Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Red Bull Ring, 2020

Will Red Bull succeed again in earning a tougher penalty for Hamilton?

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Tomorrow the FIA stewards will deliberate Red Bull’s petition for a review of the penalty decision against Lewis Hamilton during the last race at Silverstone.

It’s safe to assume the world championship leaders do not believe their closest rival’s 10-second time penalty, and two penalty points, was too harsh. Having been powerless to stop him winning the British Grand Prix following his first lap collision with Max Verstappen, which left a severely damaged RB16B in the Copse barrier, Red Bull is seeking any possible benefit from a clash which, as it stands, has cost them dearly.

The top prize for Red Bull would be a tougher penalty for Hamilton which redresses the balance of the 24-point swing in his favour which occured last time out. Failing that, another penalty point which edges Hamilton that bit closer to the threat of an automatic ban would be some recompense. If nothing else, they’re throwing another distraction at rivals Mercedes.

But the history of F1’s ‘right of review’ process – which is little-used so far, though it’s becoming more common – shows the odds are stacked against Red Bull.

The review process is defined in the International Sporting Code. This states clearly a review will only go ahead if “a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned”.

Sergey Sirotkin, Williams, Baku City Circuit, 2018
Williams asked for five incidents to be reviewed in 2018
Past efforts by other teams to trigger reviews have fallen at this first hurdle. Following the 2018 Azerbaijan Grand Prix, Williams asked for no fewer than five incidents to be reconsidered. The petition failed as the stewards unanimously decided the team had presented “no new significant and relevant element… which justifies a review of any of the five incidents referred to in the request”.

Following the Silverstone crash Red Bull team principal Christian Horner complained Hamilton’s penalty, which did not stop him winning the race, was insufficient given the damage done to Verstappen’s championship lead. However Williams pursued this line of attack with the stewards in 2018, relating to a collision between Kevin Magnussen and Pierre Gasly, and were rebuffed. The stewards cited the ample precedent that the consequences of a collision are not taken into account when determining a penalty.

“In relation to the incident described in document 43 [Magnussen and Gasly] the team, in its written request for review, argued that the penalty on [Magnussen] was “inconsequential”,” the stewards noted. “The team is reminded that since the meeting of 2013 between the FIA and representatives of the teams and drivers, the consequences of penalties are not taken into account.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

FIA Formula 1 race director Michael Masi also pointed out the same at Silverstone. Therefore this does not look like a fruitful avenue for Red Bull to pursue.

Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2019
Chandhok’s Canada 2019 analysis did not interest the stewards
Regarding the Williams case, the stewards added: “In relation to the media reporting tabled by [the team] in its request for a review, these reports are not considered significant and relevant.”

Ferrari should have noted this precedent when they demanded a review of a penalty which cost Sebastian Vettel victory in the Canadian Grand Prix the following year. A video of former F1 driver turned Sky analyst Karun Chandhok examining Vettel’s incident – also involving Hamilton – was one of the elements Ferrari put forward in their bid to have his penalty quashed.

Unsurprisingly, the stewards threw it out, deeming it “new but not significant and relevant as this is a personal opinion by a third party”. The rest of Ferrari’s submission was considered either not new or not relevant.

This was the second time in four years Ferrari had tried and failed to use the review process to overturn a penalty against Vettel. Strikingly, on both occasions Ferrari presented GPS data from the cars involved as a “new element”, only to be told it was not. Red Bull have surely drawn the obvious conclusion from this before selecting the evident to form the basis of their latest request for a review.

Lately, some teams have had more success in at least getting the stewards to agree to hold reviews. In May a review was held into the decision to hand down a swingeing 30-second penalty to Kimi Raikkonen at the Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix, after the stewards accepted Alfa Romeo’s argument that cases from Formula 2 and Formula 3 used as a precedent in the original decision were not as similar as it first appeared. Nonetheless, the review went against Alfa Romeo, and Raikkonen’s penalty stood.

But prior to that another team managed not only to trigger a review of an incident but also got an outcome in their favour.

The team? Red Bull.

The subject of their complaint? Lewis Hamilton…

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

The Mercedes driver was originally cleared when he was investigated for failing to slow sufficiently for yellow flags during qualifying at last year’s season-opening Austrian Grand Prix. But just 40 minutes before the race the stewards announced a reversal of their decision, slapping him with a three-place grid penalty which dropped him behind, among others, Verstappen.

Horner blames Hamilton for his £1.3 million repair bill
The review was initiated by Red Bull, who discovered a new piece of evidence the stewards had not considered at the time: 360-degree video footage from Hamilton’s car, which was published by Formula 1 Management after he was initially cleared. In the original decision, the stewards ruled Hamilton had been shown “conflicting signals”; the new footage revealed otherwise, hence the change in their decision.

Clearly, Red Bull understand how high the burden of proof is set in order to secure the outcome they desire with this kind of petition. Their comments on the incident indicate the line of argument they may intend to pursue. While the stewards ruled Hamilton was “predominantly” rather than “wholly” to blame, Red Bull insist he was entirely responsible.

“He was travelling at such a speed that he was never going to make the apex of the corner and his trajectory through Copse meant he was never going to miss Max, even with braking he ran very wide after the accident,” wrote Christian Horner on Red Bull’s website five days ago, around the time their request for review was submitted to the FIA.

Whether this is indeed the thrust of their case, what new evidence they may present to prove it, and if it proves sufficient to persuade the stewards both that a review is necessary, and that Hamilton’s error was graver than originally thought, will determine whether Red Bull take another victory in the stewards’ room. That is a high bar to clear, and Red Bull surely realise it.

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.

Posted on Categories 2021 F1 season articlesTags , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 159 comments on “Will Red Bull succeed again in earning a tougher penalty for Hamilton?”

    1. Most likely, the outcome won’t change at all.

      1. No, I mean the stewards had all the gps first time round. That Lewis got a penalty at all was probably a sympathy vote, given that the collision itself, wheel to wheel, demonstrates that according to the FIA’s own rules he had the corner as long as he could take it ‘cleanly’. The most likely outcome is a bit more Monster being drunk and less Red Bull.

