Official: Hamilton and Verstappen summoned as Red Bull request review of Silverstone collision

2021 British Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull have formally requested the stewards review their decision in relation to the collision between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen on the first lap of the British Grand Prix.

The team submitted a petition for a review on Friday. The two drivers and representatives of their teams have been summoned to appear before the stewards via a video link at 4pm Central European Summer Time on Thursday, ahead of the Hungarian Grand Prix weekend.

Verstappen crashed out of the race after colliding with Hamilton at turn nine on the opening lap. Hamilton was able to continue, and though he was given a 10-second time penalty, went on to win the race and cut Verstappen’s lead in the championship to eight points.

The Mercedes driver was also given two penalty points on his licence.

Under Formula 1’s rules, the stewards will initially meet to consider whether a review should take place. For this to happen, Red Bull must present new and significant information which was not considered by the stewards at the time of their original decision.

“Everyone has their own opinion on the events of Silverstone and it was a very polarising incident,” said Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff in a statement shortly before the FIA confirmed Red Bull had exercised its right to request a review.

“However, the most important thing is that Max is okay. It’s never nice to see a car crashing, particularly at such high speeds and at a corner like that, so we’re glad he emerged from the accident unscathed.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

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.

283 comments on “Official: Hamilton and Verstappen summoned as Red Bull request review of Silverstone collision”

  1. So Max looking twice at Lewis before turning in will definitely come to play.

    Reply moderated
    1. I hope they dont apply a penalty that affects the race outcome. This has shades of Spa 2008.
      Honestly, the racing is great this year, I dont care who wins as long as its on the track and goes down to the wire. Both are worthy champions. But it would be frustrating if the stewards, or reliability, or penalties had a deciding affect on the championship.

  2. Yes… yes… yes

    Best news I’ve heard in a long time…

    At last… the truth will prevail and we can put his to bed

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      27th July 2021, 16:24

      Are you insinuating that the stewards lied in some way by making Hamilton predominantly to blame?

    2. I will not be too surprised if even in 2023 Redbull later discover a crack in the steering wheel or wheel nut following the Hamilton – Verstappen accident of 2021.

      1. Sam Donaldson (ABC News)
        27th July 2021, 23:26

        Good one….

    3. @the-edge Yes, it will surely come out that this was a racing incident, and both drivers will be told to stay out of trouble. What a tempest in a teapot.

    4. Waste of time, and unlikely to succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  3. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
    27th July 2021, 14:38

    What are the odds that the Stewards will review the penalty decision and decide it was in fact too harsh…

    1. 50/50, Just like with racing incident

    2. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk
      Even if they do decide that the penalty was too harsh, there’s nothing they can do to change the outcome of that penalty.

      Red Bull only stands to benefit from this. Their goal is to give Hamilton a grid penalty.

      1. It was too harsh, two penalty points on his licence as well as the 10 second stop.

        1. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
          27th July 2021, 23:15

          Penalties were far more harsh a few years ago. Bottas got a drive through and 2 penalty points (effectively a 30 second penalty that you couldn’t do when you were pitting). And that was for braking a bit too late and forcing hamilton to spin and lose a few positions. That actually wasn’t as bad as what Hamilton did to verstappen, at least the outcome wasn’t.

          I don’t think the penalty for Hamilton was too harsh. I think that given Kimi got a 20 second penalty for hitting vettel the other race, Hamilton should really have got that or a drive through as it did look like a misjudgement to me with very bad consequences, and he didn’t suffer at all from the clash. when the driver at fault does suffer, they often don’t bother with penalties, despite saying they are not influenced by the outcome.

        2. Rob (@realnigelmansell)
          29th July 2021, 5:31

          You think a very amateur mistake that sent a competitor to the hospital only deserves two penalty points?

          1. @realnigelmansell has it not been made abundantly clear that the consequences have nothing to do with the penalty, or has something changed in the last few days?

      2. RB goal is to add preassure to drive within him self , leaving only Verstappen driving to his full potential.

        RB should have told Verstappen about the cost of replacing his crashed car so that he drove more circumspectly.
        Its verstappen taking unnecessary risks on the track forcing the other drivers to ‘watch out’ for him.

        Hopefully Mercedes will come with enough material evidence to support their position.

        1. ** RB goal is to add preassure so Hamilton drives within him self

        2. I agree with youe comment

          Reply moderated
    3. I doubt it will even get that far – the most likely scenario is the stewards will probably dismiss the case and say that Red Bull haven’t provided any evidence that materially changes the situation.

      1. anon I suspect the same.

      2. If it is the case they should make them bare all financial cost , and more, for frivolous claim, and cover that under the cost cap.

        1. Yes yes. Just like football when they add more games to an unsuccessful bid to overturn a red card. If they’re unsuccessful give Verstappen a grid penalty ;)

      3. Indeed Anon, @robbie, I would be highly surprised if there is any other outcome of this request to review the verdict. We have seen nor heard of any new information that Red Bull are bringing in.

        1. @bascb I wouldn’t have expected for us to be shown whatever additional info RBR has that they will bring to the fore on Thursday, and I expect that the outcome might just be that Horner will say they wanted clarity, based on what they will bring to the table, that the stewards also looked at the same info. They may just want further and more in-depth wording from the stewards than what was published.

          1. In the past we have had both Red Bull and Mercedes leak snippets of such stuff to “friendly” publications in Germany (or even RB owned ones) to put maximum pressure on the stewards (and their competitors) @robbie, just like if this had been about Ferrari we would have had some Italian “scoops” about any such information.

            As many others have mentioned, I don’t see much scope for “new” information since the stewards already have access to all telemetry directly. Or they would have to be able to somehow prove that while the information was there, it was ignored by the stewards, which is pretty unlikely to work.

      4. That is my expectation as well. Move on

      5. @anon
        many think the same, but i think they will just put some word of advice that is already out there, try to keep it clean… i have a feeling all this fuss and puff of smoke will come back to bite RBR in the end, as i feel Max is more prone to provocation… Similar to Bahrain, they will complain enough for some action/warning to be said, then it will hurt them more, and they will cry wolf… as they always do

    4. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk Hamilton to be given a 10 second headstart in Hungary to compensate

      1. I hope that Hamilton gets to take 10 seconds off his time in Hungary and comes in 9 seconds behind Verstappen. Therefore coming in 1 second ahead of Verstappen!

        Reply moderated
        1. Probably the one possibility to win apart from putting opponents in the wall.

      2. haha

        trying to imagine that
        other sequence of the red ligths, one for Lewis, one for the rest of the grid

        lol

      3. @keithedin kudos, made me spill my coffee :)

        More likely everyone will start from pit lane, where as ham will start from normal line… :) problem solved

    5. Zero. The stewards will decline to review the incident because Red Bull doesn’t have any compelling new evidence.

      Also, it would open up a Silverstone sized can of worms if they were to do so.

    6. That would indeed be hilarious.

  4. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    27th July 2021, 14:39

    I guess thinking of Grosjean a few years ago taking out ‘the championship leaders’ and being heavily punished for not just that but causing a huge accident… you could probably argue Hamilton should be punished too for the same thing? Personally I thought he got off incredibly lightly and luckily as the whole thing worked out excessively in his favour and has heavily penalized Red Bull & Verstappen but I’m uncomfortable with applying a retroactive penalty – it could set a pretty awkward precedent for the future.

    1. @rocketpanda – Masi already stated that the aftermath/result for the championship etc. is not supposed to be part of the Stewards thinking at all when considering a penalty.

      If anything, all other cases show that the ruling against Grosjean was badly considered at the time and should NOT have been that strict.

      1. Well, it was either say that they benched Grosjean for taking out the championship leaders, or say they benched him because he was an unstable driver prone to causing massive collisions.

        1. @grat
          it was more that Gro caused quite a few accidents, and the spa incident was just the tip of the iceberg. He took out way more than just wdc contenders… and his crashes were too many before this too. He was involved 1st lap crashes in 7 of the first 12 races! It was just waiting to happen regardless of who was involved (in terms of wdc)

          1. You’re wrong my friend. They explicitly stated that taking out the championship leaders was one of the reasons for the penalty.

          2. @Initially “one of the reasons for the penalty.” not the main or whole reason! just like the penalty ham got, “predominantly” and not “wholly”

            Gro had “7” first lap incidents of 12 races! That is pretty high rate!

            FIA stewards determined Grosjean had breached several of F1’s Sporting Regulations. You are stating one only to frame your agenda

          3. Hi
            Maybe it’s me but if RB ask the stewards to look again at the penalty given to Lewis and it is pointed out by Mercedes that Max looked twice and saw Lewis was there but still committed to the corner then RB may be in for a shock decision.
            It was no more than a racing incident between two world class drivers.
            Lewis has backed out of conflict with Max Verstappens aggressive driving on a number of occasions and Max expected him to back off this time.
            Steve

    2. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      27th July 2021, 16:26

      The problem is there is no proof of where Max might of finished in order to change the penalty already given.

      1. … which is exactly why time penalties are not subject to appeal.

    3. Dave (@davewillisporter)
      27th July 2021, 17:57

      @rocketpanda The stewards judged Grosjean to be wholly to blame and had demonstrated dangerous driving consistent with previous incidents hence the ban.
      The difference here and the reason people keep saying Hamilton’s penalty was too lenient is they don’t fully understand the stewards decision which was Hamilton was “predominantly to blame” which means Max shared some of the blame as Hamilton was not “wholly” to blame!
      The 10 second time penalty reflects that judgement. It wasn’t lenient, it was appropriate given the circumstances of the contact and only the contact, not the result.

    4. @rocketpanda Grosjean was punished for dangerous driving, not for how the consequences of that incident affected the championship. That being said, this year is somewhat reminiscent of 2012, and that’s okay by me! What will happen next?

