Why Hamilton “wasn’t seen as wholly to blame” for the Verstappen crash

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The collision between championship contenders Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen at the British Grand Prix has dramatically raised the intensity in the rivalry between the pair.

Sadly, it has also brought out the worst in some Formula 1 followers. The racist comments targeted at Hamilton on social media are reprehensible, and have rightly been criticised by both teams, as well as several of their rivals.

We expect Formula 1 competitors to give no quarter both on the track and off it. That must never cross the line into racist abuse. Teams demonstrate their commitment to opposing racism before every grand prix. Those who claim to be their fans should follow their example or go find something else to occupy their time with.

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner was understandably livid following the crash. He tore into Hamilton on television and to the press.

Some have accused Horner of indirectly stoking racism with his words. This is wrong. Being a victim of racism does not exempt anyone from legitimate criticism. And let’s be very clear: It is just as wrong to accuse Mercedes of ‘playing the race card’ by objecting to the abuse Hamilton received.

Drawing a line under the most unsavoury aspect of Sunday’s collision, the pressing issue at hand is whether Red Bull are satisfied with the FIA’s reaction to it. Despite serving a 10-second penalty for the incident, Hamilton went on to win Sunday’s race. “Receiving a menial penalty [and] still winning the grand prix doesn’t feel like much of a penalty,” fumed Horner.

(Ironically, Hamilton said much the same three years earlier after his team mate Valtteri Bottas was knocked out of contention at the start of the French Grand Prix by Sebastian Vettel: “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.”)

In the language of the stewards, if a collision is considered entirely the fault of one driver, they are described as being “wholly” responsible. In this case, the stewards deemed Hamilton “predominantly” to blame for Sunday’s crash. This explains why he didn’t receive a more severe sanction, such as a drive-through or 10-second stop-and-go penalty, either of which would surely have prevented him from winning.

But in Horner’s view, Hamilton was completely to blame for the collision. He saw it as a culmination of several risky moves by the Mercedes driver, who went on the attack after making a slightly better getaway from second on the grid from pole-winner Verstappen.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“It just felt like a desperate move for Lewis,” said Horner. “You’ve lost the start. You’ve had a go down the Wellington Straight. He started wheel-banging with Max down there.

Horner accused Hamilton of “wheel-banging with Max”
“Then to stick a wheel up the inside of Copse corner, one of the fastest corners in this world championship, a corner that’s pretty much flat out and 180 miles an hour – there’s only ever going to be one consequence from that.”

You wouldn’t expect Horner to be anything other than entirely critical of Hamilton. But each of these three points are arguably tendentious.

In their close-quarters tussle on the Wellington Straight, Verstappen moved to the left on the straight then steered back towards his rival. He is allowed to do this, but it clearly wasn’t Hamilton who was responsible for the diminishing gap between the cars.

Accusing Hamilton of “sticking a wheel up the inside of Copse corner” overlooks the fact the Mercedes was well alongside the Red Bull as they approached the corner. Far enough alongside to have earned the right to contest the corner.

“Lewis had more than half a car alongside the Max,” observed Fernando Alonso. “So in a way, Lewis could not disappear from that inside line. It’s not that you can vanish.”

But Horner wasn’t having any of this when it was put to him. “He didn’t, he ran wide into Max. I think if you look at the overhead [view] he’s run wide into the corner, he’s carried too much speed.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Hamilton’s failure to get closer to the apex of the corner was cited by the stewards as part of the reason why he was considered “predominantly” responsible for the collision. “Car 44 [Hamilton] was on a line that did not reach the apex of the corner, with room available to the inside,” they noted.

But this does not change the fact Hamilton was far enough alongside Verstappen to have earned the right to stay there as they turned in. “Cars 33 [Verstappen] and 44 entered turn nine with car 33 in the lead and car 44 slightly behind and on the inside” noted the stewards. This does not bear out Horner’s claim Hamilton “stuck a wheel up the inside”.

Horner’s insistence “there’s only ever going to be one consequence” from Hamilton’s move at Copse also doesn’t square with his successful pass on Charles Leclerc at the same corner later in the race.

Fernando Alonso, Alpine, Red Bull Ring, 2021
Report: Alonso, Leclerc and Bottas consider Hamilton-Verstappen crash a racing incident
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.

“The big part was similar to what happened with Charles later on,” said Masi in response to a question from RaceFans. “He could have stayed tucked in closer to the apex, and that was where they found that – I think the wording was quite clear as per the regulations – that he was ‘predominantly to blame’.

“He wasn’t seen as wholly to blame for it but seen as predominantly to blame. He could have tucked in further and that may have changed the outcome, but we don’t know, we judge it on the incident itself.”

Horner’s eye-popping fury at Hamilton’s actions are easy to understand. The crash could easily cost the team a seven-figure sum at a time when its expenditure is tightly limited by the budget cap.

What’s more, while Hamilton doesn’t exactly have a lengthy rap sheet, his recent incidents have largely involved Horner’s cars. He tipped Alexander Albon into spins at Brazil in 2019 and Austria in 2020 and on both occasions scored points after knocking a Red Bull off.

Report: FIA unmoved as Horner calls Mercedes’ lobbying of stewards “unacceptable”
Red Bull are known to have engaged a lawyer to examine the incident and consider whether they have grounds to ask the FIA to review it. In order to proceed with that, they must find compelling new evidence. There are reports of telemetry data from Hamilton’s car allegedly indicating he carried excessive speed into the corner, though that will be a tricky case to argue, as he was heading into the bend off-line with a maximum fuel load.

Horner’s verdict on a similar incident involving one of his own drivers at the same track last year may also come back to haunt him. Albon knocked Kevin Magnussen out of last year British Grand Prix at Club.

“For me that was a racing incident,” said Horner. “If you look at it from the beginning, Kevin made a mistake, he got out wide, Alex put his nose in there and then he sort of backed out of it a little bit. It was one of those things.”

The stewards made it clear they didn’t consider Hamilton entirely at fault for Sunday’s collision. But Red Bull obviously think otherwise, and may seek to prove it.

Will they? That’s a question of whether they believe their own rhetoric, and have the evidence to back it up.

Note the main image is from Farm, not Copse, and does not show the moment before impact

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

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

239 comments on “Why Hamilton “wasn’t seen as wholly to blame” for the Verstappen crash”

  1. There are reports of telemetry data from Hamilton’s car allegedly indicating he carried excessive speed into the corner,

    Yeah OK that’s going to be very difficult to show it was on the first lap both cars had already touched a few times. Hamilton may have missed the apex but he made the corner. It was not as if Hamilton went shooting straight ahead out of control.
    Both cars were on the limit neither driver were giving any ground, they are fighting for the WDC. It was a racing incident as far as I’m concerned, Horner and Marko should stop throwing fuel on the fire.

    1. Totally agree. As do most drivers and pundits. I think equally crucial are the other two incidents involving Lewis and Max that weekend. In Saturday’s Sprint Hamilton was alongside Max going into Copse but this time on the outside. It was almost identical, except Lewis was on the outside. Max went in too hot and Lewis had to bail out or be rammed by Max. Plus other drivers have overtaken into Copse through the years so its not like its impossible. At the start of the race, Max was too aggressive too. He cut back in front of Lewis after turn 1 and touched his front wing. Honestly, he’s lucky not to suffer a sidewall puncture there.

      Max has a long history of being overly aggressive in defending. His collision with Ricciardo in Baku a few years ago was arguably more dangerous as they were going even faster. They were lucky to be going in a straight line and scrubbing off speed in the braking zone or it would have been an airplane crash. They even had to change the rule book to stop him moving in the braking zone when he first got into F1. Banking on the other driver backing out of it or having a crash isnt good defending, its dangerous. There’s a fine line between hard, but fair, and aggressive and Max regularly crosses it.

    2. Agreed. This article is the most neutral unbiased I read.

      Reply moderated
    3. @johnrkh

      He made the corner by going entirely to the outside of the track, which means that he would have hit Max along the way.

      ‘Making the corner’ when being side by side means using the available space to corner. The other car won’t just disappear when a driver needs more than that

      1. @aapje

        https://f1share.page.link/Q4wF3AuHtnwCgso56

        Overtaking car on the inside, making contact and pushing the leading car off the track.

        Side by side, not leaving enough room for the other driver to stay on track.

        Why was there no penalty?

        Why was this acceptable but Hamilton’s attempt not?

        1. @gumbidave

          That is in the exit of the corner and Max was fully alongside when doing it.

          A driver on the inside has always had the right to push their competition out on the exit if they are equal or ahead.

          That is not comparable to contact before the apex.

      2. Max had no problem taking to the run off area at turn one did he? I presume he woukd be fine going off line at Copse.

    4. @johnrkh He only made the corner after the collision and his subsequent lifting slowed him from over 300 km/h to 200 km/h. If he’d stayed flat out, with the aero wash from Max’s car beside him, would he have still made it without lifting? That’s not obvious to me.

    5. @johnrkh Horner and Marko have quite strongly indicated that whipping up their fans is a deliberate tactic to put both Liberty Media and the FIA under political and economic pressure for their own agenda. The latest tactic from Marko now seems to be to threaten legal action against the stewards and the FIA, with his statements aiming to stir up a sense of righteous indignation amongst Max’s fans.

      It’s a potentially dangerous situation, as it feels as if they are aiming to stir up a tribalistic mentality that is more akin to football hooliganism – I just hope that this strategy does not end up with the sort of level of violence that is associated with that hooliganism.

      Too many in the press seem eager to egg this on as well – basically, it seems that a desire to generate more clicks and ad revenue seems to be making few question whether it really is wise to keep inflaming the situation when it threatens to get out of hand.

      1. Lewis has hit a rear wheel of a Red Bull with his front wheel, leading to a no-score of the Red Bull driver, for the 4th year in succession. (Bahrain 2018, Brazil 2019, Austria 2020, England 2021).

        Show me when Max did exactly that to a Mercedes driver, or to anyone at all for that matter. You can’t!
        One side is misbehaving, not the other.
        Sorry to pop your bubble.

        1. This is what bothers me when people say that Lewis was ‘alongside’ Max. For his front wheel to be hitting Max’s rear wheel kind of suggests that he was not alongside. I still call it a racing incident, between two top drivers both driving very aggressively, as they should be with a World Title on the line. I want to see them fighting. But I think Lewis was more to blame than Max in this case.

          1. do you even know racing?

            max drifted left and carried the normal quali like speed because of which he got a bit further ahead to hv that collision. If he had any sense, he would hv given more room.

        2. I am astonished that you have such a short memory and have forgotten all of Max’s previous antics. China and Suzuka 2018 Max vs Seb (Lets stick it up the inside and see what happens). Did you forget this one. Bahrain 2018 Max vs Lewis (Let me push the other guy off the track and pretend he is not there). Did you also forget this one. What about all the times the guy was chinned for moving under braking. I have many more but have got bored. Fact is Max is overly aggressive and I for one do not blame Lewis for doing what he did because if he did not the bully that is Max would have just kept on increasing in his aggression knowing Lewis will back out everytime. I believe Max will think twice next time he is wheel to wheel with Lewis.

        3. Bart, your response is basically proving the very point that I was making about Red Bull whipping up the fans into the mentality that “anybody who doesn’t support us is an enemy” by proceeding to complain that I am not supporting Red Bull and then attacking me for that reason.

          That is the dangerous mentality that I was referring to – the antagonism that comes from a perception that, as soon as you feel somebody is not part of your “tribe”, you must attack them and continue attacking them, until you have forgotten the original reason why and just do it because that is what you always do. It is not to say that others aren’t also guilty of the same behaviour, but Red Bull’s current media tactics are exacerbating that problem.

        4. We can only show the times that Mercedes have had to take evasive action to avoid the multiple collisions with Crashtappen over the years. The guy, barges, lunges and chops other cars like its karate not F1. So please stop the Hypocrisy

          Reply moderated
    6. @johnrkh

      Even if they go through the telemetry data and find out that Lewis was carrying more speed and would have bumped in to Max anyways, I don’t see how it will solve for anything. Lewis already got penalised for the incident with a penalty deserving of a driver who made an aggressive move and caused a collision. It’s unfortunate that Max had to bear the brunt of the move, but these incidents happen all the time. I don’t see the FIA changing the penalty only because this incident will have an impact on the WDC and WCC. At the end of the day, whether Russell in the Williams caused a collision or Lewis caused a similar collision, the penalty given should be the same for the same infringement.

