Red Bull fail in bid to have stewards review Verstappen-Hamilton collision

2021 Hungarian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

The stewards have rejected Red Bull’s request for them to review their decision on the collision between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton in the British Grand Prix.

Red Bull asked the stewards to reconsider their verdict which handed Hamilton a 10-second time penalty for the collision which put Verstappen out of the race. The team believe the sanction was too lenient, as Hamilton was able to continue and claim victory, and felt a further penalty was deserved.

Under F1’s rules, a review may take place if the stewards discover new information relevant to an incident which was not available to them at the time. But after considering a submission made by Red Bull the stewards denied their request.

Red Bull is understood to have presented several pieces of evidence to the stewards which they claim proved Hamilton entered Copse corner at a trajectory and speed which made the collision unavoidable.

The team used Hamilton’s overtaking move on Charles Leclerc at the same corner later in the race to demonstrate the Mercedes driver should have slowed down more for the corner and taken a tighter line in order to avoid contact.

To support their claim, Red Bull performed real-world and simulator analyses on the data. Reserve driver Alexander Albon recreated the lines taken by the drivers through the corners while taking part in a tyre test at Silverstone in the week after the race. Sergio Perez performed a similar test in the team’s simulator.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Red Bull maintain Verstappen left sufficient room for Hamilton on the inside of Copse, and claim their analysis showed the Mercedes should have braked considerably earlier than he did to make it around the corner without hitting their car.

After considering the information received from Red Bull, the stewards ruled it “was not ‘a significant and relevant new element [that was] discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned’.”

Red Bull used their data to produce illustrations comparing the racing lines taken by Hamilton while passing Verstappen and Leclerc. The stewards ruled this could not be considered new evidence as it was “created for the purposes of submissions to support the petition for review” and “created based on evidence that was available to the competitor at the time of the decision” in the form of GPS data from the cars.

The stewards noted that evidence submitted in support of a request for review must be “‘discovered’ (as opposed to created)”.

Red Bull submitted their request for a review to the stewards in a letter on Friday. “The stewards added they ‘note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the competitor’s above letter.

“Such allegations may or may not have been relevant to the stewards if the petition for review had been granted. The stewards may have addressed these allegations directly in any decision that would have followed. The petition having been dismissed, the stewards make no comments on those allegations.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 Hungarian Grand Prix

    Browse all 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix articles

    Author information

    Dieter Rencken
    Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
    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.

    133 comments on “Red Bull fail in bid to have stewards review Verstappen-Hamilton collision”

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      29th July 2021, 19:14

      Disappointing because I would have loved for the stewards to ask Verstappen some very serious questions especially since Red Bull was so adamant to bring this up.

      I would not have been surprised if Max’s response resulted in a reversal and a penalty being given to him.

    2. Not unexpected. But knowing now Hamilton will do the penalised move again I guess the penalty should be way heavier.
      He does not learn and in fact is rewarded for taking out a competitor.

      1. Dave (@davewillisporter)
        29th July 2021, 19:43

        Jeez! It’s amazing how someone can give so much time to a sport but refuse to understand anything about it! I wonder why on the Saturday sprint race when Lewis went up the outside of Max at Copse, he backed out? What was it Lewis knew on Saturday that Max didn’t on Sunday? Risk vs reward. Lewis thinks as well as drives!
        So yes, if Max gets on the outside on a similar corner it will probably happen again. I’ve seen Max do it for SEVEN YEARS! You can’t win a championship if you refuse to consider risk.

        1. Victor Harris
          30th July 2021, 4:37


        2. geoffgroom44 (@)
          30th July 2021, 9:24

          +1. ‘Predominantly to blame’ does not exonerate the other guy and if Max’s youthful machismo was more important that staying well ahead on points, then he pays the price.Max could have,should have, easily avoided contact just as much as so many Maxfans think Lewis could have,should have. It is not the racing incident itself that is the problem here, it’s all the PR following the catastrophic results of poor decision making in the first instance.The bottom line for all the ‘what ifs’ is incredibly simple and rests on the foundation of poor risk management. 33 points in hand is better than 8 in the bush !

