Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton crash, Monza, 2021

Hamilton pleased stewards “set a precedent”, Verstappen “doesn’t fully agree”

2021 Italian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Lewis Hamilton welcomed the stewards’ decision to hand Max Verstappen a three-place grid penalty over the crash which put both drivers out of the Italian Grand Prix.

But the Red Bull driver said he didn’t completely agree with the decision, and maintains the collision between the pair was a racing incident.

The pair tangled at the Rettifilo chicane while Verstappen was trying to pass Hamilton. The stewards ruled Verstappen was never far enough alongside Hamilton that the Mercedes driver was required to leave him space.

News of Verstappen’s penalty broke while Hamilton was speaking to media at Monza on Sunday evening. The world champion said he intended to take a close look at the stewards’ decision.

“If that is the result, then I’m ultimately proud of the stewards,” he said.

“I need some time to really reflect on it but I think it definitely sets a precedent and I think it’s important for us moving forwards for the safety of the drivers that there are strict rules set in place. I’ll wait to speak to the team to find out what the actual report says.”

Before the verdict was issued, Hamilton said F1 needed to ensure drivers understand when they should leave room for their rivals.

“All of us drivers, we are on the edge,” he said. “When we have the inside line every single driver, past and present, will try to hold onto his position.

“Of course, when you’re wheel-to-wheel going into a corner and the car is still alongside you wheel-to-wheel on the outside then eventually you have to concede and give extra space. When the car’s not ahead of you there is a knowing rule that the driver who is ahead, it’s his corner and eventually the driver has to concede.”

“I definitely do think we need to be looking into this and making sure that the right decisions are being made,” he added. “No one wants to see anyone get injured and if we can put some better protocols in, maybe we can avoid this sort of stuff for future.”

However Verstappen took issue with the stewards’ verdict and his penalty. “I don’t fully agree with the penalty as I believe it was a racing incident,” he said in a statement issued by his team.

“It’s very unfortunate what happened today but we are both professionals and so we will move on.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 Italian Grand Prix

Browse all 2021 Italian Grand Prix 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.

160 comments on “Hamilton pleased stewards “set a precedent”, Verstappen “doesn’t fully agree””

  1. Hamilton said F1 needed to ensure drivers understand when they should leave room for their rivals.

    Exactly, how can Verstappen claim that Hamilton needs to leave space for him when he’s trying to dive bomb through a chicane, while he himself does not leave space for Ricciardo (turn 1 sprint race) and Hamilton (turn 4 lap 1) fully alongside at the braking point. The rules are quite clear that Verstappen should have given both of them space while Hamilton was not required to give space to Verstappen.

    In all three cases Verstappen is wrong about the rules/guidelines of overtaking. Or rather he simply ignores them and bullies other drivers off with his dirty driving. Sadly enough he gets away with it unpunished really.

    1. My friend you are talking sense to people with emotional flares, they can’t see through the smoke cloud.

    2. Verstappen spent so much time on those racing sims, he now believes he can take that idea of racing into the real world.

  2. Hilarious: “Of course, when you’re wheel-to-wheel going into a corner and the car is still alongside you wheel-to-wheel on the outside then eventually you have to concede and give extra space. When the car’s not ahead of you there is a knowing rule that the driver who is ahead, it’s his corner and eventually the driver has to concede.”

    Remember Silverstone Lewis? Hypocrisy to the bare bone.

    1. Yep, they’re both as bad / entitled as each other which is what is making this title battle so interesting. You could argue the only reason Rosberg won his championship was because he started giving it back to Lewis as hard as he was dishing it out.

      1. Rosberg had a reputation as a dirty driver long before hamilton was at merc

      2. Very true. Rosberg started holding his ground. But he was a bit clumbsy with it compared to Hamilton. Spa where is refused to run and hide when Hamilton pushed passed him into Les Combes. Result: puncture. Austria where he tried to push Hamilton wide at the hairpin but went a bit too far with it and ended up damaging both cars.

        Personally, I don’t like this pushing people off the track stuff. It’s not nice to see.
        And it’s confusing in terms of regulations. “forcing another driver off the track” is illegal but, in corners, if the guy on this inside is slightly ahead, it’s fine to force the guy on the outside off.
        It also causes problems with left right or right left combinations. The outside guy finds himself on the inside for the next corner. Therefore, the roles are reversed and, as per the same logic, he’s now fully entitled to stay on the inside and let the guy on the outside get out of the way. Remember Massa/Hamilton multiple incidents. Same scenario.

        I’d rather see it not permitted to force another driver off the track, regardless of the situation, given that “a significant portion of the car is alongside”.

        In this particular instance,
        – Hamilton could have avoided the issue by just going way wide into the first part of the chicane. Forcing Max off before even reaching the 2nd part.
        – Max could have gotten out of it and had him on acceleration out of the chicane given that Hamilton took a tight line and had cold tyres.

      3. hmmm, watching both incidents, at Silverstone they approached the corner side-by-side and in fact, LH was slightly ahead. In the approach to the first corner at Monza, LH was clearly ahead and as the Stewards confirmed, the overtake/attack came too late! In lot of instances, drivers finding themselves in exactly the same position as Max either back out or go wide over the kerb. Same at the 2nd chicane.
        So I don’t think the charge of hypocrisy applies.

      4. yEp, tHEy’RE Both aS Bad / ENtitlEd as EAch oTHER Which Is WHAt IS MAKING tHiS tiTLE BAttLE SO INtereSTIng. YOu COuld arguE thE onLy rEaSOn RosBerG Won his chAMPIonshiP WAs BeCaUse hE StArTED gIVinG it back tO lEWis aS hArD aS hE wAs DiShInG iT oUt.

        Daily reminder: Williams obliterated you.

    2. @w0o0dy If the world was full of Verstappen fans, would humanity have discovered the wheel?

        1. @w0o0dy so it’s okay for you to lob 1,000 personal insults but not ok for me to make a joke just in general? Where have heard that recently? Wait…it’s coming to me. In every one of your arguments. Essentially, you always want special treatment because you’re somehow entitled to it as is your driver.