      I really don’t understand what Horner is trying to prove here. He needs to stop whinging and just get on with it.

  2. Oh good – here we go again – we have the official viewpoint and no matter what anyone says that will be the final verdict. I am a fan of neither driver just to be clear, I am a fan of the sport.

    1. Red Bull’s race strategy: if we can’t beat you on the race track we’ll do it in court.

      1. It’s a bit difficult beating your opponent on track after he has punted you into the barriers.

        1. Is that why RB favour Max doing get out of the way or crash moves as bragged about by Horner at Spain, in DTS, etc? If so, thankfully Ham has finally employed that tactic, as its Max who just needs to stay out of trouble to walk of with a WDC this year.

          1. exactly,

            Actually that is what we have seen from LH all along.. he always keeps the buig picture in mind.. if that means P2 then so be it.. max never yields an inch, even if it means crashing, himself or the other driver.

            its just that this time it was him at the losing end.. everytime he is used to others giving up.. not this time.
            may be next time it will be LH in the barriers.. but i believe someone had to bell that cat named max..

          2. I read a lot of references to Spain. I guess it’s the race start first corner thing? If that is seen as aggressive from Max then I wouldn’t know why people watch this sport in the first place. First of all, Max is already in front of Lewis at corner entry (as Lewis was clearly never in the copse scenario). And secondly, Max is on the kerb as far right as possible (whereas Lewis chose not to leave more space and position himself away from the kerb – I know that this strategy is allowed and 99% luckily only used in slow corners, but you really have to be ahead to do this properly, or you’ll get a penalty like Lewis did).
            I don’t understand why people are not pleased with a driver that can race on the next level. Do we prefer processional drs overtakes? Or do we just want everyone to not challenge Lewis? Lewis is certainly a driver that can be up there on that level as well (he’s just rusty since he always leads from the front and hardly does any battling against competitive cars) Charles and Lando are already imho. But then again these youngsters did get a fair share in practicing in the midfield.

        2. According to the onboard, and the steward’s decision, Max turned in on Hamilton. How is that Hamilton punting Max off the track?

          1. This is getting beyond ridicilous. The race knowledge of most here is about history and not actual race skill or kraft. Please stop. At some point Max had to steer right to male the corner, it was a right hander. This is basics people. The defence of Lewis is ridiculous. If you admit he made a mistake it really doesnt take away his shine. A person doesnt have to be flawless to be liked. Lewis is great, dont worry guys. He just made an error of judgement

    2. @ahxshades I almost entirely agree with you here. I am supporting Verstappen, but that is more out of a hope of a close championship fight than anything else. The official outcome is the official outcome and is highly unlikely to be changed. History shows that it hardly ever works…

  3. I think this is definitely one of the most justifiably balanced views of this subject. There has been far too much heat in this debate, and I, for one, think the stewards got this decision bang on. Lewis got lucky because of the red flag and lack of unfixable damage, but I don’t think he was in any way lucky (or unlucky) with the decision that was made.

    Reply moderated
  4. What didnt helped was duo in charge of RBR stoking flames.

    1. Exactly, even though Horner hasn’t made any racist remarks directly the foul language coming out of him paint Hamilton as some sort of assassin. This enrages the fanbase and a atmosphere of hatred provokes such underbelly sentiments to come out.

      In reality Hamilton made a far attempt at an overtake at a place where many overtakes have happened in the past (and even two more without incident during the same race) and at worst he went a meter wide.

      I’d say that doesn’t even warrant a penalty and the same verdict of racing incident could have been applied as pretty much all F1 drivers and pundits agreed and the 2018 stewards also applied for Sainz vs Grosjean.

      So why the daft hysterics? Does he really believe his own hyperbole or is he doing this on purpose. Nit sure which is worse.

      1. I agree with this. There was a severe lack of awareness (or just plain ignorance) from RBR in their disproportionate criticism of Hamilton. Yes, tempers run high, but look at the context: not one week earlier 3 sports stars had suffered exactly the same issue in the same country, which was widely publicised so they have no excuse not to be aware (not that this should change anything). Not saying you can’t criticise the black guy, but maybe you should think for a second about whether that criticism was really warranted, and the implications of being so vocal just because you’re a bit angry.

        Reply moderated
        1. Treating a black guy differently in fear of racists is racist in itself.

          There is no reason whatsoever to treat people differently because of the color of their skin.

          1. What’s being said is that when you make unfair and false criticism of someone, by lying (on the topic of overtaking at copse) and misleading appeals to emotion (he put Max in hospital, unsportsmanlike to celebrate while max is in hospital) then you are to blame for the reaction to those lies.

            If you choose someone who is vulnerable in some way – and in a sport where racists exist, being a minority race is a type of vulnerability- in much the same way that Max is vulnerable due to the actions of his abusive father, and is now falsely getting tarred as an abusive person, or when we had a woman driving in the sport, she was vulnerable because sexism is also there (though it’s worse now than it was then) – if you lie about a person and their vulnerability is attacked as a direct result of your lies – then yes, it’s worse than if you did the same thing against someone else.

            We’re not talking about fair criticism, which no, no-one gets a pass from. We’re talking about blatant, cynical, profit driven false attacks on a person.

      2. I have a suspicion Red Bull may have gone all-in on winning both championships and hope they’re doing just enough to not completely blow 2022 which is still a bit of an unknown. After so many years of Merc domination and a great start to the season, maybe they doubled down only to see their advantage and a huge chunk of budget go out the window in half a lap. If so, i understand Horner’s frustration and get some of his hypocrisy in the heat of the moment, but someone in his position should be able to conduct themselves appropriately without the diatribe or disingenuity – leave that sort of thing to politicians…

      3. @f1osaurus
        Red Bull are merely playing the same games that Mercedes were after Silverstone 2018, when both Hamilton and Wolff accused Raikkonen of being a cheater. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

      4. @f1osaurus

        even though Horner hasn’t made any racist remarks directly

        You clearly see every criticism of Lewis as racist. What a shameful comment.

        1. @aapje Sigh. I say he creates an atmosphere of hate.

          You even posting on a forum about F1 is what is shameful. Or posting anywhere I guess.

          1. @f1osaurus

            Fortunately, it is not the decision of racists like you where I post.

      5. Rodric Ewulf
        22nd July 2021, 0:16

        @f1osaurus 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. Hamilton had the line since he was at least halfway up alongside Verstappen. After that Verstappen needs to make space or even cede the position.

          That’s how overtaking has always worked. There is nothing in there on needing to hit the apex, because when squeezed on the inside the standard apex is not the ideal racing line anymore. As long as Hamilton makes the corner he is fine. He did and he should not have gotten a penalty.

          Only when the inside line driver really goes nuts and purposefully doesn’t turn in like Rosberg did in Hockenheim and Austria 2016.

          1. This is a laughable response.

            Regarding making space, Verstappen did that – there was room for Hamilton, had he been at the apex rather than understeering wide.

            Regarding not needing to hit the apex, we’ve seen numerous incidents over the years where a driver on the inside has understeered into one on the outside, and then been penalised for causing a collision. Pretty sure I’ve never seen a penalty for the driver on the outside when they’ve left enough room for a car at the apex on the inside.

            Regarding Hamilton making the corner, I note that he only just barely managed it; had anyone been alongside, then they’d have been forced off the track – something in itself that can get you a penalty.

            I don’t see anything malicious in what happened, just a surprisingly clumsy mistake that clearly deserved a penalty. Given it took another driver out of the race, I personally think it should have been more but by the rulebook it’s about right.

        2. Jean-Christophe
          24th July 2021, 14:55

          How do you hit the apex if you’re purposely squeezed against the wall on the straight? Max Did that so that Lewis couldn’t make the corner. To Max’s fans, his actions are always justified. Racing elbows out and forcing other drivers to choose between backing down or crashing is acceptable. Bullying is great racing. Well, it was high time someone refused to yield.

      6. Exactly, even though Horner hasn’t made any racist remarks directly….

        Oh come on, that’s a ridiculous statement and the implication is slanderous.

        Reply moderated
    2. I guess the RBR initiative from now on will be to appeal to the FIA for ‘No Overtaking’ signs, ‘No Racing’ signs and ‘Single File Only’ signs at the most appropriate places on the race circuits of the world. After all Formula 1 is no longer about pure adrenaline fueled competition between extreme athletes but more about providing a platform for advertising and the huge revenues. You can’t advertise if your car is blocked by a passing car nor if it’s under cover following an accident. The rhetoric issuing forth from Horner was incitement to violence in my book. Had Hamilton not backed out and had Verstappen given him a few more inches of space and they carried on they would have been praised for the peerless drivers that they are.

      Mika Hakkinen, among other real racing drivers, stated that it was a racing incident; operative word, racing! I suggest Hakkinen’s racing judgement is potentially superior to Horner’s. Horner and Marko want to win minus any close competition. I guess that a neutered, watered down, politically correctified (is this a word?), sterilised Formula 1 suits them but it will certainly drive away the fans. Oh and don’t those fans look at the advertising that pays for them to ‘race’ cars? I hope that we will never see ‘No Overtaking’ at any corners ever.

      Reply moderated
    3. Marko, Jos and Horner together is a bad combination, Verstappen’s unfortunate he doesn’t have someone of Laudas ilk to offer advice. If Max had left more room than normal for Lewis and decided to just make it round the corner instead of making sure he closes the door a little more too he’d have won the corner and been away for a race win. Lewis ceded the corner, albeit it late, all Max had to do was make it round, instead he chose to carry the aggression through the corner. What I find funny is if the roles were reversed, Hamilton would have given space at the corner, and until Max learns that he’ll keep making mistakes. Hoping LeClerc and the rest start standing up to him and then he can either show us his greatness by adapting his driving style or fail, either is still possible at this point.

      Reply moderated
  5. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
    21st July 2021, 13:44

    If retrospectively and days after the event a result can be over turned how far back will any team go?

    1. It CAN happen, I guess @andyfromsandy, but VERY unlikely to succeed.

      1. @bascb I think you’re right. If RB have any sense, and I say that as a McLaren fan supporting RB in the main championship fight, they won’t follow this through.

        Ferrari tried after Canada in 2019, and gave up because they realised just how hopeless their case was. Alfa Romeo tried after Imola this year, but didn’t succeed because they were trying to argue that a different rule should have applied to the one written in the regs. It was a stupid rule, but it isn’t isn’t stewards job to re-write the rules.

        @andyfromsandy I think there is some kind of Statute of Limitations involved. I seem to remember from the Vettel case in Canada that they issue an intent to protest within 14 days of the incident.

  6. This explains why he didn’t receive a more severe sanction, such as a drive-through or 10-second stop-and-go penalty, either of which would surely have prevented him from winning.

    I’m not actually sure it would. One if the quirks of Silverstone is that the pit lane is considerably shorter, to the point that a few years ago (perhaps when the pit lane speed limit was 100mk/h), a drive-through penalty would actually be faster than following the track. It then follows that driving through the pits and stopping for 10 seconds is less of a penalty (say 8 seconds) compared to the lap of the track he would have had to do

  7. ”But this does not change the fact Hamilton was far enough alongside Verstappen to have earned the right to stay there”

    And chose to and then understeered into Verstappen. It happens. Not owning up to it delivers some raised eyebrows though, that shouldnt be a surprise. In the end I think what happened is a compliment to Max and RedBull. Before the race it was said that if RB can win here, they can win everywhere and the domination of Mercedes is over. Lewis simply ran out of options to stop it from happening and had to go for it. He knew it was lap 1 or seeing Max disappear in the distance. So as any real great driver he took a yellow card. Albeit with a somewhat harsh effect. Maybe save it for another corner would be less dangerous. I don’t think Max at the end minds a lot. He will continue to do what he is doing. I think Lewis might be relevant for us this year but in the long game he is not that interesting to Verstappens career.

    1. Davethechicken
      21st July 2021, 15:17

      Max aggressively turned in. He knew Hamilton was there but gambled he could squeeze him to the apex, with Hamilton backing out.
      It is his trade mark to defend or overtake by playing chicken. He crudely gambled Lewis would blink first.
      He was wrong. It is hardly new that the overtaking car on the inside will understeer- it happens nearly every time. Max knows that. Lewis knows that. All drivers know that. Hence the switch back exists and is often used to re pass.