      2. I’ve read about 4 of your comments, and you are already becoming a parody of yourself.

        Grow up.

    3. Unsurprising, post race protests almost never work. This was just done to put pressure on the FIA for future incidents.

      I watched Max’s interview today where he rightly points out that he has 0 penalty points. Max has been on 0 penalty points for a few years now. Meanwhile Lewis has gathered 12 penalty points (a race bans worth) since Max last got a penalty point.

      Max is a cleaner and better racer than Lewis.

      1. Nonsense.
        Lewis got points for absolutely invalid reasons, simply due to stupidity pf current penalty system

        Max is not a clean driver by any measure.
        Never was, never will be

        1. Of course, it always is.
          Yes sometimes penalty points are to easy to get… But that story does not hold for 12 points.
          Lewis has a habit of putting his car against a Redbull. Poor albon experienced it twice.
          Bad looser

        2. Invalid reasons like his incurable tendency to hit drivers on his outside and send them into a spin? Yeah, very invalid those reasons.

          Verstappen is a much better and cleaner racer than Hamilton, and has been for a few years now.

          1. @Cheesbucket: Don’t cry, I know the truth can hurt but geez. Man up! Your crying is embarrassing!

          2. kingshark,,are you telling us max isnt known for dangerous defensive moves and overtakes.
            most of the time tho,he he gets away with it.and some of those times its because the other driver backs out.
            we had already seen max run lewis off the track a few time this season..and that was the only reason why there was no contact.
            max should learn to himself concede sometimes.

            1. max should learn to concede sometimes.

            2. Matt he does that more often then you think. Look at last year how many times he concede in corners.

        3. Greatnews, it is quite clear with erikje nor Kingshark that, even before such an incident, they were never going to say anything different when it did happen, no matter who might be at fault – you cannot reason prejudice out of those for whom those prejudices were never set by reason to begin with.

      2. Dave (@davewillisporter)
        29th July 2021, 19:56

        @kingshark actually, all this shows is what happens when Max races Max in another car. People have been jumping out of his way for years because their version of risk is different from his. Max NEVER avoids an accident, he relies on the other driver doing that for him. Go listen to the F1 nation podcast, Ziggo sports reporter, “If Max thinks it’s his corner he will NEVER back out”

        Lewis’s racing incident points are against Albon. Albon didn’t do what Lewis was expecting ahead of him because Albon isn’t as good as Alonso or Max or anyone else he is used to racing. Both incidents Lewis was penalised for, Albon’s car should not have been there and Alonso would have stayed ahead or got ahead.

        Max is to quote you “a cleaner and better racer than Lewis” other drivers know not to put their car in that position against Max, they know that is a certain accident. Daniel, Charles, Lando, they all know. Everyone on the grid knows if it’s a marginal move against Max, he won’t back out and you’re going off.

        Now, engage your brain. What happens when the other driver adopts the same approach as Max?

        Senna Prost.

        1. all this shows is what happens when Max races Max in another car.

          You are pretty lost it seems..

          1. Pathetic.
            Loving the reault of this “review” though. Hahahaha

            1. At least you clicked the right button, did you?

            2. Care to explain

            3. It’s a Report Button joke.

        2. @davewillisporter
          You’ve wasted your time writing an entire essay on a false premise, the premise that other drivers don’t race Max hard.

          At Silverstone 2019, Leclerc raced Max harder than anyone has raced Hamilton in years, and it resulted in no collision of any kind. Because hard racing is not what causes crashes.

          Crashes happen when one driver lacks competence, spatial awareness and/or concentration. That’s what happened at Silverstone 2021 with Hamilton.

          1. Dave (@davewillisporter)
            29th July 2021, 20:32

            @kingshark I didn’t see Max trying to go round the outside of Copse on Leclerc! In fact all of those on track incidents where Charles forced him off the track was where there was run off and Max kept his foot in, off track. Same in Austria.

            Now, here’s the counter. Lewis hasn’t raced Max like Charles has. In fact, historically, it’s been Max who’s forced Lewis off the track. COTA, Monaco, Bahrain 2019, Imola and Barcelona. All of these incidents, Lewis has taken avoiding action.

