Hamilton-Verstappen crash was ‘a racing incident, no danger’ – Alonso

2021 Italian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Fernando Alonso played down the race-ending collision between Formula 1’s championship contenders on Sunday, describing it as a racing incident which involved no danger.

Images of Max Verstappen‘s right-rear wheel passing close to Lewis Hamilton’s crash helmet raised safety concerns. However Alonso believes the low speed of the crash meant less risk was involved compared to their previous collision at Silverstone’s high-speed Copse corner.

The stewards held Verstappen responsible for the collision and handed him a three-place grid penalty for the coming race. However Alonso described the crash as a “racing incident”.

“I just looked at the incident and it seems an unfortunate position and corner and kerb,” Alonso explained on Sunday evening at Monza. “The car jumps a little bit and they just touched tyre with tyre and the rubber makes one car [fly].

“But it’s low-speed, they are at 30 or 40kph, there is no danger, there is no nothing. So I don’t think that today was a big thing. Silverstone, probably yes, but today it was just a racing incident.”

Alonso pointed out several other drivers came close to having similar collisions during the weekend without the same outcome.

“I think Lewis tried to run in turn one to force, maybe, Max to cut the corner. Max doesn’t cut the corner, stay in the outside, but then there is no corner possible to make on the inside for turn two. They both they did what they should do and unfortunately they touched each other.

“I saw the replay of this start as well and Giovinazzi [and] Leclerc touched in the same way, Stroll and Perez they touched in the same way, turn one and two, but they didn’t touch wheel-to-wheel, rubber-to-rubber, tyre to tyre. So there is not the same outcome.

“But this is a very difficult manoeuvre, turn one, turn two and they’ve been unlucky that they touched tyre with tyre.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 Italian Grand Prix

Browse all 2021 Italian 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.

218 comments on “Hamilton-Verstappen crash was ‘a racing incident, no danger’ – Alonso”

  1. That is the first level headed response that I saw so far.

    1. You call it level headed because you either are a Max fan who doesn’t want to see that it was Max’ fault or you are just another anti Hamilton who agress with everybdoy who says it’s a raving incident.

      1. That’s an interesting response… Dare I ask if you’re a Hamilton / Mercedes fan?

        1. Coventry Climax
          15th September 2021, 0:00

          Wow, that’s a bold question to ask! ;-)

      2. Honestly, if a two-time world champion and current F1 racer says he considers it a racing incident, that definitely weighs more heavily than what any of us think about it.
        Personally, I think the stewards handed out a suitable penalty. They found Max more at fault, but a 3-place grid drop indicates they don’t think Max actively and willingly crashed somebody out. They just found him predominantly at fault, not wholly responsible and not actively dangerous.

        1. I semi agree, I think a 3 place penalty is too much when compared to what Lewis got at Silverstone, they just don’t add up to the same for the same. I think that is the biggest issue, the current rules around these sanctions just don’t balance.

          Reply moderated
          1. @malrg Isn’t a 3 place penalty the smallest they can award? What would you have done? (assuming not change to the “predominantly at fault” conclusion).

          2. @fluxsource – no the “predominantly at fault” I believe is correct, as it was at Silverstone, it is just the degree of punishment that is out of kilter (I my opionion), they could go with 1.2.3 place ETC, it really is up to them as they have imposed 1 spot penalties in the past.
            My gripe is with the imbalance of penalties making a bit of farce of the championships.
            NB! Every racing incident has a “predominantly at fault”.

          3. I think it’s the same penaulty as Lewis got but Max didn’t race further so it moved to the next race. And the 3 place drop is the lowest penaulty.

          4. @malrg

            Hamilton’s Silverstone sanction was harsher than the typical five-second time penalty handed down for collisions involving drivers. However Verstappen’s three-place grid drop is typically the smallest such penalty. Grid drops of less than three places are extremely rare, though Sergio Perez was given a one-place penalty last year at Mugello.

            My mistake – You are correct, they did have the option of a 1 place penalty. But generally I’m not seeing any disparity here.

        2. A little confusing as you are sort of agreeing that Alonso is right and it is a racing incident, but then saying the penalty is also right…which is it? racing incidents don’t get penalised.

          Reply moderated
        3. a 2x wdc whole still holds a grudge against lewis,who cant get over the fact rookie lewis finished above him in the championship.

        4. But to be fair a F1 driver, champion, or multiple champion’s opinion only weighs more heavily on F1 forums when we agree with their opinion. :)

          1. It is only a fair point when it agrees to one’s view :)

            Let’s wait and see when he clashes with alonso once, and see his opinion starts spinning 360 degrees on its axis :)

            If alonso comes wheel to wheel with max and they come together or bang wheels, we ll see who has a better agreeing point/view with max fans

        5. @chrischrill Alonso also said that the Silverstone incident was a racing incident.

          1. Alonso also said that the Silverstone incident was a racing incident.

            True. Some are selectively using his words here. Both for and against Lewis or Max.

        6. @chrischrill Not necessarily. Alonso has more experience, certainly. But he also has his own agenda. He also has a distorted view of what is normal and acceptable – drivers are frequently less concerned about the risks than many others involved in the sport, but that’s doesn’t always mean it’s the right call.

          I’m not saying it’s the wrong call (I would have tended to agree it was a racing incident, if it weren’t for the fact that the Silverstone crash wasn’t called that way), but I would be wary of considering Alonso’s opinion as beyond reproach.

        7. @chrischrill there’s a picture in the comments here showing that Max intentionally turned into Lewis – he’s pushing the wheel to the right and into Lewis’s car. So Alonso was unfortunately wrong.

      3. @noname Really?!?

        Can’t someone express an opinion simply because it is their opinion?

        1. Read his comment right below this one, that should tell you enough. A ton of projecting going on here.

      4. Or he just agrees with Alonso who isn’t exactly a rookie in this kind of situation. I would target my efforts into getting rid of these incredibly inadequate stewards. They are killing racing with their lack of keeping up to speed with the sports evolution. They really are too stupid to be in that room. There is a corner 1 and a corner 2. They judged the whole thing based on the entry into 1? Thats insufficient and leads to another decade of processional racing. Go do that somewhere else but not in F1 guys, come on. If you are still a junior then go steward junior series. Seriously, most of us would get fired if we were this inadequate in our jobs

        1. If your entry into the first turn in the chicane makes an accident at turn two of the chicane inevitable, then that’s what should be considered by the stewards.

          1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agwTDlThjww&t=413s

            Gio at 6:39. No problems here since the Ferrari gave the required space while still ending up ahead

      5. So no one is allowed to have a neutral view? Interesting.

        1. @neelv27

          Neutral view?? What is this? The 90s? hahaha

          Zero sum game mate.

  2. Verstappen did the same move against Massa as well in 2017 or 2018, shows you Max doesn’t learn at all. I really he never becomes WDC, he simply doesn’t deserve to be one.

    1. Max lacks race intelligence by the way.

      1. Looking at your responses here you seem to do some projection.

      2. I think its the other way around. And I am not alone in this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_tZNOkpPEM

        1. So basically: when you see the chicane as 1 corner, then Verstappen had to yield because he was not fully alongside at the outside, but when you consider the chicane as 2 corners, then Hamilton had to yield at turn 2, because Verstappen was more than half alongside on the inside. Both arguments make sense.

          1. @matthijs But that’s not how it works since the line is already determined on entering the chicane.

          2. @f1osaurus There are a great many people who think there is an unlimited supply of grip with which you can just change your line at any point, when racing as close to the limit as you can.

            There’s always a *bit* of room to adjust, but if Lewis could have turned tighter, wouldn’t he have taken the corner faster?

          3. @f1osaurus I am not sure if that’s ‘how it works’ in all cases (imagine a complex of corners), but indeed in this case that’s the stance the stewards took and I can agree with decision (not that it matters).