    5. @rocketpanda

      I guess thinking of Grosjean a few years ago taking out ‘the championship leaders’ and being heavily punished for not just that but causing a huge accident… you could probably argue Hamilton should be punished too for the same thing?

      Following the Grosjean crash, the teams and stewards discussed whether the consequences of a collision should have a bearing on the penalty, and decided they shouldn’t. This was referred to by Masi at Silverstone, and has been cited in some subsequent judgements, such as Williams’ petition for a review of various incidents at the 2018 Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

      1. Adam (@rocketpanda)
        28th July 2021, 12:21

        Did they! I’m surprised about that. I’m not sure a ‘one size fits all’ concept really works for punishment here, there’s a lot of shades of grey and nuance that goes on that should be taken into account. It certainly shouldn’t be the driving force behind the application of punishment but surely the victim/victim loss should be a consideration?

        I mean for instance a drive through penalty and loss of 20-odd seconds in the pits would destroy the race of an AlphaTauri, possibly a McLaren or a Ferrari too. But let’s be honest it’s a bump in the road to a Mercedes or a Red Bull, so is the punishment fair? It enormously damages one but is nothing but a blip to the other.

        How you’d actually enforce something like that I have no idea, but to me it suggests there’s got to be a better way than we’re doing it currently.

  5. Didn’t the stewards initially state Verstappen was partly at fault?

    1. @amam They said Hamilton was “predominantly” at fault…saying that implies that some blame lies with Verstappen.

      1. @geemac Which was very generous to the driver who decided to turn in on his rival after spotting him.

        1. I luv chicken
          27th July 2021, 15:08

          I know. Hamilton turning left, was a dastardly move. Agreed.

          1. Hamilton understeered wide and into Verstappen, reducing the space Verstappen had on the outside. Verstappen turned right and into Hamilton, reducing the space Hamilton had on the inside. They’re both at fault, and it should have been a racing incident and not “predominantly” anything. They both could have avoided it by slowing and taking different lines, and neither should have expected the other to yield.

          2. IfImnotverymuchmistaken
            27th July 2021, 15:21

            There was a video on F1 official page a few days ago, the HAM-ROS incident in 2016. In the video, i don’t recall verbatim, but HAM states something in the line of “we were heading into the same spot on the track, and one of us should have lifted, but we’re racing, we don’t do that”.
            I think same applies here. I agree that VER bearing all of the consequences, and HAM none does leave a sour taste, but it could’ve gone any other way, it was a racing incident, and luck would have it that HAM gets all the points, and VER all the damage. Next time might be different.

          3. Hamilton didn’t turn left– he may have under-steered, but his wheel kept the same angle of attack.

            Max, however, looked right, steered right, straightened for a moment, then steered HEAVILY right.

          4. @grat exactly, max hesitated seeing!!! ham, he did twitch! ham didnt, he kept full lock but understeered. if anything they should just take away the 2 points penalty in the light of new evidence by rbr! i hope they bring max’s onboard footage and data (throttle/steering inputs/braking etc)

        2. Ver turned right to round the corner leaving plenty of space for Ham. Ham understeered into the rear of the RB effectively forcing the RB to cross his path as the impact changed the attitude of the RB (rear wheel steering), Physics!

          1. Lewis did not understeer,,that is just a rumour,not a fact..when I watch the inboards,it doesn’t look like Lewis understeered.lewis had been missing the apex all weekend because it unsettled his car.. further more,it doesn’t change the fact max turned sharply into Lewis,when he should have been more cautious,because he knew Lewis was beside him…that’s why full blame is not on Lewis.

          2. Indeed, phycics show Hamilton never would have been able to make the corner with that speed.
            His path always would have crossed max in front.
            Only when he hold back after the incident he could successfully make the corner.
            That was the moment leclerc passed him.
            I guess that is the line of thought by RBR. And the fact all other passes Hamilton made there were at much lower speed.
            But it still is a driver error and I do not see much room for another penalty.
            But we will see.

          3. Will Jones - phd in physics
            27th July 2021, 16:31

            Erikje, which formula are you using again? If physics proves Hamilton couldn’t have made that corner, show us your workings! Unless you’re lying. Again.

          4. @blik Maybe you need to use both your eyes? See the Jolyon Palmer video where he looks at Verstappen’s steering inputs.

  6. Redbull should move on from this. It was clear that both drivers went too hot into copse and that the contact was typical racing incident which Hamilton was held “predominantly” to blame and penalised for. The penalty was consistent with recent “forcing driver off track” penalties. Move on

    1. Only thing I can really think of is that they would maybe give Lewis another penalty point on his license.

    2. I don’t understand comments like this. Red Bull has a legal right under the sporting regulation to apply for an appeal. They neither have to move on, nor do they have to agree with the decision. They’re doing the right thing by using the roads the regulation has given them to appeal a decision they disagree with.

      “they need to move on” no sooner than when their appeal is over and there’s no further avenues for them to pursue or when they get the result they want.

      1. GtisBetter (@passingisoverrated)
        27th July 2021, 15:50

        Sure they have a legal avenue. Just as you can sue Starbucks because the coffee is so hot you burn your mouth. It’s opportunism and hypocrisy, nothing to do with a fair outcome. This is not why these legal avenues exist and will only make F1 worse when every team demand a lawyer present with every steward decision.

        Of course I and many others are very curious what kind of evidence they have gathered that was not know to the stewards at the time. It must be mind blowing. Like lewis telling his team he will drive into max on purpose.

        1. Rob (@realnigelmansell)
          29th July 2021, 5:40

          Yes, because lewis driving way too fast into copse and taking max out of the race (like he did to albon twice), then getting an easily surmountable penalty was a fair outcome

      2. Mr Dean Reynolds
        27th July 2021, 15:58

        Just read through some of your previous comments. You arent adverse to complaining when “legal rights under the sporting regulations” are followed.
        Glass houses and all that!

        1. He thinks the claim is not colorable. So he’s being consistent…

        2. Is that an answer to me?

          1. No. To Dean.

      3. Time penalties are not subject to appeal. Red Bull, in my opinion, got lucky with Hamilton being penalized, although it didn’t really change the outcome (which isn’t the point of the penalty anyway).

        The problem is, Red Bull has been effin’ hysterical about this since the crash, and they’re only making themselves look worse.

        If it turns out they have no new evidence on which to base an appeal that isn’t supposed to be possible, they’re really going to look like the biggest whingers in F1.

        1. @grat nah that particular crown easily goes to comments like yours.

          1. And with that comment, your case is set back to mudslinging.

          2. Uhh…. I haven’t had public histrionics over someone trying to kill my driver, I haven’t called for a one-race ban for what was obviously a racing incident, I haven’t threatened legal action, and I haven’t forced the FIA convene the stewards panel from two weeks ago to consider evidence that doesn’t exist.

            Christian Horner is, and always has been, the kid stomping his feet and threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue if he doesn’t get his way. He whined his way to the championships in the V8 era (See “Red Bull Renault reliability”), he’s whined the entire time that his team has been incapable of catching the Mercedes, and now that he’s got the fastest car, he’s STILL whining.

            I make a reasonable, measured point, and you accuse me of whinging. You’re projecting, please don’t do it towards me.

          3. And now you left. I guess it was “Enough is enough” for you…

      4. Sorry but there is no legal right to argue a penalty

      5. Agree, they have the right to try and I hope they do something but not optimist, cause appeals rarely work in f1 (and probably in the rest of the world too), regardless the outcome isn’t fair, to make it a debatably fair outcome you would need a stop and go in silverstone, hamilton would’ve probably come up into the points, 7th or so, still unfair to verstappen but when you consider he was partially to blame, and that there’s a risk involved in racing wheel to wheel that’s probably close to fair, not certainly a win though.

  7. Hamilton’s two penalty points like to be rescinded and RedBull forced to apologize.

    1. <blockquoteRedbull let it go and get on with the season please

      Reply moderated
    2. @david-beau

      i think they kept arguing about ham’s later moves which is silly to argue about as tyre conditions, fuel loads, track conditions etc all change… best thing would come out of this is that stewards take max’s onboard footage and his data at the point plotted to show max indeed saw ham and did throttle/steering adjustment initially but continued on the move therefore penalty is unjustified and points to be removed! and additional penalty to rbr team for sporting foul (unsportsmenship) by knowingly trying to alter the result of the race by doing a completely unnecessary pit stop to grab fastest lap point (he was unlikely to be awarded was certain at that point, and they actually forfeited real points!

      1. @mysticus Exactly – it’s hard to understand how that can possibly be considered as new evidence when it happened “in the future” compared to when the incident happened.

      2. Rob (@realnigelmansell)
        29th July 2021, 5:44

        I agree. Other drivers should understand that they need to get out of Lewis’s way, and that if they don’t lewis has every right to punt them into the wall. I hope max is banned for daring to finish ahead of lewis or pass him

  8. So when they review the footage and see Max turn in on Hamilton’s line whilst being able to make the corner and be in prime position for the next corner, will they in fact penalise him for the next race? He steers into Lewis as Lewis backs off the accelerator realising he can’t make the pass… Quite simply this should have been classed as a racing incident and if the shoe was on the other foot Horner would be having kittens about his driver being unfairly penalised.

    Reply moderated
    1. I think they only do it to see how many comments it collects this time, and see what happens when repeatedly hitting a large deceased domesticated mammal.

    2. And soon it’s off!

    3. I wish that they could just settle this dispute like everyone else, with a dance off.

    4. @geemac

      You bet. I’m just hoping Netflix manages to squeeze themselves in to this ‘summoning’ . This is the kind of material they need to take Drive to survive to the next level.

      1. @todfod Netflix could turn the decision to do this into a whole episode, with the hearing taking up another full episode and the fallout taking 3 episodes to cover.