    3. Except at Silverstone, Max had more than 2/3 of the track available to him, and decided to cut across the nose of Lewis anyway, expecting him to back off. That’s what he always does. Had Hamilton not backed off at Spain, Imola and now @ Monza in the opening lap, both cars would’ve received damage in all three instances. Bullying people on track is the trademark of Verstappen. Don’t believe me ? Go watch his battle with Mick @Hungary. Or let me save you the effort: He banged wheels with an effin Haas, because its driver had the ‘audacity’ to defend against him. How dare he 😆

      1. @shrieker all of Max’s crashes are wonders of crashing… He just chooses to crash, I don’t understand it. He can easily avoid the crash, make a move on another lap or a better corner, or set up the overtake like everyone else. The only thing he actually doesn’t need to do is crash.

        It’s like trying to take an overhead shot in tennis ALL the time. You’re going to miss ALL the time since the ball is too low to hit…

        1. @freelittlebirds Can you please look back at Hamilton’s history of fighting against Rosberg and how many times he pushed Rosberg of the road because Hamilton was having the inside of the corner? And Rosberg was the one backing out of it (until that time when Rosberg had enough (in Spa) and they collided. And then the number of incidents he had with Massa?

          Of course Verstappen is no angel, but he is no different from Hamilton when Hamilton was racing Rosberg and Massa in the past.

        2. Did it occur to you that Lewis had also a ton of space on the right ar silverstone? Or doesn’t that suit your opinion?

          1. Max had many multiples of what little space Hamilton had to his right. And he chose to chop across the nose of him anyway. Even worse for him, Hamilton didn’t use all the space available, between himself and Verstappen, because he wanted to <em avoid a damn collision

            Your point ?

      2. @shrieker You are of course conveniently leaving out the part where Max had left LH ample room on the inside at Silverstone. And Max didn’t really cut across LH’s nose, but if he had we know that that was his right, having lead LH into the corner, and having left LH the space to race. LH’s job was to understand that just like he has done many times, there comes a point when the leader can own the real estate and has forced the trailing drivers hand into either backing off, going off, or hitting the car in front. LH chose not to back off nor care if Max was going to take his rightful ownership of the real estate, and instead hit Max, as per the stewards ruling. If you want to call Max a bully, then label LH the same for doing this very same type of thing numerous times, particularly agains NR.

        1. @robbie please show me a video where Lewis had a life threatening incident with Nico

          1. Spain 2016 – the potential for that crash to cover badly for both of them was there.

          2. @freelittlebirds You’re being a drama queen.

          3. @robbie so no video :-) In your defense, I’m sure you spend hours trying to find one.

            Where was Driver61 back then? :-)

          4. @freelittlebirds I’m not going to respond to rhetoric on your part such as ‘life threatening’ for if you want to go that route then all incidents are life threatening and I would have to reference all videos. Rather, I haven’t spent a minute and I’m sure many incidents between LH and Nico are firmly in many people’s memory banks including your’s. The fact is this low speed incident was not life threatening, and all you’re doing is being an inflammatory drama queen. Did you call Silverstone’s very high speed coming together life-threatening for Max? Likely your attitude was more meh, he brought it upon himself.

          5. @robbie Well, you thought Silverstone was a life-threatening incident so please don’t change your mind.

            I thought it was big too especially for Max but a well-deserved one and completely self-inflicted by Max. Max pulled the trigger on both incidents. Lewis has had many chances to pull the trigger on Max, but he hasn’t done that.

            Anyway, you were talking about Nico Rosberg and were going to show some videos so I assume that won’t happen.

          6. @freelittlebirds No actually I never made a comment regarding ‘life threatening’ or what have you. That is your rhetoric not mine. Pulled the trigger? Wrong. Led and left LH space? Correct. Hit by LH? Correct.

            And as I made it clear I was not going to show links to videos based on your request over nonsense so yes you can assume I’m not playing along with your silly game.

          7. @robbie

            Led and left LH space? Correct. Hit by LH? Correct.

            I rest my case. There’s no way any logical person can watch the incident and believe that Max didn’t cut all the space and also didn’t steer into Lewis. Then again, logic has never been your strong suit.

          8. Capo, yes Spain 2016 was a bad one but that was all Nico’s fault.

          9. @freelittlebirds There is absolutely no evidence of Max “steering into” LH, and the space that Max left was upon entry into the corner and all the while until LH hit Max there was ample room on the inside for LH as indicated by the stewards ruling. They said that LH hit Max, and you are trying to twist it like Max hit LH.

            As we have seen, at a point it is ok to start squeezing a guy and forcing his hand into a decision. That is what Max did at Silverstone and that is what LH did at Monza. Both drivers decided not to back off or go off when squeezed and the result was contact blamed predominantly on the trailing driver in both cases.

          10. Definitely no evidence other than 1,000 videos showing Max steering into Lewis.

      3. Racing incident 100%.

    4. I just don’t understand why people bash Hamilton, or Verstappen, when they pretty much did the same thing. At least, according to the stewards…

    5. It was a racing incident 100%.

    6. Lewis had the inside line at Silverstone

  3. “Of course, when you’re wheel-to-wheel going into a corner and the car is still alongside you wheel-to-wheel on the outside then eventually you have to concede and give extra space. When the car’s not ahead of you there is a knowing rule that the driver who is ahead, it’s his corner and eventually the driver has to concede.”

    Yet in Austria Perez got a 5s penalty for not leaving Leclerc enough space in a similar incident – Leclerc was never ahead but his wheels where alongside the sidepod. Complete lack of stewarding consistency.

    I personally think all of these should be put down as racing incidents. But if they’re not, then we at least need consistency.

    1. Totally agree – it doesn’t matter if we agree with the rules or not as long as they are applied consistently. If running drivers off the track because you are slightly ahead is allowed, fine. Apply that rule every time it happens – the driver following knows what to expect and it’s clear when something is a penalty or not.

      Making the rules up from race to race just creates controversy – although I guess they’d argue controversy = engagement so that’s a good thing.

