Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton crash, Monza, 2021

Who was to blame for Hamilton and Verstappen’s collision at Monza?

Penalty Box

Posted on

| Written by

Who was to blame in the race-ending clash between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen in the Italian Grand Prix?

Incident

Verstappen and Hamilton tangled on lap 26 of the 2021 Italian Grand Prix at turn two in the Rettifilo chicane.

Prior to the collision Hamilton, who had run behind Verstappen for the opening part of the race, emerged from the pits ahead of the Red Bull driver. The pair went into turn one with Hamilton ahead and Verstappen on his outside.

After rounding turn one, Verstappen attempted to pass Hamilton on the inside of turn two where the pair made contact. Their wheels touched and Verstappen’s car was thrown into the air, landing on top of the Mercedes, putting both out.

How it happened

1: Verstappen begins to decelerate for chicane
2: Verstappen turns into chicane
3: Verstappen draws as far alongside Hamilton as he can
4: Verstappen begins to run off-track
5: Verstappen and Hamilton collide

What they said

In the cars

Following the collision Verstappen said on his radio: “That’s what you get for not leaving space.” Hamilton’s camera was damaged in the collision and no reaction was broadcast.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

After the crash

Hamilton said he was aware of Verstappen’s position as they followed Daniel Ricciardo into the corner.

“I came out, I saw Daniel came past, Max was coming, I made sure I left a car’s width on the outside for him,” said Hamilton. “I went into turn one and I was ahead, I was ahead going into turn two and then all of a sudden he was on top of me.”

Verstappen accused his rival of failing to leave him space. “He just kept on pushing me wider and wider,” said the Red Bull driver. “At one point there was no way to go, he just pushed me onto the sausage kerb and that’s why, at the end of the day, we touched because of the rear tyre bumped up to his tyre.”

The incident in pictures

The official verdict

Both drivers were investigated over the collision. Verstappen was found to be “predominantly to blame for the incident”. The following regulation was cited as the reason for his penalty:

Causing a collision, repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the track) will be reported to the stewards and may entail the imposition of penalties up to and including the disqualification of any driver concerned.
International Sporting Code appendix L, chapter four, article 2(d)

The stewards explained why Verstappen was considered to have broken the rule:

The driver of car 44 [Hamilton] was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused car 33 [Verstappen] to go onto the kerb. But further, 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”. While car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
2021 Italian Grand Prix stewards document 64

Your verdict

Who do you think was responsible for the collision? Were the stewards correct to issue a penalty? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Who was to blame for Hamilton and Verstappen's collision at Monza?

  • Hamilton was wholly responsible (2%)
  • Hamilton was mostly responsible (8%)
  • Hamilton and Verstappen were equally responsible (29%)
  • Verstappen was mostly responsible (31%)
  • Verstappen was wholly responsible (31%)
  • No opinion (0%)

Total Voters: 255

Loading ... Loading ...

A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2021 F1 season articles, 2021 Italian Grand Prix, Debates and Polls

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

  • 80 comments on “Who was to blame for Hamilton and Verstappen’s collision at Monza?”

    1. If Lewis just run him wide at turn 1 Max would have to abort now he gave him room to get into turn 1 and they probaly would made both if the sausage curb didn’t hit Max rear which launch him on the rear wheel of Lewis with Max other rear and due the low speed Max car climbed Lewis car and ending up his car.

      I blame Lewis in turn 1 to leave the door open and Max hitting that curb and hit Lewis of that.

      And I blame the stupid rule of the pitstops if the old applied nothing would happen.

      1. People just need to watch the first lap of the race (and all the previous ones) at Monza to see how two cars go side by side at that section of the track without colliding. It is CLEAR that Lewis squeezed Max and did not give him any room. Yes, the stewards got it wrong like they do from time to time.