        1. that according to the FIA’s own rules

          The fantasy document of toto is no such thing.

          1. Are you now accusing those sites that did publish extracts from that document of fraud?

            You are making some fairly libellous accusations now, and could be dragging this site into legal issues by making such claims. Are you sure you really want to potentially make others have to pay for your comments?

            1. @anon

              You are making some fairly libellous accusations now, and could be dragging this site into legal issues by making such claims.


              Imagine actually thinking that someone will get involved in a legal battle because of a comment they made on an F1 fansite.

              Imagine how many legal cases there will be on Twitter where people routinely accuse Mercedes of paying the FIA.

              You are seriously out of touch sir.

            2. @kingshark he may be, but you join him on that list.

            3. Read German autosport article about status document.
              Original from discussion between Mercedes and Charlie w

          2. Bullcrap…I have been watching F1 for 30+ years, and the wording “substantially alongside…” has ALWAYS been both in the rule book and the accepted standard for who has the corner on an inside pass maneuver. The fact is that Hamilton WAS substantially alongside Max in that corner and Max knew it, he started to turn in, then corrected to his left, than inexplicably turned abruptly and sharply across Hamilton’s nose. There are only 2 explanations for those steering inputs, he either assumed Lewis would back out (which he didn’t…and was under no obligation to do so,) or he decided to chop him….a move that makes Max, not Lewis, the one who failed to avoid contact here.

            1. My view too!!

      2. Sharon Batchelor
        29th July 2021, 10:26

        I’m sure you’d agree Max/Lewis had a racing incident with Lewis more to blame OK @redbull Max turned into Lewis who refused to yield. 2 hotheads! But #redbull, everyone knows Copse is perhaps the highest speed corner at Silverstone. So what is this New evidence? Ths is common knowledge available at the Sivertone race. Will the FIA set legal precedence, overriding the stewards decision at Silverstone, where Hungarian stewards, who may not have been at Silverstone, decide the outcome at a race they have no legal jurisdiction over, and FIA effectively influencing the championship race because of the so-called great over-riding influence of Red Bull over the FIA

    2. I realise that winning the championship is every teams’ aim but this feels very much like trying to win at all costs.

      I can’t see RB succeeding and I think, worse still, it reflects very badly on them.

      Just get Max and Checo out on track and let them show us why you’re the best team this season! That’s what the fans want to see. A focused RB that can win even when they feel they’ve been wronged by the stewards.

      By not letting it go I think RB also run the risk of distracting Max. I know his official statement says otherwise but he’s going to be asked questions about it all weekend which is the last thing he needs.

      Max is an amazing talent. The last thing he needs is to be inadvertently dragged into the same mindset as Horner, Marko et al.

      1. Verstappen lost 25 points to Hamilton, huge in a title fight. Hamilton might win the title by 1 point at the end of the year, every points count. If Hamilton was not going to make the corner as they claim then he should have got a stop and go, that’s what they are going for, the time of a stop and go added to Hamilton’s race. It’s a big deal if they can prove that, it means that even if Max was not there he would have gone off track so the blame would be entirely on Hamilton.

        It doesn’t matter what people think, some will approve and some like you will disapprove and think it looks bad but I can guarantee they don’t care what anyone thinks, they believe they have a case and they will try.

        Worst case, nothing happens and everyone moves on, nothing to lose in trying.

        1. No, worst case is that, having reviewed the footage, it is decided that Verstappen is partially at fault and he gets a penalty.

          1. Steven Van Langendonck
            28th July 2021, 11:44

            I don’t think that is a big threat. I’ve seen a few analysis and they show that:
            1. Max left more room on the inside of cop’s than he normally would
            2. He left more space than Leclerc did when he was passed by Lewis

            1. Nor is there a big threat of the stewards reversing their decision and increasing the penalty already given.

            2. 1. Max left more room on the inside of cop’s than he normally would

              Not sure I understand this comment. ‘Normally’ when knowing there is someone else there, or ‘Normally’ when going through the corner unchallenged. If the latter, then ‘Normally’ is not a clear substitution for the word ‘enough’.

        2. Yes, 25 points is huge, but it’s racing. If they had a DNF, they’d have lost them.

          They just need to get on with it now. Even Max said he’s just getting on with it and preparing for the weekend.

          If the act was deliberate, and stewards managed to somehow miss that, then I could understand. RB are becoming extremely sour in a lot of peoples views now – that’s after being viewed as F1s saviour this season by many.

          They just need to drop it and get on with it. The championship is theirs due to the superior car. They just need to stop messing about with off track antics.

          1. Interesting, I’ve seen the exact opposite. I’ve seen alot of fans who’ve realized sky’s/bbc’s narrative that Hamilton is a good sportsman is bs. I’ve also noticed many realize how Mercedes usually gets there way when they complain above other teams to the fia but the reverse is rarely true.

        3. Sorry but only God can prove Hamilton was not going to make the corner. In defense, Mercedes can only claim he could have used his brakes at any stage to slow down his car.

          1. @Boudi RB argument is hypothetical at best, if the hypothesis is right, then they should review all races ham had been pushed off track because of max’s lounges/kamikazes and crashing into people and or pushing them off track should give MAX all the possible penalties… lets say DNF for imola, DNF spain, DNF for sprint race… then i think ham will take that penalty like a man, if RB agrees to hypothetical arguments!

            1. You still do not got the concept of the term racing it seems.
              It’s not following Lewis and finish before bottas.
              Max races hard but fair. That’s why racers love him. Putting your car on the edge does put strain on competitors. Lewis failed in that account. And was penalised for it.

      2. The precedent set by the FIA during this incident, has got the inherent danger this battle could escalate to the level of Biaggi vs Rossi rivalry in 2000 and 2001.

        It is a situation a smart team would like to avoid, and getting clarity on this incident by the FIA or even the CAS is the only logical course of action.

        People have been trying to distract Max since he was karting as a child, he is used to it and the only thing he wants is to race.

        1. “…people have been trying to distract Max since he was karting as a child…”

          This is his own team trying to distract him now! Mental!