    2. Humm …. Hamilton did the same move on Maldonado in Valencia 2012 ….
      https://youtu.be/DL90jSPwOqE

      Doesn’t seem that he learns either :p

      When you post a comment like that, just remind yourself that Lewis is more experimented than Max.
      So he could have remembered what happened with Maldo, and that it cost him victory.

      He had more to loose here than Max.

      I’m neither a fan of Lewis or Max, but responsability doesnt work unilateraly.
      Both are responsible for this.

      1. It is quite a similar accident indeed. I felt back then that Maldonado should have been more wise and cut the chicane, because from the ‘body language’ of Hamilton it was clear that he wouldn’t leave any more room.

      2. It’s funny that you think a driver that has all four wheels off the track, who then returns to the track to punt another driver off is a similar scenario.

      3. That’s the incident as Giovinazi going off track and then crashing into Leclerc when coming back on track. Unsafe reentry.

        How is this relevant to Verstappen crashing into Hamilton while both are on track?

    3. Which is it? 2017 or 2018? Hard to rebute made up “facts” when your post is vague and fan based as opposed to fact based.

      1. It’s also completely false

        Maldonado left the track completely and then drove straight into LH because he did not want to be overtaken.

        You have to be idiotic to see this as somehow LH fault.

        Worst piece of ‘got you’ I have seen outside of Prost/Senna

        Until this weekend

        Reply moderated
  3. Why is it that every driver that has competed against lewis and lost against him seems to say the same thing that its just a racing Incident. Except i think for johnny herbet who called it as i ( and some others) saw it. Maybe they have it in for Lewis…

    1. Maybe they just have their own opinions and biases, just like everyone else?

    2. Well not every driver. Martin Brundle said and I quote “Max hasn’t done anything wrong there” (you can verify it in the official F1 highlights on YouTube, skip to 3 minutes and 8 seconds). He is pretty balanced and as far as I’m aware has never been anything other than glowing about both Hamilton and Verstappen.

      For the record, I’m a Williams fan and don’t particularly care who wins the WDC, as long as the battle carries on ebbing and flowing like it has been.

      1. @geemac Martin Brundle Is anti Hamilton as what. He immediadly has his opinion ready by claiming Verstappen did nothing wrong while Max did, Max crashed into Massa the exact same place back in 2017/‘18, shows you Max doesn’t learn from his mistakes. Martin Brundle, Crofty ane Paul Di Resta tried to cover Max big tome

        1. Martin Brundle Is anti Hamilton as what.

          Whaaaaat?!?!? Working for Sky and be anti Hamilton at the same time?!?! No chance.

        2. Looks for you that anyone who dare to criticize Hamilton is anti-hamilton.

          You know, people are not totally good or bad, nuances exist….

        3. Thank you for reminding me why I don’t comment on accidents involving championship contenders @noname.

          For future reference: Nuance and grey areas exist, please acknowledge this.

        4. Lol, thanks for this! Needed a good laugh this morning.

    3. Then there are a lot, mostly not British ex drivers who agree with Alonso.
      Maybe that tells something

      1. All F1 drivers besides Verstappen called the Silverstone incident a racing incident. Even and ex F1 driver like Albon did. Maybe that tells something?

        1. @f1osaurus

          Stop lying. Ricciardo clearly blamed Hamilton for Silverstone.

          https://www.racefans.net/2021/07/18/hamilton-went-in-too-hot-in-verstappen-collision-ricciardo/

          Anyway, at the end of the day none of this would have happened, if Hamilton did not fail in Friday qualifying, or did not have an abysmal start in the Saturday sprint race which put him out of position.

          Monza should have been the easiest win imaginable for Hamilton. Mercedes is the dominant car, and Bottas starts from the back, but thanks to Hamilton’s mediocrity Verstappen ended up outscoring him by 2 points around a circuit where Mercedes is dominant.

          1. @kingshark Get lost

            Basically, it was a race incident.

    4. Lewis has never been good at battling another car when it is close to his car performance. You remember him for flying by inferior cars and that got people all hyped up about Lewis, but just have a look when he is competing cars on similar level… not so good. So it seems logical the feedback is the same since he keeps lacking the same

      1. You’re kidding right? Hamilton is one of the best wheel to wheel racers the sport has seen. The problem is he pushes things to the limit, but doesn’t go over that.

        Instances with Max, Massa, Maldonado shows what happens when a hard but fair racer comes up against a bully or bad racer.

        Just go back and watch a lot of Hamilton’s battles against other drivers, and how many crashes that don’t happen.

        1. The essence of my narrative is the situation in which he doesn’t have significant overspeed. Plus he has been leading from the front for 6-7 years while the others all got a lot of practice overtaking in the F1.5. He’s rusty, that’s the outcome of the two get togethers. If he had been a bit more on the edge then both would have made both corners. Both corners held plenty of space Lewis twice decided not to use or was in the heat of the moment unable to use

          1. The essence of your logic is flawed for the fact that if Lewis drove conservatively, max would just either crash him of the exit of chicane or drive him of the road, max would no make the corner without going very wide, spin, crash or force ham off the road at the exit. There is no ifs, max wouldn’t make the corner, and in any of the scenerios as usual with max, either conceded the corner and crash. He doesn’t have any other driving style.

          2. That’s quite an assumption. You have more GPS data than us probably?

        2. Bri

          Instances with Max, Massa, Maldonado shows what happens when a hard but fair racer comes up against a bully or bad racer.

          Hard but fair racer? Not quite recently. Collided four times with another driver from the same team (coincidence?) in less than two years, being held mostly to blame in three of them.
          @mysticus

          The essence of your logic is flawed for the fact that if Lewis drove conservatively, max would just either crash him of the exit of chicane or drive him of the road

          If with “drove conservatively” you mean squeeze the other driver, then you’re pretty much right. He could have left more room probably without having to lose track position, at least having the chance to pounce through the outside at Rettifilo’s exit, as Max dived in a tricky spot of the track. If Lewis had really left plenty of room, Max would have been held fully to blame by the stewards, and not predominantly to blame. It was the same ruling applied for the Silverstone collision with roles reversed, for the record.

          Reply moderated
          1. @Mayrton & @rodewulf

            keep kidding yourself, you cant be serious, anytime anyone gives space to max he will drive them off the track, he did it a gazillion times, he either bumps people or drives them of track! that is not even debatable, it is the most factual fact of his career! he did it to everyone who came wheel to wheel with! he has done it so many times so blatantly, yet never given any significant penalty other than a tap on his wrist. this is the biggest problem which is feeding his ego, and thats why i believe he will be involved in (a) much more serious incident(s) over the years if they dont put a brake on it early enough… i think most of you blind fans never watched the same races or just used blinkers when you were watching

      2. 😂😂😂😂 you can’t be serious

    5. Or maybe the Hamilton fans have blinders on such that they only see Hamilton as being in the right no matter what.

      Personally, I’m glad the two clashed, it put Norris in a clear position to get a podium.

    6. Wayne

      Why is it that every driver that has competed against lewis and lost against him seems to say the same thing that its just a racing Incident.

      First: one thing has nothing to do with another. Alonso considered that Silverstone collision as racing incident as well, so how your stupid point stands now?
      Second: Alonso “lost” (109-109 in the 2007 WDC standings) so badly that the one scared of reliving the challenge of this rivalry at the same team was Hamilton actually. He either blocked or expressed unfavourable views on any better driver than Bottas (there were more than a few of those, for the record) to possibly join Mercedes after Rosberg’s retirement for years, whilst Alonso already have said many times that he would take the challenge against Hamilton and Verstappen in the same team, only for Lewis to make a dull face when asked about the perspective of them being team-mates again. Clearly Hamilton fears Alonso more than the opposite.

      Reply moderated
  4. There was potential for a little danger, with one car being on top on another at the end – but the racing itself was absolutely fine.

