terms of incidents.

    Bit short lived memory given this was the 3rd RB car in as many years. Also penalty points suggest otherwise. What a team this is turning into. Who would have thought, they were so admirable at their peak.

    1. The mercedes crashed into each other near enough 3 times a year when they were at their peak surely?

      1. It’s not the crash. These things happen. Lewis is not flawless. It’s the aftermath attitude. The Mercedes team may have won, but their overall Brand surely didn’t across the globe.

        1. Do you really, honestly think someone who walks into a merc showroom cares what someone on their race team thinks? People buy their cars predominantly because in the 80’s they were super reliable compared to other luxury brands and old people still think they are, or because their workplace has mercs in the catalogue for their managers company cars, instead of BMW’s. While I’m sure a few f1 fans have bought an amg, this isn’t where their money comes from and never will be. This isn’t how advertising works, or who the heck would trust Williams non racing companies?

          1. Well, I guess there are thousands of people and millions of dollars working on Brands everyday that will happily disagree with you there. The larger part of the whole F1 circus is based on and only functions because of it.

  16. I don’t agree. He was going too quick on that line and understeered wide. With this reasoning, anyone alongside could keep their foot in and just not turn and take out the competitor. I’m not saying Hamilton did that, but you have to be able to take the inside line and not wash wide which is what Lewis was doing.

    “The FIA’s guidance also stipulates that any car making such a manoeuvre should be on a line whereby they would be safely able to get around a corner, without a collision”

    We’ll yep, exactly. Many people on here no I’m a Lewis fan so I’m not biased in any way, but Mercedes are not covering themselves in glory here (neither are Red Bull btw).

    1. Not sure why my brain typed ‘no’ instead of ‘know’. Must be the heat.

    2. @john-h He’s not going “too quick” if he is able to make it through the corner. That;s alwayts how the rules have been interpreted.

      Only when drivers simply go straight for the outside of the corner without turning in do they get a penalty. Like Rosberg not turning in in Hockenheim and Austria 2016.

      How about Verstappen not hitting the apex in Austria and clobbering into Leclerc?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABKY6nbKIL4

      1. I’ve always found the Austria inchident a difficult one @f1osaurus and slightly different because Max here is ever so slightly past Leclerc as they approach the corner. If he were halfway alongside there’s no way as the attacker he should run a competitor off wide (as he doesn’t have the racing line). Hamilton has always been very skilled at this of course, getting the racing line and running drivers off when they are not fully alongside quite legitimately.

        The Rosberg one, well that was clearly crowding out a competitor in the way I describe and running someone off the road like that should be a penalty, as Rosberg was not on the racing line having chosen to defend on the inside instead of staying outside.

        1. @john-h Verstappen didn’t need to be past Leclerc. Halfway along the inside is enough. So Verstappen did have the corner that much is 100% clear. Just like Hamilton did in Copse.

          It’s just that Verstappen clearly does not turn in when he should have and that the previous lap he did manage not to ram into Leclerc. So that means this second time around he does do it on purpose.

          Either way the point is, it was Verstappen’s corner 100%, but he didn’t make the apex by a long way and yet he didn’t get a penalty. Yet now Hamilton misses the apex and this somehow means it was a targeted assault at Verstappen.

          If you follow the actual overtaking rules, Hamilton should not have gotten a penalty for taking his corner the way he feels. As long as he makes the corner. That’s the only target he needs to hit.

  17. It is all about the moment of being (significantly) alongside. On the straight doesn’t count, it is about being alongside in the corner. Even before the apex Verstappen was already more than half a car in front, which gives him the corner, imho. If Verstappen went wider into that corner he would have left the track just as Leclerc did.

    Even in the overtake with Leclerc he wasn’t alongside. Not even close. The only reason he could make that pass was because Leclerc went off track. If he stayed on track Hamilton would have hit him the same way as he hit Verstappen. And Albon in 2019 and 2020.

    It becomes a pattern. Hamilton doesn’t yield. Not ever. And he thinks Max is aggressive. May be he should look in the mirror.