        2. No it hasn’t. If anything the precedent being set is suggesting drivers cannot race hard.

          We will just see a return to boring processions as drivers won’t be allowed to try to overtake soon.

      3. I realise that winning the championship is every teams’ aim but this feels very much like trying to win at all costs.

        This has been obvious ever since last year, and even more this year. 2 protests were done last year, DAS and the speeding in Austria. One reason why I will never be in Red Bull’s side. I do wish Verstappen gets out of that team because Horner and Marko don’t deserve any championships due to their mindset. Especially the latter, who just appears to be a troll at this point. At least Horner makes sense at times, but Marko just appears to be an attention seeker or a troll.

        Hamilton’s penalty in Austria was pretty much justified based on the stewards explanations, but if we go back, I am still baffled by the flags during that part, because when Bottas went off, yellow flags were waving, but then in one second, it goes back to green, then yellow again. I guess they were not clear whether to put a yellow flag or not.

        1. And toto lobbying for mandated pit stop times and against rb’s wings, as well as insinuation that rb’s new engine was an illegal upgrade, is somehow more dignified?

      4. petebaldwin (@)
        28th July 2021, 11:32

        @sonnycrockett – Both teams are trying to win at all costs. Mercedes accused Red Bull of cheating on a weekly basis when they realised they weren’t going to dominate this season. Now Red Bull are accusing Hamilton of cheating.

        Both teams should be fined for bring the sport into disrepute.

      5. Steven Van Langendonck
        28th July 2021, 11:53

        “I can’t see RB succeeding and I think, worse still, it reflects very badly on them.”

        Ummm is MB any better? Flexi rearwing protest with flexi frontwings on the car? Pitstop times?

        Let’s face it. Both sides are trying to find any advantage on and off track.
        I don’t like it either but it’s F1 after all…

      6. Only a Hamilton fan would bemoan winning at all costs after punting out a rival for the championship.

        Plus there was a 33 point swing, as Verstappen was first at the time and if the race went the same way as the sprint then Max would likely have had the advantage.

      7. right,,max clearly has a car good enough to win the wdc,
        redbull probably would have won 5 in a row if it wasnt for that racing incident,plus max is still leading the championship,so redbull need to stop being snowflakes and move on.

        1. Same logic as saying Mercedes need to toughen up a bit and accept the review without issue. What could they possibly have to fear? It goes both ways. Both teams want to win. This is F1. Both Mercedes and Red Bull have no issues pointing the finger at their opponent when ever the opportunity arises if it gives them an advantage. Teams have been known to cheat. Teams bend the rules as far as they can. It sounds like a competition of sorts. A highly competitive one at that. Drivers have been known to drive others off the track – be it deliberate or not. Mercedes need to stop being snow flakes about it and welcome the review? Works both ways. They may have something to lose maybe? Snowflakes?

      8. I get where you’re coming from, but to be fair it didn’t reflect well on Mercedes when Toto was asking Masi to check his email during the red flag for what I assume would have been a bunch of diagrams and such to argue his point of view.

        I guess I’m just trying to say that both RB and MB will try to win the championship at all costs. If not, then they probably shouldn’t be in F1 in the first place.

    3. Hamilton fans: Hope Hamilton will lose those pesky penalty points.
      Max fans: Hope Hamilton gets a 5 second stop go and finishes 3rd. He might as well get another penalty point.
      Me: Can Charles get another win under his belt?

      1. True, would be nice (and fun) to see: ferrari joins red bull appeal against mercedes!

      2. I have a hunch that he or sainz will win hungary. Not on pace outright, just because ferrari’s been close a couple times now and hungary has a history of producing unexpected results, maybe more so than any other track.

        1. That’d be interesting, having races like monaco, austria, silverstone, baku where there are other teams on pace spices things up!

    4. They might add an extra penalty point, so he received the usual 3 points instead of the irregular 2.

      But other than that… it won’t change the outcome of the race

    5. I have to concur with the general sway of comments so far (though I am not stating they have the same detailed opinions).

      It would have to be pretty rock solid evidence that Hamilton had completely dive bombed that corner. Whilst Max was on a wider line, his speed was arguably higher given that Lewis had begun to back out (though I assume the telemetry will provide more solid facts in this regard).

      My point is more that the stewards have already assigned predominant blame to Lewis, the consequences cannot be held into account, and given that consequences are excluded from the decision, I struggle to believe that had the outcome been less spectacular, a more significant penalty would be appropriate.

      I am sure some will argue that an incident at that corner meant an outcome of this magnitude was inevitable, but I don’t buy that. Of course it had a higher chance of such an outcome than a slower corner, but it was by no means inevitable.

      I can only assume (though I suppose one shouldn’t) that RB will be focussing on Lewis’ speed and trajectory as well, but the initial verdict suggests that the stewards felt Max could have left more room (Lewis being deemed predominantly, not entirely, to blame). Again this is a contentious area, but there is no doubt that more space ‘was’ available. Cards on the table here, and my view is that if one isn’t fundamentally outlawing passing attempts at this corner, then there is clearly ‘some’ onus on the car on the outside to understand the potential for cars on the inside to drift wide if they have achieved enough ground (within the regs) to be considered able to contest the corner.

      I have read many comments that identify Lewis ultimate track positioning ‘after’ the contact to evidence how wide he was, but surely as onlookers we can never be certain where he would have ended up without contact. Of course by that argument I cannot be sure that he would not have ended up even wider. Maybe. I don’t think so, but it is my point that without the telemetry we are all really guessing (personally I’d likely still be guessing ‘with’ the telemetry).

      But short of hard evidence that Lewis was only ever going to contact Max even if Max had allowed a little more room, then RB’s only other argument can be that an overtake should not occur at that corner. In the former case it is still difficult to suggest a harsher penalty should be allocated (I would be surprised if we haven’t seen full lock up contact result in similar penalties), and in the latter case, if argued and upheld, it would be very sad for F1 indeed.

      So whilst I will first apologise for the length of my post, and the re-treading of old ground (was not my original intent) I am eagerly waiting to understand if this new evidence pursues another angle altogether. Perhaps a previously unheard radio message from Lewis saying “Ticktum’s coming for ya” (*joke* of course, and no disrespect to the severity of the incident intended).