    The simple fact remains that when drivers aren’t leaving space for each other, there will inevitably be contact at some point.
    They both could have avoided it, but they didn’t.

    1. That’s not a fact, don’t make it sound like it is. Read what stewards said, they specifically mentioned where cars were at the entry to T1. Max was way behind, he had no business trying to get alongside Ham into T2 because physics would not have allowed him to make both corners. And when he tried he still wasn’t alongside. This isn’t one of those cases where you get alongside and you deserve to be given space.

      1. Except Max had much more grip, and Lewis was just out of the pits. He’s almost fully along-side around turn 1 so that doesn’t really hold up. Plenty of others gave room for that kind of side by side manoeuvre over the weekend especially in F2 and at the beginning of all the races, there is room there if you leave it.

        I can see why people think or want to make it someone’s fault or other, personally I think it’s very much a racing incident, but anyone saying it’s 100% obviously one drivers fault is really not looking objectively at the incident.

        1. nonsense,,lewis was ahead,,the overtake was never going to work..
          and why is it always the other driver whos expected to give max more room,or go off track to avoid a collision.
          if max was in lewis position,he wouldnt have given lewis any more room than what lewis gave him.
          max should have backed out of it,and gone off track to avoid contact,,like lewis did on lap 1,and a few other times this season.

          1. Nonsense. It’s racing, they are going to fight for track position. Neither gave room and both ended up in the gravel. Both of them could have avoided this but neither did. I was happy to see them retire, it gave NOR and RIC a far easier time at getting a 1-2.

          2. nonsense, in either case of giving room and not giving room, max was gonna crash/bump ham off the track! that was blatantly obvious from the 1st lap until the incident! and max wasnt trying an overtake, he was doing a classical kamikaze dive but this time he intended to crash in either lewis gave him room or not (lewis gives him room, max will bump/drive him off road running/spinning wide. lewis doesnt give him room, he crashed anyway) it was inevitable, esp after hearing his radio, it couldnt been more obvious and blatant than this. to top it off, he neither checked nor asked about his condition. this is pure hate. deny all you want.

      2. @ivan-vinitskyy The stewards are humans too – they interpret facts (and sporting regulations) just as individually as everyone else does. They’ve made mistakes before and they will in the future – that’s sport.

        I didn’t say anything about who had the right to be anywhere, and I didn’t reference any regulations….
        I’m saying that it’s physically impossible to have two cars on the same piece of track – it is necessary for at least one of them to leave space for the other, or there will be contact.
        Surely you can’t dispute that fact. Can you?

      3. Coventry Climax
        15th September 2021, 0:24

        @ivan-vinitskyy: ‘because physics would not have allowed him to make both corners’.
        The fact is, Verstappen did make that first corner, and without touching anything or anyone.
        Looking at the footage, it’s my belief he would have made the second too. At those speeds that would never, ever have been an issue. Why he didn’t make the corner is because the rear wheels touched. Rear wheels can only touch when the cars are ‘significantly’ (dumb, pointless word, I use it ironically here) alongside one another. Compare that to the Silverstone incident, where Hamilton’s front hit Verstappens rear.
        Simple physics should tell you that that is only possible if cars are significantly (same thing) not alongside one another.

    2. No it’s not acceptable racing – no driver should seek a collision on every corner with another driver. The FIA cannot allow that to happen.

      Here’s the flaw to your argument. If every driver on the grid sought a collision and drove aggressively on Lap 1, no one would make it past turn 1. If no driver yielded and tried to win the position on every turn, we’d never get to turn 2 of any race.

      1. I didn’t make any argument that drivers should be allowed or encouraged to deliberately cause a collision @freelittlebirds.

        If no driver yielded and tried to win the position on every turn, we’d never get to turn 2 of any race.

        Right. That’s why I said:

        when drivers aren’t leaving space for each other, there will inevitably be contact at some point.

        1. Look, we all know what dangerous driving is or we should. A friendly shoulder check on Lap 1 is one thing. Making your car wide on a corner is another thing. As long as it’s controlled and the drivers respect each other, they will drive well.

          We can all see the measures to which Lewis goes to set up flawless overtakes against fast cars. We can also see that Verstappen is never yielding and looking for a collision. It’s one thing to like a driver and be a fan and you’re certainly entitled to that, it’s another to just ignore this type of reckless driving.

          Like I said, if everyone drove like Verstappen, we’d have multiple fatalities each season and races would end on Turn 2. There’s no argument anyone can make that will justify that.

          1. It’s one thing to like a driver and be a fan and you’re certainly entitled to that, it’s another to just ignore this type of reckless driving.

            Are you talking to me @freelittlebirds, or yourself? You’ve made no secret of your devotion to Hamilton.
            I, on the other hand, couldn’t care less about either of them. Drivers don’t interest me, only car racing.
            I saw a racing incident that Hamilton could have avoided every bit as much as Verstappen could.

            There wouldn’t be any more fatalities than there are now – but let’s look back to Silverstone to see who sent who flying off the track at high speed, shall we?
            Of course, you don’t believe that Hamilton did anything wrong there, do you…

          2. I need to get a pair of those Hamilton blinders for the next race, maybe then I can follow your line of thinking. So glad that it’s the minority of the Ham fans that think and reason as you.

            You talk like every clash has been on Verstappen, facts dictate otherwise. How many penalty points do each have for their driving errors?

            I put the blame on their pit stops, it is what put the two close together in the first place. Had they each pitted and had a normal stop, Ham would have been too far behind Ver to matter. Both had slow stops, Ver being much slower. Neither was going to win the race with the McLarens out front anyway.

          3. @freelittlebirds

            Like I said, if everyone drove like Verstappen, we’d have multiple fatalities each season and races would end on Turn 2.

            And driving like Lewis too, remember he caused a 51g collision at Silverstone (of course you remember, it just doesn’t fit your narrative). He was found predominantly to blame by the stewards just like Max has been at Monza.

          4. @dbHenry I put the blame on their pit stops

            I rest my case… How can we hold the pit stops accountable for a driver’s errors.

          5. As someone used to see drivers die during races each year if everyone drives as Max i think we get a hell of a racing season without any casualties.

            I will tell you a story:
            As a Lewis and Nico fan (because they did make overtakes back then) I became less and less interested in F1 (DRS overtakes, only rain races were the only fun ones) and in 2012-2013 i was on the point to say goodbye to F1. Till a good friend said there were new talentS coming so i was watching carting a lot then and in 2014 Max came into F3 confirming his talent and hearing he was accepted into F1 my interrest was renewed again.
            Without Max i would never came back to F1 and wouls miss out on Lando, George and the rest of the new guard.

          6. @macleod

            Good lord

            What would we have done without another banger racing fan…

          7. @freelittlebirds

            I rest my case… How can we hold the pit stops accountable for a driver’s errors.

            It was a factor, just like sausage kerbs. You and the rest of LH44 troop dishonestly concluded that Max intentionally crashed into Lewis exactly because of failing to consider the effect those have in racing. It’s easy to lose control of the car over them in certain situations, like colder tyres in a fight for track position. Which is not an excuse for Max because probably he’d be fully to blame for such unintentional collision, despite holding full responsibility on it. However, the fact that Lewis squeezed Max is what makes his share of blame as well, which the stewards judged as a smaller one. He should either had closed the door completely before the corner and not lured Max into that gap (maybe it was part of his strategy, but it backfired) or pounced back at the exit of Rettifilo, as he’d have better traction. But given that both Max and Lewis are opting to a ragged style of racecraft lately, some incident of this type was bound to happen again.