    2. The FIA and their stewards have been making very wrong decisions in the past penalising the wrong drivers or not taking into consideration positioning, timing and intent. This has resulted in drivers having a reckless attititude when going round the outside.
      If you start the turn side by side, you should consider the driver on the outside, example turn 4 lap 1, Verstappen didn’t respect that, but Hamilton didn’t choose to force it.
      If a driver is further behind on the outside before they start the turn in, he can’t lay claim to space like turn 1 incident.
      If a driver is ahead he is committed to his line and there is ample time for the driver coming from behind on the outside to accept that and conceed, which Max didn’t do but every other driver did.

      Spa 2008 Lewis vs Kimi: Hamilton bailed out even though he was side by side, but avoided an accident.
      Barcelona Turn 1 2008 Max vs Lewis, side by side but Hamilton didn’t force his claim on a car’s width.
      Silverstone 2021, Max Vs Lewis, side by side at turn in but Max carries more speed then takes intersecting line with car on the inside.

      2021: need to repeat who vs who. Driver comes from the back and expect room on the outside.

      1. Barcelona 2021 I meant

      1. Lol – did he think no one would look it up?

        1. Hey @emma quite funny snarky comment when you haven’t fully watched the vid yourself.. Because if you did you’d see the second incident in the video I was referring to, around 37s in

      2. @f1osaurus lol I know you’re my favourite at the moment but I was referring to the second incident, around 37s in the video!

        1. @cduk_mugello They are fully alongside through pretty much the whole corner! Until the end when Leclerc is forced to brake before going off the track.

          Come on man!

          1. @f1osaurus yeah tbf he is more alongside than Verstappen got at the weekend, but at no point ahead.

          2. @cduk_mugello He doesn’t need to be ahead. When overtaking on the outside the attacking driver needs to be at least fully alongside. When overtaking on the inside he needs to be at least halfway alongside.

          3. @f1osaurus I don’t think we disagree here…

          4. @cduk_mugello Well you pretend the penalty for Perez was unfair when clearly Leclerc had the right to the racing line and should have been given space by Perez.

            That’s almost always the problem with even clear cut overtaking situations like that. People don’t understand overtaking guidelines used by the stewards and then call the stewards unfair or inconsistent based on their own misguided opinions.

          5. @f1osaurus LOL you love a good argument, calm down a bit mate. Read my original comment, I didn’t say it was unfair at all. As a big Ferrari fan I was quite happy with the penalty on that occasion!

            But for me there’s an inconsistency when Perez is penalised for not leaving enough room, but it’s fair game for Hamilton to not leave room.

            Again – I’d say both were racing incidents. Appreciate you have a different point of view.

            Look forward to crossing swords again matey when you hijack another of my comments elsewhere on this site hahaha

          6. @cduk_mugello So I replied to this:

            Complete lack of stewarding consistency.
            – cduk_mugello

            That’s just annoying opinionating when the stewards were completely consistent with the actual rules.

    3. @cduk_mugello

      Yet in Austria Perez got a 5s penalty for not leaving Leclerc enough space in a similar incident – Leclerc was never ahead but his wheels where alongside the sidepod. Complete lack of stewarding consistency.

      Exactly this, and it’s getting seriously annoying. I would argue the poorly thought out rules and constantly poor stewarding is putting the sport in disrepute, a breach of the concorde agreement to which FIA is also bound. Someone ought to charge them up with it.

    4. Reading through the comment section is mostly depressing bickering between two equally annoying camps. Good thing I found your comment. I agree, I fail to see consistency. While that is bad for the viewers, it’s also bad for the drivers. We’ve seen not too long ago that drivers were instructed to complain.. so the team lawyers have ammunition for the ‘court case’ at the stewards. Now we have almost traditional “he pushed me off” radio messages. And that is again bad for the viewers.

  4. It’s just two exceptional drivers that don’t want to leave any room for each other, both trying to dictate the pecking order.

    Let’s face it, whomever chooses to yield will be the one that loses this year’s world championship. In past eras this would have been the story rather than Horner, Hamilton, Verstappen and Toto trying to dictate the narrative.

    1. Exactly Hamilton showed there’s little to gain by conceding ground and gained +30 points in Silverstone by not yielding. Verstappen probably saved at least 3 points by his bombing down the inside but that will probably result in a seven point swing back to the next race at least.

      1. It depends on the performance, russia is expected to favour mercedes, with a proper start I’d see monza as an easy mercedes win, if that happens in russia then penalty could make no difference if verstappen makes second, or chooses to take an engine penalty.

  5. Verstappen didnt agree with US GP penalty either where he gained advantage by going off the track. So this arrogant behaviour is not a surprise anymore.

    1. I agree. Just as I agree that Hamilton didn’t agree with HIS penalty in Silverstone. So that arrogant behaviour is not a surprise anymore either. I assume you agree?

      1. You seem to hold a different opinion from @Chaitanya and voice it as well. Therefore you must be arrogant too.


    2. And I still knew what you said.

  6. For me the outcome is probably right. I do think that the balance of blame does fall on Max for this one, and if you’re going to argue it’s ok to not leave Hamilton room on lap 1 turn 4 then you can’t really argue the opposite for this.

    I do think the definition of “racing incident” is one that needs looking at though. There will be plenty of genuine racing incidents where neither driver has done anything wrong or had another choice open to them and therefore no penalty should be given for either. But there have been incidents and potentially will be over the course of the rest of the season where a collision is caused because both drivers are equally to blame. In this instance a “racing incident” would be the outcome (with presumably no penalties) but I would say the better deterrent for the future would be to give both drivers a penalty in these circumstances. This leaving of cars in positions where it’s “back off or we crash” is potentially dangerous but also is really damaging for fans watching who want to see hard but fair racing between those going for the championship.

    1. Nice to see someone with logic that actually makes sense. The rules should be very clear in NEVER rewarding a driver for taking the opponent out. Banging wheels and slight damage is fine but you should never be allowed to end someone’s race and profit from that.

      1. I agree with you, i wonder if the Indy style “lanes” system would help? Once you pick a lane you must stick with it

        1. That’s only during entry into the corner to counter the blocking moves that Verstappen reintroduced after Schumacher left.