      1. +1 davethechicken – Verstappen has been over aggressive and relied on Hamilton backing out twice this season already, worse of those being in Spain. Hamilton is perfectly in his right to hold his line and force Max to decide if he wants to yield. Hamilton was smart in Spain and avoided contact knowing he’d be able to beat Max on pace. Max wasn’t smart here and went full attack when he really didn’t need to. The race pace advantage he had on Saturday was incredible, all he needed to do was either race Hamilton on track or wait until the stop and undercut/over cut him. Would have been an easy win for Max, but he threw it away trying to be the tough guy. I expect he’ll dominate Hungry with a 30+ second win as that RedBull is a rocketship this year. So he’ll still go into the mid-season with a healthy points advantage while also knowing RedBull always end the year strong. He’s 100% going to be the champion for this year anyway, so I don’t understand what all the RedBull crying is for.

        1. Lewis was not smart to get out of the way in Spain. He needed to since he lost the corner already at entry. Max is already in front of Lewis at corner entry (as Lewis was clearly never in the copse scenario). And secondly, Max is on the kerb as far right as possible (whereas Lewis at copse chose not to leave more space and position himself away from the kerb – I know that this strategy is allowed and 99% luckily only used in slow corners, but you really have to be ahead to do this properly, or you’ll get a penalty like Lewis did).
          I don’t understand why people are not pleased with a driver that can race on the next level. Do we prefer processional drs overtakes? Or do we just want everyone to not challenge Lewis? Lewis is certainly a driver that can be up there on that level as well (he’s just rusty since he always leads from the front and hardly does any battling against competitive cars) Charles and Lando are already imho. But then again these youngsters did get a fair share of practicing in the midfield.

        2. Rodric Ewulf
          22nd July 2021, 1:14

          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. Here why it was worthy of penalty and the Barcelona clash was not:
          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. 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.”

      2. Not a racer yourself I see. Your story is fine, when it is a slow corner

        1. Exactly, since it’s such a high speed corner, Verstappen should have left more space as it was on him to leave Hamilton space through the corner after Hamilton earned the line by being more than halfway up alongside. The risks are just too great to cut it so fine in a high speed corner. He knew Hamilton would not take the “normal” racing line after squeezing him into the wall while entering the corner.

    2. @Mayrton:
      On the flip side, it could also be that Max wouldn’t win a WDC as long as Lewis is in F1?!
      But I think you are right in the sense that Lewis will be retiring soon, most probably after his new 2-year contract runs out, and then Max will have his WDC, depending on whether he can’t beat Leclerc in a resurgent Ferrari, Norris in a competitive McLaren and Russel in a Mercedes!

      1. Or he could listen to the advice he got from Ham re Ocon. Why pick a fight when you don’t need to win it? He could just stroll to the WDC this year, and come in a safe second on the odd occasion that the Merc is on a par with the RB.

        1. This leads to my criticism Horner. He either completely blind to any perspective beyond his own, or he is completely insincere.

          But beyond that it is his job to manage Verstappen. He should be trying to calm Verstappenand get him to take the long view of the season. He simply shouldn’t be having high speed crashes with a car that strong. This is just like that silly incident in Brazil with Ocon.

          And while Horner couldn’t be blamed for saying a few things publicly, his absurd over the top nonsense won’t help Red Bull.

        2. You are right. Why pick a fight when you don’t need to win it. But then you have to firstly see the car actually make a legitimate attempt (of the kind that is not penalised afterwards). I think Max simply overestimated Lewis skill level in that corner.

      2. i think max will win the wdc this season.
        hopefully tho,lewis will still put up a good fight.
        i just think that redbull is currently a better car,especially with max in it.
        we’ll see what kind of performance difference there is on the next race weekend.
        i think toto said merc still have some new upgrades coming,,but im sure redbull do too.

    3. Unless Max beats Lewis records there will always be the argument he isn’t as good so yes, Lewis will be very “interesting” to Max career! Young Max has a Loooooong way to go to even be mentioned in the same breath as Lewis and his achievements. Maybe he will beat Lewis records? regardless, Lewis is going to be mentioned over and over again during Maxs career.

      1. Records don’t mean a thing when one remembers a race driver. That’s why people talk more about Senna than Schumacher for instance. People know the circumstances these records were achieved. Lewis is an incredible racing driver and on merit 3 or 4 WDC would be fair. But we have all seen the longest dominance streak ever. We are not that ignorant.

    4. Coventry Climax
      22nd July 2021, 15:21

      “Accusing Hamilton of “sticking a wheel up the inside of Copse corner” overlooks the fact the Mercedes was well alongside the Red Bull as they approached the corner. Far enough alongside to have earned the right to contest the corner.”
      Then explain to me how Hamiltons front left hit Verstappens right rear.

      “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.”
      This is the usual Masi nonsense. “He caused an avoidable accident” are the last words, but he wasn’t penalized accordingly.

      I think the stewards should have taken into account what Horner pointed out, that it was the fastest corner of the whole season. Making an ill executed move there is cause for a severe penalty, also because it is very ill judgement -and hopefully nothing more- of the 7-time World Champion, he should have known better.

      Makes me wonder, as it should have the stewards; So mr. Hamilton, white lives don’t matter?

  8. For me the problem is this ruling about having a proportion of the car alongside and entitled to space. This al very much depends on the corner and speed and type of circuit you are on so there are a boat load of factors. In Azerbajan Dan Ticktum tried to go 3 cars wide into turn 4 and caused a crash, he was penalised because his actions led to the 2 others having nowhere to go. Ticktum had already seen the driver he was slip streaming draw alongside the car in fron of them but he still felt that gong up the inside entitled him to space. The simple fact was 3 cars around a 90degree corner isnt going to work, 2 isnt going to work either (not unless both reduce speed). Its this thats the key, F1 follows the laws of physics like the whole world does. the optimum line through a corner is out-apex-out. If you are trying to go in-apex-out you have to sacrifice speed to make the corner or run wide. if you go in-apex-in then the speed reduces further to make the corner. If you want to say to drivers “go up the inside” thats fine but there must be some recognition that at xxmph the cornering is not going to yield the same position on the track as the optimum line. Yes space should be given to the driver on the inside but they have the responsibility to know that by reducing the angle into the corner they do not have the same position as they would normally have on exit. These are world class drivers and they know this so why they think that each other can just “vanish” is beyond me. The FIA and Stewards need to remember that just because someone is on the inside can the driver actually make the corner? Had copse been on a street circuit with a steel/concrete barrier on the outside and zero run off, would you have still take the exact same line and speed into that corner?

    1. Davethechicken
      21st July 2021, 15:25

      One much used counter for the defending car is to let the passing car understeer, then switch back and repass on corner exit, by getting the throttle down earlier.
      Of course both lewis and Max knew he would be at risk of understeer. Max gambled Lewis would brake, it was a losing bet.

    2. Coventry Climax
      22nd July 2021, 15:30

      Which is exactly why I don’t trust the Mazi Mob. They’re either a bunch of amateurs or they’re experts in talking right what’s wrong, to suit the ‘show’. I do not doubt that Hamilton knew very well that it would go wrong, he just took that 50/50 risk, and came out lucky.

  9. Nice article Keith, hopefully Masi’s statement will someway help in putting the incident to bed, I remember watching the Horner interview about banging wheels on Wellington and putting a wheel up the inside and thinking He’s making this up as He goes along.
    I’ve watched the incident multiple times with side by side in car views in slow mo and still think its a racing incident. I remember the fury I felt after Spa 2008 and quickly came to realise that when things like this happen you have to just ‘let it go’.

    1. Coventry Climax
      22nd July 2021, 15:41

      “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.”

      Read the last 5 words of this quote again, please. How is this different from ‘causing a collision’?

      And the doubtful part exactly is, that the stewards SHOULD have objected to Hamilton making that move, there, in the first place, while knowing very well it would go wrong. He gambled and won, but doing it there is gambling with lives, which should have been severely punished.

      Nothing Masi, so far, has ever said, has lessened the controversy of his decisions, so don’t expect everyone to ‘put this to bed’.

  10. No surprise if they decide to ask further investigation, given that’s how Red Bull’s attitude has always been. Plus, that picture on the headings, I’ll be surprised if someone believed that was the entry into Copse. That background does not even come close to the old start/finish straight.

    1. You can tell it isn’t the incident because Lewis was further alongside when he bailed out.

    2. @krichelle This isn’t just an RB thing. Yes they’re are being stupid here, but Ferrari did it for the incident at Canada in 2019, and even got as far as asking for a re-hearing before realising how hopeless their case was. And then there was Alfa Romeo’s case brought up at Portimao about Raikonnen’s penalty in Imola, where they were essentially trying to argue that the rules were wrong and a different rule should have been used. It was a stupid rule no doubt, but it isn’t the stewards’ case to re-write the rules (that would be legislation by judiciary or whatever Americans call it). I mean even Mercedes were apparently considering protesting RB’s rear wing even after the stricter checks seemed to make no difference.

      I think it would be better to say that this is all the teams’ attitude.

  11. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    21st July 2021, 13:58

    This article really does go into a lot of detail exempting Hamilton of any blame and making Red Bull & Verstappen appear enormously unreasonable.

    1. Sorry, were we reading the same article? I’m sure Hamilton was mentioned as being “predominantly to blame” about three times and the article seeks to explain what blame he carries and the much lighter burden of blame for Max.

    2. @tallen
      I read it the same way

      as it is written, people can interpret it differently, that’s always difficult, but I have the same intepretation as @rocketpanda

  12. Can we move on? What sucks is that the whole thing detracts from the real issue of that week-end: the sprint race and how useless it was.

    1. @ldom Maybe that’s on purpose too?

    2. @ldom

      I certainly wouldn’t say useless. Being at the track, it provided action on every day, and much more on-track action than a normal format weekend does. Normally, FP1-3 are fairly quiet, so from an F1 point of view there is virtually nothing happening until Saturday afternoon. Not this time: Both FPs were packed with stuff happening, Friday evening had Qually, and Saturday afternoon had the Sprint Race. It is very telling that most tracks are clamouring to run this format next year.

      Now of course, none of this addresses the fact that the Sprint Race was mostly a procession, pretty much in the same way that most of most races are processions. However, the different format was far from useless.

      1. @drmouse Yes, maybe useless isn’t the right term.

        I didn’t mind the sprint race itself, what bothers me is that it awards points, and also the extra burden for the teams if their car crashes during the sprint race + how it might influence the real race.

        1. @ldom

          I can see that, when it comes to the risks of crashing. However, the same can be said for Qually. We often see teams having to repair the car to get it out for the race after a crash in qually. F1 obviously wants more action over the weekend. More action will lead to greater risks, which is why we don’t see much action in most FPs. So, we get more action and more risk, or we don’t get more action to avoid the risk. Heck, we could just line up the cars in championship order on the grid on Sunday and avoid all the risk of Qually, too. Every car would be able to start the race without risking a crash and big repair jobs.

          As for points, I am actually with you. I don’t think it is necessary to award points. The reward for doing well is a good grid position on Sunday, and therefore a better chance of scoring more points. That said, I’m not really a fan of the fastest lap point, either, from a pure sporting PoV.

          I do think the format of the Sprint Race itself should be looked at. But the principal of having a competitive session on each of the three days with limited practice and early parc ferme is a winner in my view.

    3. Move on? I want revenge, it takes ages to reach hungary, and verstappen probably needs that too following the incident, if by any chance hungary goes well to hamilton again, it takes 2x ages to the next race!

  13. He was alongside for a brief moment because Ham broke late. Ham was not alongside on copse.
    Ham is wholly to blame.
    Braking later and on the inside, he was never not going to hit Max.
    You cannot write enough articles in order to change what happened, and use Alonso’s words to twist this, ham’s guilt does not imply this was nothing but a racing incident, nobody can say for sure Ham wanted to hit Max, perhaps Ham hedged his bets but that is the most one can say.
    Ham committed a major mistake and this mistake was not punished by an appropriate penalty. He was lucky to not dnf but is it luck when the penalty doesn’t matter?
    I’ll admit that if Ham was actually alongside, I would have completely agreed with this article.

    1. @peartree He didn’t brake “late”. It’s a flat out corner and there is no braking needed.