            Let me quote you Horner in Barcelona 21. Max was going into that corner fully committed. It was lucky Lewis backed out.”

            What would have happened if Lewis hadn’t??

            We just found out!

            1. Max wasn’t going around the outside he was very clearly ahead, and lewis entered the corner too fast to stay inside, which he was perfectly capable of later with leclerc

            2. @davewillisporter

              didn’t see Max trying to go round the outside of Copse on Leclerc!

              Probably because he was never in a position to attack Charles without DRS because of Ferrari’s top speed?

              Honestly, your entire argument about how Max has no penalty points because other drivers don’t race him completely falls apart the moment you actually analyze it. Zero penalty points in two years is actually impressive, and that was a very dishonest attempt to discredit Max on your part.

              Hamilton has been involved in three collisions that were clearly deemed his fault (Brazil 2019, Austria 2020, Silverstone 2021) since the last time Max was involved in a collision that was his fault (Monaco 2019).

              Your criticism of Max is in fact so dishonest that it makes me wonder if debating about Max with you is even worth it, when you have shown zero intent to be objective.

        3. Yes that is. You are right.

      3. Max has no points because he’s been in no man’s land by himself for the last several years! The mercs have been ought of sight in front of him and the chasing pack out of sight behind him.

        It’s hard to earn penalty points when you have no one to race against 95% of the time.

        1. Leclerc and Max raced each other harder at Silverstone 2019 than anyone has raced Hamilton in years.

          1. @kingshark
            “Leclerc and Max raced each other harder at Silverstone 2019 than anyone has raced Hamilton in years” hard means they came together,
            vettel and max came together more than once
            max and ric came together more than once
            max and ham came together more than once, ham in fact avoided dozens of those incidents by max or albon, however they do not return the favor in same circumstances because you know people like max and albon are brave but others are chickens if they back out, or losers if they choose to do what max does :)
            max and kimi came together with max multiple times, and kimi is one of the most sensible drivers out there and yet brave max is what max is…
            max and checko came together as well

            yeah max race everyone hard until he finds his match, than becomes worse than worse big moutheds….

      4. But how many penalty points max would have if Lewis hadn’t kept avoiding the contact until now

        1. @the-edge
          Probably still zero, because it’s perfectly OK to push another driver off the circuit if you are level or ahead on corner exit, as Hamilton showed in his numerous battles with Rosberg from 2014-2016.

    4. Pathetic losers lost. Thumbs up

      1. Was the penalty removed from Hamilton? Was there any change in the outcome?
        I don’t see how the “pathetic losers lost” when Hamilton is still at fault and is still penalized. Is Mercedes the pathetic losers? It seemed you were favoring on the side of Mercedes until this comment.

        1. Penalised…But he won!😁
          Gained 25 points while Max gained 0. I’d call that a win, win 😀

          1. Reply button is placed on the left side, remember that!

        2. You do realise this was Red Bull trying to get an increase in Hamilton’s penalty? They failed miserably.

      2. @Greatnews
        Pathetic losers’ side kick supporters lost too. Double thumbs up yeet! :)

    5. They are probably going to get criticized by many, but as requests go, they made a good effort to prove whatever they wanted to prove. Having drivers performing the moves on a sim and in real life sounds more like a post-accident analysis in the aviation industry.

      Beats showing Karun Chandhok’s analysis for TV by miles.

      1. Just shows how pathetic they are.
        What’s next, present crystall ball as a truth-telling device?

      2. Dave (@davewillisporter)
        29th July 2021, 20:25

        @fer-no65 Speaking as somebody who is involved with the industry you speak of, that’s not how it works. The first thing you do is take a similarly skilled and experienced pilot and get them to fly the parameters that the black box (which is normally orange!) data shows just before the incident, and record the results.

        The two are not comparable AT ALL!

        What Redbull tried to do is prove that the pilot meant to crash. That is not analysis! Neither is Perez or Albon a similar skill or experience than Lewis, and they are driving a completely different car and in Albon’s case in different temps and wind conditions with a different level of rubber on the track!