    1. He literally yielded the preceding corner at Luffield @silfen. Also at Imola and Barcelona. I think he probably looked in the mirror and thought he’d been yielding too much to be honest.

    2. @silfen No, it’s about entering the corner and at that point Hamilton was alongside. That he then brakes to get away from Verstappen turning in on him and falls a bit back is irrevelant.

      This is a flat out corner, Hamilton had the racing line, he should not have to brake to avoid Verstappen, Verstappen should make way for Hamilton.

      1. @f1osaurus That is not my understanding. As far as I know it is at the apex, not corner entry. It is even mentioned in one of my F1 books.

  18. I am looking forward to Allison arguing the exact opposite when Verstappen hits Hamilton. Hitting your oppenent’s rear wheel and spinning him is an easy thing to do, especially if you are leading the championship.

    Sadly it seems this is the sort of racing a large part of the fans want to see, just stick your nose in and hope for the best. And the FIA did little to stop it.

    1. The difference is he was already significantly alongside on the straight. It wasn’t a dive bomb as you seem to be suggesting @uzsjgb

      1. Also what Horner suggested, sticking a wheel up the inside and all that.

      2. On the straight, yes. Not when turnning into the corner, where it matters.

  19. So Mercedes guy says Mercedes guy wasn’t at fault? Shocking..

    1. I too have a strong opinion on the Mercedes interpretation of a document I have no access to and no knowledge of.

    2. @montalvo The Mercedes guy points out that the stewards decision doesn’t match their own overtaking guidelines. That’s an important note yes. It’s what the drivers have to rely on to know what they can and cannot do. If it says Hamilton has the line at the start of the corner and from there on needs to make it through the corner while Verstappen needs to give him space, then how can they decided that Hamilton needs to give Verstappen space?

      1. Yeah, It is what Mercedes says. I haven’t read anywhere that that is the truth. More like the opposite. That based on the guidelines, Hamilton was the one who should have yielded.

  20. HAM knew fairly early he wouldn’t be making the apex and so did VER. Dangerous driving not to pull out in that scenario, particularly when behind. HAM was all kinds of fortunate not to end up in the barriers himself.

    That he isn’t historically a dirty racer is secondary to the fact that he currently is desperate and dangerous.

    1. @andrewwj See section 5C: https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/
      I’ve just changed my mind on the incident, always blamed Hamilton previously.

      1. In this case, the attacker’s front axle is ahead of the defender’s rear axle and the two cars are approximately halfway alongside. Both drivers have a reasonable claim to the apex. If contact occurs, blame will have to be shared.

        But Verstappen wasn’t the attacking driver, Hamilton was. If Verstappen was the defending driver and yet his front axle is ahead of the attacker’s rear axle then doesn’t it give him the preference for the racing line? Furthermore, shared blame doesn’t necessarily mean equally shared blame. The stewards didn’t have felt the blame was solely on Lewis, but still they came to the conclusion he was more responsible for them making safely the corner than Max. For the exactly reason of not being ahead despite being the

        attacker

        during the move, not the defender still ahead as his rival was. As such, no mystery on why their statement included not completing the move on the inside and failing to be on a line that would reach the apex of the corner.

        Reply moderated
      2. But yeah, I’ve partially changed my mind. The blame’s not only with Lewis for sure. Both actually had a reasonable claim of the racing line and neither wanted to back off, so it points to shared blame. But not equally shared blame, that’s when the nuances appear. It really feels a sensible decision for that incident to expect more responsibility from the assailant driver to avoid the collision. The penalty, if not such a lightweight for the final results, is justified and one shouldn’t reasonably ask more or less of it.

        Reply moderated
  21. Rodric Ewulf
    21st July 2021, 22:12

    FIA F1 race director Michael Masi underlined the view that the stewards’ objection was not whether Hamilton should have made the move in the first place, but that he didn’t execute it well enough. I.e., he was far enough alongside to attempt the pass, but by running wider than he should have done he caused an avoidable accident.