      Hamilton braked because he saw Verstappen turn into him and he tried to avoid the crash.

      1. when entering a corner with two wide, the one on the inside can’t go in with normal speed, because the corner isn’t as wide as normal… entry is narrower, exit as well, because he had to leave space on the outside

      2. On a low fuel load, on the racing line, Copse is flat. In a heavy car, with cold tyres and entering on the inside, it CANNOT be taken flat. That’s just basic racecraft. Hell, it’s basic physics. Obvious stuff.

        1. @inininin, agreed it’s not flat, under those conditions, but it is just a lift, no application of the brakes.

        2. @inininin You can hear Verstappen is flat out. Either way, they don’t reduce speed anymore after turn in. Hamilton dropping back is a reaction to Verstappen turning in on him, not for the corner itself.

      3. It’s a flat out corner and there is no braking needed.

        You’ve been explained already that Copse is never flat out off the the racing line; and even with a full fuel load most cars struggle when on the racing line.

        But ignoring those facts and insights seems to better serve your petulant repeating of falsehoods.

        1. Either way you think this went, they don’t brake AFTER turning in.

          You hear Verstappen is flat out though.

    2. Firstly, Hamilton is to blame for the crash and deserved a penalty (I still believe a drive through would have been more appropriate), however he didn’t brake later. In fact he braked (or eased off the throttle, this is Copse after all) earlier than Max, hence them being alongside and then at the point of contact he was much further behind. The fact he carried too much speed to make the apex I can get on board with, but you’re wrong about braking later.

      1. Davethechicken
        21st July 2021, 15:32

        Agree, if you listen to Max’s onboard he keeps the throttle planted right up to the point of collision. It would be a challenge to make the corner off the racing line with the throttle floored with full fuel load and cold tyres. But max wasn’t entitled to the racing line as Lewis was attacking and partially alongside

        1. Ludicrious comment. Hamilton was only partially alongside right at the point of entry, by virtue of carrying way too much speed into the corner. If that means the defender isn’t entitled to the racing line, everyone might as well divebomb the car in front and cry foul when they get turned in on.

          Verstappen left over a car’s width of space and Hamilton couldn’t keep his car within it. That’s just basic fact

          1. It was far from a dive bomb, and is actually a move Max has made (successfully and not) many times in the past. Hamilton may have gone in slightly too hot and picked up a little understeer, but he wan’t going to miss the apex by much, and managed to make the corner even after contact with Max.

            Max was aiming to give a car’s width, true, but only just. That’s taking a risk. If the other car picks up understeer, has a problem or makes a mistake and you’ve only just left the bare minimum space, you’re going to get hit. Even a gust of wind at the wrong time could cost you the race. That is a DNF he didn’t need to risk, finishing 2nd would still have left him a massive lead, and that’s only if he didn’t manage to pass Lewis again (which there was a good chance he could have done).

            None of this is to say that Max is to blame. However, as championship leader by a large margin, Max didn’t need to take any risks. Lewis did.

          2. Davethechicken
            21st July 2021, 16:53

            @Bonno, do explain why Max is entitled to the entire width of the track, bar one car width on the apex? Both drivers have equal entitlement. Lewis can squeeze Max too!!

          3. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            22nd July 2021, 2:26

            @inininin

            It is a little bit strange to expect racers to hold their cars within 1 car’s width as they race in a corner. I believe it’s the other driver that needs to leave 1 car’s width. In fact, Verstappen will explain to you as he did to Leclerc that you can take the entire track if you please…

          4. @inininin These are the guidelines for overtaken as given by the stewards:
            https://youtu.be/T_-NNXnV2JQ

            So when overtaking on the inside, the car needs to be halfway up on the car being overtaken at turn in.

        2. But that doesn’t happen Dave. There is a lift before the collision that is clearly audible on the onboard audio. It may not have been enough of a lift, but it was a lift nonetheless.

          1. Davethechicken
            21st July 2021, 20:13

            Yes he lifted a fraction of a second before the impact

  14. 1) The fact that you can punt an opponent out of the race and score maximum points is a serious flaw in the system.
    2) the fact that you then incurr penalties resulting in going backwards in the starting positions because the damage to the car is so serious only makes it more painful.
    3) the budget cap is another problem here…. Now Redbull had to spend a million or 2 on the new car/power unit/gearbox that goes out of the budget.

    If they can prove Hamilton was going on to fast, off line and/or didn’t do everything he could to avoid contact then in this situation a race ban would seem fairer, not even truly fair because of the 3 issues mentioned above. Max would still have to race hard and capitalize if Hamilton got a race ban… So it’s stil an advantage gained by punting Max out.

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      21st July 2021, 15:09

      At the time of the incident how could anyone know what the final result of the GP would be. For you it would mean all investigations can only take place after the race.

      In Austria Lando finished ahead of Sergio and Sergio ahead of Charles. Should that now be looked at and the result amended in some way?

      1. I heard about this opinion…
        when someone blocks another during qualifying, he gets a penalty after quali

        Should we use this systems for racing as well.
        In my opinion the penalty wasn’t enough, because of the outcome. Should a penalty with an incident like this, be given after the race, relative to the outcome of the incident?

      2. @andyfromsandy As a Max fan, I 100% agree. We can’t have penalties decided after the race for something that happened on lap 1 dependent on the result of the race.

      3. You’re not serious, are you? Was it so hard to predict with perez far back and verstappen out hamilton would overcome the minor penalty?

        1. @esploratore1

          Given his struggle to pass Leclerc, I think it was fairly reasonable to predict that a 10s penalty would have been difficult for him to recover from. Few could have predicted that his performance would have been significantly better later in the race.

  15. Personally I hope they don’t take it any further. Even if they have some sort of proof that LH was never going to make that corner, which would be difficult to prove, to what end? What further penalty now would do anything? Personally I think LH was guilty of being stubborn, but I don’t think he was trying to hit Max intentionally. Just be intentionally stubborn.

    I think RBR and Max just need now to go back to their winning ways and answer to this on the track, and of course I don’t mean in a vengeful way physically, but simply by going back to winning poles and races. They’ve shown that even at Mercedes’ stronghold track Silverstone and with their upgrades they (RBR) are extremely competitive, and have a great chance of winning the Championships just as they did of winning Silverstone.

    LH/Mercedes won the day, but not without some huge asterisks beside the W. Let that speak for itself please RBR, and take the high road and just move on and get back to winning. The right way.

    Imho tensions will of course be high, but perhaps moreso with media and fans. I’m not sure either Max or LH were taking their race starts and races lightly anyway, so their tension was already at a 10. Well perhaps at Silverstone Max’s was at 10 and LH took it to an 11. I don’t think Max has to do anything more than he has been doing, winning starts as he has, and LH I think will want to avoid contact at least for the next race so as not to confirm for doubters something nefarious going on. As well, he sustained damage and was only lucky there was a red flag and it was plenty long enough for them to affect his repair. Ultimately both drivers know that in order to finish first, you must first finish.

    1. @robbie

      Ultimately both drivers know that in order to finish first, you must first finish.

      I think that part of the point of the article (and other drivers’ comments) is that Max has, until now, relied to some degree on other drivers backing down in the face of his aggressive style. That kind of “win or bust” attitude will often make up a few places, but now that he’s in contention for a WDC the “bust” side of the equation takes on more significance. Maybe this incident will calm him down a little. I wouldn’t want him to lose all of his attacking spirit, just to grow up a bit as so many others have before him.

      It reminds me more than a little of Sergio Perez colliding with Kimi Raikkonnen in Monaco several years ago: Checo had built up a reputation for launching very late overtakes and relying on the other driver getting out of his way. Kimi didn’t get out of his way and they were both out of the race. Checo no longer has that reputation.

      1. @jimg Fair comment but I just don’t think Max has been other than calm, and I think he did his growing up after Monaco 2018, and his win or bust attitude is not any different than LH and other WDC level drivers have displayed. It’s racing, and when leading you take ownership of the real estate while leading, and given the amount of room Max knew LH had to the apex, I cannot blame Max for anything he did last weekend. I don’t see Max second guessing anything he did there, given the space he left, and given that it was confirmed to him by LH’s penalty that he did nothing wrong, even if they used the word predominantly rather than wholly. Max will still think he did nothing wrong imho, nor would change a thing about how he drove.

        At some point, and I think Max was trying to do this clumsily before Monaco 2018, but after Monaco 2018, he got a lot more wise and selective, but always said he was not going to change his style. That style is that of a WDC, and that being to make them wary of you, and to own the real estate and make them have to make a decision. I’d say that can get to be too much at times of course, but Silverstone was no example of it being too much. Max was being the Max LH has come to know, and it is how LH has acted often in the past too, and LH decided to be stubborn about that this time. If Max is to own 30% of that incident, that is for acting like a WDC acts and what wins Championships even if there is the odd blip and the opponent chooses not to back out. When NR didn’t back out, he was vilified for that, and LH was the WDC level hero stamping his authority on the situation.

        1. given that it was confirmed to him by LH’s penalty that he did nothing wrong, even if they used the word predominantly rather than wholly

          I’m sorry but that’s not the case @robbie.
          Verstappen is partially responsible for the contact, or the stewards would have noted Hamilton as fully responsible for the contact, and handed him a drive through or worse.

          Max is very aggressive in his driving (remember colliding with Leclerc to win in 2019? It was labeled a racing incident by Horner that day…) and has always stated that he would not change his approach to racing. Meaning: yield or bust.
          I see more crashes in the future if Hamilton or any other driver go wheel to wheel with him. I mean, even with a win half in the bag Max wouldn’t let a back marker unlap himself, he’d crash into him…

          When NR didn’t back out, he was vilified for that

          You mean in Spa when he costed points to the team? There’s a reason people got unhappy…

          1. @x303 No, I surmise that Max himself will have had it confirmed to to him that he did nothing wrong, by virtue of LH being the penalized one. In other words I can’t see him sat there saying to himself, ‘LH was only predominantly to blame therefore I did something wrong.’

            Max’s ‘yield or bust’ attitude is no different than that of LH and other WDCs.

            And you can’t tell me the outrage towards Nico was because of the team points he cost them, other than to TW and Mercedes himself. Otherwise, LH’s fandom were venomous in their outrage at Nico’s actions and what it cost LH, not the team.

          2. @robbie I cannot replay to your next message, so I’ll do it here.
            That’s fair, I didn’t understand your message that way the first time – that’s on me.
            I think we will disagree on the difference of aggression between Hamilton and Verstappen. I would just point you to turn one in Spain, where Hamilton said after the race that he let Verstappen take the lead to avoid a crash. Same applies to Imola (although can’t remember if he made any comment about it).

            Regarding Nico, that was Toto’s point that he costed point to the team. Hamilton’s fans followed suit (myself included!). There’s no doubt that some were just hateful and should be condemned (like the racist comments toward Hamilton were this time).

        2. @robbie I think we’re more or less in agreement :-) Except that as far as I can see Max hasn’t accepted any responsibility at all for the incident. Maybe now that he’s genuinely in contention for the WDC and has more to lose he’ll learn to take a longer view of things. Even if he wasn’t mostly to blame for the contact, he could have done more to avoid it and may have finished second instead of crashing out. Or he may have won. We’ll never know now.

          1. @jimg Yeah my point is I doubt Max will accept any responsibility for the incident, since LH was the penalized one. I haven’t heard/read any quotes from him, but I will be surprised if he concedes that there is more he should have done there, like he had further onus than to leave LH room, which he did, and like fans and Mercedes seem to think Max’s onus was. Like, ‘it’s your fault Max because you didn’t get out of understeering and desperate LH in time, even though you left him well more than the required space.’

            If anything I think Max will have learned that he can’t trust LH as much as he thought he could. Or that things had changed once he had LH backed into a corner. Well, now the points are much closer, so perhaps LH will also be thinking again that he can’t gamble like he did at Silverstone.

      2. Davethechicken
        21st July 2021, 15:35

        I can’t see Lewis backing out the next time either, can you? The only way to counter “win or bust” is bust. Otherwise you lose.

        1. Well that might be typically Lewis’ thoughts. Instead of just improving his driving, which seems a far more logical option. And that would at least not deprive us from great battles in the way he did Sunday. It was good fighting just til the moment Lewis slipped up. Would have loved to see that continuing for more laps. Lewis needs to step up his game and go at it again.