        Karun would be a far more accurate analysis than the farce Redbull brought. In real court they’d have been held in contempt for wasting the court’s time and ordered to pay expenses.

        1. @davewillisporter if you answer narrow minds, you will get their minds narrower than before… dont waste your time… redbull only bring hypotethical situation to the table aka fabricated theory! not considering fuel loads, rubber set on the circuit, tyres brake levels and most importantly who they are racing against…. i m really surprised stewards didnt remove the penalty as a result of max’s onboard footage which clearly shows he was aware of ham and made a twitch but pressed on hence created the avoidable accident himself… if anything max should have been named in the penalty, narrating the penalty in a such passive way only empowered max’s and red bull’s egos…

          1. Dave (@davewillisporter)
            29th July 2021, 20:47

            @mysticus yeah but I like playing with mice every now and again! That weird spec on your avatar triggers me! Looks like a fly I want to swat! Can you change it! Maybe an aura or something?

      3. Doing such a simulation the way Red Bull did though would be like Airbus simulating why the 737 Max crashed multiple times @fer-no65.

        Even if they would have anything NEW to show (instead of this being a fancy way to put screenshots to GPS data, as if Stewards are too stupid to understand the data they already had), trying to prove what and how the Mercedes of Hamilton should be driven without inside info from the other team is just stupid.

        I get that Red Bull want to put on pressure. And I agree that they are fully within their rights. However, it does seem like apart from pushing the team actually inferred malice either from Mercedes, Hamilton or even from the FIA (see the last paragraph of the FIA statement)

        1. Dave (@davewillisporter)
          29th July 2021, 20:44

          @bascb you are entirely correct!

      4. Spending 2 weeks trying to prove an imaginary scenario where Lewis is banned for at least 1 race shows just how sad RB are! Perez spent the 2 week break trying to get Verstappens rival an additional/increased penalty! I don’t want to ever hear BOTTAS called a patsy or wingman again! What Perez did these last 2 weeks takes it to another level!! Pathetic from every member of RB!

    6. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      29th July 2021, 19:18

      The new and significant is data not derived from the race.

      1. Part was. I. E. The leclerc move.

        1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
          29th July 2021, 19:31

          The part that Horner said was not possible you mean? That no-one can overtake at Copse. That bit you mean?

          1. No, just read again and try to understand the content. It will come to you.

            1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
              29th July 2021, 20:06

              The data has to be pertinent to the incident. What happens in the future is not pertinent.

              What RBR also presented were slides of Albon simulating the run created from the GPS data known at the time of the incident. So again was not new.

            2. @andyfromsandy
              just answer with this :)
              The stewards noted that evidence submitted in support of a request for review must be “‘discovered’ (as opposed to created)”. which clearly says redbull tried hard to fabricate evidence for which they should be prosecuted for trying to pervert the course of justice! as per articles xyz, hereby redbul is banned from one race within the next 2 races… justice would be served

            3. @mysticus As more of a Hamilton fan than a Verstappen fan, although a fan of both, who strongly thinks this should all have been a racing incident, I disagree with your take on this.

              They didn’t try to fabricate evidence. They did analysis on existing evidence in an attempt to prove their point of view. However, this does not meet the high bar for reviewing stewards decisions, which is that new evidence must be presented which was not available to the stewards at the time. This is to hold up the premise used in pretty much all sport that the referee is always right, based on the information they had at the time.

    7. A racing move that there is little agreement on whether it was a racing incident or not, whether a penalty was befitting, too harsh or too lenient. It obviously didn’t need any further analysis and common sense has prevailed

      1. Agree. It was a pointless protest from a team with a reputation of whinging. They’ve put more pressure on the stewards for any harsher penalties awarded for the same infringement .. which is what their objective was anyways.

        Would be hilarious if Max falls foul of the same infringement in the future and gets a harsher penalty

    8. A RB driver who is not good enough to race a RB or a car belonging to its junior team, driving a car that’s not a Mercedes, on different tyres on a different day in different conditions, could not drive around a corner at the speed Hamilton can. This would be the RB driver, who when the conditions are all the same, can’t even drive the same car round the corner at the same speed his teammate can.
      Maybe they can re-appeal and get Coultard to have a go?