          You cannot have “lanes” through corner where there is only a single racing line

    2. A person somewhere
      13th September 2021, 12:13

      They would have to change the rules in order to allow penalising both drivers in a two car incident. Currently the sporting regulations state (38.2 a)):

      It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide if any driver involved in an Incident should be penalised.

      Unless it is clear to the stewards that a driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for an Incident no penalty will be imposed.

      Since it is impossible for both drivers to be “wholly or predominantly to blame” at the same time, they cannot impose a penalty on both.

      1. Thanks for clarifying re the rules. I wasn’t sure, but assumed no penalties even if both in the wrong.

        My suggestion I guess is therefore a rule change! If we take lap 1 turn 4, I believe it was calculated by Verstappen that if he positioned his car where he did, then Hamilton would either back out or they’d collide but there’d be no penalty for him and he was in the position where it’s likely he’d be better off after any collision. I’d go as far as to say this would have been discussed pre race as the optimal thing to do if that situation happened. I’d also say that in the interest of fairness and balance I think Mercedes and Hamilton would have done exactly the same if roles reversed. So a collision would have occured, neither driver would have been over 50% to blame and neither would have got a penalty. But there would potentially have been race changing problems for one, both or multiple cars. In those circumstances, they should both be penalised. I don’t like dishing out penalties, I’d much rather they just got on with it. But it feels like we’re going down a route of accepting collisions unnecessarily.

        1. I have to agree that the rules should be adjusted to allow both drivers to be punished if both are at fault. In fact, the actions of each driver should be considered in isolation to any other to determine whether they did anything wrong. If the driver broke the rules, they should be able to be penalised whether anyone else did anything wrong or not, or even whether an incident occurred or not.

    3. @oweng there’s no way to make sense of penalties in F1 and I think that goes twice with Max.

  7. @keithcollantine @dieterrencken

    Would be great if RaceFans could do a mini-series on overtaking rules, particularly on contentious areas where the rules “seem” inconsistently applied. Where there is inconsistency, crowdsource some ways to improve the rules. Part education, part community attempt to create some more consistent rules (then you can send them off to Ross haha).

    1. I would also be interested in seeing a more longer-term balanced overview of who’s been involved in crashes —for instance by looking at involvements in touché’s, crashes, damage inflictions, etc. in the first 5 years of each current driver’s career or just the last 5 years. To me it seems that reputations and penalty points are not in correspondence at least. For me Verstappen was at fault this time, but the amount of flak he’s getting is ridiculous —especially since it was basic science putting Max on top of Hamilton, not some ill-devised Evil Knievel plan. Same goes for the somewhat over the top claims that Hamilton had evil intentions in Silverstone.

      1. The flak is not for the outcome of the crash but for creating the crash.
        If you are driving full speed heading towards a hump you know has been there for the past 3 days and you still continue on, then you psychology needs testing. If a driver doesn’t give you space you can’t forcefully create the space when you have no right to it. Blaming the hump for the accident is like blaming the engine for moving you there. He made a wrong decision and he needs to admit that to himself in private. What he says in public doesn’t matter.

      2. The flak is because of Lewisfans.

        1. Comes from someone who calls himself ‘monkey’ in Dutch. As a Dutchy I really enjoy the F1 madness. However, the Max fanism has nothing to do with love for F1. So in a way I can’t blame you for the obvious bias, bot don’t prentend like you’re willing to admit any wrong doings by Max. It reflects in a way how Max or even Redbull deals with the business. Look at Perez overtake. The overtake was not right, jet they ordered him to move on. It proces that they’ll want to won, even of it meander they’ll break the rules (hence, chart)

  8. All the talk of a car’s width is similar to the problem at one time in football where no goals were being scored and the solution.
    Keeper can not handle a back pass unless by the head.
    A player can be offside if he is not interfering with play.
    Bigger goal posts
    Tackle from the rear (Also due to injuries to players)
    Automatic penalties for any hand ball contact by defender.
    Automatic penalty when keeper and player make contact.

    F1 has tried to improve overtaking with these nonesense cars width rule that can’t always work depending on the nature of the track.
    Only one move under braking to block and back to racing line.
    Allowing dive pass from inside outside.
    The driver who tries to avoid an accident usually the one who gets penalised.

    Drivers now have stupid expectation from ridiculous actions and the FIA stewards have been aiding and reinforcing their false beliefs. Playing video games and executing some moves doens’t mean it works in real life.

  9. Just a thought:
    Watch Hamilton vs Norris. He gave Norris space.
    Watch hamilton vs max. He took a different line through the second half of the chicane.

    Dirty driver

    1. What lap are you talking about and was Norris on the inside or outside and was Norris already alongside?

      1. Just look at the race. Exact the same corner and situation.

        1. Max v RIc on Saturday. Max did exactly the same thing that Lewis did at turn 1. Max also did it at turn 4 to Lewis. So many drivers did this through both chicanes. The only difference is Max refuses to yield no matter the consequences.
          Hes been the better driver this year and should be out of sight in the championship. Partly due to his stubbornness he isnt out of sight. His comment on the radio after they had crashed shows he had the intent into turn 1. So now we will have a situation where the immovable object meets the irresistible force. Hopefully nobody is hurt.

          1. Max did exactly the same thing that Lewis did at turn 1.

            This is not completely true. On the first (right hand) corner of the chicane Max turned in quite late, so Ricciardo couldn’t turn in and put his car on the inside for a move into the second (left hand) corner of the chicane.
            In Max v. Lewis’s case Lewis turned in earlier into the first corner, leaving space for Max to get alongside around the outside, which became the inside for the second corner, before taking the apex while Max was still there.
            To compare, as I think Jeff refers to above, Lewis did the same to Norris on the first lap, at least for the first corner. For the second corner he did give Lando space, but he chose not to do that to Max.

          2. But what was the common factor in these incidents? Other drivers giving way for Max.
            He NEVER yields and Lewis, quite rightly, just held his ground. Its worth losing out a few times to send the message to Max that he doesn’t own the racetrack because his team and entourage just blow smoke up his proverbial! The sad thing is… He doesn’t need to do this! He is such a great racer. He can go wheel to wheel with anyone in a fair fight.