          8. @drgraham I like racing not crashing so i am not a Maldanado or Romein fan. As you noticed i am much older then most on this site and i am still hang on the 1960-1969 with the little sigars cars :)

            But if you think i am the only one your mistaken most are silent and just read news (everything) and they will complain to me :) but my friends around my age are really fans of drivers like Whining Lewis, Super Max, runoff Michiel, Senna, Jackie, Jack and my favorite Lotus 33 with Jim. (And Nigel Mansell) but not Damon Hill but his father Graham Hill very much

      2. @freelittlebirds Here’s the flaw in your argument. No driver ‘seeks a collision’ at every corner. That’s utter rhetoric. You’re not fooling anyone into thinking Max ‘seeks collisions.’ It’s just your favourite phrase of the moment. Max does exactly what LH does, as have many other drivers. At some point you are allowed to squeeze a car and force him to either back off, go off, or get hit. We have seen that go unpunished more times than we have seen it punished. Max is no more guilty of ‘seeking collisions’ than LH or many other drivers. “Multiple fatalities?” Just stop with your nonsense, you’re only embarrassing yourself.

        “If everyone drove like Verstappen…” lol well LH does and he’s had a lot more incidents of it than Max due to his much longer career. One could argue Max learned this from LH and his non-penalties for doing exactly the same thing. I guess you think they should not be racing at all, or at least that no close incident should go unpunished, for F1 and FIA has proven time and time again through non-penalties that it is fine to squeeze a car wide and force their hand into going wide, backing off, or being hit. If that is too risky or ‘life-threatening’ for you, then perhaps F1 is not the sport for you.

        1. @robbie

          You’re not fooling anyone into thinking Max ‘seeks collisions.’

          Convincing a person of something logical is not easy – believe me. It’s a lot easier to convince with passion and theatrics.

          1. LOL !! Thanks for that !!

            You have to actually USE logic instead of personal opinion if you are trying to convince someone of something logical. Your passion for Hamilton never making a mistake isn’t using logic.

          2. It seems its time to let those little birds fly.
            Your thoughts are as caged as your birds.

          3. Yeah, as expected, the usual suspects have misunderstood the comment. Hardly surprising:-)

            It’s a deep statement.

            Give it some time to sink in. Ask me next year and I’ll explain…

    3. They both could have avoided it, but they didn’t.

      Seriously? Why should Hamilton dive out of the way for Verstappen when Verstappen is coming from behind?

      So no he shouldn’t have to jump out of the way just because Verstappen wants to crash through him. If Verstappen wants to overtake he needs to be at least fully alongside at corner entry.

  5. Did the wheel make contact with the helmet? Confused now as the article states “passing close”

    1. Yes it did. Gave him quite the knock on the head when you look at the pictures. His head is forced very far fwd by the impact of the tyre on his helmet. Tge edge of the tyre gets inside the halo due to the angle of Max car. Luckily both were ok.

      1. Thanks. I’ve not seen anything conclusive other than what LH said.

    2. @blik the article is incorrect, as it has been confirmed that Hamilton’s helmet was struck by Verstappen’s rear wheel. To that end, Hamilton is being sent to a medical consultant between the Italian and Russian GPs to review whether he has possibly suffered from a neck injury as a result.

      1. Genuine question, how was it confirmed? Not lazy as I have kept an eye out for evidence.

        1. @blik I believe it was from the FIA’s own onboard cameras and monitoring systems, as the FIA is conducting its own investigation into the accident to determine how effective the halo was and whether there are further improvements that could be made.

        2. See skyf1 page or F1.com. There are still pictures of the tyre on top of his head forcing him forward.

          Reply moderated
      2. Hamilton is being sent to a medical consultant

        His fysio, like after every other race. He, like all F1 drivers has his own fysio.
        They already took care of a brace for the dramatic entrance during the steward meeting.
        But I am glad he is okay as shown during the incident when he kept trying to free the car even with a walking verstappen on track.
        Very irresponsible, but probably the panic.

        1. erikje, Lewis was referred to a neck specialist as well (just not as an emergency).

        2. with a walking verstappen on track.
          Very irresponsible, but probably the panic.

          Agreed what is wrong with Verstappen walking across the track like that. Must have been the panic. Trying to walk off the shame of blundering into another car again.

          There was a gap in the fence right ahead of him.

          1. @f1osaurus

            Trying to walk off the shame of blundering into another car again.

            Still better than to celebrate a dirty win after taking out his rival in a huge crash. And still fully blaming Max for the collision he was the main responsible for! This is well within the definition of lacking shame.

    3. My wife made an interesting comment: It’s a good thing this wasn’t one of the taller drivers. There are several whose heads sit much higher than Lewis’. Lewis’ head got hit, so it would have been worse for a taller driver.

      That said, it’s great how well the Halo has done with incidents like this. It was mainly designed to stop a flying wheel hitting the cockpit from the front, so it’s pretty amazing it handles so many situations it wasn’t really designed for so well.

      1. The strange part here is that preceding the halo there was a roll over protection as part of/ in the air box.
        This was completely ruined by the tire and showed no roll over any more.
        Strange.. Design choice by Mercedes or abandoned by all teams?

        1. The role bar still exists. It is part of the air inlet structure. The only thing “destroyed” about the air inlet superficial. The actual structure of the roll bar wasnt affected.

        2. A person somewhere
          14th September 2021, 12:55

          Neither, you are misinterpreting what you are seeing.

          If you look at a post-crash photo you can see that the engine air-intake structure, which is where the roll structure is, is fundamentally intact – it hasn’t been flattened or sheared off. The carbon fibre skin and outer surfaces are damaged, but the structure is still there.

          What has broken away is the FOM camera pod and its supporting structure, but those are not part of the roll structure or otherwise intended as a safety feature.

          1. The rollover structure is in the same place as pre-Halo.

  6. The FIA have painted themselves into a corner with having to give out penalties for incidents like these. Silverstone and Monza are both racing incidents in my opinion and I was disappointed both times that penalties were handed out, even though I agree that one driver was slightly more at fault in both events. A perfect 50/50 incident doesn’t exist.

    1. 100% with you mate. Both racing incidents, unlucky for 1 or 2, but still just a racing incidents.

      Reply moderated
    2. Agreed, both were just two drivers fighting over a position and stepping just ever so slightly over the limit.

      The fact that both ended in a weird and potentially dangerous crash shouldn’t count for assessing the situation. Neither driver can be blamed for F1 cars being potentially dangerous. Max getting launched as two wheels meet is a result of open-wheel cars, not his driving. Similarly, Max going full speed into the wall is a result of skirting over gravel, not Lewis touching him and forcing him wide.

      The penalty for Lewis then and Max now were both completely unnecessary.

      1. I think I probably agree with you all about that @sjaakfoo, @malrg and @moshambles, the fact that both got relatively light penalties might seem to make the issue slightly better, but they also reinforce the impression the stewards felt they needed to be seen to act, first in Silverstone, and then even more so in Monza.

        Hyperbole from the teams about it isn’t helpful either.

      2. Completely agree. In fact, I am pretty sure that both (as well as several other penalised incidents this year) would have been considered racing incidents in any previous year. They are really cracking down, giving much less leeway overall and especially on lap 1. I don’t see that as a really bad thing, although I would prefer they went back to how they were judging them before, but I do think they should have been more open about with everyone involved it from the start instead of just being stricter with no explanation.

    3. The level is appalling indeed. Killing real racing this way. If they feel they need to protect the drivers then dont let them enter F1, then they are not ready. They are supposed to race all out. This red flag trigger happiness, these penalties..its all for the greater bad. If Lewis would have given more room (twice now) we would see more great battles. I hope Lewis steps up a notch as Max clearly wants him to. I guess its the young dog, while the old dog doesn’t want to play anymore. We, the audience, are the biggest loser here. Lewis should embrace the fight rather than end it.

      1. Killing real racing this way

        I am not sure, they both don’t seem to back off because they fear a penalty. It’s only getting more intense it seems.

        1. That’s also true thankfully

      2. Killing real racing this way

        That’s what Verstappen’s dirty “we crash or you let me stay/get ahead” banzai moves do. He did it to Ricciardo lap 1 in the sprint race, to Hamilton lap 1 in the full race and then again when trying to overtake Hamilton. We saw zero overtakes where there should have been at the very least 3 battles for position.