      1. And I should have added its about discovering new evidence, not creating some of your own.

        1. The more I read the new ‘evidence’ the funnier it gets, genuinely embarrassing from RBR and it makes me pretty sad as fan of a sport to see things like that.

        2. Indeed Ian.

    9. SheriffBufordTJustice
      29th July 2021, 19:23

      Absolute comedy GOLD!! RBR lost points, and suffer brand/reputation damage (not like they had an upstanding reputation to begin with). I bet Christian is incandescent.

    10. The stewards noted that evidence submitted in support of a request for review must be “‘discovered’ (as opposed to created)”.


      1. I wonder if all this discovery comes out their Budget and leaves them a few less winglets to add at the end of the year.

        1. RandomMallard (@)
          29th July 2021, 21:06

          @millionus One of the exclusions to the cost cap is:

          All costs Directly Attributable to Human Resources Activities, Finance Activities or
          Legal Activities;

          I’m sure RB will try and claim that this counts as a “Legal Activity”, and it probably is, so I doubt it will hurt their budget cap too much.

          1. But it is rather ridiculous to keep bringing up the crash itself cost the team 1,5 million to then spend money and resources on such idiotic things.

    11. Reserve driver Alexander Albon recreated the lines taken by the drivers through the corners while taking part in a tyre test at Silverstone in the week after the race. Sergio Perez performed a similar test in the team’s simulator.

      After considering the information received from Red Bull, the stewards ruled it could not be considered new evidence as it was “created for the purposes of submissions to support the petition for review”

      Well, I have to admit I laughed out loud. At least we know what the ‘new evidence’ was.

      1. @david-br there is also potentially an argument that, if Red Bull were using the tyre test for data collection for this protest, they might actually have been breaking the rules on how those tyre tests are undertaken.

        When the teams undertake those tests, any data that they are collected should either be data that is to be provided to Pirelli, or it should only be data that is necessary to monitor the condition of the car during the test to ensure that it runs properly. What the teams are not supposed to be doing is acquiring data for their own personal use outside of those tests – but what Red Bull are said to have done here would suggest they were doing that.

        1. The data apparently was from the 22nd, not from the tyre test on the 21st Anon, @david-br.

          So it seems RB used up one of their promotion running days to do this.

          1. @bascb the article stated that information “while taking part in a tyre test at Silverstone”, which is why I made that comment – but even if it was a promotional event, the teams are still meant to abide by strict data collection regulations to prevent them using promotional events to carry out testing.

            The sporting regulations explicitly state that a promotional event is permitted “purely for marketing or promotional purposes” only, and “any additional logging or testing of components is strictly prohibited.” – in addition, the team is supposed to have an FIA appointed observer present to ensure that the teams are not abusing the rules to turn the event into a private test session, with the team required to explicitly notify the FIA what the purpose of the test is meant to be for.

            If they were using the event to collect data that they intended to use for a protest, that does not seem to comply with the requirement that the event is “purely for marketing” purposes – it would also raise questions over whether the teams were using additional logging devices that go beyond what would be needed purely for the car to function.

            1. really good questions anon

          2. @bascb The runs on which they have to use prototype tyres which aren’t representative of the actual tyres used in the race?…

            1. Indeed @3dom.

              Red Bull running a 4 year old RB15 at a test with a different level of rubber on track, with completely different tyres (not the prototype ones but the harder ones they get to run for those PR days of running, especially because they are not much use to gather relevant data). Running a car that is completely different than what is on track now (well, and not a Mercedes), not to mention a driver of quite a different capability than Hamilton (sorry Alex, but true).

              Not to mention that running laps to “recreate” Hamilton’s first lap without the context, without an actual race going on, all of that is so next level Red Bull.

              I don’t know exactly what the limitations are on running these 4 years and older cars Anon, @david-br, but from what I read about it there aren’t really too much restrictions since the cars are considered too obsolete to gather relevant data (well, and those extra hard tyres also limit the relevance further), which rather gives us a good pointer as to the relevance of this “evidence” Red Bull produced.