    Either the stewards don’t know how to apply the rules anymore or Allison is coming to the rescue of Lewis reputation twisting the rules and forcing an interpretation. Which one is more likely? Such a easy question indeed.

    If you are on the inside of the corner, overtaking on the inside of the corner, then the guidance requires that you are substantially alongside. It is not required that you are ahead, it requires that you are substantially alongside as you arrive at the corner.

    Which article of sporting regulations points to that exactly? Is it so open to interpretation like this? Why didn’t the stewards considered that way? Does this stance, if exists in regulations, have preference over another one that states otherwise or it’s on the contrary and that’s the reason of the official verdict?
    It looks like a sore loser attitude, protesting for a lost cause, but I’ll be glad to see if it’s actually the case or not, if there’s a margin for such interpretations due the rules not being fully clear. I doubt it, but I don’t want to pretend that I know all stuff before actually doing it. But regardless of that as for a driver coming slightly behind having the right for the inside line doesn’t seem quite fair nor natural. How much of a car alongside other is enough? That would only lead to lack of clarity and even more convoluted rules, let alone making defense of track position inadvertently more difficult (unless it’s the real intention given that Lewis clearly showed he doesn’t quite like a serious challenge, something proved by taking Charles’ surrending of the lead as the example of an ideal on-track fight). A much more fair and simple rule is: if not even a bit ahead, go closer to the apex, dude! And stop whining.

    Allison has previously praised Hamilton’s driving as exceptionally clean, saying before the start of last season he has an “utterly unblemished record” in terms of incidents. He disagreed with the stewards’ decision to penalise him on Sunday.

    As for that, it’s only more Hamilton propaganda from a guy that works for a team more controlled by a star driver than the other way around (not that Red Bull/Verstappen relationship is so much different tbh). There’s no reason to think that a guy like Allison would be less biased than Horner, unless you’re a Mercs fan, obviously. That fanbase quarrel will never end if the rules aren’t clear enough for everybody, that’s for sure.

    1. Rodric Ewulf
      21st July 2021, 22:25

      How come did he forget the incident with Albon last year? How can a driver with more penalty points than Max (the only “aggressive” one according to some feeble minded out there) be so exceptionally clean? Is “utterly unblemished record” added only to make himself look more like a clown? Too much bias involved even though I’m unimpressed just yet. This is a lot but totally expected coming from a team like Mercedes.

      1. More than half his penalty points came from doing something explicitly allowed in the race directors notes and a quarter of them came from not knowing something that had failed to be put into the race directors notes, not all penalty points are equal!

        1. Rodric Ewulf
          22nd July 2021, 22:38

          Always finding excuses, no matter how weird they look. At least in this department Lewis fans are better than Max fans: creativity for protecting their idol to make him look infallible. Never seen someone so fiercely persecuted in the whole world of sport according to his fans!

          More than half his penalty points came from doing something explicitly allowed in the race directors notes and a quarter of them came from not knowing something that had failed to be put into the race directors notes, not all penalty points are equal

          I’d ask you to just prove it and then I’d admit you’re right and Lewis really may have more penalty points than Max by a big amount due to some judgement mistakes, but I guess it would be a tall order. Maybe one day I’d be surprised but up to now I’m just unimpressed by all this fanbase behaviour.

          Reply moderated
        2. Rodric Ewulf
          22nd July 2021, 22:46

          Of course! I just wanted to see if you can actually prove it, by the way! ;)

          Reply moderated
        3. How about you just prove how your idol got this much wronged by the stewards?

          Reply moderated
  22. RocketTankski
    21st July 2021, 22:41

    I’m a little bit surprised that there hasn’t been any mention of Verstappens crash last week? I heard that he possibly tangled with another driver or something.

    1. Yes maybe we should see what the stewards have said about it and than redo the evaluation as if we know better. We can also look at subjective team opinions that will lead to more discussion. That will keep us away from the streets for a while.