        1. Ladies and gentlemen, we have an expert f1 coach fan. He knows for SURE, Lewis squeezed Max.

          Stewards can put all their telemetry away, video angles, experience etc – Sid has all the answers

          1. Are you saying that the stewards never get it wrong?

            They’ve backflipped on some of their own decisions before, and some stewards have even spoken (off duty) that they personally thought their team made the wrong call.

            Data or not, they are still interpreting.

            1. @“S” The stuwarts got it wrong by blaming Hamilton in Silverstone yes. In Monza it was 100% Max’ fault as well, don’t ignore lap one were Max pushed Lewis off the track and Lewis went over the kerbs to avoid a crash unlike Max. Max lacks race intelligence

        2. @Sid Nonsense. It was Lewis’ corner and Max should have backed off but we all know that Max lacks race intelligence, Max can’t calculate ahead.

          1. How was it “Lewis’ corner” when he was just leaving the pitlane?

            1. Maybe because, on turn in, Max was behind Lewis. Look at the stills above: His front wheel wasn’t even level with Lewis’ rear. It was optimistic to the point of stupidity.

              Even looking at the “similar” incidents from L1, in each case the driver on the outside was much further forwards than Max was here. He knew he wasn’t entitled to any space coming from that far back, but Lewis left him some anyway in order to avoid a collision. The door was always going to close, we all knew it, Max knew it and could have taken to the escape road. Instead, he tried to bully his way through a gap which was never going to do anything but disappear.

        3. People just need to watch the first lap of the race (and all the previous ones) at Monza to see how two cars go side by side at that section of the track without colliding.

          The irony of that statement is that Max did a carbon copy maneouvre with Lewis on the second chicane during the first lap, and Lewis had to cut the chicane to avoid an impact. I can’t understand Max’s complaint “That’s what you get for not leaving space”, he did the exact same thing.

        4. If you watch the first lap of Monza you will see that cars either give way if they are not in front or alongside going in to the corner or they take the escape route. You will see on the first lap of this very race that in the second chicane Hamilton tried exactly the same move on Max and max squeezed him to the side of the track. Hamilton simply avoided a collision by taking the car off the track and rejoining behind Max. Max could have done the same thing to avoid the incident. Max seems to complain about other drivers doing the same things as he does all the time. It seems that Max is fine with not leaving any space at an almost identical chicane yet if others do not let him past he moans about them not leaving him space.

      2. @macleod It was 100% Max’ fault on all accounts, Max was never ahead of Lewis which means it was not his corner to take. Max lacks race intelligence and caused that crash

        1. Seems your not a racer that corner turn 1 has also a turn 2 The problem is Lewis let enough space for Max and with his speed and grip (he has warm tyres) he was next to Lewis (That was Lewis his mistake as if he took turn 1 wider (run wide) Max would never go there as the door was shut. So Leiws let Max in then comes turn 2 which Max is in the inside having the right to be there problem is Lewis woke up or so and began closing the gap so making Max cutting the corner even more which then Max hit the sausage curb which is normal right front bumbs Lewis Front BUT then the rear left went on the curb pushing Max car up and to the right on the rear of Lewis and you know when 2 big tyres hit each other on low speed they grip and the car went over Lewis.

          Do i say Max was blamless not i didn’t also i didn’t say Lewis was to blame also not. The only error Lewis did was not closing the corner earlier. After that it was out of his hands.

          1. @macleod Lewis didn’t leave space for Max to take, he left space for himself to gain a hood exit which can’t understand and crashed ontop of Hamilton, Max should have taken the escape route or should go over the kerbs like Lewis has done plenty of times to avoid a accident but for people like you you want everybody to lay the red carpet for your Max. And yes Max lacks serious race intelligence, he did the same crashing in Monza ‘21 as he did to Massa in ‘17, Max simply doesn’t learn or can’t comprihent calculating skills to think ahead, it’s all crashing or winning. Max is highly overrated IMO

    2. I would have liked an “I say” section on these articles, but I suppose that would invalidate the poll.

      1. Not really, the “I say” bits are normally done in a spoiler so you can reveal after the votes.

        However, I suspect that Keith, as with the one for Silverstone, didn’t want backlashes from angry fans of one driver or the other calling him biased, which would likely have happened whichever way he called it and would have drowned out the discussions and the results of the poll.