            2. The more we think about this, the more truly farcical it seems @bascb

            3. @3dom @bascb

              the cars are considered too obsolete to gather relevant data

              It’s like Alan Partridge took over Red Bull management and tried to recreate the incident in his Lexus.

    12. Well, I guess it’s less than the sum they quoted of how much that crash cost them in terms of the car, but still, test day isn’t cheap, and with this I’d think they shouldn’t be able to argue it would be spent on PR, bc. if they say they did all of this just for PR, then the stewards really should insist on a bringing the sport into disrepute warning, much as I am not for that sort of thing being seriously pursued for anything but things like crashgate and the like.

    13. CheeseBucket
      29th July 2021, 19:38

      Red Bull now estimate that the incident actually cost them 2.5 Million not 1.9 due to the extra time trying to prove nonsense in their simulator.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        29th July 2021, 21:20


    14. At least we now know for sure Max will never ever let Lewis get in on the inside again. All he needs to do is force Lewis to go outside and punt the back wheel. Case closed.

      1. Well he tried to stop him going up the inside last week, until Ham threw him a dummy move that he fell hook, line and sinker for.

      2. if max tries that,itll be funny if he crashes out,and lewis still goes on to win the race,,which is quite possible.

        1. Lewis just have to put him in the barriers again, take the 10s and become wdc again.
          “Winning at all costs ”
          The only problem is Lewis gets lots of penalty points and probably a race ban. So what.. He already is a “sir”

        2. @mattblack
          max did that a little differently and ham clipped his tyre again :) costing max his tyres…
          max doesnt really care if you are inside or outside or ahead or behind, and his fans cheer him up for these moves, his team doesnt seem to warn him about these moves in fact they are encouraging this “brave” moves! His fans argue about his cleanliness :) absolute joke, people avoid him like a plague because he is 100% crash magnet in those moves and he doesnt back out of any of these moves at all!

    15. The problem with using evidence from a test or the simulator is that it isn’t the same as having 2 cars racing on the limit fighting for the same bit of track with things like turbulent air affecting the cars or the specific track conditions of the day. It’s also not fully representative given how the Mercedes will have completely different having characteristics to the Red Bull.

      It surprises me how much time/effort they have put into it given how virtually every other current/former driver & team boss i’ve heard comment on it has called it a racing incident with most of them of the view that the penalty was too harsh rather than too lenient.
      And I think i’d trust them over Red Bull or Mercedes since other drivers & team bosses don’t have a horse in the race so to speak.

      1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
        29th July 2021, 19:52

        The problem is it isn’t new and significant from the actual incident.

    16. I wonder what these allegations were …

      The stewards added they ‘note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the competitor’s above letter.

      “Such allegations may or may not have been relevant to the stewards if the petition for review had been granted. The stewards may have addressed these allegations directly in any decision that would have followed.

      I do think they made some personal comments against Ham and Max may have opened his mouth up for a penalty himself.

      1. Kyle (@hammerheadgb)
        29th July 2021, 21:36

        This is the most interesting part of the whole statement so it’s interesting to note how it’s been roundly ignored…

        1. @hammerheadgb It’s hard to say much about it when we don’t know what it says. It should be a condition of the request for a review that you letter is published.

          1. Kyle (@hammerheadgb)
            29th July 2021, 23:07

            You are right, this has the makings of a bombshell but could be much ado about nothing without the letter being released. Until we know we can only scratch our heads.

    17. It didn’t look to good at the outset when RB turned up with a box of Scalextric.

      1. Ha Ha, nice one!

      2. RandomMallard (@)
        29th July 2021, 21:01

        Ngl I’m more interested in how you can have a collision with a Scalextric set…

        1. Apparently RB used the incident at 16s from this Scalextric advert

    18. Penalty for a being mainly responsible for collision – 10 seconds, 2 penalty points

      Penalty for always assuming the other driver will back out, even if you are on the outside at 200mph – 25 WDC points, and 51 G

      1. Absolutely, a joke, at least now we know that if you can simulate a racing incident, you can and should take the opponent out, there’s no way you end up further back than the podium, which is still a huge score compared to a retirement.