  9. Andy Johnson
    27th July 2021, 14:49

    Horner is looking increasingly desperate…Mercedes upgrades have spooked him! This was a 50/50 racing incident and Horner knows this but is trying to prove otherwise…Good luck with that as the footage shows Lewis did nothing wrong. I am embarrassed for Horner and the Red Bull team!!

    Reply moderated
  10. Red Bull seem determined to sour this championship for Verstappen. Come on, the team and he are still easily capable of winning without this kind of litigatory nonsense. It threatens to undermine the integrity of stewarding far more than Wolff (and Horner) speaking to the stewards during the race: they seem determined to set a precedent for retroactive penalities, based on eventual outcomes not the incident itself, and even with the threat of suing for costs. Dismal, dismal.

    1. Let’s wait for the facts. I’m curious what they’ll come up with. Apparently they have really relevant new information to present. If nothing else, it keeps people talking about it, and that’s the main goal for Liberty.

    2. @david-br That’s pretty rich after TW and LH have tried to stir things up against RBR in the boardroom and the media from the minute they saw that RBR’s testing pace indeed translated to the racetrack in race one. Need I remind you of their complaints of the floor change, the wing, the tire pressure, the pu upgrade, the too fast pit stops, and now trying to blame the victim for Silverstone. And you think RBR are trying to sour this Championship? Give me a break. Dismal? Yes that is what Mercs behaviour has been all season the minute they’re on their hind foot.

      1. @robbie None of the Mercedes protests implied committing a ‘professional foul’ and therefore implying that Verstappen was hospitalized with some kind of intent. I suggest some nuance rather than your increasingly blind Red Bull worship, which seems to exonerate every kind of bad behaviour. Verstappen was also partially to blame for the incident – according to the original steward verdict – so talk of a ‘victim’ is both misplaced and, really, given Verstappen’s racing style (which I like but believe can be self-defeating) kind of pathetic.

        1. @david-br uhm, yes they did. From false statements on tyre pressures to accussations of Honda fiddling with the engine between versions, everything Mercedes has suggested Red Bull have done this season was a professional foul. Not even remotely trying to find common ground on this incident, but to suggest that Red Bull are now stooping below Mercedes is truly cominical.

          1. @hahostolze Is it really necessary to play the victim? My original point was that even if Red Bull think they were wronged, making this championship increasingly contentious and acrimonious, with racing decisions decided off-track and days/weeks later, seems to me unnecessary and actually more liable to backfire. But I suppose the idea is that winning whatever way it takes is still winning. I’ve already explained why accusations relating to technical issues (team circumvention of regulations) and drivers (people) are essentially different. It should be obvious that accusing another driver of deliberately causing a high speed incident is far more serious.

          2. Loving your “neutrality”. I’m a big fan.

          3. @hahostolze funny: last year, and many times before redbul and others were doing much worse on complaining about mercedes… rim cooling holes, frics (which many had versions of it), oil burn, rear floor changes (this def came about due to one or two collisions where leading edge of the rear floor broke off and mercedes lost huge aero performance and some competitor(s) took notice), das system, not to forget engine modes…

        2. @david-br A statement from the FIA read: “The Stewards reviewed video and telemetry evidence. 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.”

          I know you like to play off this as though the stewards have also literally said… “Verstappen was also partially to blame for the incident – according to the original steward verdict” but that is just verbiage. But you needn’t put words in the stewards mouths. But at least you are consistent. You have the stewards claiming something they didn’t, and you have Horner claiming LH intended to take Max out and put him in the hospital, which he didn’t.

          “they seem determined to set a precedent for retroactive penalities, based on eventual outcomes not the incident itself,” can be said of TW and Mercedes with their TD requests just as much as what are you accusing RBR of, once you remove your hyperbole on the matter of course. RBR are merely exercising their right to a review, and we have yet to know it that will even be granted, and you have them “making this championship increasingly contentious and acrimonious, with racing decisions decided off-track and days/weeks later, seems to me unnecessary and actually more liable to backfire.” Really? By requesting a review?

          Sounds to me like you are the one far more exercised about this with your tabloid hyperbole. You should take up with F1 that in your opinion they should remove the right to request a review. The same right I have no doubt, given their behaviour so far this year, Mercedes would exercise had they at this point sat with a near 60 point deficit if it was Max that had hit LH in the same identical manner with the same identical result. And like LH and fans would just be sat there saying oh well I/he wasn’t penalized but I’m/he’s at fault too, so…oh well.

          1. Being accused of verbiage after that is quite funny. The verbiage has been from Red Bull from the outset, trying to eek some kind of advantage after Verstappen came off worse from a 50/50 dispute for track. I’ve no issue with Hamilton being penalized as ‘predominantly’ to blame, even if I disagree, but extending this one incident in this way seems to me a refusal to accept the basics of racing. Hence the endless analysis of a fairly commonplace incident, albeit with more dramatic consequences for one driver (who is fortunately OK).

            Whatever, we’ll see how this pans out. I’m fed up of the whole thing now. If every coming together between Hamilton and Verstappen for the rest of this season turns into this kind of dispute, I’ll be tuning out.

          2. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
            27th July 2021, 16:34

            So what can you bring to the party after the stewards found Hamilton predominantly guilty that would make it look like the stewards didn’t do their job properly?

          3. @david-br Put in Horner’s shoes I highly doubt you would be so magnanimous and just accept “the basics of racing.” Nor would TW in the same situation.

          4. @robbie Just to correct you fabrication that Horner didn’t accuse Hamilton of intending ‘to take Max out’, this is what he posted:

            I think Hamilton should’ve got a stop-go penalty. What he did was like a professional foul.

            You know what a professional foul is, right? Deliberately fouling (in this case, colliding with) a rival. Horner then doubled down on the fact that Verstappen ended up in hospital (albeit for routine checks) just to make sure we got the connection between ‘deliberate contact’ and ‘hospital’. That was obvious to everyone and was remarked as such by numerous media outlets. As for the stewards, yes, they chose ‘predominantly to blame’ over ‘wholly to blame,’ thus implying some fault was with the other driver. Kind of self-evident.

          5. @david-br And note he says ‘like’ a professional foul, not ‘was’ a professional foul, if you want to go the route of implying things such as from the stewards wording. Horner also said of LH ‘a driver of his calibre…’ showing him some respect in that way.

          6. Dave (@davewillisporter)
            27th July 2021, 18:21

            @robbie @david-br I’ll weigh in with some logic on the stewards statement. “Predominantly” doesn’t mean wholly or completely to blame. It means “mostly” to blame. So if Hamilton was judged to have been “predominantly” to blame then there is some blame left which has not been apportioned to Hamilton. Whether that blame is apportioned to Max or an allowance for 1st lap madness or something else is not clear as the stewards haven’t stated where they considered that left over blame lay!

            What Redbull are trying to do is prove with whatever they have got that Hamilton in fact IS wholly to blame which should therefore incur a greater penalty than he got. I remember the yellow flag incident where Redbull brought footage of Hamilton not slowing for them and got Hamilton a grid penalty. I doubt any extra footage exists so likely they will show the corner approach speeds of Hamilton during the race and in particular when he was attempting to overtake Charles as proof he didn’t intend to take the corner cleanly. An approach I don’t think will be successful but hey ho!

          7. @davewillisporter I agree it’s one possible interpretation of what the stewards implied (or imply) by ‘predominantly,’ but they were unlikely to cite Verstappen in their explanation of the penalty because if they said Verstappen could have, say, not turned in so aggressively, they would have automatically qualified it as a racing incident. Joe Saward wrote on his blog:

            “Car 44 is judged predominantly at fault”. The last phrase is significant. The stewards clearly felt that that Lewis should take most of the blame, but the word “predominantly” indicates that there was also some fault involved with Verstappen. There was no penalty for the Dutchman as the implications of an accident – while not considered in the discussion of blame – are treated as punishment in such circumstances. So, in effect, the stewards were saying that both drivers had some responsibility in the crash. I’d call that a racing incident…

            See what I mean? The logic of even suggesting Verstappen had some role in the contact prompts the conclusion ‘racing incident.’ For what it’s worth, I disagree with Joe Saward here, because I think it is reasonable for stewards to apportion ‘most’ of the blame to one driver in some cases, as they did in this, even if in this instance I do think it was a racing incident. Sure they could have been specific and said ‘Hamilton was entirely to blame, but we’ll say mostly as it was difficult to judge the braking on the first lap’ or some such. But then they’d be hit by the opposite accusation (as from Red Bull) that Hamilton ‘should have known better.’ Maybe the dispute boils down to this ambiguity in the penalty decision…

          8. @robbie sorry folks above but Robbie is becoming less able to argue or see any view other the ‘red bull wronged – max is the greatest ever despite having zero to prove such’ lately. It’s a shame frankly.

            We used to have discourse – now it’s just hysterical freaking out cos LH ain’t in front. Max is – must be cos they the best Eva Eva. For goodness sake.

            Sorry Robbie but this level of lack of internal confidence is off putting.

            LH has sufficient a canvas of work to not be put down, denigrated and frankly despised by fans of someone with a tenth of his achievements. It’s just pure insecurity. Not unlike the move last week.

            Further and just so you know, slicks and wings react very differently to how the average driver assumes. If someone runs into you or across you they are taking a risk. See Baku and his own team mate. Eventually it bites. Usually at speed.

            Good luck with the cannot be argued penalty

          9. @Robbie The words used by the race stewards in their communications is very proscribed. They use a different form of words when a driver is judged 100% to blame – see the Russell judgement from the sprint race at Silverstone when he punted Sainz off the track.

            The expression “Car 44 is judged predominantly at fault.” means exactly what it says – predominantly but not completely. Predominantly could mean anything between 51% and 99%.