          3. Well, they both don’t yield. That’s how we got here, I mean: it’s as easy to rephrase your quote from Max’s point of view:

            Its worth losing out a few times to send the message to Lewis that he doesn’t own the racetrack because he’s a 7 time world champion!

            Let me be clear: I don’t think either driver should get punished. “It’s worth losing out a few times” is how drivers should sort these things (they can perfectly judge that for themselves if you leave them to it). It’s silly we’re treating each collision as if it’s Schumacher v. Hill or Schumacher v. Villeneuve.

          4. That’s not true – Lewis holds the world record for yields to Verstappen. He just drove twice without yielding and both were life threatening incidents. He never hit Verstappen, just held his ground and sure enough was pummeled both times by Max. He even got a penalty for one which was a travesty. If Max had been severely penalized at Silverstone, do you believe he would have done this?

          5. @freelittlebirds I’m sure he would. His elbows-out-driving style is what got him where he is now (i.e. on top of Hamilton, both in the gravel trap and in the championship standings). It’s actually the same mind games Senna used to play, as explained by Martin Brundle in the Top Gear tribute years ago.

  10. …the stewards observed that car 33 was not at all alongside car 44 until significantly into the entry into turn one. In the opinion of the stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of car 33 to have ‘the right to racing room’.

    IMO This is a terrible precedent as what it effectively says is you have to be fully alongside before braking to attempt an overtake. i.e only drs passes are allowed.

    For the record I believe the penalty for Max is the right outcome. He’s the one trying to overtake and has placed his car in a position where the choices were contact or Hamilton having to take action to avoid. On the other hand both of them have made their careers on moves like this and I’m just loving they are now both racing someone who won’t yield.

    1. If you are going on the outside is what the rule talks about. Drivers have known this since racing began it doesn’t even need a ruling just dont crowd a driver needlessly.

      1. TBH, I think these rules just extend common sense. If you are on the outside, you are likely to be the one who suffers most in any incident. Therefore, to make a pass on the outside, you need to be really sure you have completely claimed the corner and that your opponent is completely aware that you are there (i.e. you are fully alongside) or you are taking a big risk. However, when someone is overtaking you on the inside, you’re the one most at risk to you need to be much more careful, leaving them more space.

        1. @drmouse Common sense is that one shouldn’t push people off the track.

          It really baffles me how this is a point of contention.

          1. Common sense is you do not try to force your car into a path another car into a path another car is already placed to occupy.

          2. @balue Just as OOliver says above, it’s others responsibility not to hit you but it’s your responsibility not to put yourself where you are likely to be hit.

          3. Saying hitting is fine, being hit should be against the rules doesn’t even make sense, but then maybe that’s not really the exercise here..

  11. Something else. I think Leclerc wasn’t allowed to overtake Bottas at the second chicane when he missed the first one. This was like Hamilton vs Raikkonen in Spa 2008.

  12. I’m not going to discuss the merits of the penalty, who was at fault, etc.

    The only thing I’d like to say is that the overall inconsistency of the stewards/penalties is absolutly ridiculous!! (and reading the comments above I believe most of you will agree with my opinion)

    1. @gordess Unfortunately it’s usually a case of the “fans” not understanding the rules or flat out ignoring them when their idol is on the wrong side of a penalty. Verstappen shoved off two drivers (Ricciardo and Hamilton) in a chicane when they were fully alongside or even ahead at the braking point, yet the same guy feels he should be left space when he’s the one overtaking and not even alongside.

      1. @f1osaurus I’m not going into that! Again, my point is not to discuss if the penalty was deserved or not.

        But you have to agree (specially based on several other examples in the comments of clashes that amounted to nothing) that the inconsistency of the stewards is kinda shocking!

        1. @gordess No I don’t agree at all. The stewards make mistakes, but it’s very rare. The much bigger problem is some “fans” not understanding (refusing to understand!) the actual guidelines.

          1. “…it’s very rare.”, really? Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then :)

          2. @gordess Again, that’s because apparently you also don’t understand the actual guidelines.

    2. I think this year has been better overall than previous years.
      They got this one wrong (but we aren’t discussing that…) but most of them have been pretty reasonable – or at least understandable.

      What has changed most, I think, is just that they are now getting involved a lot more often than they used to.
      Maybe that comes from the commercial stakes involved, maybe it’s a safety thing, maybe it’s simply because everyone (drivers, teams and viewers) demands that these things be made more fair (although, naturally, ‘fair’ is entirely subjective).
      They’ve also got to balance whether something actually needs to be penalised, which is becoming increasingly difficult as shown with a couple of incidents this year.
      This one could easily have been called a racing incident, for example, and left at that.

  13. Excellent video by Driver 61 about this…
    And yes, Max got it slightly wrong but never was a grid penalty a fair outcome..

    1. Agreed, good and objective approach.

      1. Not even watched it But I can get your bottom dollar its favourable to max if you agree with it!

    2. I quote him

      “Whether this is fair or not, depends on your position as a fan or driver”

      He essentially changes his mind every time to suit Verstappen. If Max’s ahead, he’s entitled to everything. If Max’s behind, he’s entitled to everything. If Max’s side-by-side, he’s again entitled to everything….

      I rest my case. I would say checkmate but I won’t :-)

      1. That “analysis” is laughable. He changes his mind about 30 times on different incidents and then goes on to try blame Hamilton for actually leaving Max some space. He agrees that Max should have left space for Hamilton on Lap one, but then sides with Max saying any driver would squeeze the other. His argument for applying some blame on Hamilton is because he actually left Max some space rather than forcing him off track earlier. Sorry, but Hamilton has left that space to avoid an incident. He’s done his part to avoid contact, its then 100% on Max if he backs out or forces it further. Which is exactly why Max got the penalty.

        1. @Tom

          The issue is that there are different rules before and after a corner. With a double corner like this, you can argue that Lewis had the right to push Max of immediately after making the first corner, but not when lining up for corner 2.

    3. I watched the video, and human beings are amazing.
      The video freeze shows Max’s car pointing in the direction of the escape road. But the commentator is still talking of aiming into a wedge which his car is pointing away from. Very funny.
      Even his interpretation of the first lap incident is a bit off.