        If hamilton wins the title by less than 40-50 points (silverstone + baku + imola, I’m being really lenient everything considered) it’s more tainted than rosberg’s 2016 (yes, I took hamilton’s side on that).

        1. Desperatore should be your user name.

    19. F1oSaurus (@)
      29th July 2021, 20:00

      Red Bull is understood to have presented several pieces of evidence to the stewards which they claim proved Hamilton entered Copse corner at a trajectory and speed which made the collision unavoidable.

      All that would do is show that Verstappen should have given more space.

      You see Verstappen correcting to actually make space properly when he sees Hamilton’s front wing right next to him, but then immediately turns in sharply anyway. So yeah then they crash. What else does he “think” will happen with a car right next to him?

      Verstappen can’t decide that Hamilton should just take a much tighter line when he already committed on the wider line (actually the ideal line from where he enters the corner). That’s what it means for Hamilton to “have the line” for being at least half way up on the inside for that overtake. The car on the outside needs to make space. As Verstappen showed in Austria 2019, there does not have to be space for the opponent to stay on track.

      All Hamilton had to do was make the corner and he did. Even with Verstappen causing him to go wider on two occasions through the corner, Hamilton still makes that corner.

      It’s already ridiculous that Hamilton got a penalty for that racing incident. Which F1 driver besides Verstappen thinks this wasn’t a racing incident?

    20. It was never going to work this time round but it does up the pressure for the next time.

      This is the equivalent of when football players surround the referee and they do it because it works.

      1. Didn’t the Fifa recently put in New rules to stop just such crowding of the referee @joshgeake?

        1. Probably, but it’s not the first time they’ve done this so I can’t see it changing anything.

    21. The stewards concern about allegations in the RedBull letter raises the question “was it libellous”.

      Certainly RedBull seem to have gone off the deep end in a spectacular way, hyperbole might easily slide into defamation.

      1. RandomMallard (@)
        29th July 2021, 21:33

        There is certainly the possibility here. I’m not a lawyer, but I enjoy law and legal cases and libel is something I actually find quite interesting. If there is a potential libel case here, it would almost certainly be filed in the UK, and RB would then have a difficult case, because I believe the burden of proof for libel in the UK lies on the defendant. Therefore, RB would have to prove the allegations were true, rather than Hamilton/Mercedes argue they were false, which would be the case in other jurisdictions (like the US).

        I don’t think any action could be taken by the FIA in terms of a libel case, apart from possibly bringing the sport into disrepute…

        As an RB fan this is embarrassing.

    22. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      29th July 2021, 20:11

      That is all the press will want to know about now. Come on Horner give us the gos, what did you put in that letter man?

      1. @andyfromsandy Can’t help thinking he’ll want everyone to ask…

    23. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      29th July 2021, 20:13

      After the decision was announced, Mercedes released a statement accusing Red Bull of trying to “tarnish the good name and sporting integrity of Lewis Hamilton.”

      1. F1oSaurus (@)
        29th July 2021, 20:24

        Ha, ha, that’s just delicious.

    24. So, what is going on today?

      Enjoying the sunny day, my tomatoes are growing, very nice. Listening to some quite nice music, good for the soul. Reading a book of poetry, spirit soaring.

      How is your day?

      1. F1oSaurus (@)
        29th July 2021, 20:27

        @bullmello Thank you for asking. Nice to hear you are doing great.

        My tomatillo plants tipped over in the harsh wind we had over here today, but they seem to be fine apart from some broken branches and having to refill the watering system.

        1. @f1osaurus – The winds happen here at times too. Glad you are fixing up the tomatillo plants.