          10. @drgraham Ironic of you to say “We used to have discourse” and then follow that up with “it’s just hysterical freaking out” when it is actually just discussion and debate on an F1 site, at least on my part, and sure for some people it is about denigrating and despising.

      2. Indeed, if anyone’s championship is gonna be hollow, it’s on mercedes side!

  11. so is the new evidence another skypad analysis from Karun?

    1. Karun’s analysis is a lot better than the Stewards.

    2. @cplchanb Which in this case isn’t going to help them because Karun’s initial analysis and opinion was that the 10 second penalty was harsh and it should have been either called a racing incident or maybe a 5 second penalty just due to the consequences.

  12. Red Bull have become a pathetic whiney team. I hope the stewards look at the wheel touching prior to Copse, determine Max was at fault and send him to the back of the grid.

    1. Care to give a rundown on how Mercedes would have reacted had the driver roles been reversed. Start from where Toto smashes his fist on the table…………………………… ;-)

      1. Ham gets back to the pits and Lauda/Toto says what the expletive were you doing closing the door and crashing on the first lap. Live to fight another day. Which is what happened in Spa and Spain when he was around. Which is why Ham gave room to Max in Spain and at T6 at Silverstone. Not that Ham would be stupid enough to fall for such an obvious dummy that Ham pulled on Max down the old pit straight, and in closing off the inside leave a big enough gap to drive a bus through.

        1. Not comparable situations.
          There was nothing Lewis could do in those instances besides crashing into max.
          Lewis did the same in portimao BTW.
          Now he choose to torpedo verstappen.
          He was penalised for it.
          You seem to miss a lot each race….

          1. More like He cut across Lewis’s Bow ;-)

      2. Prior to Copse they would have told Lewis that they have a faster car (proven in sprint race) and not to fight Max. Let him go, stay close and we’ll get him on the under/over cut.
        Red Bull acted like it was there first time fighting for a championship and failed to devise a strategy that would minimize any impact Lewis could have on the points gap. If Lewis ends up winning the WDC by 25 points or fewer, we’ll all look back on Silverstone and how stupid Red Bull were in managing their points lead. I choose not to wait for that.

      3. If the roles were reversed, Horner would have acted just like Wolff did. It’s their job.

  13. Now that it has been made official, I see that the headline here is more reasonable as well. Rather than “Will Red Bull ‘demand’ Hamilton penalty review,” we now have “Red Bull ‘request’ review”

    It will be interesting to see if they have enough further evidence such that the stewards will grant the request and review it, and I’m glad the article points out they are exercising their right to do so. I see no harm in them at least making the request. Situation reversed and suddenly LH/Merc sits with a huge gulf in points, I have no doubt they would do the same. Particularly after all of their TD review requests and insinuations to the media about RBR this year so far.

    I think it is noteworthy that of course while Allison stated or wrote a diatribe as to why LH’s penalty was too harsh, for his actions were ‘within the rule book,’ they themselves have not requested a review.

    1. @robbie As one outcome from a review (even a Mercedes-initated one) could be an increase in the number of penalty points given to Hamilton, they may have decided it’s not worth the risk, especially as he has skirted close to the 12-point threshold in recent times.

      Alternatively Mercedes may simply have no additional evidence that they wish to share with the officials, which might exonerate Hamilton.

      1. @red-andy They supposedly had no shortage of evidence when TW rushed to the stewards office during the red flag. But of course the reality is they know they got off scot free and that the menial penalty was just that. Allison’s argument that LH was only doing everything within the rule book was silly as nobody had disputed that LH had the right to be left space, which he was by the stewards’ admission, and nobody argued LH legally ‘had’ to cede. None of that means he legally had the right to take Max out, and of course LH was the penalized one for a reason.

        1. Horner complained first, Toto second. Toto invited to visit stewards , Horner gate crashed. And even after numerous explanations you still fail to understand what predominantly means. And what’s your latest? Oh yes. You can request a review. But you think RB should be applauded for requesting not demanding.
          So all this rushed, menial, diatribe, take Max out, is just your usual hyperbole and nonsense to gloss over the fact its just another one of your ill-informed rants.

          1. @riptide Given the amount of vitriol and rhetoric spewing venom towards anything Horner, Max, and RBR does or says, yes I thought it pertinent to point out that it is a far cry from ‘demanding’ for Horner to ‘request’ a review, which is his right. It’s not about me thinking RB should be applauded for requesting not demanding, it is that the reality is he requested, not demanded.

            I don’t know who said ‘rushed,’ Horner said ‘menial’ and he was right because it was, I said ‘diatribe’ because that is what Allison gave and it had no bearing on anything for what he claimed wasn’t ever disputed, and yeah I said ‘take Max out’ because that is what LH did, by being predominantly at fault and being penalized, as per the stewards wording which I have provided on another post here.

        2. I understand that the materials Toto (and Allison) based their initial views and comments on @robbie, @peartree, @riptide, @red-andy were later shown to have not been as relevant, nor near as official as Mercedes thought they were when they posted those materials to the stewards/Masi.

        3. @robbie Evidence that they presented to the stewards at the time would not be “new” evidence and therefore be inadmissible as grounds for a review.

          1. @racer That’s my understanding too hence my wording ‘enough further evidence.’

  14. As part of the sideshow; aided and abetted by RBs tame journalists, are we really going to see Max whinging and whining like a baby that that nasty Mr Hamilton is too aggressive?
    Although it will give us another opportunity to watch Max being dummied by Hamilton down the old pit straight as he was against Ricci in Baku.

    1. Hyperbole Ian hits again :)

    2. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      27th July 2021, 16:38

      The truth so far as I can see Max has kept quiet. All the noise is coming from Horner.

  15. RBR terrible losers, vindictive use personal abuse and snider remarks. When that doesn’t work they harass intimidate. So what new evidence can they bring to the table? A note from Verstappen’s mum about how upset he was about the victory celebrations?
    Toxic team!

    1. @johnrkh Far less toxic than your hyperbolic comment.

    2. @johnrkh so kind of the same as your comment?

    3. So what new evidence can they bring to the table?

      Tha simple fact you wish to deny that evidence speaks for itself.

    4. I’d like to hear a definition for mercedes team if red bull is toxic, ahah.

  16. I still fail to understand why such a big deal is been made over what in my view was nothing more than a simple racing incident.

    The way some (Including Red Bull) are going on about it you would think this was some sort of truly outrageous, deliberate, utterly stupid & dangerous manoeuvrer…. Like Lewis had gone flying in from miles back with his brakes locked completely out of control & just shoved Max out the way, Yet that is simply not what happened.

    Over the past week i’ve seen various pieces of analysis, All the angles & heard many opinions from people with far more knowledge/understanding than any of us & as a result of taking all that in I still stand by what I said a week ago.
    https://www.racefans.net/2021/07/19/penalising-hamilton-for-severity-of-verstappens-crash-not-an-option-masi/#comment-4670769

    1. I agree. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Horner, Marko, and Red Bull because of this.

    2. @stefmeister I believe RB are going to claim a jerez 97 situation.

    3. @stefmeister Ok you’ve put your hyperbolic spin on it. Some of the analysists have also said that they think this time LH had decided he wasn’t going to cede, after Max had forced him to cede too many times (in LH’s opinion) before, both that weekend and in other races this season. Some have said LH may have felt he had to pass Max there or see Max go off into the sunset. And he didn’t pull it off. He wasn’t able to control his car and take the inside space he had been left. Whether or not that was because he was being intentionally stubborn I don’t think we’ll know, but some sure think that is the case. Intentionally stubborn btw does not mean intentionally hit him.

      1. @robbie you think Hamilton failed to control his car? That he was “stubborn”?
        What do you think of Verstappen’s Austria’s 2019 win?

        According to Verstappen himself:

        “I think the second one I braked a bit deeper into the corner,” said Verstappen. “We had a little contact of course, mid-to-exit of the corner but from my side I think it’s racing.”
        “It’s hard racing,” he said. “It’s better than just following each other and having a boring race, isn’t it?”

        Leclerc’s point of view:

        As Max said I think he braked a little bit deeper. I don’t know if he lost it or not but then there was the contact. I felt I was quite strong in traction.
        “On the first attempt I managed to have better traction and kept my position. On the second one I couldn’t do that because I was off-track.

        So Verstappen braked later, collided with Leclerc, forcing his opponent to leave the race track, and went on to win.
        Isn’t that exactly what you accuse Hamilton of doing? Being “stubborn”, going no matter what and ruining his opponent race? Well, that’s exactly what Verstappen did two years ago.
        Even more: Ferrari decided not to drag that story for ages and moved on.

        I fail to understand why when Verstappen’s collides with the opposition, it’s “hard racing” (his words), but when it’s Hamilton suddenly the strongest of the penalties should be applied… Don’t forget that the outcome of the incident should not be taken into consideration.

        1. You know the recordings show very clear it was leclerc who steered into max.
          Not the other way around.

    4. I agree. For me personally, my comments (on Lewis & Mercedes) come from not owning up to it. Of course it can happen. It was a minor mistake, but with disproportional consequences (which I feel should not be weighted when investigating) It was bound to happen. It needs to happen since it is the opposite of the processional racing from the last 8 years.

  17. What a farce. Petulant behaviour from Red Bull. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised, but it’s detracting from a great championship battle.

  18. First of all such a funny comment section.
    I think Rb is going to show the telemetry RB have been talking about. Everyone knows the stewards won’t review the decision, let alone change the outcome of a race.
    I think RB knows this too, they want to prove their point. They want to convince the stewards that Ham hit Max on purpose. Rb want to influence the stewards.
    What I think it is going to happen is that Max is going to get a heavier penalty when he hits Ham.