        1. @f1osaurus

          He did it to Ricciardo lap 1 in the sprint race

          So why didn’t Ricciardo complain about that “banzai” move? The only thing he said afterwards was the door had been closed, and he moved on. So the answer to my question is that he’s no whiner like Lewis, who sticks his nose where he shouldn’t do with silly moves (much like Perez) and cry about the outcome all day, even if it benefits him! It seems like whenever one properly defends or attack giving 100% against LH, he’ll always find reasons to keep whining. He really doesn’t like hard racing.
          And his fans generally have the same over the edge behaviour, copied and pasted from him. Full of entitlement steeming from insurmountable arrogance.

          Reply moderated
    4. I agree. Last year both collisions would have been deemed racing incidents. I think these precedents will make penalties common for racing hard.

      1. @ryanoceros The consequence of this one is likely to make penalties even more common, specifically to avoid outcomes like Sunday.

  7. One car passing over coming to rest after damaging the other car’s crash structure and halo with a spinning wheel close to a driver’s head presents no danger? Alonso is being absurd.

    1. I think you are mis-understand what Alonso was saying.

      Reply moderated
      1. I think you mis-understand what Alonso was saying

        Reply moderated
  8. The trouble is we rarely see reprimands/penalties for drivers making unnecessary contact so we have drivers feeling empowered to stick themselves in there expecting contact or best case the other car gives up position and backs right out of it. This comes from years of inconsistent stewarding and largely penalising outcomes over behaviours leading drivers to feel that they can behave as they like if there’s a chance that it’ll get them the result and if there is an incident they can always point the finger knowing their team will come out swinging for them.

    A great example of this between the same drivers was at Monaco in 2019. Max in this instance made an audacious late lunge going into the swimming pool, making contact with his front right and Lewis’s rear left forcing Lewis to use the escape road. I remember looking at that and thinking “hold on, he’s miles back and effectively trying to use the wheels of the car in front as brakes. If he pitches the car in front into a spin, bonus I guess”. I found it bizarre at the time that nobody was questioning the bumper cars approach. We’re seeing that same approach being used now on the biggest stage with similar results, clumsy and avoidable clashes putting both drivers at risk of getting hurt.

    1. As a bit of a counter point to the post I just made this one is well said @alec-glen

    2. The problem is you are trying ro out rake an opponent. Often that means braking less then half a meter later for the desired result.
      Your example showed it just fits or it just doesn’t. Every racer will try if there is a opportunity. Penalising these kills the sport.

    3. @alec-glen I actually expected Hamilton left the door open in Monaco on purpose to get Verstappen to try an attack so Hamilton could straightline the chicane and pull a bit of a gap.

      But yeah agreed the way Verstappen kept pushing in Monza, there was no way he was going to make the corner and also no way that he would not hit Hamilton

  9. There shouldn’t really be danger at the speeds they were going just there.
    However, when you watch how the structure of the Redbull began to disintegrate, there was the risk of bodily harm from some badly shaped and positioned carbon fibre shrad. There is always danger in motor racing even at slow speeds.
    We should never get complacent.

  10. Max does not concede. And in a WDC fight, that might be his biggest downfall.

    1. There was no need to concede as Lewis left the door wide open into turn 1. Lewis should have gone straight, making it impossible for Max to go around the outside. Just like Max did in turn 4, lap 1. That is how you do it and it clearly leaves no room whatsoever for interpretation for the car on the outside. And it is 100% legal. But Lewis was napping, thought he already made the corner ahead of Max and then found Max beside him all of a sudden (Max typically has way more mid corners speed as a result of his earlier braking style). Since Lewis already committed to a sequence going to 1 and 2 he continued this and ran some-one on the inside out of road. So, if you regard turn 1 and 2 to be one corner something can be said for the stewards verdict. If however you judge corner 1 & 2 together it was clearly just unfortunate. Max could have opted to not engage prior to turn 1 and Lewis could have opted to give a little more space in turn 2. Even better, Lewis should have ended Max ambitions straight away when going into turn 1. There Lewis lacked some insight and clearly underestimated the situation. Max is not going to hand it to you like all other have the last 7 years. Shape up or move on

      1. THIS 100%!!! Also in response to Henri, Michael Schumacher never conceded, neither did Montoya, nor Lewis, nor Alonso, nor Kimi in his prime, nor Senna. You don’t become world champion by conceding. As per Mayrton’s very accurate explanation, this was a racing incident. In fact, it was a pretty standard Monza Turn 1 racing incident and i cant believe all the fuss that has been created. It doesnt help that the broadcasters make things worse with their interviews etc to try and ‘spice up’ the show. For me there shouldnt have even been a penalty handed out it was that much of a standard ‘racing incident’. Its happened before, and it will no doubt happen again at Monza’s first chicane.

        1. Sometime, to win the championship, you need to concede a corner to fight another one, so you can win the race. Sometimes you need to concede the race win to a non challenger, to get as much points as possible for the championship, instead of crashing an losing it all.

          Max can not concede, ever. And sometimes for the bigger picture, you need to.

          1. Except with Lewis ahead of him, Max would’ve lost in the championship by conceding, while risking a collision disadvantaged Lewis more since he couldn’t gain points on Max. So your reasoning here is not correct, the risk for not conceding here was more on Lewis than on Max.

          2. I am not sure I agree with that. Max is harder on Lewis since he expects a higher skill level from a multiple WDC. I am sure he will be more cautious when he sees Ocon (terrible car positioning once again, beginning to suspect he does it intentionally and we actually have a villain in the pack), Mazepin etc. I think he could have expected from great driver Lewis that he would have the skill to leave room. So either he doesn’t or he opted not to. That’s why Lewis was also timid after the accident. He knows it was a racing incident and they both chose not to give in. And without the sausage curb, or being 20 cm more to the right, they both would have made that corner to crash in the next.

      2. Or, possibly, Lewis was thinking about the response he got to missing the apex at Silverstone and didn’t want to risk a collision or penalty with a dive-bombing Max. However, he positioned himself in such a way that it was obvious there would be no room on the exit of T1, and Max would have been aware of this. I am pretty sure that most other drivers on the grid would have taken to the escape road, knowing there would be nowhere for them to go.

      3. Tell me when Max HAS conceded! He refuses to. Very big and macho but let’s see how it works out for him in this battle. He has been the better driver thus year but his… machismo… is costing him. He should be out of sight now.

        1. It will be interesting reading opinions on these type of issues next year when all things being equal Russell will be in the mix. As anyone who has followed George through F3 and F2 will know he will not be intimidation by Max, nor back down because of someone with a get out of my way or crash attitude.

          1. So basically Lewis, George and Max have the same attitude in the car. If it takes two to tango..
            Personally I am glad they are. We’ve had a decade of mediocre racing looking at rich spoiled kids getting a race car but all the time feeling there must be some genuine talent out there

          2. Purposefully crashing in a lost position is mediocre

  11. I mentioned something similar earlier. they both got very unlucky that the cars touched in such a way (tyre to tyre) that launched verstappen. Very similar incidents that just (luckily) resulted in wheel banging went unnoticed.

    1. they touched because max didnt back off,and go off track to avoid a collision
      like lewis did on lap 1.

      1. Lewis left the door open. It’s his own doing there.

        1. Just like Verstappen left the door open in Silverstone you mean?

          The hypocrisy is just staggering

    2. @Ipsom

      Of course, that doesn’t matter since the stewards don’t judge outcomes.

      Just kidding.

  12. Where are all the people that were complaining that the Halo was killing F1?
    Well, maybe they stopped watching.

    1. Maybe they did. But my recollection is shorty after its introduction when it was decided to keep it almost everybody said ‘yea, fair enough then’.