          Gardening is good for the mind…

          1. Our balcony has been enjoying the mild summer weather with just enough occasional rain we had these last weeks @f1osaurus an @bullmello

    25. Cant help but think that in the last 2 weeks Red Bull Racing has turned F1 toxic.

    26. RandomMallard (@)
      29th July 2021, 20:58

      I just find it amusing how much effort RB put into this. Not only hiring a lawyer simply to see if they actually had a case (fact: they didn’t have a case, and I’m an RB fan), but also the fact they literally created a re-enactment of Hamilton’s line based on a lap driven by Alex Albon on a filming day after the race weekend (whether or not that filming day had always been planned or was used specifically for evidence I don’t know). And that they expected it to work, despite it not realistically having much to do with the incident? I mean come on RB, I’m supporting you and all but this is becoming a comedy show. He got a penalty, served it, and still won. Get over it.

    27. Strange verdict, since at the time the stewards gave Hamilton the penalty, he did not yet show the overtaking move on Leclerc. In that view, these analysis shown are indeed new evidence not available at the time of the stewards decision.

    28. So the whole point of this puerile exercise was to get this letter attacking Hamilton out into the public domain? Step forward tame journo to do the dirty work on behalf of RB that the stewards wouldn’t touch with a bargepole.

      No wonder Max didn’t want to be seen to part of it, as I’m sure he knows exactly what it contains.

      1. It’s going to backfire on them. And deservedly.

    29. I’m hearing that Red Bull made several additional allegations aimed at Hamilton, Mercedes & the stewards.

      I don’t know exactly what they were but it does appear that they did push the opinion that Hamilton intentionally took Verstappen out & that his actions were worthy of ‘at least’ 1 race ban.

      1. @gt-racer That remark from the stewards is quite significant though, i.e. that they

        note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the competitor’s above letter

        It means that they’d concerned that Red Bull made those allegations, not that they had any substance. Which in turn means that Red Bull have damaged themselves and their own reputation in this process, not Hamilton’s.

        1. @gt-racer huh I thought it was maybe one of those, but all three angles of that seem to be asking for an outcome like @david-br says: likely to damage their own standing with the stewards.

      2. This is interesting, thanks for the insight @gt-racer.
        This is in line with the remarks of the stewards regarding the allegations made by the defendant but disregarded because not relevant to the case.

    30. Horner was crying in public about how much the accident cost them, all the while wasting all those resources trying to produce some data that might get the ruling overturned and make him look less wrong…failed.

      Jeez let it go, the car and driver are good enough to win the WDC from here, provided Max doesn’t risk it all needlessly, if he plays the % he’ll win, he doesn’t need a lawyer’s argument to get there.

    31. God, that’s absolutely pathetic from Red Bull

    32. It was obvious that that would be the decision.
      Hakmilton made a correct maneuver which we see in almost every race. Sometimes they work out, sometimes they don’t.
      In any case Maxcrash is a dirty, aggressive and unsportsmanlike driver. He does not deserve to be competing in F1.

    33. Did the efforts fail? That’s big news!
      We’ve silenced Horner.

    34. At last we can concentrate on racing again. No more whining!

    35. This is interesting… The penalty was fair… 10s stop 🛑 and go penalty is huge… Or used to be… In the 90s and early 2000s when F1 was still free to air in south Africa 🌍… I was always watching… And even a 5s stop 🛑 and go penalty was huge and meant your race 🏎 was massively affected and you would probably struggle to win…. Today.. The domination of the front car running 🏃🏾 in clean air is so huge that Hamilton hardly felt it… Yes leclerc was in front.. But the prancing horse 🐴 is more of a dog 🐶 these days…. Yeah the bigger issue is that this current formula is out of whack… Hope next season levels the racing 🏁.. Yes there is always a dominant team… But a penalty should result in a somewhat unfavorable placing in the race 🏎…

    36. OK so now this is over can we all move on.

      I can’t wait to see how the two drivers concerned will approach this weekends race.

      Both have made it clear they’re not going to change so if they’re again that close in the opening lap(s) I expect more fireworks. I don’t expect for a minute that one or other will end up in the barriers but I do expect some very close, no holds barred racing.

      Can’t wait.

    37. Wah ha ha ha ha ha! Suck it up RB!

    38. Good thing the FIA didn’t fall into Red Bull’s trap.

    Comments are closed.