    2. You can’t answer on track when there’s a race in 5 weeks or something, you’re angry, so there’s plenty of time to talk out of the track.

  16. So in other words, Verstappen was partly at fault

    1. Yep, He expected Lewis to vanish which didn’t happen.

      1. I think he left enough space for a car on the inside…

        1. He was leaving just exactly enough space on the inside for one car, on the first lap of the race when the tyres weren’t fully warmed up and they had full tanks of fuel. Given that’s a recipe for understeer, had Max shown a little more maturity he would probably still have won the race.

          None of that is to place blame on Max, but as I have mentioned elsewhere, he took a big risk which he didn’t need to take.

    2. Yes, he overestimated Lewis skills

  17. It could cost up to a million-Toto at Imola
    Nonsense, thats just Toto being Toto-Horner about Imola.
    $2 million and counting-RB three days in.

    So having spent the last 15 odd years watch someone charge down the inside of Hamilton, only for Hamilton to brake early and cut behind them whilst they go sailing off the track (Rosberg Bahrain x how many times?) I realise that Max still hasn’t developed that skill. Given the width of the track at that corner and RB confirming that not only Ham was going faster on a full load then he would again at that corner, but he would actually miss that corner completely, you would have though Max was experienced enough to notice that and possess similar skills that Ham does in being able cut behind him. Still he’s getting there.

    And as for Hamilton keeping a straight line down Brooklands whilst Max weaved from side to side and tried a bit of wheel banging, well no wonder Max’s fans and Karen from RB are incandescent. A black flag offense by Ham if ever I saw one.

    BTW Does anyone know how long RB are going to milk this before they say for the good of the sport we are not going to pursue this matter?

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      21st July 2021, 15:11

      And the off track excursion in turn 1 without yielding the place.

      1. +1 Andy, I’m surprised more people haven’t mentioned that. Max 4 wheels off but keeping the position, then weaving and bumping wheels before braking way to late for the next corner.

        1. @andyfromsandy
          The rules on going off track are that a lasting advantage isn’t gained or an overtake isn’t completed off track. I don’t think any of those applied to turn 1 because it was so slight.
          Maybe Verstappen might’ve got a black and white flag for it, but there wasn’t enough there to warrant yielding the place.

          1. I think they are referring to the saturated clamour on here that you should be penalised no matter why you go off the track or by how much. That was around Bahrain time. As we have seen since then, there has been a mellowing on that opinion following a few off road excursions by ‘other than Hamilton’.

          2. Neutralino: To respect the track, Max had to let Hamilton pass. He gained an advantage by staying in front. I’m surprised this is overlooked.

          3. This is part of the “let them race” mantra not be too strict on first lap incidents. Of course when Hamilton does it the forum is full of screaming hooligans, but when Verstappen no one cares since the Hamilton fans largely know this is allowed. You can raise an eye brow and wonder if this kind of behavior is desired, but it will not be penalized.

            You’d think the same “let them race” applies to a turn 9 situation where it’s already a racing incident if you follow the actual overtaking guidelines, but I guess it’s hard to stay consistent.

  18. It’s shocking that Horner hasn’t demanded that the race be rerun.

    1. And hold a sign before the race saying ‘Iam wealy wealy sorwy,can we still be fwiends’

  19. So, before this gets to 200+ ever increasing vitriol reactions, my take on things.
    1. This began where the sprint race/qualification/thing ended. Lewis and Mercedes saw that after lap 1 they could only chase a shrinking Honda logo in the distance
    2. Lewis was hell bent on passing Max in the first lap because of this, then they were in the game and had some strategy options, Perez being all the way back.
    3. Lewis made the move knowing this was the last real opportunity he was going to get. I think it was not a move he could complete, to call it desperate as the RB management has done is a bit over the top IMO. However, a penalty was justified, but to give him more than the 10 seconds he got would be inappropriate. I do agree with Masi (did I really say that?) that consequenses should not be taken into account. As bitter as it might be, we would never hear the end of it when there would be a multi-car crash in a hairpin. For people saying that Verstappen was at fault I would say take of the union jack glasses and look again, for people saying it was intentional and even implying attempted murder I would say wait till the orange smoke lifts, look again and grow the hell up.
    4. Lewis showed great composure by staying out. He obviously sensed the red flag was coming, and made a great calculation to stay out.
    5. He drove a really good race after the red flag and took a deserved victory. I say this as a Verstappen supporter, but the race does go on after your personal favourite is out of it
    6. He made comments in the post race interview (still high on adrenaline) and beyond that IMO didn’t look good on him. He never really acknowledged even a bit of responsibility, and that does not suit a GOAT. Wolff didn’t help either and the comment that Verstappen left no room is quite simple to refute when looking at the footage.
    7. The celebrations I do not have a problem with, and while the orange flares camp may say it’s scandalous but I can understand when a driver takes an important victory in his home grand prix and in front of 140,000 supporters you don’t hold back or say it’s not okay to celebrate.
    8. The gloves were off this race and will probably stay off for now. Both team principals are not doing anything to lower the temperature at the moment. I do hope they don’t kill each other before things quiet down
    9. Liberty and Netflix won’t mind.

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      21st July 2021, 15:16

      Masi also pointed out to Horner or anyone listening that he was one of the team principles that voted for the actions the stewards took to not look at the consequences.

    2. I agree with your first two points. The Sprint Race did lay the foundation of the drama on Race Day. It is testament to the new Grand Prix format adding a layer of intrigue to the weekend.

    3. I agree with all of this

  20. Regarding the commentary in the article about:

    You wouldn’t expect Horner to be anything other than entirely critical of Hamilton

    Can we maybe raise our expectations and think that these supposed adults could be fair-minded and not cry foul at everything that doesn’t go their way? It’s like diving and arguing with the referee in football; it makes the sport and everyone in it look bad. Sportsmanship seems to suffer against the money and egos in F1.

    Reply moderated
    1. Robin I think it is nothing like that at all. Horner has felt robbed and of course in the heat of the moment, with the massive loss to car and points, not to mention his banged up driver, I would think his level of emotion could and should be expected, and no TP would have reacted differently had they been in the same position, particularly in the standings.

      Like diving and arguing with the referee? You must be joking. There is no money nor Championship at stake with that, and Max/RBR didn’t do the equivalent of a dive, he was the victim. I defy you to put yourself in Horner’s shoes and show yourself to be such the adult that you so easily text he should be from your armchair, particularly in the heat of the moment.

      1. I’m sorry Robbie, you’ve got a lot more level headed in recent times, but you’ve said some really ridiculous things in your time, but to suggest that “there is no money in football” is up there in your all time most ridiculous statements of all time.

        How do you expect others to listen to you and reply to you respectfully when you can drop an absolute Horner like that one.

        1. drop an absolute Horner

          Haha! Comment sections do occasionally deliver.

          Reply moderated
    2. I think you will find Horner has had little time for Hamilton for years. Before this weekend we had ‘Ham ruined Albons career’ and I’m the only one to stand up to Toto as everyone else is in his pocket. I’m sure there is more to come this weekend.

  21. I can’t believe the amount of noise for what is in essence a racing incident and by that I mean something that’s typical for racing, two drivers fighting for position and one going for a gap that may or may not be there and another going for the racing line when maybe they should have stayed wide. Neither driver set out to cause the other to crash and the crash in my opinion was an unfortunate but foreseeable consequence of two highly competitive drivers fighting maybe a little too hard, too early for the lead of the race.

    The stewards apportioned blame and issued a severe penalty. Yes, I said it was a severe penalty because in a sport where 3/10ths of a second is considered a significant amount of time, 10 seconds is a severe penalty. The fact that Hamilton was able to recover from that penalty should not result in calls for more severe penalties as the stewards can’t issue penalties based on the fact that the rest of the field suck and the penalized party may be able to recoup the lost time. A 10 second penalty on a mid-pack team likely would not have seen that driver recover the lost time in the same manner. In 2020, Johann Zarco in MotoGP was issued a long lap penalty and he attacked the long lap corner at almost full speed and was able to do it within a few tenths of his regular lap time. After reviewing the footage and seeing that he stayed within the penalty lines, there was just admiration for his skill and ability, not a world-wide call to re-write or re-think how the long lap penalties are applied. The same should apply here. If a driver is able to recover from a 10 second penalty, that is a testament to his and his teams skill and possibly some luck if a safety car or virtual safety car aided in the recovery.

    Red Bulls reaction to the events of the 2021 British GP are in my opinion distasteful and loathsome. Quite frankly, the failing was theirs for not playing the long game and telling Max to let Lewis go since they knew they had the faster car, which was proven out in the sprint race, and they probably could have easily gotten him with an under or over cut. Rather than protecting their 33 point lead and addressing the race from the point of view of maintaining or growing their points lead, they behaved as if they were in a tight fight for every available point. The real blame in this incident lies directly on Horner and Marco and their bleating is nothing more than a way to deflect from their failings.

    1. @velocityboy I agree it’s ‘disappointing’ (I’m being polite) that Red Bull have gone for litigation rather than advise their lead driver to be more cautious next time. It’s what riles with their setup. Even Verstappen punching other drivers is excused. Horner has already admitted that had Hamilton not bailed out of a 50/50 corner earlier in the season, he and Verstappen would have crashed. He extols that, of course, as Max being even more committed, brave, macho, or whatever passes for ‘better’ in Horner’s mind. But when Hamilton doesn’t bail out (as he had on a previous corner at Silverstone, only to be brushed against by a hyper-aggressive Verstappen) he then launches into the most cynical angry tirade possible. There’s simply no ethics in his position. What I mean is a recognition that if you argue certain practices are OK for you, then it’s ethically consistent to admit the same for your rivals. Too much around Verstappen revolves around ‘exceptionalism.’ And I really don’t think this comes from himself. He’s an aggressive driver but often seems personable and indeed modest in many respects (leaving aside his self-belief). But Red Bull – Horner, Marko, Verstappen Sr. – have developed a culture of never finding fault in him – while, of course, as we know, finding plenty of fault in their second drivers. It’s fundamentally unhealthy and unrealistic. This sour threat to appeal for a heavier penalty for Hamilton is a really bad precedent for Formula 1. We’ll see how it develops.

        1. @aapje He pushed Ocon various terms, but Horner’s comment afterwards, if you recall, was that Ocon was ‘lucky to get away with a push,’ implicitly condoning heavier aggression (punching etc), which was the point I was making.

          1. That was again well justified, terrible conduct from ocon and mercedes who ordered him to take verstappen out.

          2. Wow, that’s some real flat earth stuff @esploratore1
            I’m sure you have a ton of evidence for that…

          3. @esploratore1 – there is no justification for physical violence in a non contact sport, you’re victim blaming.

    2. Your probably right

    1. Lol of course this is entirely different. Perhaps we can agree that since AA had his car somewhat beside KM, AA had earned to be given room. Just as is being argued for LH on the weekend. However, KM went into AA and didn’t leave him room. There was nowhere more inside AA could go and he shouldn’t have felt obligated to go off the track inside either. The onus was on KM to leave AA the car width that is required since he was alongside.

      Completely different of course to last weekend when Max left LH tons of room inside, knowing the onus was on him to do so.

    2. Who can blame him ? After all, Hamilton is a recidivist with regard to that particular move on a RBR !
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHBgQw5OecA
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlJBNZGmmrk

  22. It is a well written article but I don’t see see how this explains why Hamilton is only predominantly to blame and not wholly.

    First of all, I think it was a racing incident and that there should be no penalty at all, since it was on the first lap. But if we do have to assign blame, I don’t see why Hamilton isn’t wholly to blame and this article doesn’t clear it for me.

    Hamilton was almost side to side with Verstappen so Max had to give room. And I believe he did. Was it smart of Max to be so overly aggressive, especially when you are on the outside and the championship is at stake? No, I don’t think so. But he left room, but Hamilton needed more room than both anticipated. What Verstappen did wasn’t smart but he did make no mistake, he didn’t cause the collision.

    1. Exactly. Max thought Lewis would make the corner together with him. The space was clearly there. Two car widths. One where Lewis’ car actually was and one to the right of Lewis (where he positioned his car correctly this time when overtaking Charles). What more do you want Max to do?