      1. Correct. Even before massive crashes. I remember Verstappen hating it when he saw it on the car, but when he had finished his first race with the halo saying that it really didn’t bother him at all.

    2. I thought Halo would kill F1 by killing drivers. Thankfully I was proven wrong. It’s OK to be proven wrong occasionally, especially when the hypothesis is a grim one.

  13. Why is it always the other driver who is expected to give max more room,or go off track to avoid a collision?
    Max could have easily gone off track to avoid a collision,but chose not to.
    If max was in lewis poistion,max wouldnt have given lewis anymore room than what lewis gave him.
    Lewis did absolutely nothing wrong,and yet,some are still trying to put blame on lewis.
    lewis on lap 1 went off track to avoid a collision…max should learn to do the same sometimes.

    1. they both didn’t leave the other any other options. Look the camera from verstappen’s point of view – verstappen on full race pace, hamilton just leaving the pits on cold tyres. hamilton leaving just enough room for the attempt. Just watch as it unfolds in only 1-2 seconds – It was a real eyeopener. Racing incident full stop to me. Remember, after a certain point verstappen couldn’t have moved across the kerbs – the sausage kerb would have lifted/ruined his car the same way it happened now.
      really; look at that onboard take from verstappen’s car, that’s gold.

      1. It is called misjudgement by Max
        It was a simple error he assumed his warmer tyres would allow him more speed. It did a little but not enough.
        He should just admit to not being completerly right even if he doesn’t admit he was wrong.
        Other drivers left even more room than Hamilton.
        Leclerc was ahead of Bottas but he still took the escape route.

    2. Max didn’t need to go anywhere as he didn’t make a single mistake all the way through turn 1. And Lewis enabled him, which is where it all went wrong. Lewis should have closed off turn 1 by running wide, similar to Max lap 1, turn 4. That is how you do it and it clearly leaves no room whatsoever for interpretation for the car on the outside. And it is 100% legal.

      So that’s turn 1 and both made it through.

      Now Max front wheel is like 10-20 cm behind Lewis front wheel, so alongside. There are pictures available showing it is not a case of my front wheel being near your rear one like in Silverstone, no fully alongside. But Lewis is ahead going into turn 2. There is 70-80% of Max cars on the inside. What do you do?: Similar to Giovinazzi and one of the Ferrari’s in that exact same corner. They both made it through, Giovinazzi just one wheel on track on the inside and the Ferrari giving just a little bit of space. Lewis chose not to give that space.

      My conclusion: Max slightly optimistic going into 1, Lewis incorrectly closing the door too late into turn 2. I am fine with leaving at a race incident. The stewards? Unable to separate corner 1 & 2 so thinking Lewis went first into 1, so lets put more blame on Max. Appalling level of stewarding really. Quite surprising for a sport in which so much money is concerned.

      Reply moderated
      1. Because it is a chicane, turn 2 is effectively the exit of turn 1. I doubt anyone has ever looked at a chicane and thought and broken them down completely into 2 separate corners with separate entries, exits, braking zones and time for different decision making processes. You cannot treat them as 2 completely separate corners and say “Max was alongside on entry to turn 2”. The entry to turn 1 is the entry to the chicane, to both corners, where lines are chosen and speeds adjusted.

        1. They are officially numbered corner 1 and corner 2 by the circuit owners.

          1. Of course they are, that’s what is done, but this is like saying a single, straight road is actually 2 different roads, just because one part of it is called “Leeds Road” and another part of it is called “York Road”.

            You still can’t just dive-bomb down the outside and just assume you’ll be given space on the exit, just because the exit is the entry to a differently numbered corner. I’d love to see someone argue that, having chosen a line based on the circumstances at the start of the corner which pushes the car to the limit, you can just change it mid way. That’s why dive-bombing, braking late from significantly behind on turn in to a corner, isn’t allowed: If an opponent suddenly appears alongside you when you are on the limit, braking or turning further is likely to push you past the limit and cause you to lose control of the car.

            In any case, I’m going to stop this now. The stewards have made their judgement, and RB have not shown any intention to appeal, which I’m certain they would at least attempt if they thought it was actually Lewis’ fault. It’s done with, Max has an appropriate penalty which is consistent with the stewards overly-harsh actions this year, and I’m obviously just banging my head against a brick wall with certain members of this community. Take care :)

    3. Maybe because Max is a notch up vs what we are used to see (the processional, mandatory overtakes from an overpowered Mercedes on the rest of the field, 7 years straight). There was no need to concede as Lewis left the door wide open into turn 1. Lewis should have gone straight, making it impossible for Max to go around the outside. Just like Max did in turn 4, lap 1. But Lewis was napping, thought he already made the corner ahead of Max and then found Max alongside him all of a sudden. Lewis chose to close the door and cause a collision. Now have a look at Giovinazzi lap 1 on one of the Ferrari’s. Exactly, 100% similar situation. Here the Ferrari gives 10 cm extra and both make it through the corner. Which leaves the question: what are the stewards doing in this multibillion dollar business? They seem to be fresh out of school. This can’t be the level we get on the pinnacle of Motorsport.

      1. Lewis should have gone straight, making it impossible for Max to go around the outside. Just like Max did in turn 4, lap 1. But Lewis was napping

        Anyone with an ounce of sense could see that the “door” was going to close. Lewis’ line was never going to be wide enough of the apex of T2 to leave room for Max, and Max knew the sausage kerbs were there and would hamper him further. Every other driver in that position I saw during the race took to the escape road. Even on Lap 1, Lando could only claim that line because he was ahead of Hamilton before turn in and could control the corner.

        The majority of the blame here lies with Verstappen for making a very optimistic lunge into a space which was never going to do anything but disappear. While this would have been considered a racing incident in most other years, so would many other incidents this year, and a penalty is deserved and consistent with other decisions this year.

        1. Please have a look at Lap 1 from the onboard of Giovinazzi (in the role of Max) battling a Ferrari (in the role of Lewis). This is exactly the same. They make it through the corner however since the Ferrari leaves just a little bit of space more than Lewis chose to.

          1. If you mean Lap 1 Turn 1, where everyone is always vastly more careful because the entire pack is bunched up…

            But yes, Lewis could have left more space. It was pretty obvious by the speed he was carrying, though, that he wasn’t going to. More importantly, he was not required or expected to. He’d already taken an avoiding line, having seen a charging RB barreling in at high speed from far too far back, which was more than he was required to do. Max then dive bombed round the outside, putting himself on a piece of tarmac which he had no right to, having been so far back on turn in, and expected Lewis to just give the corner up.

          2. Also, the difference with L1T1 there was that Giovinazzi was much further alongside under braking, and was at least almost completely level, if not slightly ahead, on turn in. This is the same with Hamilton/Norris: Norris was slightly ahead on turn in, therefore entitled to space on the exit.

            Max, on the other hand, was a fair way back under braking, and barely had his front wheels past Hamilton’s rears on turn in to T1.

          3. I can relate to your view of the nuances in this. Still it shows enough to make a penalty for this ridiculous.

  14. Lost a bit of respect for Alonso with that statement, a carbon fibre shard or a wishbone can kill you doing 5kph. And if you watch from the front view you can see the wheel actually roll over Lewis’s head with only the Halo saving he’s life, what would of happened if Lewis’s head hadn’t gone forward and he took the weight of the car directly downwards, we were very very close to a fatality on Sunday.
    And as a side note, not a word about the crowds reaction along with the Mclaren garage, yet the Silverstone crowd were portrayed as monsters.

    1. @f1-plossl. The Alpine is too slow and Ricciardo just secured his spot at McLaren.

      Ferrari is a full house.

      Mercedes is a full house.

      His only hope is Checo’s spot next year. Expect a lot of this to come.

      Plus these retirements benefit Alpine who can win races just like McLaren. Ideally, he wants Max to run into Lewis at every race, qualifying, practice, paddock, anywhere he sees Lewis.