    1. I think they will both be on a tighter leish after all this. Or they’ll just ban Schumacher or Giovinazzi for six races for a racing incident next time. To show they really, reallys mean it this time.

    2. @peartree Red Bull’s telemetry data claim that has circulated recently is questionable because no way they’d have access to Mercedes’ car telemetry unless they’ve somehow stolen their IP.

      1. @jerejj presumably it is gps data. Rb has publicly stated Ham went deeper into copse on lap 1 than on the rest of the race. I reckon this will be their “new evidence”.

        1. @peartree GPS, of course. I should’ve thought more thoroughly before replying.
          @gt-racer Indeed.

        2. @peartree I really can’t see how things that happened “in the future” (relative to when the incident occurred) can be submitted as evidence for the stewards to review their decision.

          If that is all Red Bull has, then I suspect Mercedes team will argue that it isn’t admissible evidence and the request for a review will be rejected.

          1. @scbriml RB claim Ham went deeper into copse on lap 1 than on any other lap during the race. A claim crucial to substantiate their claim that Hamilton was never going to make the corner.

          2. @Peartree What happened in the race after the penalty is irrelevant because it hadn’t happened when the stewards investigated the incident. The future cannot be retrospectively applied to the past. It makes no sense whatsoever.

          3. @scbriml

            The future cannot be retrospectively applied to the past. It makes no sense whatsoever.

            What is a penalty review then?

          4. @Peartree The only basis for a review is if new and significant information comes to light that wasn’t available to the stewards at the time of the investigation. A good example is the grid penalty that Hamilton picked up after new video was released that wasn’t available when they originally investigated.

            What Red Bull are apparently bringing to the table happened after the incident and surely can’t be admissible as evidence. Just as the stewards don’t take any account of the consequences of an incident, they surely can’t take “the future” into account either.

    3. @peartree

      Yes, I think this has nothing to do with changing penalties. It is simply to apply maximum pressure to Hamilton. Bonus if they create a situation where the stewards are scared of Red Bull.

      Basically Horner is playing an amped up version of Rosberg’s mind games. Which is probably a good strategy, although it is really ugly.

      1. @slotopen I think you’re right, goes with the endless stream of ‘Hamilton has met his match’ statements from Horner. Will it work? Maybe. What is surprising is that they think Verstappen needs this level of help when Red Bull still have the faster car.

        1. Disagree with the fastest car, it’s been a long wait to hungary, so I’ve been thinking about the races the other day, and I’d say red bull had the upper hand in quali, I’m not talking about results, I’m talking about potential, the clear upper hand I’m gonna say so far, whereas in the races it seemed even, so depending on track features it’s still very debatable who has the best car.

          I’ll admit the races where red bull had the biggest performance advantage (austria x2), said advantage was larger than the races where merc had the biggest advantage (portugal and spain).

      2. Hm, well, I do think that if Red Bull feel this might help in the championship battle, why not @slotopen.

        Not sure I would even call it “really ugly”. Although some of their remarks about Hamilton’s motives and “dirty driving” themed ones from the likes of Horner and Marko are somewhat distasteful, especially in light of the racist comments on social media their statements helped fuel.

        I guess this just goes to show how tight the fight is this year. I hope that championship battle lasts until late in the year and is mostly played out on track. However, with F1 there is almost always an element of tech accusations thrown around (Red Bull with their dodging rear wings, Mercedes flappy front wings etc.), and occasionally we get some “unsportive” exclamations thrown in for good measure!

      3. @slotopen currently f1 does whatever mercedes and Ham want, RB reckon they can tip the balance to their favour. Both teams assert way too much influence into f1 and sporting matters.
        @gt-racer At the time the penalty was issued the stewards didn’t have what I presume is gps data from the race, as the data is from the race and obviously the penalty was given before the restart.

        1. @peartree How can something that happens “in the future” be taken into account for an incident “in the past”? That’s nonsensical.

    4. @peartree

      I think Rb is going to show the telemetry RB have been talking about.

      I’m pretty sure the stewards have full access to all of the telemetry now so not sure that would ever be considered ‘new’.

      @jerejj They will have access to the telemetry that is sent out on race broadcasts & the timing app which is all real time data coming directly from the cars. And they do also have various tools that uses that as well as the timing & tracking data which all the teams have access to which can be used to create various overlays & comparisons for analysis.

    5. I agree. I don’t think Red Bull expect anything to change here, but they just want to make sure that they are proving their own point. In a way, not protesting shows some admission of responsibility. I am 100% certain the Mercedes would do exactly the same thing if Hamilton had retired and Max won the race.

      1. @dot_com Agreed. Especially sitting some near-60 points back if the situation had been identically reversed.

        1. Yes, absolutely sure of that.

  19. This matter is only getting ridiculous. Red Bull should move on already. Most likely, nothing will change anyway.

    1. If you don’t buy the ticket you don’t win the lotto.

  20. IfImnotverymuchmistaken
    27th July 2021, 15:28

    Any one of them could’ve prevented the accident by lifting the throttle, but then they wouldn’t be great racers contesting the WDC, would they?

    1. Lewis did lift off the throttle,which is why max ended up ahead of Lewis just before contact.

      1. The moment of understeer was the moment he slowed and hit max. After that his speed was so low he could make the corner. The same moment Charles passed him.

  21. So, what new evidence have RB gathered to make the stewards change their initial decision? Let me guess……none!
    As long as RB won’t be trying to bribe the stewards, I don’t see this going anywhere.
    It’s all just a waste of time. Move on!

    1. I think they are trying to convince the stewards that Ham was going faster in trying to overtake Max on the first lap on new tyres, than when he was in tyre preservation mode. Shocking I know

      1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
        27th July 2021, 17:47

        So all reviews would have to take place after the race just so that the future can be considered!

        What no-one can be sure of though is where Max might of finished or whether he might of had to retire or be taken out by someone else.

        1. or be taken out by someone else.

          there were several other drivers under contract by toto. So very possible.
          /f1trollosaurus mode

  22. Good – they’ve said they have extra data that proves their point etc so lets get it out in the open and then move past this incident.

    Personally, I think Lewis was to blame but I think a 10 second penalty and some penalty points is what you’d expect from a crash like that. That’s the nature of F1 – if you punt someone off and keep going yourself, any punishment you receive isn’t going to really bring parity… It wasn’t a crazy lunge or a deliberate crash so I don’t see what Red Bull want here.

    I’m interested to know what Red Bull want out of this. There is no point in complaining about something unless you want something specific to happen. What do they want – the repairs to be paid for my Mercedes? Hamilton to be excluded from the race? A written apology!? I’d say the stewards looked at this incident and pretty much agreed entirely with Horner so he’s already got his way – unfortunately for him his driver was out of the race and Hamilton manged to win anyway.

    1. @petebaldwin I think that Red Bull want to intimidate Hamilton into backing off the next time he’s wheel-to-wheel with Verstappen. Hopefully this will backfire.

      I think it’s a shame that the vast sums of money swirling around F1 mean that it’s all about winning at any cost, and sportsmanship has taken a back seat.

    2. @petebaldwin I speculate that they might just not want to still sit on their hands about this and are merely exercising a right they have by the rules, just as I have no doubt TW would. The ‘something specific’ they might want to happen might simply be to have had their final say via a request for review, and perhaps to get a bit of clarity and a bit of further wording from the stewards, but it might just be as @dot_com mentions a bit above, that not exercising their right for review might just feel to them like an admission of some responsibility, which they might not want to do while within the timeframe they have the right to review.

  23. They should add testimony from Horner on this one in Portimao where Horner basically blames Stroll for doing what Verstappen did in Silverstone and absolves Verstappen for what Hamilton did in Silverstone.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naDVLIqLI_o&t=71s

    1. @f1osaurus Indeed, they really should. It just makes it evident Horner makes up the arguments to suit Red Bull’s purpose and has a track history of excusing Verstappen for just about everything. I just fundamentally object to a driver whose whole racing style is based on maximum aggression being cast as a victim in a 50/50 incident where the other driver simply replicated, this time, Verstappen’s ethos of never backing down. Hamilton is aggressive too, undoubtedly, but has learnt over the years that sometimes avoiding contact is smarter. It’s a balance between asserting yourself on track, making the other driver believe you won’t give way, and knowing when to play the odds. MV’s idea that every 50/50 is his is simply unworkable. Refusing to accept that (or encouraging him not to) isn’t going to help his development as a driver.

      1. @david-br Exactly. After Verstappen called Stoll a “mongol” and a “retard”, Horner just shrugged it off with a “That’s Max for you!” It took Marko, of all people, to tell Verstappen to zip it.

        Reply moderated
      1. @f1osaurus @david-br @jerejj That video to me just proves further why they decided to penalize LH in Silverstone.

        First of all Max and LS were in practice, so it would have been hard for either one of them to predict what the other was up to. In a race setting, especially at the start, you know what each driver is doing, on equal tires, on equal fuel, etc.

        Secondly, there is no comparison to the amount of space LS doesn’t give Max, vs Silverstone where the stewards point out that Max left space. In this case Max has his car at least partially inside and therefore has earned to be given space, and yet he was as inside to the apex as the track allowed and still LS turned into him. At Silverstone Max left LH tons of space inside and LH failed to use it.

        Thirdly, Herbert is arguing that Max should have ceded against LS because he was asking for trouble and shouldn’t have assumed LS knew that Max was going to come inside him like he did. Makes you wonder what he thought of LH inside Max and even hitting him with tons of space to his right still.

        The two situations are barely comparable, and of course certainly irrelevant to the Silverstone incident.

        1. @robbie LS had a pretty much copy-paste collision with LN also in the race and received a penalty as the driver on the outside.

          1. @jerejj Copy-paste is usually at least subtley different. Do you mean compared to the LS/MV one in practice or the the LH/MV one in Silverstone?