    4. @w0o0dy The extreme Verstappen fan channel explaining Verstappen’s point of view.

      1. Disguising in a Mclaren T-shirt
        The first still shows Hamilton slightly ahead at turn 4 as they began to turn, he converted that into Verstappen ahead like we don’t have eyes or watched the different replays.
        I have a little more respect now for Horner because he isn’t talking too much about it and that is far better than someone with a creative licence, telling us fish swim in the cloud.

    5. That’s actually a very good analysis. Very accurate – but clearly not so easy to appreciate for non-racers.
      Given the space that Verstappen had, almost every serious racing driver would have gone for it too. And many have done the same there before.
      Racing takes both drivers to respect each other – if either one lacks that respect, contact is inevitable.

      1. It always makes me laugh when random people comment about being “racers” on the internet. Sure you are “S” are you currently racing in a professional race series?

        1. Not right now – I’m sitting at my computer. You probably wouldn’t believe me if I said I did anyway, would you Tom?

          We are all ‘random people commenting on the internet.’ Yourself included.
          Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen would be too if they commented here under a pseudonym. But you wouldn’t know if it was really them, would you…?

          1. I’d believe you if you provided any evidence. So far all I know about you is the letter “s”

            Why not just answer the question instead of saying I wouldn’t believe you? Name the series you used to race in and back it up and of course I’ll believe you.

    6. TLDW. 13 minutes is just too long to explain something in the internet age.

      I’m thinking if he didn’t get that, he probably missed other things too.

      1. But it is pretty clear.
        The L1 T4 situation: Max is a bit ahead, leaves no space and forces the Merc out. Fair enough. And plenty of run-off so no consequences
        The L25 T2 situation. The Merc is a bit ahead Leaves some space but not a car width. Max is gradually forced out. Fair enough again. But the sausage kerb instead of a clean run-off makes the difference. Max hits the kerb and flies on top of the Merc.
        I watched a racing incident. Both drivers were aggressive but nothing illegal. No one to blame. Except that forcing an opponent onto a sausage kerb is unwise. If the Merc driver’s head had been smashed, it would have been suicide.

      2. The L1 T4 situation: Max is a bit ahead, leaves no space and forces the Merc out. Fair enough. And plenty of run-off so no consequences
        The L25 T2 situation: The Merc is a bit ahead. Leaves some space but not a car width. Max is gradually forced out. Fair enough again. But the sausage kerb instead of a clean run-off makes the difference. Max hits the kerb and flies on top of the Merc.
        I watched a racing incident. Both drivers were aggressive but nothing illegal. No one to blame. Except that forcing an opponent onto a sausage kerb is unwise. If the Merc driver’s head had been smashed, it would have been self-inflicted.

        1. So, in your view it’s a racing incident, a 50/50, where both drivers have equal responsibility but should shoulder no blame…. But then in the next sentence, you say it would have been completely Hamilton’s fault, and nothing at all to do with Verstappen, if his “head had been smashed”?!?! Are you serious?!?!

    7. @w0o0dy
      I think the point this missed is that a part of the reasoning for Hamilton being penalised at Silverstone was that he missed the apex there. Given how “forceful” (being generous) Max’s driving has been, had Hamilton tried the same line as Verstappen I think there is a high probability they would have come together through turn 1. He would specifically have been careful to hit the apex so that, if they did come together there, he could not be blamed for it.

      He did, however, make it very clear from his line on the exit of turn 1 that there would be no space available on the inside of turn 2. Max had plenty of opportunity to take to the escape road as multiple drivers had already. Instead, he continued to drive on a piece of track he knew was going to disappear. As Max was behind on entry to the corner, Hamilton had every right to squeeze him on the exit of T1, which just so happens to be turn 2, and Max should have yielded and taken to the escape road.

  14. Does Lewis support the Silverstone ruling to the same extent?
    Similar case although I believe Max did leave space at Silverstone, which Lewis didnt at Monza.. not saying either needed to.

    1. You do surprise me! Thought youd come to Lewis’ defence as usual! 🙄

      1. At least you’re consistent to make it about the poster as usual

        1. Awww come on Balue! We’re all friends here. Xxx

          1. :-) if we would all agree it would be pretty boring here and I wouldn’t learn (and be surprised sometimes by) any other points of view

  15. Long ago, on a Sunday afternoon, two title contenders were duelling for track position during a Grand Prix.

    The young prentender, 23 years of age, had a pace advantage ans was attacking the reigning champ.

    They were almost side by side going into a chicane, but it soon became clear to the young man that he wasn’t going to make the corner without taking out his opponent.
    He decided to cut the chicane, return the position and try again.

    That young man was Lewis Hamilton.

    Spa-Francorchamps, 2008

    1. And he was penalised for avoiding the accident and giving up the place… There was no written rule about when to try to overtake but hey FIA is good at handing out penalties that doesn’t exist only to create one after the situation. People only care this little man called Max to be wdc for the sake of it regardless of his behaviour on and off track. If this guy doesn’t kill someone before he is banned, it ll be a very bad tragedy. With this driving and attitude, mark my word, he will seriously injure someone some day!

    2. @rogerzzz He then tried to cheat, but actually didn’t get away with it that time. He’s gotten much more polished at it nowadays.

    3. It was the home race of a 7-time British world champion.
      It was Great Britain vs Netherlands.
      They were fighting it out at the start.
      They were heading to the old main straight up into Copse.
      And what happened was a clear racing incident on July 18th, 2021.

      Racing Incident 100%.

  16. I think Lewis’ point was in setting a precedent by penalizing Verstappen for his mistakes. The kid is in his 7th season in F1 and he’s finally being taught a lesson for nearly killing another driver (inches) for a completely unnecessary collision.

    Lewis would have avoided that 99 out 100 times. A good F1 driver would have avoided it 9 out of 10 times. Max would have collided 99 out 100 times there.

    If you were to draw a spectrum of probabilities, Max would be 10-20 times more likely to collide there than the entire F1 grid combined including Mazepin who’s actually a fantastic F1 driver… once you compare him to Max.

    Even Horner is reluctantly backing Max up cause he doesn’t want to be an accomplice.