      In fact, Ferrari, McLaren, and Alpine stand to benefit the most from crashes.

    2. Exactly Freak accidents do occur and it is easy to trivialise it when the outcome is already known.

      1. I agree, FIA looking into it to see whether they can further improve the safety is a good thing. Especially since the Halo did not only save the day, it also caused the wheel to get there in the first place, lifting the RB more than it would have without the Halo. So, it will be an interesting investigation for sure.

  15. It is a high-risk sport and the drivers both can back out any time they want. If they choose not to they are at a risk of crashing out and in some cases even get injured. The fact that Verstappen didn’t back down in one turn does not give Hamilton some kind of privilege in another corner. Most of the great champions have usually not backed down when in a serious fight. The only reason Lewis has done it in the past is that his championship was never under any serioous threat, and has more experience in fighting (well, the past years it wasn’t mucht of a fight) for championships and thus takes a bit more of a conservative approach. This year is different and he chooses not to back down in some instances. Verstappen does not back down ever, so these things are bound to happen and are on both drivers in my opinion. It’s just that Verstappen takes risk on more occasions and if that is a succesful strategy remains to be seen. Rewards may be high, but costs may also be high (budget cap, and crashing out = 0 points). We’ll know in Abu Dhabi.

    1. ‘Verstappen does not back down ever, so these things are bound to happen’

      If Max wants to kill himself in a crash then that’s he’s right, but endangering other drivers, marshals or the crowd is not, what will it take before he changes he’s dangerous ways?

      1. You missed the point. His ways were equally dangerous yesterday as Lewis’ when they crashed. Every time there’s a crash like this both drivers take the risk of crashing. This being a low speed corner makes it even easier to take the risk (again for both drivers). The way Verstappen’s car was launched and landed on Lewis’ car was kind of freakish.

      2. @f1-plossl Just note that Max was not deemed wholly to blame by the stewards, meaning that LH had a part to play in this. By squeezing such as LH did, which we have seen time and time again is usually fair game and un-penalized, the driver doing the squeezing always risks taking himself out too, but as it would seem, drivers who lead into/around a corner, and decide to own the real estate and do the squeeze, are taking the chance that their ‘back off, go off, or hit me’ option they are presenting the trailing (or somewhat alongside) driver, does not take the third option of the three. Note the number to times drivers such a LH have been applauded for taking this risk and appearing to be the WDC level driver they are, by owning the real estate and forcing the other driver’s hand. It’s hard racing. It’s usually not penalized. It’s applauded every time it goes off cleanly.

        1. Just note that Max was not deemed wholly to blame by the stewards, meaning that LH had a part to play in this.

          @robbie – I don’t recall you saying anything like this post-Silverstone (conceding that Max had a part to play)… :-)

          1. Well spotted Emma. It wasn’t my ‘job’ as a Max fan to promote that when many LH fans around here were happy to drill that into me. Similarly there has been virtually no mention of the fact that LH has some responsibility at the chicane at Monza, so I thought I should bring that up fair and square as it is being quite ignored on LH’s behalf.

          2. Emma
            Then you missed that. Not only @robbie but many here recognised that (Max being too optimistic going into that corner), while a lot of LH fans tried to fully blame Max, more than a full reversal really. Today many of them still deny it was more Hamilton’s doing, and now they pretend only Verstappen refuses to yield.

    2. Re writing the rules for every corner depending on who is your least favourite.

  16. I wish commenters on racefans would stop trying to split us into Hamilton or Verstappen camps. Some of us actually like and admire all the drivers. Both Silverstone and this are racing incidents with each driver being held predominantly to blame at each GP, and all this nonsense that “Hamilton put Verstappen in hospital” he had a 50g impact, he went for precautionary checks, people make out that Hamilton shot him then danced at his funeral. This is 2 drivers fighting for the title, this is part of the movie script, just enjoy it.

    1. This!!!!
      Yes I am a fan of max but I really admire the driving by Lewis.
      (not his moaning BTW)
      But if you call this a racing incident (like all non British ex f1 drivers do) your a verstappen fan.
      Very awkward.

    2. I obviously prefer verstappen, but immediately after the accident happened, despite being surprised hamilton was out too, I thought: there could be a grid penalty for verstappen, cause he was slightly more to blame in my impression, say 55-45, unlike silverstone, so a 3 places grid penalty doesn’t come as a surprise, although it also could’ve been deemed a racing incident.

  17. I’m with Fernando on this. Hard to see beyond a ‘race incident’. Max was more than half way up before T2 and had every right to be there while Lewis was doing his utmost to make it as tight for Max as possible (perhaps, even expecting him to take the exit road so that he has to give the place to Lewis which was smart) and those big curbs and a tight and narrow angle resulted in the collision.

    I despise bad stewards who steals the essence of the race. A racing incident for me with the two title contenders giving it everything.

  18. Apparently the opinion of a majority of drivers & others in the paddock was that it was a racing incident where no penalty should have been given.

    I’ve heard that drivers plan to discuss it with the FIA & that it’s also likely to be raised by teams in a post season meeting where the opinion is going to be that incidents like this, Silverstone & Austria should not have been penalties & that stewards should be more lenient & leave drivers to race.

    It also seems that everyone in the paddock that has seen the ruling from Monza simply do not understand why the stewards took the view that because Max was behind at the start of the braking phase for turn 1 he didn’t have the right for a bit more room at turn 2 because at no point in any discussion has it ever been raised that a corner with 2 distinct parts will be considered as a single corner. The feeling appears to be that the stewards interpreted some of the wording regarding racing room incorrectly as well as inconsistently. It’s something that will be discussed & drivers hope reviewed.

    1. Do you have more examples? I actually didn’t hear a lot of opinions from the other drivers other than Hamilton, Verstappen and now Alonso.

      1. @gt-racer However, the fact Lewis got a (minor) injury here means the FIA is very unlikely to allow more freedom of conduct, as that would conflict with its mandate. If anything, they might go stricter on this sort of thing in future.

  19. Isn’t it Hamilton that is almost constantly repeating the Senna quote, ‘If you no longer go for a gap which exists you are no longer a racing driver’.

    1. Well he created a gap and lured max into it. But it backfired.

    2. Depends. Ham probably has a different opinion on what constitutes a gap than what Max and his fans do.

      https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158604947901699&set=p.10158604947901699&type=3

      1. Even in that picture where Lewis already moved to left he is able to pass with two wheels on the track.
        At that time in a normal corner Lewis should have left room.
        Nice illustration of Lewis at fault there.

        It’s because the stewards sawct1 and t2 as one corner they penalised max.

      2. Wow that\’s such a clear picture of how Verstappen intentionally crashes into Hamilton. He should have turned left and bailed out. Just like the sane drivers did in a similar situation.

        Of course a chicane is counted as one whole since the driving line is determined at the entry. It’s the speed Hamilton takes into the entry that determines where he comes out. That’s why these rules on who gets the racing line a re set up.

        1. @f1osaurus Yes, he clearly did it on purpose. Damon was right.

          I don’t understand how Verstappen has not been called before the FIA. He should be fighting for his F1 license.

          1. Stop with the “clearly on purpose” statements please. You don’t understand – indeed.
            Do we need to point out the obvious difference between you and professional F1 drivers? Or did you do that just now yourself?

  20. Last time around the website pushed Alinso’s opinion, this time around it “play down”. Just like the fia’s stance, it moves with the goal posts.

    1. @peartree

      Last time around the website pushed Alinso’s opinion, this time around it “play down”. Just like the fia’s stance, it moves with the goal posts.

      Last time around there was a triumphant article with lots of drivers saying it was a racing incident, like if it the world needed to know the inconvenient truth. Now just a small oversimplified article with an outspoken guy like Alonso (who even shares a history of rivalry with Hamilton, to further enhance controversy and clicks) in which his opinion basically appears as “playing down” the collision and everything else from the “safe source” pointing more to the opposite. Not even a mention about what other drivers, like Ricciardo, said afterwards. Even greater than the need to be covertly favouring Hamilton only to still pose as “neutral journalist” is the desire to explore polemical topics and present them in the most misleading and sensationalist way possible in which it might still be described as “mostly true”.