    2. Not worth mentioning. Remember back in Spain where Horner said about a bloke called Hamilton or something ‘He had a choice to get out of the way or the fence.’ Well last week this other driver chose the fence. Nice to see the same choices are available to all, no one can find fault with that.

      1. Rodric Ewulf
        22nd July 2021, 0:57

        Not saying Max was completely clean all season long including the hard racing at the start of Barcelona, but their positioning on track and the consequences of it simply are not the same to the collision caused by Lewis in Silverstone. It was explained already a thousand of times, but of course you’ll prefer to think your precious Lewis have only been robbed by the referee (like pretty much every irrational fanbase does) and the stewards are borderline racists. Sensationally dirty secret measures are being made against Lewis, because the world revolves around him, isn’t it? ;)

        1. Given Ive made it clear from the outset that Ham was at fault and deserved the punishment I can only assume you are not very bright and do not understand basic sentences. And to be fair to you, you have made it clear you do not understand what predominately means. Or perhaps you should try to respond to what posters write rather than the fantasy world you seem to reside in? Although I do notice you regularly reply to your own posts. Which seems a bit odd.

          So to sum up, Ham made a mistake and got a penalty, which I agreed with. But not only won’t you accept what the stewards say; or the punishment given, you want this particular driver treated differently and punishments not in the current regulations to be imposed. And somewhere in all of that there is some racism? I’ll leave it up to you to decide where the racism lies.

          1. Given Ive made it clear from the outset that Ham was at fault and deserved the punishment I can only assume you are not very bright and do not understand basic sentences.

            Really? I think you’ve changed your opinion or just hadn’t been clear enough in your posts. As you tried to highlight Max’s blame since the beginning, pointing the finger on him but not on Lewis. If you see my posts I left it clear since the beginning it was shared blame, but not equally shared like the stewards concluded. But how could I write so many comments that you failed to read and still do not understand basic sentences? Stupid conclusion.

            Or perhaps you should try to respond to what posters write rather than the fantasy world you seem to reside in?

            I won’t do like you guys usually does and stoping reading in the derogatory remark, but that one really lacked creativity I’d say.

            Although I do notice you regularly reply to your own posts. Which seems a bit odd.

            Bummer! Keith forgot to put an edit button so I have to chat with myself when I forgot to add something. How silly I look. You can laugh on me at loud! HAHAha…

            So to sum up, Ham made a mistake and got a penalty, which I agreed with. But not only won’t you accept what the stewards say; or the punishment given, you want this particular driver treated differently and punishments not in the current regulations to be imposed.

            Still you failed to proper explain why. I’ve plenty of long comments with the reasons why I think the stewards decision was spot on. But as I know making you go back there is tiresome, could you elaborate more on why you feel things rather than just shouting at loud without explanation?

            And somewhere in all of that there is some racism? I’ll leave it up to you to decide where the racism lies.

            If you didn’t fit on that box, congratulations! But plenty of commentators on this site felt it was the reason behind Horner complaints and stewards decision, while calling others hysterical! You can see how amusing it is.

  23. Lewis previous points aren’t for racing incidents involving another car. The two he had previous to Silverstone were for entering a closed pitlane under the safety car at Monza. He’s also had points the year before that for practice starts in the pitlane in Sochi.

    So no his points are not usually for contact during races with another driver. And so no you can’t assume penalty points on a drivers license relate to how they race on the track.

    Reply moderated
  24. Laughable and predictable from Allison. First of all to admit that that they felt the need between the crash and the restart to go and tell the stewards how to do their jobs, and then to tell us what we already knew. Nobody has argued LH wasn’t alongside enough to warrant being left room. Max did that. Nobody has argued he ‘had’ to cede either, like it was in the rule book. But it was obviously the better option for he didn’t control his car and he hit Max. Allison wants us to believe Max hit LH, but somehow, in spite of them reminding the stewards how to do their job, they investigated and decided indeed LH hit Max. And surely if LH didn’t ‘have’ to cede, then neither did Max. Allison of course skips that reality.