      1. @cairnsfella good comment, I agree with you.

        Your mention of a radio message brought this back to mind:

        1. The link did not work, so I try again:

      2. @cairnsfella

        my view is that if one isn’t fundamentally outlawing passing attempts at this corner, then there is clearly ‘some’ onus on the car on the outside to understand the potential for cars on the inside to drift wide if they have achieved enough ground (within the regs) to be considered able to contest the corner.

        That is a really good point. It presumes the outside car knows the other car is trying to pass on the inside, but it seems clear Max did in this case (unlike say when he collided with Vettel at China 2018 and Vettel had no real idea he was there). One element that I haven’t seen picked up on so far is Red Bull insisting that Hamilton was going so fast that ‘even’ if Max had gone out wide further, there would still have been contact. How they can show that, I don’t know, but it does acknowledge that Verstappen could have left a (much) less fine margin of error. Which begs the question, should he have? If we backtrack through the opening sequence, he very clearly didn’t want to cede a single inch, even brushing tyres at one point. He applied the same logic at Copse. No surprise, but also no surprise he then came off worse when the fine margins he was playing with led to a slight contact with dramatic consequences.

        1. Are you referring to the fine margins Lewis was playing with and exceeded hand over fist? He did not even hit the apex at all. No where clipping the inside curb. Did you watch the incident? Are you referring to the slight contact that ripped Verstappen’s wheel off? Slight? I find your adjectives quite entertaining. Verstappen was far outside the normal racing line. How much room were you expecting Verstappen to give? To the border of the track? I would suggest you are slightly erroneous and biased where as I am into fair play. It’s all about fair play and nothing about the outcome of this incident has been fair. Simple as that. Bring the review. Even if the penalty does not change the review is worth it. Maybe only slightly but that is good enough.

          1. The moment people use nicknames like crashstappen, maxipad, etc, is the moment you know they lost the discussion

          2. It’s good that we all find each others comments entertaining isn’t it? I’m having a little chuckle to myself regarding yours, which is a much better outcome that them making me sad or angry I think.

            I am somewhat in agreement with your ‘review’ comments though. It would be nice to think it could provide some additional insight that will appease fans on both sides of the fence, however I may be being a little optimistic.

          3. @stash So you don’t acknowledge that Verstappen was being highly aggressive over the first lap? You didn’t see him drive right alongside Hamilton (Max was the one who drifted over) for example? It was clear to me he was racing to the very edge. Fine – brilliant in fact. But my point is that at Copse he really didn’t leave any margin for error when he turned in. And yes, the contact was ‘slight’ but at very high speed, which is a simple question of physics. The point is that if you play to those margins on a high speed corner, the consequences can be dramatic. Was Hamilton doing the same? I don’t think so because he’d already committed to the corner and wasn’t trying to finesse as fine a line to Verstappen’s line as possible at that point – indeed the stewards found he had understeer (pushing him further out than he’d anticipated). It’s why I think a 10-sec penalty for Hamilton was reasonable, though given Verstappen was also pushing so hard, a ‘racing incident’ could also have been decided. Together these two possibilities cover most of the informed response to the actual incident, I’d suggest. Penalizing Hamilton further (as entirely to blame) is an outlier.

    6. Surely, not succeed. Red Bull are just trying to distract Mercedes from Hungarian GP.

      1. The distraction is the other way. The onus is on Red Bull to come up with new evidence, not the other way round. Mercedes & Hamilton need do nothing further until asked specifically for a reply by the stewards (if indeed it gets that far).

        1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
          28th July 2021, 9:10

          I did see a FIA document someone posted which is for SLH to attend a meeting.

    7. In a sense I guess Red Bull are right that Hamilton got off lightly: in the past the least you would have expected would have been to be beaten up by Jos in the paddock car park afterwards…. :)

      1. Now I’m imagining lewis and toto scootering away from a flushed jos

    8. If Hamilton is 60% to blame for the collision, then AMG Mercedes can be ordered to pay 60% of the £1.3 Million repair bill for Car 33?

      1. I fully agree with you. I hope that no additional post race penalty comes, I say let them race, but it should be like on the road. If you cause damage to another vehicle your team should pay for the damage. In a cost concious world it is not fair to suffer for the mistakes of others.

        1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
          28th July 2021, 9:06

          So RBR will do the right thing and pay for the damage to Stroll’s car to set the precedent?

          1. Absolutely! If they are found to be at fault. Also of course to avoid over inflated cost you can introduce a flat price: wing: 100’000, engine: 1 mil etc. My comment was not for the Ver Ham accident in isolation, but as a general point for the rules going forward. Its not fair that if someone else causes a crash you should pay the full bill.

        2. Davethechicken
          28th July 2021, 9:11

          I don’t agree regards the sharing of cost as that would be unworkable and cost everyone much more in the long run. Who would be employed to determine the fault and payments? If team A says the damage cost £500k who would verify that it is true and they are not exaggerating? There would be millions spent on lawyers arguing who was to blame for every single episode of damage to a car over the course of a season, appeals to courts etc etc.

        3. That will work out well for future racing.

        4. I toyed with this idea for a bit and think it’s too extreme and will put an insane amount of pressure on stewards. My next idea was that costs due to damage from incidents caused by a different team are waived from the cost cap, but this would be unfair to teams that don’t spend the full cap amount. I think some sort of compromise could be beneficial but I don’t know if it’s possible to find one that works better than the current system. I do think that, if the engine is deemed irrecoverable after an accident deemed the fault of a driver on a different team, the offended team should receive an extra pu allocation. It would be really unfair if max loses the championship due to a grid penalty he received because of lewis’s mistake.

          1. @realnigelmansell yeah I don’t think that it’s ever going to be a good idea to make them pay each other, as Davethechicken says, it just asks for inflated bills doesn’t it!? If one can hurt a competitor and get more budget in one go, we just know teams will look to always go to the border of ridiculous (though some might stop at barely reasonable).