      Reply moderated
  21. A few weeks back, after the Silverstone incident, Alonso commented that it was a racing incident and even supported Hamilton. Why do Hamilton fans have selective memory loss? Why is this opinion seen as anti-Hamilton?

    1. Just to turn that around why do the Max fans not agree Silverstone was more Max’s fault then and Monza was a racing incident?

      1. I don’t remember seeing any comment from Max fans accusing Alonso that he was biased when he commented that Silverstone was a racing incident and supported Hamilton. But why are Hamilton fans commenting that he holds grudge against Hamilton when he said that Monza is a racing incident?

    2. @kart1131 A few weeks back, after the Silverstone incident, Alonso commented that it was a racing incident and even supported Hamilton. Why do Verstappen fans have selective memory loss? Why is this opinion seen as the word of all holy truth when before his opinion was put off as meaningless?

  22. As the BBC podcast put it, if that’s not Hamilton at the chicane, Verstappen isn’t contesting that second corner like that. Right? Anyone doubt that? He’d wait for another corner to attempt the pass. So what does that tell you? He calculated – correctly – that any contact would entail equal or worse damage for Hamilton, because the latter was on the outside turning in. It’s a reflex calculation and decision. Was it the right one? Who knows, Verstappen could have got past a few corners later, but if he failed, Hamilton would certainly remain ahead for the rest of the race and maybe even win it.

    1. Agree with most of your post, but not with that podcast. Remember this is the same Max Verstappen that bumped wheels with Schumacher’s Haas in Hungary. I think I heard on the F1 podcast “this is just the way he is computed” which is more my line of thinking as well. He will attack every corner no matter who is there. It’s what I like about him and contributes to his success, but if it goes wrong will cost him points and potentially championships.

    2. and maybe even win it.

      Really?
      Wishful thinking I guess. But in the real world very unlikely.
      But a podium would have been possible. If he did the same with verstappen ad he did with Norris in the same corner earlier he would have passed verstappen by a way better exit.
      But he decided to force the unforcable and the result was clear.

      1. Was definitely dangerous in my view, as in there was risk he was gonna win it, having the fastest car, see how far bottas went and he doesn’t have hamilton’s racecraft, so if verstappen could he HAD to stop hamilton.

  23. Alonso for steward coach!

    Pretty much says it like it is.

    If this kind of racing is nolonger allowed, we can start to go for no contact rules.

    I wouldn’t mind that.

    3 place penalt was given to Bottas for taking out 2 Red Bulls? Is this similar?

    It was a racing incident, and I feel penalty came maybe because of first lap incident where Max ran Lewis clear of the track…

    These two clearly will crash again soon. It will take more penalties, and rule changes before they behave a bit more like their well manared racing driver friends.

    1. @jureo Remember when Alonso called the Silverstone incident a racing incident? In fact all F1 driver (besides Verstappen) did.

      It’s funny how they all say this, unless it involves themselves. Well Horner called Monza a racing incident (which in Horner speak means: “Oops, so Verstappen did this, but let’s pretend he did nothing wrong”)

      1. @f1osaurus

        Remember when Alonso called the Silverstone incident a racing incident? In fact all F1 driver (besides Verstappen) did.

        The same is happening now. Which driver has said it wasn’t a racing incident? You asked this question a lot here but it only shows your own bias, actually. You agreed with Alonso and others when it was convenient.

        It’s funny how they all say this, unless it involves themselves. Well Horner called Monza a racing incident (which in Horner speak means: “Oops, so Verstappen did this, but let’s pretend he did nothing wrong”)

        Like in here. When Wolff says it’s a racing incident, you believe on him. When Lewis says Max was the one to blame for the Silverstone collision, you believe on him. You never put a foot wrong in bandwagoning for them with other fan aticals here.

        Reply moderated
      2. :D That is because Alonso was not in the crash, otherwise he would blame the other naturally.

        My point is mostly these two crash almost every time, not really decent racing, sometimes one is predominantly, other times the other. But always they crash.

    2. Was 5 place penalty, but I agree it should be more for such a crash.

  24. Hamilton had neck ache after the tyre hit his head. If this is Fernando’s definition of “no danger”… …he needs a better dictionary.

  25. No danger? Did he even watch the replays?

    1. https://i.imgur.com/wCoqG5O.jpg

      Literally alonso lol. He never managed to get over 2007. And that rookie who beat him in the same car, went on to win 7 world titles. Imagine how he feels lmao

      1. @shrieker

        Literally alonso lol. He never managed to get over 2007. And that rookie who beat him in the same car, went on to win 7 world titles. Imagine how he feels lmao

        It looks more like the eternal rookie’s fans never managed to get over 2007, as they created an obsession around it. More one of those preojections in the others.

        Reply moderated
        1. I’ve literally never seen Hamilton try aid another driver, to prevent Alonso from winning a world title. He keeps exploring new lows, lmao. Pathetic, plain and simple.

  26. I have grown to like Alonso, but he is generalising here and he is wrong. If one checks out the radio rewind video on youtube, there is the replay from the 360 camera on the Mercedes, and when the wheel goes over his head it looks quite brutal.

    Everyone is praising the halo, which they should. It’s amazing and if we go back now and read half the driver’s comments we will see how they were also wrong. However, FIA needs to look into this accident, because it could’ve been worse if the wheel landed at a different angle. And maybe it’s not the halo, but the roll hoop that needs some improving.

  27. Coming from the most impartial authority regarding Lewis Hamilton hehe. Tries to help Massa win against Lewis, fails. Tries to help Verstappen, isn’t even ashamed of admitting it both times. That’s what we call a cuc# where we live. What a sore loser lol

  28. Hardly anyone is mentioning that Ham was happy to leave Norris room in exactly the same situation on lap one, but for some reason decided to squeeze Max into an impossible situation…

  29. I can’t see there being much racing in future if the driver has to be ahead before the corner, i.e. can’t use the corner to his advantage as part of an overtake maneuver.

    Reply moderated
  30. https://de.yahoo.com/sports/news/crashpilot-%C3%BCberraschende-hamilton-statistik-182305114.html

    Hamilton collisions with world championship rivals.
    2008 – Japan – Felipe Massa
    2014 – Belgium – Nico Rosberg
    2016 – Spain – Nico Rosberg
    2016 – Austria – Nico Rosberg
    2017 – Azerbaijan – Sebastian Vettel
    2017 – Mexico – Sebastian Vettel
    2018 – Italy – Sebastian Vettel
    2021 – Great Britain – Max Verstappen
    2021 – Italy – Max Verstappen

    Reply moderated
    1. Did you actually look into these incidents? copy an paste them into Youtube then come back with a proper list, in the age of ‘Fake News’ its always a good idea to check so called facts yourself ;-)

    2. 2008 Japan – not sure.
      2014 Belgium – “You all knew this was coming.”
      2016 Spain – Racing incident 100%.
      2016 Austria – Fair decision on Rosberg.
      2017 Azerbaijan – Fair decision on Vettel.
      2017 Mexico – “You all knew this was coming.”
      2018 Italy – “You all knew this was coming.”
      2021 Great Britain – Racing incident 200%.
      2021 Italy – Racing incident 300%.

      1. Dave
        When Hamilton is mostly to blame it’s called “racing incident”. When others are the mostly to blame it’s a fair decision on them. Interesting.

        Reply moderated
  31. @ Plossl
    Re: “check so called facts yourself”
    Can you explain please. What is there to check?

  32. I would suggest watching Palmer’s analysis. No bias, just looks at the incident and compares it to other almost identical incidents.

    Reply moderated

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.