      1. Anticipate that the inside car will understeer and protect himself from that possibility. That’s what Hamilton did when he yield in Imola, giving the lead to Verstappen.

  23. ‘he didn’t cause the collision.’

    Yes but he made no effort to avoid it, he knew Lewis was almost side by side going into the corner, which he then took like no one was there.

    1. I think that is what @matthijs is saying with Max not being smart.

      It’s what I sais as well, he should have let Hamilton go, to ensure at least 18 points.
      Nevertheles I do think it was penalty worthy, doesn’t matter if it was lap one

    2. @f1-plossl No that is not what I said. Max wasn’t smart taking so much risk, but he clearly didn’t ‘take the line like no one was there’. I believe he gave Hamilton just enough room, had Lewis taken the corner on the inside, like he did with Leclerc.

  24. Abbey/S/F straight, actually (see the Pirelli surrounding.)
    Track section from Farm until Loop was Emirates’ advertising area.
    On the relevant matter itself, I stand by my 50-50 racing incident view, i.e., the same as Alonso, Leclerc, Bottas, Szafnauer, Chandhok, Salo, and co. Both could’ve done something on their part to avoid contact.
    In hindsight, Max should’ve covered the inside line. The Sprint outcome would’ve been more likely, or he would’ve been the surviving one instead.

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      21st July 2021, 16:06

      Max was happy to weave up the straight. Lewis caused Max to take the outside line during the GP.

  25. I’d like to ask a question rather than just express an opinion – just for once perhaps :)
    Why all the discussion about the ‘apex’ and does that translate to Hamilton having to stick to the inside curb for him not to be blamed for the accident? If he’s allowed to contest the corner, does that mean he can only do so if he remains as close to the inside as possible (which seems to be the implication of the steward verdict) or does it mean he can take any reasonable line through the corner, as long as he’s not driving Verstappen off track? Because that would be my understanding. If the corner is contested, he’s not obliged to leave Verstappen the idle racing line, only sufficient space for him to stay on track and avoid a collision. If that’s wrong, fine, but I’d like to hear a more official explanation, since Mercedes own defense seems to be based on this latter understanding (Hamilton was more than 50% level and so Max had to cede simply taking the fastest line through).

    1. That is a new one on me. Like inventing a new rule on the fly.
      When Hamilton crashed with Albon, he was right on the apex, yet he still got a penalty, so I don’t believe the stewards even believe in half the stuff they talk about.
      I still insist Hamilton only got a penalty because he tried to avoid the accident.

      1. That too, Hamilton braked and so is further behind when they eventually collide, but taking that as evidence as he wasn’t alongside is fundamentally flawed. He was going into the corner, which is why Verstappen, in my view, had to do more to avoid the collision, not turn in expecting Hamilton to be conveniently ‘vanished’ from an inside line he had left open.

    2. @david-br To me it is plainly the fact that Max indeed left tons of room inside, full stop. It’s not that LH ‘had’ to stick to the apex or be guilty of something, of course. The fact is Max gave him the room and LH decided to be stubborn and go in too hot to even meet the apex. So how much more room need Max leave, just because the one inside is too hot and understeering? At all times Max was ahead, and while LH being alongside meant the onus was on Max to leave a car’s width, that’s where it ends. Max, being the leader, did his part and left LH room. As per the stewards decision. Max didn’t have to cede anything. Max had ownership of his own line so the ball was in LH’s court as to his own speed and line for which he was left room to choose. His speed and line choice was to remain closer to Max than to the apex. That was on him. Max did all he could to be fair, by leaving the required room inside. More than, in fact.

      LH’s line was not ‘reasonable’ as you put it, for he went into Max and took him out when he had plenty more room closer to the apex as left him by Max. The ‘reasonable’ thing to do would have been to back off a titch and take the space inside that Max had left him, but by some accounts it seems LH had just decided to be stubborn that time. By no means did that mean anyone including Max would expect LH’s only line was to hug the apex. Being whatever level beside, be it 50% or more, which is was very briefly more for LH, is not a license to then take over the whole situation and expect the leader to cede. LH sure doesn’t in those situations. Being alongside merely means entitlement to a car width of track space. Max gave LH well more than that. LH didn’t control his car. Or cynical ones will say he controlled it as planned, but I don’t think so. I think LH was just being stubborn and going in too hot, and couldn’t take the room Max left him because he had already committed to being stubborn and if forced him wide and into Max.

      “If the corner is contested, he’s not obliged to leave Verstappen the idle racing line, only sufficient space for him to stay on track and avoid a collision.” And therefore LH didn’t meet his obligation. It is not about what LH was obliged to leave Max, for LH was never leading in the situation. The main onus was on Max to leave room which he did, and for LH to then act accordingly, and his action did not avoid a collision. The onus was on LH to avoid a collision. He didn’t and was therefore penalized.

      1. @robbie Hamilton has as much right to be ‘stubborn’ as Verstappen, which is why so many people insist it was a racing incident. Which it was. But my question was more technical, not a request for further opinion, although opinion is inevitable in anyone’s interpretation of the actual regulations.

        1. @david-br OK. Interesting that you want a technical answer but want to buck the actual technical ruling by the stewards with your opinion or indeed insistence that it was a racing incident, with your “Which it was.”

          I would suggest ‘stubborn’ doesn’t enter into the rule book, and that since Max owned the corner by being ahead, with LH owning the right to a car width of space, the onus was on him to leave room for LH, and LH didn’t control his car, as per the stewards ruling. LH doesn’t have the right to be stubborn moreso than Max, for Max was leading. It was up to LH to adjust to Max. I don’t know how you are going to get the technical answer to something related to proximity to an apex, other than what the rules say about leaving a car space when alongside another car. I doubt there is anything in the rules about distance from an apex other than that. As long as a bloke leaves another bloke a car space on the track, inside or outside the turn, it doesn’t matter how far they each are away from the apex, I would think.

          1. @robbie The teams are apparently privy to guideline documents that aren’t made public, explaining the ‘rules’ for overtaking, precisely the ones Mercedes cited. That’s what I’m talking about essentially. Like I said, I’ve read all the opinions here and elsewhere, seen the footage, heard the arguments, and side with those who see this as a racing incident, neither driver ceding, but Verstappen with only himself to blame for turning in rather than give more space when he knew Hamilton was there. I realize you have another view. You’re not going to convince me, I’m afraid, with the argument that ‘Max owned the corner by being ahead.’ It’s precisely that idea of ‘owning the corner’ which Hamilton, Mercedes and even the stewards implicitly contest (since Hamilton was not ‘wholly’ at fault) and which I think was precisely a miscalculation on Max’s part, a refusal to concede more space, even for his own good, that led to the touch. Which was, after all, a slight touch – indicating that however dramatic the consequences, we’re talking about fine margins whoever you think was primarily at fault.

          2. @david-br That’s fair enough. I won’t sway you, but nor will you convince me that Max had to leave more space than he did, nor that Max ‘turned in’ for looking at the onboards that simply doesn’t add up. I see both drivers holding their wheel steady and only Max jinking his to the left right at the time when we are seeing from his onboard LH’s front wing. I’m convinced Max was surprised LH was so close still, given that he had left tons of room inside. LH was understeering into Max and therefore not controlling his car. LH is the one miscalculating the situation, not Max.

            In general, and for a long time now, I have always thought or agreed, and it was coming from Brundle I think, perhaps when he was with Murray Walker, that it is the driver behind that has the full vision of the situation and therefore the better control over it. The leading driver has his little mirror. LH could see much more exactly what Max was doing, and as we see from his onboards Max was doing nothing erratic with his wheel, and so LH was the one that knew far more about what he could or couldn’t do vs. Max looking in his mirror and at the track, and trying to figure out where exactly LH was and at what speed. It is why we often hear comments such as the lead driver ‘couldn’t have known so and so was about to come up the inside’ or what have you, particularly with a dive bomb, which this was not. It is the same reason why I thought DR was the one more at fault when he took himself and Max out at Baku 2018. DR was the one more in control of the situation having the forward view and seeing what whatever action he took would do. He was going in way too hot for the situation. Max could not know exactly what control DR would have had on his car and it’s braking ability based on DR’s speed.

        2. I am not sure I will be answering your question (or if I do, to what extent will it be relevant), but try to watch Jolyon Palmer take on the contact.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp0GG4y3is8

          He mentions several interesting things. One, that Hamilton did not really run over the kerb in Copse during the sprint and later in the race. He preferred taking the white line – not the kerb, which is important to note because people keep comparing his line in the accident with the line he took in battle with Leclerc. But as Palmer says, in battle with Leclerc, Hamilton was very cautious and also did not manage to get as alongside as with Verstappen so he went over the kerb that once.

          So I am also quite skeptical to the entire apex-issue. First it may slightly differ for some cars, it may differ in fuel load and tyre age/condition and most importantly the approach to the corner. If there is a rule that once alongside (on the inside of) someone you have to hit the apex then the other car will make sure that you approach the corner at most challenging angle possible instead of focusing on getting the best possible approach angle for himself (trying to slot back to racing line as much as possible).

        3. @david-br

          No, Max had the right to choose his line as long as he was ahead, as long as he left enough room for Lewis. If Lewis had managed to overtake him on the inside, he would then have the right to choose his line and could push Max out, as long as he left enough room for Max (unless he got far enough ahead, then he didn’t need to leave room).

    3. @david-br

      Defending drivers take wacky lines through corners all the time. Following drivers often take slower lines to set themself up for move on the next straight or whatever.

      It’s one of the things that bothers me about the current stewarding. Leading drivers are allowed to defend by taking a middle-apex-outside line. Rosberg did it especially poorly. Verstappen made it in art form in Baku before the crash with Ricciardo took him out. But it’s really just blocking. It guarantees the following car can neither pass on a quicker line or switch back.

      But here I don’t think it’s really relevant, neither driver did anything strange, other than try to occupy the same space as another car at 200 mph.

      1. @slotopen I agree (I think) with your simple answer, it was a racing incident with two drivers competing for the same bit of track, neither doing anything wrong, but neither ceding. The more complicated answer is needed to explain the penalty for one of them. I think that’s highly marginal and indeed too marginal in the case of a first lap incident. But I accept if one were to be penalized as ‘more responsible’ then it would be Hamilton since he was attempting the pass and (perhaps) didn’t have complete control of his braking/steering as he went off the racing line into the corner. But I still think Verstappen was unwise, for his own sake, not to give more room for that eventuality. Any contact was always likely to be worse for him on the outside.

    4. @david-br Exactly it makes no sense. From where Hamilton enters the corner how can they expect him to driver the regular racing line and hit the regular apex. Of course his line will be different.

      I don’t understand how it would even matter. From being halfway up alongside at the turn in point, it’s Hamilton’s corner and Verstappen needs to leave him space or cede the corner if there is no space. As it has always been.

      At turn in the drivers commit to their line. They can go wider after that but never tighter since they are already on the limit. So that’s why they have these guidelines of who needs to leave who space. Verstappen had plenty space on his left.

  26. We need the data. From the sprint race when roles were reversed and from the race. I focused on the steering wheels during the replays. Max definitely acknowledges Lewis as he steers a bit left and then he turns hard right. Lewis stats turning right but not as severe as Max. Give us the data.

    1. Max () steers a bit left and then he turns hard right.

      That’s how you take Copse at maximum speed; you have to start from the racing line and aggressively turn in (almost blind) to make the corner at those speeds.
      If you do it less aggressively then you end up where Leclerc ended up later in the race.

      PS and just to repeat for the guy who doesn’t want to acknowledge it, you cannot take Copse full speed from the inside/off the racing line; the centrifugal forces win it from the downforce where the tyres hit the tarmac.

      1. you dont aggressively turn in when theres a driver to the right of you.
        leclerc was lacking grip at that stage of the race.
        if his tyres were fresher,he would have had better grip and not gone off the track.

  27. If Hamilton couldn’t have made the corner as he was supposedly going too fast, then there is no way he would not have run off the track or suffer more damage from the contact.
    The only data Redbull have was that both cars were travelling fast.
    Secondly once the race has settled in, drivers drive at not so aggressive speeds round corners to save their tyres.

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      21st July 2021, 16:13

      I see that as a smart Max would slow slightly more to cut behind Lewis as seen happen in Austria to great effect.

      1. As Ham as done dozens of times, particularly on Nico in Bahrain. And on this occasion we even have RB claiming Ham was too fast. So an ideal time for Max to use his racing brain.