    Again, LH has done this type of thing many times. Except of course he usually squeezes the person to the outside, and even more forcefully makes them either cede, go off, or be hit. They can decide. He’s doing what his team and fans and usually the commentators applaud him for doing. Stamping his authority like the WDC he is. At Silverstone it was LH that had to cede or hit Max, and he chose to be stubborn, just as he counts on others not being stubborn but rather ceding or going off when he forces them outside, btw usually claiming understeer.

    Bottom line for me…Max has the high road in this, and this season. Max is the one making the fewer costly mistakes, Max has the lead still, and LH is the one with egg on his face with his mistakes, and their desperate attempts to offset RBR via their alleged high rake advantage, or their wings, or their tire pressures, or their upgraded PU, and now LH’s desperate stubborn penalized move that has been called what was his last chance to get by Max at Silverstone.

  25. Mercedes seemed all prepped for a crash with video’s and emails ready at the go. Sounds to me like they were anticipating this outcome. Sounds to me like they even planned and premeditated this incident. They are thorough. The boys at Mercedes. They are in it to win it. They would have looked at all of the best places to look for an over take with the best possible outcome. This is serious business. If Allison wants to lay out the ground rules for taking out an opponent then he has done a good job. Hamilton was never making the corner on that trajectory without drastic off line braking and diversion once in the corner. Never. Hence the outcome was huge serves of under steer in to his opponent. It can not be denied. Max left room. Lewis did not leave enough space. Look at the acres of land Hamilton had to his right. Lewis did not even clip the inside curb. He headed west. You know – to the left. Into Verstapppen. You can not deny this. It’s a fact. With such force it ripped Verstappen’s back wheel off. You can not deny this. Verstappen was on the racing line. Draw some pretty lines on a board and you will see the same. Verstappen has total license to take Lewis out in the same manner Lewis did at the next available opportunity. Max can under steer into Lewis at will on any corner. Lewis will have to give up all corners. :-) It may cost ten seconds to Verstappen but ooh – ouch. Family guy hurt leg scene. Don’t do A Lewis. Other drivers lives matter.

  26. Can Red Bull do a Grease Lightning flames theme on the yellow parts of the car coming races? Will Max wear a neck brace and body brace to the coming pre-race press interview and his helmet just in case Lewis is there? Have Red Bull studied all of the best places on the coming tracks for any under steer best model outcome over takes that are smashing? Has the front suspension been reinforced on Max’s Red Bull? Which race will it happen? Which corner? How can Lewis live this one down? Time to own up or live with it. All Lewis has to say is “yea, I went in too hot.” That’s it. Hence the penalty. How hard it that? Driving a car at the edge fully loaded? Bad out come especially for one. Own it Lewis. It still worked out did it not? Ooh look everyone a racing driver over doing it and going into a corner too hot and taking some one out. Never happens. It happens. Lewis Hamilton did it. Very naughty. So he is on notice to behave. That is it. Where is Lewis Hamilton’s PR team? Ooh look everyone Lewis Hamilton the top line competitor went for it and over did it. It happens. Own it.

  27. “Lewis definitely was substantially alongside – he had his front axle well beyond the midpoint of Verstappen’s car,” Allison added.

    But he forgets to mention there was 1 meter left on the right side to the white line. LH was “able” to use that part of the track when he was overtaking Leclerc.

    1. @denis1304 So he commits to his line and then he somehow has to actually make a tighter line. How on earth is that going to work? They are at the limit exceeding the limit is not an option.

      The point is that the guideline says that Hamilton had the rights to the racing line through the corner and Verstappen needs to leave him space for his line and Verstappen had a lot of space to his right. If he didn’t have space he would need to ceded the position.

      As long as Hamilton makes it through the corner he’s fine. There is nowhere that says that he has to follow an exactly predetermined line. Which is daft since he’s coming in from a squeezed inside position. Of course he will be driving a different line.

      Apart from the fact that Hamilton didn’t drive over that kerb when he was alone either. Only after he was penalized for not hitting the kerb did he explicitly go over it to show that he could when overtaking Leclerc.