        2. @robbie Especially note the part where Horner says that Verstappen had the corner. While Verstappen was nowhere near halfway up the inside of Stroll. Hamilton was almost alongside. Well over halfway up the inside.

          As Horner explained here, it was Hamilton’s corner in Silverstone and then it’s irrelevant how close he is to the apex. As long as Hamilton makes the corner Verstappen should give space and not simply turn into Hamilton pretending giving space for the narrowest line possible from that entry. Also note the double steering input when he first reacts instinctively to Hamilton’s front wing to his right and then turns in sharper anyway.

          If you are still confused how giving space works, try watching Austria 2019 where Verstappen overtakes Leclerc (without hitting the apex mind you).

          1. @f1osaurus No confusion at all. Nobody is disputing that LH had earned to be left space. That’s why Max gave it to him as one can plainly see and as the stewards acknowledge in their decision to penalize LH.

          2. @robbie Yes that is the confusion. Leaving space does not mean “you can have the line that is narrowest though the corner”. It means that Hamilton needs to make it through the corner. If that means Verstappen has to yield because there is no space for him then so be it.

            Again, you should check the Austria 2019 overtake of Verstappen on Leclerc how that works. Again I would stress, without actually touching the apex. This is not and has never been a requirement.

          3. Or watch this one where Horner explains how it wasn’t Hamilton’s fault: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naDVLIqLI_o&t=71s

          4. @f1osaurus As we know, each situation is different and has to be taken on it’s own.

            Taking Austria 2019, we see CL leave gobs of room for Max, Max then uses said room and gets himself fully alongside CL in a lasting manner. So not only was Max entitled to the space, CL gave it to him. Fair game. By Max getting alongside CL in a convincing and consistent and lasting manner, the corner was for both drivers to continue to fight out, and as we have seen countless times with what LH likes to do Max stamped his authority on the situation, and upon exit squeezed CL out and forced him to go wide, back off, or be hit, just as LH has been allowed to do and applauded for many times, particularly against NR. Just as the stewards have confirmed by their non-penalties countless times. Just as Max has done to LH a few times this year too. It seems it is perfectly fine to behave differently upon exiting the corner as it does for the entrance. And that makes sense, no? We want our drivers to have a fair chance at combating for a corner, but we don’t want it to be slot cars all the way around, with each driver always entitled entirely to their full car width at all times. F1 has proved to us that as the situation develops around a corner drivers are allowed certain actions. We want them to race, to take ownership at times, and we don’t expect them to always just hand their rivals full space at every inch of the track no matter what. As I say we’ve see this countless times with LH. Squeezing the guy off upon exit (unless he backs off or wants to be hit) is fair game.

            Taking the video of LS and Max. Firstly it was in practice so both drivers need be given some leeway for the potential to misunderstand what each other was doing, their fuel loads, their tire states, cool down laps etc. It’s different when it is a race and you can easily predict what state another driver near you is up to. In this case CH is arguing that Max had enough of his car beside LS that Max was entitled to space. LS simply didn’t give him the space, and since it was practice was likely surprised that Max was even there. As we know this was not penalized and both drivers quickly agreed once they could talk to each other, that it was a simple misunderstanding. Note in the video that Herbert is arguing that Max had no business putting his nose in there and was just asking for trouble, which might be akin to him saying the same about LH at Silverstone.

            So regarding Silverstone, and again, the differences that almost always occur from one instance to the next. Here you had LH alongside, even almost fully, but never in a consistent and lasting manner, only very briefly, but for sure he always had at least a bit of his car alongside Max. That afforded LH the right to be left space. We know full well Max did that. But what LH didn’t do was get alongside Max in a lasting and consistent manner, and so it was alway moreso Max’s corner than LH’s. Max’s only obligation was to leave LH space and he did that. Had LH been able to handle the speed he was going, and get fully alongside Max in a lasting manner, I have no doubt he would have moved Max wide, potentially squeezing him to the point where he had to decide to go wide, back off, or be hit, just like your CL reference of Austria 2019. But LH never had enough of his car alongside Max in any kind of convincing way other than to have earned the right for space, which the stewards acknowledge Max did. Hence LH was the penalized one for hitting Max.

            And that’s how we should want it, no? Do we really want it to be that as soon as you have an inch of your wing inside your rival the guy on the outside has to cede the corner? Is that real racing? Just lunge in without any real hope, get an inch of your wing alongside, and expect that to mean you own the corner? No, what we want is that as long as the inside guy has a bit of his car alongside, then the outside guy has to leave space and let the inside guy combat. They then combat, and as we have seen, the exit is entirely different, and the leading driver, or as we saw with CL even the guy with the full alongside, consistent and convincing position, like Max had, is entitled to race it out, 50/50 fair game to both drivers.

            At Silverstone LH never owned the corner, merely the right to be left space to combat. But he couldn’t take the space afforded him, Max had the upper hand, and LH hit him. Hence the penalty. Would have been a completely different story if LH had been able to control his speed, take the space left him, and get fully alongside Max in a lasting and convincing way. Then it would have been absolutely fair game between the two upon exiting the corner. The problem for LH was that a bit less speed and he wouldn’t have even earned the right to space as he would have been fully behind and Max would have been able to move wherever he wanted, not being obliged to leave space. This is why DR’s assessment was that LH went in too hot. He was too hot, thought he would at least earn the right to space, which he did, but couldn’t keep control as it was obviously not a lasting move due to his speed. Max left LH space, but LH did not leave Max space.

          5. @robbie Well if hitting the apex is a requirement then it should always be. And without hitting the apex, Versatppen left Leclerc no space to stay on track. He also didn’t leave Stroll space in Portimao and as Horner argued he didn’t need to.

            I get that it’s too confusing for you though. The one time you see Horner saying some thing and you 100% agree and then later he says the opposite and you agree 100%. That is confusing and I’m impressed on how you make that work. The mental gymnastics needed for that are mind boggling. Well done for coping.

  24. This is just getting embaressing.

    What kind of new info can they have? We’ve all seen the incident umpteen times from various angles.

    1. @paulguitar I don’t know but I also don’t believe we have seen everything to which F1 teams have access. Perhaps they have something from GPS on LH’s speed, or something like that. I tend to think they won’t have anything substantial to bring to the table enough to sway the stewards anyway, but if they think they have enough to bring, then all this is is a request to see if the stewards agree there’s something they didn’t consider. I don’t think it is embarrassing whatsoever for them to exercise a legal right to a request to a review. It in no way guarantees them the review, and I have no doubt whatsoever TW would do the same.

  25. The new evidence is a witness statement from Max saying he left enough room. For a start it’s very rare for a stewards decision to be overturned let alone more penalties added after the penalty was served.

    RB now becoming the most pathetic team in F1

    1. IfImnotverymuchmistaken
      27th July 2021, 15:49

      Nothing new in F1 folklore, Mclaren had Hunt’s disqualification overturned and victory reinstated in ’76.

      They’re just using every means they can, as did Merc with their “oh look, RB is faster then us, and they have a funny looking wing/engine/pitstop”.

      All part of the game, it’s for the teams to complain, and for the FIA to judge.

  26. I cant be the only sick of the constant analysis of this? Lewis was predominantly to blame. Lewis was punished. End of. The same analysis of the incident has just been repeated ad Nauseam for the last 2 weeks… I’m sick of it. If Lewis needs to be punished further lets just get it done and stop with this boring, OTT, armchair analysis!

    1. The punishment was insignificant, reason enough to appeal, and we knew this since the penalty, it was a surprise that leclerc stayed ahead that long, not that he got overtaken in the end. In fact, dare I say 2nd place is still awesome for hamilton in the circumstances.

      1. @esploratore1 The penalty was exactly what it should have been, given the stewards didn’t think Hamilton was wholly to blame. Plenty of analysts and drivers thought it was a racing incident and that no penalty should have been given.

        Red Bull are not appealing the penalty, they can’t. They’re asking for the stewards to review the incident with supposed new evidence (which they have to provide). If the evidence is deemed insufficient or inadmissible, then the request for a review will be rejected.

  27. Horner is still lost inside that cold disguise behind his giant lies.

  28. For a team that has stated they have moved on from it and ready for the next race, they still seem to be pretty obsessed with it! If they go into Hungary with the wrong attitude, Mercedes could easily rock up and beat them again.

    For me, it was a racing incident – neither driver backed out. With that being the case, you’re never going to get a big penalty and there have been similar incidents (Grosjean and Sainz) at that corner where no penalty was given for a worse mistake. I just find assuming that for years fans have asked for hard racing, but as soon as we get some, fans think that there was a murder attempt! Its not like he did a F1 online lobby kind of lunge! If the drivers weren’t named Hamilton and Verstappen, this would no longer be a discussion

  29. “Nothing to see here. That’s all. Thanks for connecting, folks”.

    Embarrassing stuff.

  30. Just thinking outside the incident per se, I think there could be two macro considerations – cost cap/resource allocation between 2021-2022 and Honda’s last year that might be prompting Red Bull to perhaps pursue this. This incident has a high probability of recurrence in a tightly contested championship. Penalties and grid drops towards the sharp end of the season due has the potential to influence the championship. Investment in Red Bull Powertrains is also taking place.

  31. The Red Bull Team are becoming more and more like their product, Toxic with a bad smell emanating from it.

    1. You know, Red Bull is noob!

  32. Not sure of the Honda consideration, Yamamoto said straight away that they considered it a racing incident. T

  33. It’s within the rules to do this, so I don’t get the fuzz about redbull doing this.

    I don’t think this will change much though

    1. I agree. Yet some people get really upset about it. Thats exactly what RedBull hopes to achieve at Mercedes. Lewis already has some form of red mist when he sees a RB. I guess RB tries to stir that feeling hoping he will make more mistakes. So, judging from the Mercedes and Lewis fans it works. I am indifferent as I dislike both Toto and Christian. That is no leadership. They are both ridiculous and approaching Abiteboul level. Luckily they are rich since I dont think any one would ever hire them outside of F1. I do like Lewis and Max who are victims of their 4 year old bosses.