    Of course, if Max causes a fatal accident, he’ll never race again and be dubbed the worst F1 driver of all time. Does that need to happen though or should FIA avoid that?

    Let’s do a hypothetical. What would the cost to F1 have been if Max had taken out Lewis yesterday? It was a lot closer than many of us think. If that wheel carried more momentum when it hit Lewis, he would have died.

    1. Oh, really? Silverstone wasn’t dangerous, noooooooo!

    2. No word about Silverstone, lewis ‘nearly killed’ max with 300+ instead of the 40 kmph at Monza? It seems you take a lot of words, but are just a lewis fanboy. ‘Worst driver if he….’ JC based on what?

  17. I still & will always maintain the view that there’s too many rules telling drivers how to race with too many investigations & too many penalties for incidents that warrant neither. I just hate the way things have gone the past 10-15 years in this regard.

    The officials should just leave the drivers to race & not get involved with investigations, reprimands or penalties unless somebody does something truly stupid, dangerous or intentional.

    And before somebody comes back with ‘Max ended up on top of the Halo on Hamilton’s car so it was dangerous’, Let’s not forget that something that got re-iterated after Silverstone is that the stewards don’t take the consequence of an incident into consideration & are only supposed to look at the incident itself. And to me Max seeing that gap & going for it was simply racing & the contact that resulted from it was nothing more than a racing incident where no penalty should have been given.

    I said the same after Silverstone, I said the same when Vettel got that penalty in Canada a few years ago & held the same view regarding the penalties we saw for Norris & Perez in Austria. I think it’s just getting stupid now.

    1. @stefmeister Well given it was me who came back with “Max ended up on top of the Halo on Hamilton’s car so it was dangerous,” I’ll repeat the point, the incident was dangerous. Was that Max’s fault as such? Probably not. It was clearly the sausage kerb’s fault for launching him upwards. The rest depends on data we don’t have available (whether he continued to power into the corner deliberately when he was off track and exacerbated the impact). I’ve no opinion on that, but certainly it wasn’t intentional for him to end up on top of Hamilton’s car. And I agree that the stewards have to penalize the incident not the consequences (as they stated) – although it’s important to be clearer about ‘consequences’ here. Remember that most of the Silverstone furore was over Hamilton remaining in the race and eventually winning it with Red Bull saying how ‘unfair’ that was. The stewards pointed out in their decision then that the race outcome had no bearing (and couldn’t be a motive of appeal). But you can’t say the Monza incident wasn’t dangerous. The point’s important as really cars shouldn’t be going airborne like that at slow chicanes.

    2. @stefmeister There aren’t that many rules for overtaking just 2 really (attack on inside or on outside) plus one for the braking zone.

      Verstappen didn’t have the rights to the racing line, so he should have yielded.

      What’s worse though Hamilton (lap 1 turn 4 race) and Ricciardo (lap 1 turn 1 sprint) were ahead of Verstappen and had to evade Verstappen crashing into them. While Verstappen was behind and crashed straight into Verstappen. Verstappen should have had 3 penalties, but for some daft reason they award dirty driving when the victim chooses not to crash and evades the bully. Now that’s bad and it totally kills racing. It’s akin to below the belt punching

      1. “but for some daft reason they award dirty driving when the victim chooses not to crash and evades the bully. Now that’s bad and it totally kills racing. It’s akin to below the belt punching” So of course you acknowledge then the number of times this describes LH on NR numerous times.

        1. @robbie That is only when people don’t understand the actual overtaking guidelines. When Hamilton is in front and has the rights to the racing line, Rosberg keeping his nose in until the disappearing wedge fully disappears is Rosberg’s fault. Just like it was Verstappen’s fault in Monza.

  18. This season is the Prisoner’s Dilemma playing out in real life with the expected outcome. Neither of them is going to give an inch.

    1. Hamilton allowed him his inch at turn 4

  19. Verstappen needs a race ban or 2 to make him realise this is Formula 1 not bumper cars 1. Where is his finesse? His race craft? That is not f1 racing. F1 racing is about being clinical. Ive watched lewis and daniel have duals years past which were epic. And other duals. Where each druver gave the next space. Hard racing but fair. Verstappens idea of hard racing is warped. He deserves a race ban.

    1. Racing incident 100%, okay?

  20. @lancer033 Lewis has given Max so much space over the course of this season and avoided many other collisions including one in this race where Lewis lost a position to Norris which he reclaimed with a clean overtake. Lewis just cannot avoid all of the collision attempts from Max.

    It’s more like Russian Roulette with Max holding the gun and shooting every time he gets close to Lewis. All we can do is hope that the bullet ricochets and takes out Max.

    Over the span of 5 races, he’s caused 2 accidents that were completely avoidable and nearly killed both drivers. There have been 4 cases where the cars were close to each other and Max sought a collision in all 4 – Lewis has avoided at least 2.

    Hungary would have been a disaster if Max had come out a second sooner. Spa, looking back thank god, wasn’t a race because Lewis was a goner. Verstappen can barely race when he can see – imagine if he can’t see.

  21. It was a racing incident caused by Verstappen. He got off too lightly as well. And he should not be allowed to nullify his penalty with an engine change. If RB changes his engine at Sochi the penalty should be served at the following race.

    1. @greenflag Except that as much as you would wish it so, that’s not how it works. I suppose it bothers you every other time a team has taken an advantageous (less damaging) time to take a component penalty? They can only look at the incident itself, and don’t even account for the degree of damage to the other party, so…I’m sure that if they take an engine penalty at Sochi (remains to be seen) then FIA simply looks at that as them volunteering to take a harsher penalty than the one issued for Monza. From what I understand teams can even take until after qualifying to decide if they are going to take their component penalty that weekend or not, so it’s not like there are hard and fast rules about this.

      As to your first sentence, it wasn’t deemed a racing incident, it was deemed that Max was predominantly at fault, but not wholly.

      1. Every incident that takes place during a race is a racing incident. Some are blameless and some have blame assigned to them; in this case Max was to blame for the incident. At Silverstone it was Lewis. Regarding the penalty, component changes should not nullify a penalty, not just Max’s penalty but any penalty. What good is a penalty that can be avoided at at will? Yes, current rules don’t allow for this but rules are made to be changed to improve them.