            I listened to a (MissedApex, was Sunday live I think, but only got to it yesterday; definitely a recommendation) podcast with Matthew Carter, former Lotus (Enstone) boss, and he opined that since they sold rolling chassis, w/o PU of course, for some 200k (pounds I think, given UK), the sum that Red Bull quoted for this crash, as well as what Wolff named after the BOT/RUS crash in Imola, had to include something like the R&D costs of developing the car and aero parts, bc. that should be way too high for just replacing the hardware, even if they also need to get a new PU in.

            In his opinion, that’s probably political play by both, mainly to show how they are already affected by the cost cap, and so further decreasing and/or extending it’s scope isn’t needed or good (though clearly here Red Bull is also using it to amp up pressure to get HAM/Merc. punished more). Again: teams would have all incentive to inflate those bills.

      2. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
        28th July 2021, 9:08

        “Can be ordered”

        Which rule is that? I thought all teams entered at their own risk.

      3. However it’s not about the money, red bull have plenty ofc, it’s about their budget cap, so it’s more like: mercedes gets budget cap reduced by the damage caused.

        1. Davethechicken
          28th July 2021, 9:34

          Esploratore is there a mechanism for this though?
          I would have thought a change in rules would be needed and ultimately all teams costs would then go up to pay for the overseeing, appeals and legal processes that would be involved.
          Naturally these things tend to even out. After all, Merc already had to replace large parts of Bottas’s car following the collision with Russell as did Williams for that matter.
          I suppose Max could attempt to claim personal injury but so could any driver involved in an accident.
          The costs would be phenomenal.

          1. He’s just raging.

            1. Raging is when youve been at it for an hour. When you’ve been at it for a week it’s a personality disorder

            2. I answered to a theory from someone else, and indicated it’s not about the money but about the money that goes into the cap, we’re talking about a rich team here, there’s no raging here, you’re the ones who mention it, so maybe says something about you!

            3. Also, if you think a week is little you don’t know me, I will NEVER change my ideas.

        2. OR…get rid of budget cap

          1. Also an idea, however too early, we still have to see if it works.

    9. Also, don’t forget the 2009 Australian Grand Prix. Another incident where a penalty review led to Hamilton’s disqualification (Lie-gate).

      Hamilton has some tough luck when it comes to penalty review system

      1. However it didn’t happen in canada, yet another undeserved win, I don’t defend vettel often, but for once he had a good race they took it away.

        1. Bless 🥰

        2. @esploratore1

          I don’t defend vettel often

          What on earth could have caused you to break a cherished routine in this case?!

          1. That he had a good race, I had a theory recently that he has like 3 good races a year, like raikkonen’s last years? Even in the 2020 season I think he had hungary, turkey and another that were decent, we’ll see if he does any better this year.

          2. Also the switching signs about who got 1st and who got 2nd was awesome, you can see how the grandstands cheered when he did that.

            1. @esploratore1 I think Vettel’s penalty was fully deserved, but yes, I enjoyed and admired that! He felt he was wrong and was angry/funny in showing it. Passion and a sense of humour are two of Vettel’s admirable qualities.

            2. *he was wronged

          3. And if you’re referring to anti-hamilton, wrong, back then I was only against mercedes, and they had won every single of 6-7 races till then, so vettel won on track with a debatable penalty, could’ve left it at that, even a hamilton fan surely won’t consider it a well deserved win when you don’t even pass the driver who won on track.

            1. @esploratore1 As a Hamilton fan, I remember Spa 2008, Hamilton going off track at a chicane, giving back the place to Raikkonen, being told by race control ‘fine’, engaging in a spectacular fight on (and off) track with Raikkonen – but then losing the win to Massa (way back in the actual race!) long after the GP was over. So, no, I don’t think Vettel being given a penalty for going off track, then flying back on in front of Hamilton, blocking him dangerously close to the wall to stop him passing, was unfair. Not ideal for a win, no. But Hamilton’s pressurizing had forced Vettel into a mistake, so he really deserved that position – ‘objectively’ speaking.

      2. Which is overcompensated by cruising to 8 WDC’s having a car no one can come near (except occasionally some RB youngster). Hands down the most luckiest F1 driver ever.

    10. I dont expect the outcome will change the penalty. Seems a tactic to at least prevent Lewis from doing this more often. The next get together between the two, Lewis will be on the back foot as he is on parole. At least, that is what RB aims for I guess

      1. Davethechicken
        28th July 2021, 9:16

        Slightly myopic not to see the same can be applied by Merc against RBR if there was a collision in another race. They may set a precedent they later regret.
        There is rarely a collision that is 100% one drivers fault. Maybe running into the back of another but not when cars are overtaking.

        1. That’s a good point.

          Max is a very aggressive driver and there is a very good chance that, if successful, this will come back to haunt Red Bull.

          1. @sonnycrockett I’ve thought that too, but if Red Bull think they have edge for the rest of the season, it favours Max to be safer from challenges. If they are chasing, they’d clearly need Max to show the kind of aggression seen more at the start of the season. It’s something of a gamble, perhaps worth it if FIA decide to dock Hamilton a lot of points or more points on his license eventually gets him disqualified for a race, but otherwise it could backfire for them, depending on how the remaining season pans out.

          2. In this case the agressor was Lewis.
            To aggressive even and penalised lightly for it.

            1. No matter I think. They will both be under the magnifying glass for the next couple of GP’s. Especially if this isn’t settled in a way that is satisfactory for both (and I really don’t think that it can be).

          3. So be it. At the moment a really bad precedent has been sent that will encourage dangerous driving for the rest of this season and beyond

          4. It easily could, but he also has less penalty points than lewis and has for a while now. I also only remember him making one ‘big’ mistake over the past year (turkey), while lewis has made a few (britain, baku, imola, and austria 2020).

          5. Max is not 17 anymore. Lewis created the narrative of Max being agressive, while he is the one racking up the penalty points for causing a collision. Dont act as sheep. Hamilton stating Max is an agressive driver is a tactic, not reality. He is simply trying to Rosberg Max (and judging the comments on this site, does a stellar job at it. There is a big career ahead of Lewis after his retirement)

            1. Most of his fans here show an enormous lack of f1 knowledge. So they are easely influenced.

        2. I agree

    11. Mark Sinclair
      28th July 2021, 9:00

      “After carefully studying the data again as per Red Bull’s request, we find that Car 33 driven by Max Verstappen had the steering wheel turned too far to the right and caused a collision. We award a 5 grid penalty to Car 33 for the Hungarian Race”.