        1. Lol why would Max slow while leading, and please show us an example of when LH was leading a driver and then slowed to cut behind him. I’ll believe that when I see it. Has LH backed out when it’s 50/50, while being alongside, like he should have on the weekend, and then cut behind, sure, that I can see. If so was it because he was being squeezed and running out of track? Like he had done to Nico many times? But back out while leading? Like I say, let’s see some examples and then we can talk about what exactly was going on these ‘dozens of times.’

          1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_GWdS5RP0Q&ab_channel=FORMULA1

            Watch the full race, and then use a search option for even more examples. Ham and Ricci are a good place to start. Or go to your local cart track. You may learn something if you dont think it happens. They even do it on bikes too. Watch a speedway race. Or is it that you know about it but you think the most successful driver of all time doesn’t know how to do it?
            So tell me what you would do if the guy on the inside is coming in too fast to make the corner and you are on the outside in the lead. Just take the corner and hope for the best?

          2. I should have said fast forward til 20s to go.

            And again

            https://youtu.be/k_0zMVaWl6c?t=8m35s

          3. ian dearing As I suspected you haven’t shown anything comparable at all to the high speed situation on Sunday. Max was never running out of room such that the better thing to do would have been to cede his lead and tuck in behind LH to try a different line and an undercut. That would have been ridiculous. I’ll remind you Max was not the penalized one. I think I’ll trust that he knew what he was doing and that LH was predominantly to blame thanks. I haven’t heard one expert, even the ones claiming it was a racing incident, suggest what you are. They’ve only said Max could have left a bit more room and I say he left plenty as did the stewards. Nobody but you is suggesting he should have ceded the lead lol.

          4. I though this would all go over your head. And it did. Its about winning the corner based on the claims made by Horner about Hams trajectory. Nothing about Max running out of room. And you wouldn’t have heard from any experts because they and most certainly the stewards laughed Horners claims out of the room. And you clearly never bothered to listen to them before diving in here with a Max defence that had nothing to do with the conversation. Anyway, Ill let you get back to whatever argument you are having about whose to blame. Not sure what the point of that is. As far as I can see Ham was predominantly to blame, got a punishment and then won the race. (Unless you want to take some time defending Horners claim that by driving down Brooklands in a straight line Ham was trying to run Max off the road. You know, that bit of road Max was weaving to and fro on)

          5. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            21st July 2021, 20:51

            @robbie Say someone robs you and the thief clips your foot and bangs his head at 51g on the barrier. The authorities then find you guilty of impeding the robbery wondering why your foot was out in front as you were walking. You had clearly obstructed the thief! The thief’s dad is screaming that he’ll take you to court and that his son did nothing absolutely nothing wrong.

            Would you be ok with any of that? Unfortunately for you, you have no choice but to be ok with it :-)

            I hope the folks at Mercedes read this and have a laugh.

          6. ian dearing

            I though this would all go over your head. And it did.

            Ha, ha, yeah that’s always how it goes. He has these terrific discussions with himself never bothering to actually go into the actual things put before him.

    2. Rodric Ewulf
      22nd July 2021, 0:53

      ian dearing
      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. Probably because you can’t refute an evidence-less opinion with another evidence-less opinion, just a thought.

  28. So is the British media saying that they vilified Rosberg & Vettel for clumsy racing incidents in previous title clashes.

    1. Just to clarify, are you talking about British owned media, or non British owned media that operates in Britain?

  29. RBR tactics are now to yell as loud and as much as possible it is all Lewis’ fault so that perception is created. Some guy once said, if you repeat a lie 1000 times it becomes the truth. Red Bull learnt from that. But RBR will never go to court because this will 200% backfire: the footage undisputable shows how Verstappen turns his steering wheel excessively more right once Lewis pops up under his mirrors. Max knew he was screwed there. He had to leave room which he didn’t. Leaving room meant missing the ideal race line so he had te back a bit off. Lewis also would had te reduce some speed but he would have been better positioned for the next one. Max knew there was just 1 thing left to avoid that: cut and bully Lewis off. On his car camera you see Max steering hard right, deliberately hitting Lewis right at the time Lewis decided to back off. As a result, Max hooked hiw wheels into Lewis’. So no, Lewis did absolutely not understeer into Max. Max cut him off and imo he should be race banned and given 6 penalty points. That is extremely dangerous foul and dirty driving as he always does. FIA need to do something or accidents will happen.

    Reply moderated
  30. Oh give it up Christian. I’m supporting Max in this title fight, but he made a misjudgement as well. Whether or not Hamilton is predominantly to blame, and the stewards judged he was, which some may already see as too harsh, he served the penalty and drove an excellent race after that.

    Just accept that the penalty was already a blessing on your side and don’t bother fighting it. It hardly ever works. I’m not sure if this comes out of the budget cap or not, but surely you have better things to spend your money on?

  31. Fair enough point of view in this article, predominantly.
    Predominantly means mainly; for the most part.
    99.9% Mercedes fault and .1% Red Bull fault.

    So the crash was mainly, for the most part, HAM’s fault.

    1. It can be what you need it to be if you are that desperate or that delusional. I’m sure we can find a Ham fan thinking 49.9% v 50.1%, not bad!
      Although it seems to be 70-30 for those with experience and no axe to grind

      1. The thing is that, unless the definition has been changed, 49.9 % to 50.1% does not meet the definition of PREDOMINANTLY.

      2. I’m not that far off to agree. 70% Lewis blame, 30% Max blame. As long as Lewis lead the blaming ranking for that particular incident I’ll not contest. I don’t arrogantly think that I can challenge the stewards decision without any solid argument inside a convincing line of reasoning, just because my favourite driver got the worse.

        Reply moderated
  32. I’ll repeat myself, as someone who initially saw it as a racing incident. Suffice it to look objectively the footage of the exact moment they are “alongside”: it’s when Verstappen already reduced speed to take the racing line whereas Hamilton is still at full speed off the racing line and on the inside, the worst place to carry such speed that late entering Copse.

    Sorry to the apologists, but this one is 100% on Hamilton.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      21st July 2021, 20:22

      it’s when Verstappen already reduced speed to take the racing line whereas Hamilton is still at full speed off the racing line and on the inside, the worst place to carry such speed that late entering Copse.

      I’m not 100% sure but I have a feeling you may have gotten Verstappen and Hamilton mixed there. If you flip the names, this sentence is definitely in line with how the events unfolded.

      1. Yeah, right. Now take off your rose-tinted glasses.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          21st July 2021, 22:43

          @niefer are you suggesting that I offer them to Verstappen? :-)

          1. @freelittlebirds – pardon, but I did not found sense in your comment. What does it mean to offer them to Verstappen? So that he might think Hamilton is unblemished too? I didn’t get it.

    2. Strange you make statements when you clearly didn’t even watch the race.

      You say Max reduced speed whilst Lewis was at full speed?

      Can you explain the laws of physics where the above applies where on the track Lewis went from being side by side to behind. You know this actually indicates that Max was going faster? You do realise that don’t you?

      Reply moderated
      1. Go check the onboards again.
        Unless Hamilton has a secret stage hidden inside his car, he could not jump ahead to get alongside: it happened because Verstappen iniciated the turn-in sooner, as there were two cars disputing it, whereas Hamilton was off line going in as if he was alone. He would always go wide from the position he was, and that’s why he clipped Verstappen and still went wide.

        Can you explain the laws of physics where the above applies where on the track Lewis went from being side by side to behind.

        Yes, I can. Watch: VER reduced, HAM was still full throttle – and they got alongside -. Then, VER turned-in and started to throttle again: this was the time HAM reduced but went wide. You know, acceleration vs inertia? Figures, right?

        Another sign for you: look carefully to the inside. Hamilton passes away from the apex, but in the Leclerc overtake, he takes it.

        I’m sorry, but some apologists are so full of crap. It was just a mistake. Hamilton is not infallible.

    3. @niefer The guidelines are the the driver on the inside has the rights to the corner if he’s at least halfway up the inside of the other car at turn in. So Hamilton had the corner. Which means that Verstappen needs to leave Hamilton space. It’s just bizarre that the stewards suddenly put it on Hamilton to leave Verstappen space. Or to hit an apex which is not part of his actual racing line from where he entered the corner.

      Now if you want to see a driver purposefully not taking the apex or even turning properly then how about this one where Verstappen clobbers into Leclerc:
      ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABKY6nbKIL4

      Mind you he was able to not ram Leclerc on the lap before, so he clearly did it on purpose.

      1. @f1osaurus – as you said, at turn-in both VER and LEC are alongside (and ofc nobody crashed). This never happened with HAM and VER. If we are to bring up unrelated incidents, you’d be more assertive bringing up ROS vs HAM at Austria, though by your guidelines, ROS was the one in the inside with plenty of space and halfway alongside, so surely should be his corner, right? No.

        Honestly, if you can’t take sense from my parent post, then we’ll be only wasting our times here.

        1. @niefer I brought those Rosberg (and also Verstappen) incidents where they simply don’t turn in several times as the sole example where the inside line is indeed at fault.

          In Austria Verstappen did crash into Leclerc. And again, seeing the lap before he did leave Leclerc space, he did it on purpose which should even, but sure if you feel that there was no issue there you agree that Silverstone was a racing incident just as it was between Sainz and Grosjean a few years earlier.

  33. If the roles were reversed with Hamilton on the outside and Max on the inside I expect the result would have been exactly the same, and all the comments made would be exactly the same but coming from different lips.

    1. No it wouldn’t. As we have seen plenty of times recently; and as late as T6, Ham is going to avoid the accident. I’m finally glad after all the byes he had given Max, inc two on the first lap of this race, he finally decided enough.
      And its quite pleasing that all the gurning fools standing behind Max goading him on with this stupid get out of the way or crash mantra are now running round like headless chickens confused about what’s happening.

  34. This is Max’s 7th year in F1 but the first time he’s got a real chance for the championship. He’d better start boxing smart or his hopes will end up in a bin full of carbon fibre shards.

    1. You mean drive off into the distance at most races, and on the odd occasion Ham is anywhere near him, just ignore him and let him go?
      Marko and Daddy won’t accept that, Max might realise like Ham did that in that situation that he doesn’t need them anymore.

      1. If Verstappen beats Hamilton 3 out of 4 races but DNFs the 4th he loses. Simple math really.

  35. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    21st July 2021, 19:43

    Martin Brundle

    I am told by Red Bull there is data to prove Lewis was significantly faster into Copse than at any other time and he would not have made the corner without running wide, and inevitably contacting Max.

    Presumably, that will be made publicly available and if Red Bull feel they have ‘new evidence’ they may well make an appeal to the FIA as to their perceived degree of fault and leniency regarding Hamilton.

    The amount of lies and misinformation surrounding this incident makes it very hard to like Red Bull and Max Verstappen and anyone involved in the shameful speading of those lies. Obviously Martin is just passing on this information to the public.

    How could Lewis be going significantly faster into Copse than Max when he has clearly fallen behind Max after being alongside him? Whose rear wheel got clipped on a front wheel?

    Lewis clearly wasn’t understeering at the time of contact…

    Lewis clearly was pointing at the apex at the time of contact…

    And no, Lewis couldn’t take that corner any tighter than he did.

    And for the last time, Lewis did not clip Max. It was the other way around.

    Here’s what we have seen though. Max made 2 defense moves – the second was a tiny one but it’s still a 2nd move and it pushed Lewis very close to the barrier. This is a clear penalty especially going into Copse – just ask Horner about Copse and how dangerous it is to move twice there. He’s the expert so I suspect he’ll be asking for a race ban for Max!

    Max tried to take the corner as if he was alone going into the full apex (it’s not qualifying), realized that Lewis was still there, made a correction, misjudged it, clipped the rear wheel. Now, that is a clear and obvious driving error. Why would a F1 driver who’s racing try to take a corner assuming there’s no car there? I think the FIA need to bring in Max and ask him that question.

    1. Per the stewards, the crash was mainly, for the most part, HAM’s fault.

      Brundle is from which country? And what is HAM’s nationality?

      I suspect you are of similar origins.