    2. yes let’s change the rules to make Max pay for this. Maybe a 2 year ban would be good

      1. It’s not about Max. It’s about the ability to avoid a penalty. No team should be allowed to do this. A penalty is intended to punish a driver for an infringement. Verstappen was going to have an engine change at some race. If his engine is changed at Sochi he skips the penalty. If Hamilton did this Max fans would be screaming for months.

        1. Unfortunately, grid penalties can be “avoided”/nullified in many situations. If a Haas, for instance, takes too many components, they are unlikely to take any real penalty for it. That said, the same can be true for time penalties. There have been times when a time penalty hasn’t had any effect. Again, looking at the Haas, a 10s penalty (or even a 10s stop-and-go) is unlikely to make any difference at all to Mazepin.

          Then again, if you look at it the other way, they can be more of a penalty at times, too. A grid drop at Monaco is much worse than one at Sochi. A time penalty early in the race at Monaco is likely to be much worse than at Silverstone.

          Maybe we should get rid of all of these and penalise the finishing positions. Say, 2 place penalty, so if the driver comes in 1st, they are actually awarded 3rd. That would make the penalty have a definite effect, though it would still have differing effects based on where the driver and team were in the championship tables…

          The point being that I don’t think it is possible to have both consistency and fairness in the penalty system. The circumstances change the effectiveness of the penalty and the only way to even this out would be for the stewards to give less consistent penalties, taking into account the effect the penalty has.

          1. A practical penalty method would be to deduct points from offending drivers. There stewards would use a schedule of infringements of predetermined points deductions, e.g. forcing a competitor off the track, 5 points; cutting a corner to gain a lasting advantage, 3 points; weaving in braking zone, 2 points. There could be slight variations depending on the level of danger caused by the infringer. If a driver has no accumulated points he’d have a negative tally.

    3. Imola: Racing incident 100%.
      Silverstone: Racing incident 200%.
      Monza: Racing incident 300%.


  22. I think it is hilarious and typical of LH to claim the stewards have set a precedent here. This incident was little different than many, and simply goes to the question of how much alongside, and when, and is the reason why the stewards are there. The point being there are going to be incidents that get looked at because they are that close to being a racing incident. All depends on when a driver’s onus was to leave space and what that means as to when the leader can take over the real estate and do the squeeze.

    So, thank you LH for your declaration, but no precedent has been set here that hasn’t been touched on numerous times in the past. Let’s note that by deeming Max predominantly at fault and not wholly, LH had some responsibility here that he didn’t take too, just as so many loved to point out about Silverstone wrt Max sharing some responsibility due to LH’s predominantly but not wholly at fault determination by the stewards.

    So I think the stewards have been consistent here, and therefore I don’t see how this has set a precedent. We’ve seen LH do this countless times before, just as we have seen Max squeeze LH numerous times this season.

  23. What happened to the “no moving under braking” rule? Lewis squeezed Max under braking by moving over.

    1. No move under braking is for cars following each other. Hamilton didn’t move under braking because neither driver had started their braking then. Besides if you understand the rule, you are allowed to move once to block then take your racing line. You can’t make a third move.

      1. The braking zone starts just past where the pitlane ends. So that’s where they start braking and in this case where Lewis started moving over.

        The rule about one movement is for defending before the braking zone, not inside it.

        But probably this is allowed now

        1. A driver exiting the pit has to make the corner. The painted lines on the track is for safety, as those already on track would still be carrying much speed at the exact point the pit exits unto the main straight, perhaps you could have an overtaking attempt ungoing. Drivers on the racing line should be carrying less speeds by the time those exiting the pit lane have full use of the race track.
          I don’t suppose you expected Hamilton to driver straight on and not attempt to take the corner by not assuming the racing line.

  24. What could a driver do Vs what should a driver do.

    Both drivers could have taken action that would have avoided the accident.

    The driver ahead though gets to determine their line provided they aren’t erratically blocking. That means the driver behind should avoid putting their car on a collision course.

    Verstappen at fault just as Hamilton was in Silverstone.

    1. The good question is: how much of a penalty would verstappen had got if he had managed to continue racing here? They chose the most lenient penalty, but maybe he would’ve only got 5 sec? Or 10 sec? I tend to think 5 because I doubt they examinate the situation and think: “3 grid drop could already be harmful, let’s not do 5, whereas 10 sec aren’t that bad if one is still in the race”, if that happened it would’ve been very advantageous for verstappen, he could’ve probably aimed for a podium and even with a 10 sec penalty I wouldn’t rule it out.

  25. Max parks he’s car on top of another, coming within a foot of killing the driver and still doesn’t think he did anything wrong, the way he is driving like others have to jump out the way or crash is going to end in a very bad way for someone.

  26. The precedent of favouring Hamilton has been set for a while now. He had to earn it though, there were some decisions early on his career that I don’t agree with.

  27. They should’ve done so at Silverstone & penalized Hamilton properly. Not that 10sec joke penalty.

    1. Exactly, different penalties for different drivers

  28. The one thing we can all agree on is that Fate exists.
    Lewis had a rough sprint race. Bad start to the race and then a 4+ pit stop.
    Max had a bad start. Then a bad run before the pit stop as he was held up by RIC. Then a 11+ pit stop.
    Fate pushes both drivers together for a very memorable incident.

    1. So the racing gods are manipulating outcomes. Do you think it’s Senna or Fangio by themselves, or a committee of Lauda, Moss and Hunt?

  29. What happened to “significantly alongside” (previously defined as the front wing of the attacking car)???

    And how can Hamilton take an “evasive line” that at the same time squeezes Verstappen into the kerbs (as per the stewards’ decision)??

  30. Lewis was trying to move his car while Max was climbing out of his. (It’s visible in the 360º cam.)

    If he managed to get his car out at that moment he could have seriously injured the other driver: this situation worries me a lot more than if Max had to check if Hamilton was OK or not (if he was still trying to operate his car from under Max, he was obviously OK).

    That’s what should warrant a heavy penalty.

Comments are closed.