      Oh, this would really make my day.

      1. that would be amazing

      2. So not an f1 fan then.

        1. It’s you who isn’t an F1 fan. You’re only a Max fanatic.

          1. Even that remark is untrue.
            Your score stays well above 75% this way.
            I am even a fan of Lewis (the not onstant moaning version that is)
            But someone who’s day is great by giving a penalty can not be a f1 fan.

        2. I think penalizing Max instead would be too harsh on him. But it would favour more racing, rather than dampen it as penalizing Lewis further would for his legitimate attempt to overtake (as various current drivers have also expressed). He was penalized sufficiently, perhaps too much, for what was seen as a flaw (oversteer) in that attempted overtake. Punish more, including for outcomes not the incident itself, and drivers will have to scale back their attempts. That includes Max.

          1. The opposite is true: you saw charles run wide later in the race so that lewis wouldn’t send him into the barriers too. Also not sure how taking a corner way too fast and using your opponent to slow down is a ‘legitimate attempt to overtake’

            1. Leclerc was quite aware that at that point he didn’t have the pace to win, so he didn’t have much incentive to fight hard @realnigelmansell; might explain why he gave a wide space, and bc. HAM saw that, how he too made sure to give space (apart from perhaps learning from 1st incident there in the race, where he might have damaged wheel and also been out).

              I am glad stewards are not (at least officially) looking at how a penalty would impact race and/or championship. I do think that if Red Bull have very weak sauce ‘extra’ information, a warning about not bringing the sport into disrepute with their quite hyperbolic stuff (dr. Marko esp.) wouldn’t be bad, but anything stronger seems a bad precedent, and Verstappen should in my opinion be left out of that completely.

      3. If that happens I hope rb withdraws from the championship, would just look rigged for hamilton

        1. @realnigelmansell Sounds a fantastic idea. I’m sure most Max fans would prefer that to seeing him actually race.

          1. He can’t race anyway if there’s little consequence for putting him in the wall

    12. Nice photo of Whinger Spice at the bottom of the article, looking like the tough guy he is!

      1. Fred Fedurch
        28th July 2021, 11:40

        Vs. the pic last week of the Cosplay Kid in tactical gear last week lookin all tough? I spit out my coffee when I saw that. In the hypothetical carpark scenario posted above by someone, my money would be on old man Jos.

        1. Haha, well Toto is a very big fellow so dont know about that

    13. Thing us Red Bull know if you complain long enough and loud enough you eventually get what you want. But I can not see the FIA handing out a more significant penalty to Lewis, after all the videos articles and 3D models of the incident. There is no further evidence to show.

      1. I don’t suppose any of the rules allow the FIA to dock RBR some WCC points for wasting everyone’s time? ;-)

      2. Its persuasion to penalise the next event harsher, just like in football. Thats simply it. Nothing formal will change. And it was about time a case was made since Lewis seems to make a habit of hitting RB cars. You cant simply do nothing when a single guy who should be operating at his peak given his track record (or was it perhaps somewhat flattered by his car?) runs into your specific car 3 times in as many years. I think he set another record with that.

    14. They won’t. The more they want to do something about this, the more own goals they will score.

    15. Probably not, RB would need to bring some extraordinary new evidence to the table to change the previous verdict. E.G. Proof Hamilton purposely targeted Verstappen with the intent of punting him off. Which of course is ridicules and belongs in the rubbish bin. But that seems to be the line Horner and Marko and a couple of posters on this site are hinting/suggesting.

      1. Double tongue do you..
        If they can prove it, it’s not ridiculous :)

        1. @erikje speak of the devil.

    16. In cases like this, where the competitor was unable to continue racing (Max), any championship points received for finishing the race (Lewis), should be halved. 10 seconds means absolutely nothing to a driver of Lewis’ ability.

      1. And ofc, a driver of lewis ability, right in a race where you can see the importance of the car. Maybe a car like mercedes would’ve been more appropriate.

    17. I honestly thought we were past this in F1. Race results should never be in question after the stewards have packed up for the weekend – and that includes any incidents or penalties etc.

      It’s such a farce and makes F1 look like a circus. Stupid.

      Move on RBR. Most of the fans have. You’ll likely be winning on Sunday anyway.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        28th July 2021, 11:26

        I don’t think we’re past anything. We saw Mercedes accuse Red Bull of cheating in multiple ways over the first few races and now Red Bull are reacting by taking this incident way too far. Both have embarrassed the sport this year.

        1. A fair point. Let’s hope the season outcome boils down to on track action only!

    18. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      28th July 2021, 11:16

      Most of the fallout seems to be about SLH coming first. If he had not been able to finish the GP would this all be going on?

      Now it is going on there cannot be a claim for lost points as no-one knows where MV might of finished himself had there been no collision. Past results are not indicative of future results.

      1. Much ado bout ntn… The issue i have here is every driver moving forward can just defend to the point of an accident then blame the attacker and force a penalty. Which reduces the very thing we as fanss want to see. Good hard close racing and duels. Im Not saying deliberate incidents should be allowed though. In this case i also believe it is a racing Incident if anything with Lewis slightly more to blame. And vers also partly to blame.

    19. I’m just enjoying the “perfect” hamilton making mistake after mistake now he is under some actual pressure.

      One for all those people who (correctly) took the **** put of Vettel for buckling under the pressure.

      Guess your perfect Hamilton isn’t so mighty after all

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

      The idea that asking for this to be reviewed looks poor upon Red Bull and ‘taints’ the championship is ridiculous as –

      1. Mercedes would do the same
      2. It is their right to ask, and realistically nothing will actually change
      3. It’s already ‘tainted’ as if Hamilton fails to win the championship with a points gap larger than was lost here, it’ll always be argued that here, his lack of tangible punishment and good fortune bought him the win.