  34. RedBull should just presented new evidence in excel. Losing 1.8 millions should look significant enough.

  35. My god are Bull still squealing after they got away with one!

    Any chance that the correct decision will be applied this time and Mad Max will get a one race ban for steering into
    Hamilton with plenty of room on his left to avoid the crash?

    And anybody notice during the C4 commentary that just after the MM had crashed into Hamilton, before any replays, and just after Lewis’s radio message had seen him report damage but go past the pit entry. Coulthard said one mistake followed by another mistake! He had already decided who was at fault before he had seen the incident!
    …….. and over to Chriss Horner for his unbiased opinion on the situation.
    OMG.

    Interesting that they never showed the onboard of MM’s car during the incident. Could it be that it would have shown
    him steering into Hamilton. Hamilton’s onboard showed him steering away! Did the onboard of the Bull appear on Sky?

    Really Redbull are really the lowest of the low.

    1. @Dearls Max’s (if I’ve interpreted MM correctly) onboard was shown on the world feed, although it stopped shortly before the tyre barrier hit.

    2. Really Redbull are really the lowest of the low.

      maybe, but you are not doing bad yourself here :)

    3. If there’s a chance verstappen gets a race ban, surely the opposite can also happen!

    4. Yes indeed from Verstappen’s on-board you can see him react when he sees Hamilton right next to him and immediately after you see him turn in sharper anyway. He totally went for that “let me stay ahead or we crash” move again.

  36. So…. I felt at the time of the initial 10s Penalty, That it was way to soft. I think had this happened anywhere else but Silverstone, I think it would have been a bigger Penalty.
    But whatever….. It’s done.
    Now not sure what to think of this. Most likely nothing going to happen. If for whatever reason there is new evidence and might create a penalty, it won’t be more that a 3 spot grid penalty.
    But the penalty that Max and Red Bull received is much bigger than anything that could happen here.
    A huge hit in points in the Championship.
    Lost Engine, Gearbox….. Huge financial loss due to damage, which hurts since there is a Cost Cap in place.

    Maybe they should (for future, not necessarily this) make the aggressor (who is found for the biggest part responsible)
    Take the allocation penalty. Meaning you cause terminal damage to another car, you lose an Engine or gearbox and take on Cost Cap hit).

    I know. Crazy

    1. That’s a good idea, much fairer than a 10 sec penalty.

    2. @us-brian

      I honestly thought the penalty fit the crime. If it was any other driver other than Lewis/Max, who caused the incident, it would have been a 10 sec stop go penalty as well. We’ve seen a lot of incidents similar to this one where the driver is either penalised by 10 seconds on his race time or maximum a 10 second stop go.

      I think you’re thinking he deserves a harsher penalty because of the impact it had on Max’s race and the championship position. But in reality the penalty fit the infringement from a consistency basis. Even if they had given Lewis a grid drop in the next race, he would most likely make up those three positions due to Mercedes’ race pace. Here Lewis lost 2 positions in the race as well.. but he made them up.

      At the end of the day. It might not have worked out for Max, but Lewis got the correct penalty.

    3. @us-brian Just listen to Horner explain why the car on the inside should have the line and the one on the outside should leave space:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naDVLIqLI_o&t=71s

  37. I want the acrimony to end and see more racing. I would not even care about the appeal. Because that’s what people do in F1. Let the chips fall where they may on that. But there is this feeling that this is a personal war between Horner and Hamilton that won’t end until Horner gets some personal satisfaction of some kind.

    1. It’s always been Hamilton. Note the amount of times he has a beef with Mercedes or Toto yet ‘misspeaks’ and says Hamilton.

      1. Poor Lewis, they race him so hard.

        1. So you think RB raced Ham hard from 2013 to 2019? Oh dear, how sad you are.

          1. Look that he’s sarcastic! It’s copied from albon who couldn’t race at the top in a red bull.

  38. I’ve been a bit out of the loop, but has anyone mentioned that the tyre wall at the point Verstappen hit could be improved?

    Another high speed hit could happen at the same corner, unlikely as it might be, due to car contact or mechanical failure, and a >50g hit on a protected wall after a relatively long tarmac runoff and a gravel pit isn’t good at all.

    All this talk about Hamilton’s penalty seems pretty useless. Where there’s close racing, contact is bound to happen. Even with the best drivers. Unless you forbid them from even trying to overtake through fast corners, these kind of accidents will occur. All this effort might be better placed on trying to avoid these crashes from causing injuries. If you need to put 10 more rows of tyres, so be it. Maybe I’m just being dumb.

    1. @casjo Nobody. the car manages to hit the bit just after the tecpro ends. Track safety is going backwards, we see less less modern barriers and more old-school tyre barriers. And its not like there were enough tyres either. 51g is 15g away from certain death.

      1. Certain death? Steady on there…

        There have been many accidents with a far greater impact than 65g that did not result in death. I think Kenny Brack’s accident, which was in every way on a completely different scale to the Max one, the peak g was 214! @peartree

        Max was uninjured, so it seems the tyre barrier worked as intended. He didn’t lose much speed as he skated over the gravel, but overall the safety seemed to be in order there. It’s a really quick corner, I have often watched from there and thought that it wouldn’t be somewhere good to go off.

  39. I lay 50/50 odds that stewards will review the information presented by Red Bull and determine it is not “new and significant” and will rule NOT to review the decision.

    1. @waptraveler I suspect they’ll allow a review and give Hamilton 3 points on his licence and a grid penalty. Which will be a travesty but ‘Formula 1’ (‘the product’) is probably enjoying all the controversy. Then again sanity may prevail, I guess there’s always hope.

      1. So you expect reality but hope for a more lenient approachby the stewards. Interesting.

        1. I think it’s open to interpretation like any such incident. More lenient to whom? They already were lenient with Verstappen because his race ended. In my view.

      2. Think that would be a bit more fair, again doesn’t compensate the damage completely, but more so than a 10 sec penalty, however I’m not so hopeful it might happen, appeals often tend to fail in f1, I however want justice, a way or another.

        1. @esploratore1 You mean you want what you think is justice. As many, if not more, think the penalty wasn’t justified.

  40. AJ (@asleepatthewheel)
    27th July 2021, 18:07

    It would be funny if RB quoted Jolyon Palmer’s analysis on YouTube where he says Lewis marginally missed the apex at Copse.
    In one of the recent seasons, I remember one team (Ferrari in Baku 17?) using Sky’s analysis of whatever-the-issue-was as evidence which was later dismissed.

    1. AJ (@asleepatthewheel)
      27th July 2021, 18:10

      Ferrari at Montreal 2019

  41. We know that in general the managers of Formula 1 teams (or their owners) are not very honorable people, but Red Bull’s level of immorality surpasses all. This shameful maneuver against the great champion Hamilton is a sample of it. His maxcrash driver from his debut proved to be a lousy athlete, a bully, a guy who plays dirty and deliberately crashed or tried countless times.
    This charade today only discredits them even more than they are.

    1. That must be the reason max has 0 penalty points and Lewis 12 in two years time..

      1. Now do their whole careers, erikje

        1. Surely you want to get verstappen’s earlier years, but don’t forget how hamilton was when he was new either!

          1. Hamilton had very few incidents, remarkably few, in the early days. 2011 was his worst for collisions, usually with Massa! I’d suggest he learned a lot from that though, primarily giving a lot of room and sometimes bailing out when on the outside, as he has done with Max several times.

    2. @jorge-lardone You dislike Max? Well you have a fellow “Jorge/Jeorge” who dislikes Lewis…

  42. This whole thing seems like a marketing stunt encouraged by both parties to keep the clicks going through two weeks without a race. Liberty and the Crypto Bros are laughing all the way to the bank.

  43. It was a racing incident so a fair outcome will be to revoke Hamilton’s 2 penalty points. It’s not possible to reverse the 10 seconds penalty so maybe they can give Max a 10 second penalty in Hungary, to equalize matters.

    1. That’s a joke, red bull took massive damage from this.

      1. Perhaps Max should drive more carefully.

      2. @esploratore1 Horner explains how it was Verstappen’s fault in Silverstone though
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naDVLIqLI_o&t=71s

  44. Either we will see Hamilton given a greater penalty or at the least we will have more clarification on the incident and the logic behind the penalty given. If Mercedes want the gloves off then it does not hurt Red Bull to have better clarification as to where they stand. Where everyone stands. This way if the tables are reversed, especially when it comes to clearly under steering into someone and punting them off, Mercedes will have no shoulder to cry on if Lewis ends up in the wall. I don’t think Max would choose a corner with excessive speed though like Hamilton. He knows Lewis has a few people that care. Ten second penalty? Ooh ouch! My knee! All you will need to do is be on the inside and aim for the back wheel. Not hard. Worth the penalty. This is serious business remember. Who said anything about Hamilton being fair? Was it Russel who punned the phrase lately – you get what you deserve? Hamilton believes he did the right thing no? Max will know he did the right thing. It’s all up to the stewards is it? I hope they have had a good think about it all. Would not want to be them.

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      27th July 2021, 21:06

      It is up to RBR to come with new a significant information that was not available at the time to get the incident re-opened. It does not get more clarification from the stewards original decision making. It means if RBR do have some something wonderous then the whole incident will be looked at a gain with the new and significant information and a decision made.

      It also means that if in the stewards opinion the there is nothing new and significant the incident will not be re-opened.

      As you state Lewis understeered. The stewards found him predominantly to blame and gave him a 10 second penalty.