      1. People spending the last two years making excuses for Max’s mistakes, aggression and overdriving as he doesn’t have the best car on the grid now bewildered and upset about a driver who doesn’t have the best car on the grid making mistakes, showing some aggression and overdriving it.

      2. Car have a brake or they can lift their foot off the accelerator paddle

  28. The punishment according to historical Lewis wasn’t harsh enough.
    In his own words he should have been black flagged:

    “Ultimately, when someone destroys your race through an error and it’s kind of a tap on the hand really – they’re allowed to come back and still finish ahead of that person he took out – it doesn’t weigh up. You shouldn’t really be able to finish ahead of him if you took him out of the race.”

    Lewis Hamilton – French GP 2018.

    Reply moderated
    1. So where’s a certain journalist to say his words are coming back to haunt him? Nowhere to be seen, unsurprisingly.

      Reply moderated
  29. Here is Verstappen hitting the apex during an overtake on Leclerc:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABKY6nbKIL4

    In that case you might indeed argue he ran into Leclerc on purpose since he did manage to leave Leclerc space on the outside the lap before.

    1. Just because Max didn’t get penalty for that 2019 move doesn’t mean he wouldn’t get it in 2021. It’s exactly a type of a move that is getting punished now.

    2. No harsh decision at all is applying penalty on the attacking driver if the attacker’s front axle is ahead of the defender’s rear axle and the two cars are approximately halfway alongside, considering he will be chiefly the cause of the collision and hadn’t come not even close to complete the move. If they were fully alongside, then the defender would be the one mostly to blame, or even the only one to blame depending on the incident (like closing the door too late on an opponent when already lagging behind). If the assailant driver fails to be half car alongside the rival, however, here’s another situation in which one driver is wholly to blame for the incident.

      Reply moderated
  30. What a load of garbage. He “made the corner” cos he hit another car. Thanks for the incredibly biased opinion, not just because of where he works, but where he’s from.

    Reply moderated
  31. How can a penalty with which you still finish 1st be deemed harsh?

    1. Because they are two separate issues.

  32. ElizaJaneChanel
    22nd July 2021, 15:00

    Dear all, Im a not a professional racer and been as an F1 follower since 2000. As I’m noticing from year 2000 the F1 events getting more interesting and happening to alerts the public interests and getting more and more exciting great response continue as following year …. Helloooo Everyones here …. Do you want to know why ???? Because from so many generations F1 legends, not really extremely exciting… when F1 suddenly , there is a super young black hero racer Mr Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton’s, he was very determination of his racing career and keeps improving his racing skills in his racing journey . Me and the whole world whose love watching F1 racing every session will knows what’s happening and noticing the racers issues during after the tournament. As an Professional F1 Racers “.Race with Wise” and Racing withouts Hates & Racist “ and Because in previous all the legends accidents dues to prevention and technical technology not very advanced., so coz the legends racers accidents deaths . Really so sad and condolences to their family and love one’s and their children’s too . Since we have had a new bored young talented black hero champion to leads the F1 racing sports more diversity and makes all the machinery’s experts inventor successful to perform their productions to all in this planet. The Perfect FIA Official and The Main Sposor motor company already confirmed the results. The Professional Racers and Teams must respectfully and Follows. why Formula 1 Formed The F1 organisations committees and The F1 association rules and regulations guidelines. I’m appreciated some previous racers also standing up to voices up the rite for Mr Sir Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton. I’m think the F1 Committees should gives a warning to all the professional racers and teams sort the problem and issues with the head of association and pay a respect of the F1 President and The Mainsposors points of views and decisions. Don’t create issues and makes the whole world sad.. during this Covid pandemic moments. Very impressive and proud about 356,000 peoples comes to supporting the events and Proudly too to the Royalty Family , and The Priminister came along to supporting home GP Event . Blessed blessings. Tqvm for letting me sharing to all. Champ Lewis you’re 💯 per cent deserved it the trophy 🏆🇬🇧. 🤜🤛

    Reply moderated

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'.