      Silly thing is that if hypothetically they succeded in taking points away from Hamilton it would be argued that Red Bull won the championship off track so doing this is a no-win situation. But it is their right, and the meagre punishment he got wasn’t enough for the result – and the result should be taken into account. But stewarding in F1 has been dodgy for a long time.

      Perhaps they’ll ask for a grid drop? Dropping 5 or so places clearly had little impact on him at Silverstone.

      1. You complain that the stewards are not being fair, but think the solution is to make the stewarding process significantly more subjective by insisting they should change the penalty according to whom they are penalising? That sounds like an even worse idea.

      2. F1oSaurus (@)
        28th July 2021, 15:19

        @rocketpanda Mercedes would not do the same. They are not this dumb/malicious/eager to spite their face.

        2. It is their right to ask, and realistically nothing will actually change

        So all they are doing is put the sport into disrepute?

        1. Adam (@rocketpanda)
          28th July 2021, 16:14

          Mercedes would absolutely do the same. Even Williams would do the same – and have done. I get you’re a fan of Mercedes but try to retain some objectivity.

          I don’t think it brings the sport into disrepute at all and am yet again confused by your incredible jumps of logic. Asking for clarification, or closer examination isn’t disreputable, it gives F1 and its stewarding a chance to demonstrate its fairness. Equally if Red Bull do have evidence that changes the nature of it then let them show what they think they have.

          1. Coventry Climax
            29th July 2021, 0:49

            My opinion on this, “The review was initiated by Red Bull, who discovered a new piece of evidence the stewards had not considered at the time: 360-degree video footage from Hamilton’s car, which was published by Formula 1 Management after he was initially cleared. In the original decision, the stewards ruled Hamilton had been shown “conflicting signals”; the new footage revealed otherwise, hence the change in their decision.”, is:
            That it’s not ‘new’ evidence! That was footage, readily available to all of F1, yet blatantly ignored by the stewards. That’s negligence with a lot of words to talk it right.
            In other words, to me, they’re an incompetent bunch of crooks, but will never admit directly to mistakes made, always coming with blahblah to embellish their stupidity. I don’t trust them one bit. (Yes, as in 1/8 of a byte.)

            1. Is that really all that they have? Well, that’s about as weak as what Ferrari brought over Canada. Yeah, give Horner a stern talking to for wasting everybody’s time, and do mention that rule about bringing sport into disrepute with a formal warning about this stuff so they don’t do that next time. New information, sure, but this; that is only to keep it in the media then.

      3. and the result should be taken into account

        This cannot be the case @rocketpanda as you would have different penalties for the same infraction, depending on the result of the race. Random events such as safety car, red flag or rain have a huge impact on a race result. Why would a driver be penalized a second time after the race because a got lucky through the actions of other teams / drivers?

    21. I still think people are being distracted by the points of conflict between VER and HAM focusing upon the WDC battle and the points swing under a scenario where HAM was found substantively at fault for a very dangerous collision in a +5G corner. This is what F1 frenzied media and F1 salivating fans want to make this Appeals Battle about, but I tend to doubt that is the ‘all out primary motivator’. The WDC / WCC consequences are certainly conveniently coincident with a bigger issue for Red Bull F1 Team.

      Under current first F1 Season of the Cost Cap to team spending (150 million, if I recall, excluding driver salaries and other defined expenses), a team in the midst of a year long Championship down the whole grid, cannot afford 1.5 million quid just being binned in invested/proven machinery. The consequences of Driver infractions are fiscal as well as sporting nowadays. So, the test case here to me is the ‘new world’ of Budget Cap impacts of on-track infractions. Current Steward judgments don’t deal with that side.

      Of course Red Bull want a more severe consequence and penalty for HAM. Bonus if that can be wrangled in this process. However, I feel this is more-so a very real SCENE SETTING TEST CASE to address financial collateral damage. The Cost Cap is not a trivial boundary to negotiate and stay competitive. Why do you think Toto Wolff just about ‘bitch slapped’ George Russel for collecting BOT in Imola.

      1. Good point!

    22. This must be making Liberty so happy.

      Two teams sniping at each other, the two front running driver colliding. They couldn’t have scripted this season any better if they tried.

      Watch the media, especially Sky ramp up the intensity of the rivalry to fever pitch.

      I’m absolutely delighted that we’ve finally got the fight we’ve been waiting on and fully expected that at some point there’d be contact. As far as I’m concerned, the stewards have handled it OK and we should all move on on to the weekends racing.

      1. Coventry Climax
        29th July 2021, 0:53

        Given the penalty Hamilton received, it was scripted.

    23. If it weren’t for the imminent budget cap, engine penalties etc then I’d agree with others that Red Bull need to get over themselves. The trouble is, the guy that punted their driver off was able to fix his car under the red flag he created, then he ended up winning the GP.

      F1’s all about the smallest of margins, so if I were Red Bull and I’d just lost 25 points, I’d be throwing as much mud at Mercedes as much as possible. Good luck to them!

    24. Funny how no one in these debates mentions the fact that Hamilton passed Leclerc, in the same corner, in the same exact manner, for the lead of the race with no such collision. Not even close actually. Why ? Because Leclerc yielded the line as he should have, and allowed Hamilton racing room. He didn’t try to chop Hamilton’s nose off, or squeeze him off the track ( 2 of Max’s favorite moves.) Then he tried to retake the position after Copse. Unfortunately for Charles, he couldn’t do that. That’s called racing. Max is fast, and he has the best car at the moment, but he is still a little raw and immature racing savvy wise. What I find humorous in all this, is that Max has driven up the inside of more than one opponent just like Hamilton did to him, and then bitched on his radio about the guy being blind or stupid that hit him. Apparently the same doesn’t apply to himself.

    25. This is very unnecessary and RB seem to be bum-hurt (understandably, I would be too) and too far deep to back out of this episode of hatred towards Hamilton and Mercedes.

      It does bring much more excitement into F1 and I have noticed social media engagement for anything F1 related soar highly.

      Also, lets just take in the fact that teams use Karun’s third-party opinion as a piece of evidence… LOL! They might as well take my opinion too while they are at it!