      At the time of the incident what information was gathered that the stewards didn’t have to make that decision or any other?

    2. Best comment I saw so far, that’s absolutely true. Red bull said they’d not stoop as low as mercedes, and to this I would answer: why not? Mercedes have been winning both titles since 2014 included if red bull forgot, I’m gonna say: whatever it takes, considering they do things like this.

      If there’s not gonna be a harsher penalty, let’s go wheel banging and taking the opponent out, then the win is easy, and in the remote case there’s a genuinely competitive ferrari or mclaren, 18 or 19 points don’t sound too bad when your opponent is out either.

    3. @stash You seem to be assuming that the review is allowed. There’s a very good chance that the request will be rejected.

    4. @stash Did you not watch Barcelona? Where Horner was all giddy that Hamilton narrowly avoided being put “in the fence” by Verstappen.

      Also watch Horner’s hypocrisy when it’s Verstappen on the inside and Stroll on the outside:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naDVLIqLI_o&t=71s

  45. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    27th July 2021, 21:04

    Well, I hope the stewards review this objectively and notice that Verstappen turns in as if he’s on a quali lap, realizes he’s racing, tries to correct, and misjudges it.

    They should also take into account the defense going into the corner and ask Verstappen to explain that. I have a feeling if they ask him about it, he’s going to immediately say it’s a racing incident and he wants to move forward…

    As for apex, understeer and all other claims, Lewis’s car before contact tells the whole story. He didn’t lunge, he didn’t turn into Max, he simply did not back out which he didn’t have to.

    If it’s not deemed a racing incident, then it’s largely Verstappen’s fault as he had a very questionable defense, a full turn as if he was alone, and a correction that was misjudged. Lewis was just racing and even fell behind Max to “assist” him once more.

  46. I want to say that I am a huge Mercedes fan and not a big fan of RedBull (for obvious reasons).

    BUT I have also tried understanding this incident and why Horner was so flippant and fuming. I get it; your driver had a 51G impact, the car is toast, you got no points, and it cost you $1.8Mil. But rubbing is racing, especially from two stellar and aggressive championship leaders. These accidents are expected and I know for a fact that Horner would not be spewing hatred (and invoking hatred across the fans) if Hamilton crashed and MV won the race. Let us also consider the reality that MV and RB would be celebrating their Melons off if they won the race and had LH crashed. The team leadership is exactly that hypocritical.

    This “request” might just be a ploy to keep RB as the victim of some dastardly crime but I have a feeling that not much will be the outcome of it. We have seen multiple angles, we know Hamilton was “Predominantly” to blame and got the penalty that the Stewards see fit, and they cannot change the outcome of a race.

    AHH, I just don’t understand. Im not an F1 expect and am not in the teams so my judgement is not worth the penny. I know you guys and gals are quite quick and much smarter than I am in these conversations, why do you think RB is banging on this drum still?

    Reply moderated
  47. A two race ban for car no. 44

    1. I agree, then Ham could have held his position going through T1 when Max went off the track and returned without giving any room and ended up getting Max a 2 race ban. Or kept his foot in going into T6 and got Max a 2 race ban then. Add to that the two race ban Max would have got in Imola and Spain and we are looking at an 8th WDC just by making sure you are on the outside and a whisker in front. And as Rosberg said Ham is a master when it comes to working in the grey area of the rules.

    2. You can give him a 2 race ban and take away the 10 sec penalty, doesn’t make any difference anyway. So a race ban for the 25-0 he got thanks to taking verstappen out and another race ban for the damage to the car and possible engine penalties later on.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        28th July 2021, 2:23

        Listen to you guys! Hilarious! Wouldn’t it be easier and safer for everyone to buy Max a pair of prescription glasses?

    3. If this actually happens, I will literally become the Pope! Haha can you imagine!

  48. How about if you are involved in “incident” and you have punted your competitor off and it is deemed to be at least fifty percent your fault then you are disqualified. How hard is that? Your victim is out so you are out. How this is not a standard rule is quite perplexing to say the least. You punt off a championship leader and you get a tiny little ten second penalty in a car you can almost lap the field in. No where near good enough. Not in a million years. Pathetic. Imagine the whining Toto would let out if Lewis fell victim to being punted off and Max drove off into the sunset and won. A million times worse than a flexi’ wing issue. Red Bull have every right to jump up and down about this. Glad they have. Lewis could have offered a couple a hundred grand to any charity Red Bull wished in return for destroying a car but no. Another wasted opportunity. Another PR opportunity for the entire F1 community to build on. Hamilton could have been righteous about this incident and have come out even further on top. But no. Long term thinking much? How ever this review turns out Red Bull will benefit. As they deserve to do so. For all you out there dreaming it will work out better for Lewis I would not hold your breath. Every day more and more people see what happened for what it was. It’s basically consensus every where I go that Lewis is at fault. Clear as day.

    1. @stash
      You seem very upset, and I think that is affecting your ability to reason this out calmly.

    2. Absolutely agree, you take your opponent out = you’re also out, or you can go on but get 0 points, so you may as well retire the car to save mileage.

      1. @esploratore1 It’s simply an unworkable idea. Verstappen’s retirement was self-evident. But say driver A collides with driver B, both stay in the race, driver A is penalized, but then driver B has to retire with the team saying that the car is too damaged to continue. How do FIA stewards then decide that (a) the damage was indeed caused by the collision, and (b) it was bad enough to have to retire? And not, say, because driver B was believed to have no chance of getting in the points so they thought retiring was better? Or it was useful to driver B’s team mate, driver C, for driver A to retire? How on earth can the stewards assess all that during the race? Half the time, they can barely determine who was at fault for an incident while the race is still going. And remember this isn’t just about MV and LH, Red Bull and Mercedes, it applies to incidents all the way down the grid.

    3. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      28th July 2021, 16:44

      Lewis was predominantly at fault and got a penalty. No dispute.

      To now claim that somehow he deserves a larger penalty because he is driving a faster car begs the question what do you do if MV was overtaking a Haas and got taken out in a similar way? How do you even decide what the time penalty should be?

  49. Red Bull gives you whinges.

    1. But at least flexible ones…
      Mercedes only build crash cars
      /f1trollosaurus mode

  50. RBR are clever enough to know that the outcome won’t be changed as the Stewards won’t let themselves look ridiculous by contradicting their own judgement. As mentioned in an earlier thread the Stewards did have access to all the available data and footage from both cars.

    It’s a political move by RBR to put more pressure on the FIA and Stewards to ensure that Hamilton will be properly punished next time if he will repeat his actions, otherwise they will appeal every future decision from the Stewards just for fun and they will not cooperate with regard to future approval of rules that requires unanimity also just for fun.

    Though the FIA president have been granted a delegation of authority during the pandemic to take whatever action necessary to ensure the continuance of the F1 championship but I’m not sure if this special power extends to the 2022 season.

  51. I, for once, agree with Mr. Ecclestone: it was a racing incident.

    In case the stewards decided it was a voluntarily caused collision, it should have been punished with a drive-through.

    1. Ecclestone? He said hamilton deserved a stop and go, so be careful who you agree with (I agree with him despite not being a fan at all).

      1. If I don’t recall it wrong, Ecclestone’s point was that back in his day, it was a racing incident, and if the criteria has changed (hence, I named specifically “the stewards”) a harsher penalty was to be imposed.

    2. @sugoi Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

  52. Ok so they will admit it was wrong to penalise Hamilton? Red Bull, what a farce.

  53. I imagine that this will play out a bit like this.

    The Team representatives will both put up a case as to why their driver wasn’t to blame and demand a stronger/lesser penalty.

    The Stewards will say they got it about right and will remind the drivers that whilst hard racing is encouraged, they need to keep it within limits and if they make a mistake and exceed those limits they’ll get penalised

    Meanwhile, Liberty and Sky will be rubbing their hands with glee because the “rivalry” can now be talked up big time meaning more interest/money. They’ll be doing everything they can to encourage as much nastiness as possible and I’ll bet they’re hoping for a bit of wheel banging at the front at the next race as well.

    This is going to get billed as the next “Lauda/Hunt, Senna/Prost “ by Liberty and by Sky – they’re not going to care at all about “fault” or penalty, they’ll want this to continue for the remainder of the year. I know they have technically no influence at all on stewarding, but you can bet your wallet they’ll be having a few behind the scenes conversations trying to encourage the stewards to “not hear” the review and keep all of the angst boiling along.

  54. Red Bull have lost the plot, they are playing politics for what reason?? Why throw up so much fuss over a racing incident? They are like American Republicans throwing up alternate facts and conspiracy theories to divide fans. Horner should resign, he has lost the feel of racing and only cares about his power and ego.

    1. Horner is and will always be an atrocious person. Most dishonorable coward ever.

  55. I hope Red Bull get a scolding by the FIA for the way they’ve handled (failed to handle) the aftermath. I think both Red Bull and Mercedes need a talking too about their lobbying during the race also.

  56. Horner is noob, Marko is noob, Red Bull is noob.

    1. Dave, do you even know what “noob” means? Marko may be many things, but he is certainly not a “noob.” Or perhaps you meant to type boob?

      1. Possible, save only sees boobs on the Internet. Hence his used language.

        Reply moderated
      2. It’s a mockery, okay? Marko cannot be honored.
        Here’s another mockery: Red Bull had Silvers back then. They still have Silvers while Checo is Gold Nova…and probably Wheatley too.

  57. It smacks of sour grapes to me – toys out of the pram for Red Bull and Christian Horner. Horner has now lost my respect for pursuing it, I can understand his frustration and anger immediately after the incident but to continue to bleet like this is not good for the sport.

    Reply moderated
  58. Gloves are off, title fight is close, there will be fun on track.

    Naturally rules should allow for good racing and enourage staying on the track.

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'.