  36. Zach (@zakspeedf1team)
    21st July 2021, 19:46

    What the anti-Hamilton lynch-mob seems to forget is that Verstappen had much more to gain in a crash than Hamilton. If they both crashed out, which was the much more likely scenario then Verstappen kept the same point difference but with a race less to go, in other words an advantage to Verstappen. It was just a freak coincidence that Verstappen didn’t take both himself and Hamilton out. Hamilton is a lot of things, but he’s not that stupid.

    1. He certainly does. On many occasions. Not as much as Abiteboul. I miss that clown.

  37. That must never cross the line into racist abuse. Teams demonstrate their commitment to opposing racism before every grand prix. Those who claim to be their fans should follow their example or go find something else to occupy their time with.

    Cheers for being so clear on this!!

    1. Hear hear and that’s why we are here on racefans

  38. if lewis carried too much speed into that corner,how did max end up getting his rear wheel clipped,after they were more or less side by side.

    surely if lewis carried too much speed,he would have been ahead of max,not behind him.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      21st July 2021, 20:30

      well, most of the comments defy logic – it was only a matter of time before the comments also defied physics :-)

  39. I’m done being sorry for stuff like imola and baku for hamilton at the exact time the thing happens (driver has a great weekend and loses or seems to lose all because of a tiny mistake), obviously in baku only the incident himself made me sorry, it made 80% justice because of verstappen’s problem, from now on I’ll be like the silverstone grandstands (very unsportsmanlike) if hamiltron goes out.

    1. Oh, mispelled I see, not sorry.

      1. The silverstone stands that cheered when _Max got out of the car_?

        Why do you tell such easy to disprove lies, there are dozens of fan videos filmed from the stands and they all show exactly the same thing, fans cheering as the cars approach side by side, silent at the accident and cheering as Max walks away.

  40. Horner has every right to be livid, but Team Principals should be more judicious in the criticism they express. I agree with most of what he said, but he tends to get emotionally carried away in a manner not often associated with the British. Implying that HAM is a dirty racer and that he somehow so precisely engineered a collision as to nearly kill his principal rival whilst leaving HAM himself scot-free is utterly preposterous.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      21st July 2021, 22:30

      @andrewwj I think he’s simply upset that one man can give his team such a hard time… Think about it, Red Bull have gone through 3 drivers to try and find a replacement for Ricciardo who was also having a hard time with their car. Who made Ricciardo leave Red Bull? Horner and Max as they thought they could easily find another driver to replace him.

      The reality that Horner and Marko are facing now is that the only person in the world who can drive that Red Bull quickly is Max. Gasly, Albon, and Perez have failed and it’s obviously not a driver problem.

      They’ve invested so much into this season and this is the only chance they have to take the fight to Mercedes. Max would clearly have won this race as he won the sprint but unfortunately there’s one huge obstacle named Lewis Hamilton. Instead of having a 40 point lead in the WCC and a 40 point lead in the WDC, they are back to square one.

      It doesn’t help that Max clearly made a huge mistake throwing all those points away…

      Instead of being 60 points ahead in the WDC

    2. I agree about Horner going overboard and I can’t help be reminded of the adage that what begins in anger ends in shame. But I feel like this extends from the wing dispute where he was saying Hamilton prevaricated in his comments about what he sees behind the Red Bull car. He did find a willing sparring partner in Wolff but Wolff seemed to draw a line at attacking drivers.

      Fwiw I would agree in hind sight that verstappen should have bailed out when he saw Hamilton’s front wing in full view. He could have won that race from second. And copse has plenty of room on the outside. Instead he got nothing.

      However I think it’s easy to forget after 8 articles here 10 yt analysis videos and 1k expert comments from random internet people here that the entire thing from lights out to the wreck took the time to blow on your coffee a couple times and take a sip. It was about instinct and reaction.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        22nd July 2021, 13:39

        @dmw

        I can’t help be reminded of the adage that what begins in anger ends in shame.

        I’d never heard of that one but I totally agree. I’ve also said that Horner is eventually going to regret his post-race interview because it’s not representative of the team and he spoke for the team. The result of the race is definitely a disaster for Red Bull but the British are renowned for their poise in situations like that one. He should have been seen calmly drinking his tea in the interview with full of confidence that Red Bull will beat Mercedes.

        Now that would have been incredible and we would have been talking about it for years :-)

  41. After reading the many differing opinions in regards to the clash between Hamilton and Verstappen, I can have my summary without being biased.

    Great driving from both drivers in that first lap, right up until just before corner 9 (Copes). Max did weave, the same as Alonso was permitted to do the previous day to try and break the tow he provided to Hamilton.

    As Hamilton got close, Verstappen moved to the left and provided room between him and the wall. Hamilton took that gap. In his own words, he saw the gap and went for it.

    The problem was however, that gap was on a part of the track the was unused and therefore dirty. A couple of different videos clearly show clouds of dust etc arising from Hamilton’s car.
    Verstappen steered left to provide more room.

    Hamilton clearly understeered past the apex of the corner and into the right rear of Verstappen’s car. This was due to going into the corner to hot on tyres that were dirty.
    Every other lap, Hamilton kissed the apex of that corner, not only during the race, but in Practice, Qualifying and the Sprint event.

    He passed Norris with ease on that corner easily, starting his entry wider and kissing the apex.

    Then came Le Clerc, who gave him plenty of room – Le Clerc stated later that he was concerned there was potential of what happened between Hamilton and Verstappen happening to him.
    In short, Hamilton chose to use a dirty part of the track to try and get past Verstappen. It worked, but not in the was he would have hoped.

    He missed the apex and understeered into Verstappen.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Masi, the outcome should not influence the Steward’s decisions. It should be the action itself.

    I this case, the issue should judged on how and why it happened along with the level of potential danger it caused. A crash at a hairpin at 60 Kilometres an hour should be judged differently to one at 280 kilometres an hour.

    It should be based on the incident, not what happens after it.

    That being said, Hamilton’s penalty was light.

    The potential for a horrendous accident to happen due to a driver over driving in an effort to overtake another competitor.

    One of the problems is the consistent attitude of Toto Wolff. That is that Hamilton never makes a mistake. Run off the track all on his own, pushing the wrong button on the steering wheel at Baku etc etc etc. According to Wolff, none of these were Hamilton’s fault. With Mercedes response to the weekends crash, it now appears that Hamilton believes that he is invincible and made of Teflon – nothing will stick.

    Hamilton has admitted that during this season he has over driven in order to make up for the deficit Mercedes has to Red Bull. This is simply another incident which high lights that. It has made him arrogant and self-righteous.

    When Hamilton is driving out on his own, he is extremely neat, tidy and fast. He is used to doing that for years. Put him in traffic as he is this year and he becomes a different driver – Overdriving, erratic, taking risks and making mistakes.

  42. Let’s just make a rule that bans passing…

  43. To me, this has all gone too far. Now Red Bull slagging Lewis especially Horner and making it into a personal thing. Oh and Max as well. Red Bull have turned this into a farce. Yes it was a huge crash, but in the eyes of many, it was a racing incident and ill go with what the experts say. Everyone needs to take a chill pill and a lot of fans out there need to pull their heads in.

  44. The whole sad business demonstrates, like a lot of National Legislation, that the FIA Judicial system is not fit for purpose.

    The ISC says a driver should not ’cause a collision’.
    The F1 SR provides a list of 4 penalties +3 for post race.

    As with UK Law the regulations are supported by various formal/informal documents. In UK law these are public ie Highway Code, but are not statutory.

    The FIA Guidance for Stewards, like Technical Directives or even the International Accident Database seem to be on restricted availability.

    Red Bull’s bullsh’t seems to be the FIA Guidance for Stewards, which incidently Toto and others feel has a opposite interpretation. However, the SR is quite clear, the penalty once handed down cannot be appealed. It seems difficult to appeal the ISC ’cause a collision’ so RB are are directly challenging the consideration of Stewards using guidance not prescriptive regulations like a deflection measurement. But even that is worrying if it states a driver’must make the apex’.

    I think I’ll study slotcar racing instead.

  45. Hamilton was wholly to blame because it was blatantly intentional. He could not lose face in front of his home crowd 2 races in a row, and kept his foot in on the inside Copse which even my gran knows would never worked. He would rather intentionally crash than lose out, just like Senna and Schumacher before. They did it for championships, Hamilton will do it just to save face at a home race.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      22nd July 2021, 19:42

      @balue sounds like you rank them as follows:

      Hamilton
      Senna
      Schumacher

      I don’t think many of us will argue with that. I also couldn’t help but notice that your post made no mention of Max.

      Obviously, Max doesn’t belong on that list since they would have 17 WDCs between and Senna would have won many more if he wasn’t unlucky.

      Which list is Max on? Is it this one?

      Maldonado
      MaxCrash
      Mazespin

      Did I get the order right?

    2. @balue I’m surprised you label Hamilton as an assassin, like Horner, but stating that he collided deliberately.
      What’s to gain from such crash? There’s a good chance you break your car and retire from the race. And that’s exactly what Hamilton has avoided on two occasions this year: in Imola and then in Spain.
      When was the last time Verstappen avoided a crash while being overtaken?

      By the way, FOM produced some time ago a compilation of 7 of Verstappen’s collisions with rivals (including his own team mate!). That’s 6 time where he preferred to collide than concede a corner because he’s not at fault for Singapore.
      Looks like your criticizing Hamilton for a behavior he hasn’t shown, but Max has.

      1. “Looks like your criticizing Hamilton for a behavior he hasn’t shown, But Max has.”
        He gave us one of the the best examples of taking out your opponent and coming out on top ever. Arriving at a corner too hot. Missing the inside racing line and corner apex completely (not even clipping the curb) and under steering into your opponent with such force that it rips your opponents rear (yep that is right – the rear right wheel) wheel off and then driving off into the sunset. Verstappen gave plenty of room and Hamilton ate it up at a great rate of knots and under steered into him with force! “Mine!”, said Hamilton. Under steer equates to being over the limit in regards to front end tire grip which results in a far reduced level of vehicle control. Hamilton looked contently out of control in the corner. He had a nice moving barrier to his left to help keep him on track. Hamilton would not want to have himself labelled as an assassin would he? Interesting question. I wonder. Don’t you? Clear as day who the instigator of this “incident” that everyone keeps waffling on about was. Yes it happened. It was an incident. A dramatically executed incident that took out an opponent. Hamilton’s fault. End of story. Whether it was a calculated “incident” is open to conjecture. Pretty thorough show of it though was it not? Even down to the emails and video’s being sent to the race director and stewards promptly after the “incident”. Pretty thorough for an act not instigated or planned. Well done team Mercedes. Could not have planned it better I would suggest. Hamilton showed “the behavior” in totality. Did you miss the incident? Did you watch the race maybe? Hamilton was very naughty indeed. For one not appreciating criticism Hamilton has certainly brought it on. Hamilton was the one crashing and smashing. Hence the penalty. I have always wondered why on public roads when you rear end someone it is generally a given that it is the person doing the rear ending that is at fault. No difference here. Hamilton’s fault. Hamilton can blank face lie about it and deny it as much as he likes. It does not change the facts.

  46. What part of causing a collision to people not understand? Whilst the offending car is in under steer no less. Hamilton’s fault. This question of Hamilton’s guilt is resolved. The matter is surely adjourned.

    1. When will someone have the decency to inform Stash that the question of guilt was resolved on Sunday during the race, and he is no different to the others who wont accept that decision for whatever reason. And what part of predominantly does Stash not understand; and if he does, why does he refuse to discuss it? And if Ham wasn’t wholly to blame, then why won’t he recognise the other party in the game who has to take some responsibility?
      And more importantly why do we have to take a break for a while and then resume the discussion at a later time? Can we adjourn to the pub whilst the Stash adjournment is on?

  47. Suppose Max could not race for a few months because of the collision he caused (according to most F1 fans here). How would you like the 2021 season then? It would be a borefest with Hamilton becoming champion again with no opposition at all except from his teammate (if he is allowed to race Hamilton).

  48. What I saw was Lewis backing out of the corner, almost level then Max back wheel to Lewis front wheel. Also Max didn’t take all the track width before turning in, he continued to squeeze Lewis. I realise Lewis didn’t look like he would hit the apex (although the incident was before it) as he was slower then Max he would have made the corner OK. He probably ran wide unloading the steering unsure if there was any damage to his front end.

    Definitely a racing incident although Max aggression doesn’t help at all.

    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'.