    26. The issue about the severity or lack thereof always leads/ledes with the fact that Hamilton won. The idea that the penalty was not harsh would be lost on Bottas who had the same car and no penalty and didn’t even finish second. If Hamilton finished about 10s behind Bottas as may have been expected we would not be having this discussion or at nearly the same temperature. Personally I thought a leclerc victory was assured at the time of the penalty because Norris and Bottas were not quicker and I think few people expected Hamilton to fight all the way back to the front without a second sc to close the field. I think this is the shock that sent Horner to “see the manager.” I’m sure that was very hard to take. I get that. I would have been punching walls. But that’s not a reason to review the penalty. I feel this is the relevant “fact” but it’s not one that is material so we keep shouting about it.

      1. Very good point @dmw.
        I couldn’t believe my eyes when Hamilton was catching Leclerc, going one second faster per lap. He was panting on the radio when Bono told him “good pass”. This was not a written outcome. As you noted, Bottas was not able to get closer to Leclerc.
        I get why RB is mad, but this was one of those days where Hamilton is above the field.

        1. Coventry Climax
          29th July 2021, 0:55

          Above the field after a very lowly, possibly even intended ‘error’, then.

        2. Indeed, above the field with perez behind and verstappen out, hence no true competition left, because of the car they had.

    27. Red Bull has the right to request a review. Neither fans’ opinions nor precedents have a bearing in the process and the outcome of this conflict. Only facts matter, and these will become clear along with the FIA final say as to what additional penalty, if any, Mercedes and its driver gets. Anything outside this process is purposeless and just a platform and an opportunity for inter-fan bullying and poppycock.

    28. Verstappen lost 25 points and Hamilton gained those.
      Also around 1.8 Millions in Damage and a Grid Penalty for Verstappen due to an Engine Change.
      That means Verstappen most likely lost the Championship due to Hamilton’s mistake…

      1. You clearly dont rate VER in that case.

      2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        28th July 2021, 18:36

        That means Verstappen most likely lost the Championship due to Hamilton’s mistake…

        By mistake, are you insisting that Lewis was under an obligation to “assist” Verstappen in avoiding a collision for the umpteenth time? When did Lewis assume the role of the safety car on track?

        There are 3 mistakes by Max on that corner. Did he get a penalty for any of those?

        1. Interesting, only one lap and punted out the race in that corner but able to make three mistakes in the same corner.
          Max must be superhuman.

    29. In all likelihood, they won’t succeed because they don’t seem to have any new, significant evidence to present. Which brings up the point of why are they doing this then? As a distraction for Merc? To try to get in the stewards’ heads for future incidents? Those could both be plausible reasons but the big problem RB have is that they have made such a big deal out of the incident and about this review that if they don’t get a victory it will be seen as a failure. And that will inevitably colour the future responses from Merc and stewards. Why would Merc/HAM do anything differently if the review panel finds the penalty was fair? Why would stewards evaluate Merc more harshly in the future if the penalty was fair? Merc/HAM will come away feeling justified right before a Grand Prix, even though the reality is that the stewards deemed HAM was predominantly to blame and if RB had left it alone, that would have been the story coming in the Grand Prix. Now it will most likely be RB’s failed protest.

      1. As someone else mentions above, maybe the big stink about costs is, along the lines of Toto’s rant on costs of the Imola crash, indeed also about making sure the cost cap is seen as stringent (and no need to decrease it or bring more stuff under it, as Liberty/FIA surely do have in mind) @g-funk

    30. F1oSaurus (@)
      28th July 2021, 15:09

      If the stewards review the evidence and for instance notice that Verstappen initially instinctively moves wider when he sees Hamilton appear next to him (to give Hamilton space) and immediately after that turns in sharply anyway, could they actually turn this back into the racing incident it should have been?

        1. Interesting: this video show that Hamilton was making the corner, he just needed a few cm in his left.
          What this video doesn’t show is the fuel load, which are far less on lap 50, changing greatly the cars dynamics.

    31. Maybe the judges can use this video when pronouncing the verdict…….
      from the free practice in Portomao, you may remember the “mongogate” case!!!


      1. You do know this was all based on a misunderstanding.
        Lance finished his fast lap and max thought he would slow down.
        While lance was not obliged to do so, it was a simple misunderstanding during a practice session.
        Not comparable except max was like Lewis the agressor here.

        1. The incident itself, I heard you.
          The team radio itself…I’ll say how angry I’ve been on this, if there’s no acutes or any foreign words.

    32. John Passmore
      28th July 2021, 17:38

      I just think if we are going to contest every racing incident that ends badly for one or other team then F1 will become even more dull than it was before this exciting season.

    33. Joe Pineapples
      28th July 2021, 18:32

      Expecting Horner & Marko to be sporting matching neck braces for the phantom pain they’re probably still feeling.

    34. I’m sorry this is an absolute non event. We are talking about taking this win from Lewis? So why are Ferrari not protesting for Lewis to get a bigger penalty that credits Leclerc for the win. All the teams saw this as a racing incident apart from RB.

      1. Many teams would like to get a Mercedes engine. In similar fashion, many drivers would like to get a seat in Mercedes F1 team. Both ambitions would seem to require them not to antagonise Mercedes. It all comes down to politics and personal agendas.

        1. Sure, Ferrari are trying to get Mercedes enamines.

          1. and Haikkinen, Montoya and Wurz are all fighting over the Bottas seat. Its obvious when you think about it.


    35. Paul desmond
      28th July 2021, 18:58

      I ask one question would max have gone for the same move 100 %. YES

    36. The austrian yellow flags investigation was a disgrace. No saving it, everything was wrong and correcting the mistake did nothing to make anyone look better.
      On this one I think RB just want to be heard, they are going to make their point very clear and that is all that is going to happen.

    37. RocketTankski
      29th July 2021, 9:39

      I think the referee’s decision has to be final. Case closed, move on. Otherwise they might as well open a civil case and sue them through the courts. It would get ridiculous. And undermines any trust and respect in the stewards. And where do you draw the line? Can we impose changes on the results of races from decades ago?

    Comments are closed.