    3. VER mostly, although I could’ve equally gone for wholly.

      1. I went for VER mostly, too, because there were things HAM could have done to avoid the accident. However, the blame is 95%+ on Max, IMHO.

    4. Hamilton said he was aware of Verstappen’s position as they followed Daniel Ricciardo into the corner.

      “I came out, I saw Daniel came past,

      – I am almost certain that it was Lando Norris they both dropped behind there, Ricciardo was further up the road.

    5. I must say that I was a bit surprised that Hamilton was allowed to move as far over to the left as soon as he did on the straight – not really leaving any room – right after he came out of the pitlane. And I am sure Hamilton could have left a bit more room for Verstappen to make it through. But then, why would he?

      At the same time, Verstappen was behind, Verstappen had the warmer tyres, and had he thought it through, he would have backed out, followed right behind Lewis and probably would have been able to get past righ after the corner – like we saw Norris doing with Leclerc after the restart.

      Since both of them must have already be annoyed at the lack of progress and the result getting away from them – Lewis’ start, not being able to get past Norris, not pulling out much of a gap on the hards either and then the slowish pitstop, for Verstappen being passed at the start, being unable to find a way past Ricciardo and then losing out with the dreadfully slow pitstop that dropped him behind Norris – they must have seen this as the key moment to at least stay/get ahead of their direct rivals. As it was, Lewis did not give any more room than he had to, and Verstappen tried to push his luck (instead of getting out of it), until he got onto that sausage kerbing, the car jumped up and that was it.

      Max was more to blame here. But again, they penalised themselves and I am unconvinced a further penalty was really needed.

      1. I must say that I was a bit surprised that Hamilton was allowed to move as far over to the left as soon as he did on the straight – not really leaving any room – right after he came out of the pitlane. And I am sure Hamilton could have left a bit more room for Verstappen to make it through. But then, why would he?

        You are not new to motor racing. You have been commenting for a few years, how can Hamilton driving out of the pitlane and reclaiming the track after the pit exit line be new to you. It has been happening like that since racing began. Failure to do that means T-boning the car on the outside.

        1. Ahm, OOliver, as far as the first part of that comment you quoted goes, i felt that Hamilton moved over to the OUTSIDE of the track there, to very quickly and suddenly immediately after the end of the white pit exit line, so much so, that Verstappen had to get onto the green kerbing to make room.

          It might have been the angle, but generally we don’t see as acute moves there, rather cars coming out of the pitlane tend to stay more to the right of the track (and then try to stay ahead through the first corner by braking a bit later so as not to leave too much of a gap) – going straight, rather than sharply moving to the left. Then again, I am not sure I remember many times where the drivers fighting for position come out back on track so close to the other guy they are fighting recently in Monza.

      2. @bascb I think the further penalty was needed in an ongoing effort to teach Max that he can’t expect everyone to get out of his way. He’s spent his F1 career to date making marginal moves and often getting away with them because the other driver backs off and lets him through. Well, now he’s up against someone who won’t do that, and with a championship in the balance I hope that he learns to take a longer view.
        Being generous you could say that in the past he’s needed to be aggressive to make up for the Red Bull car not being as good as the Mercedes, but with the cars more evenly matched he can afford to be a bit less aggressive and he’ll probably still win.
        Red Bull has Mercedes on the ropes this year, they just need to hold their nerve. And I say that as a Mercedes/Hamilton fan. But also a fan of F1.

        1. @jimg

          A bunch of drivers made similar moves. The level of bias in favor of Lewis and against Max is really getting out of hand on this site.

          1. @aapje And most of the ones I can think of calmed down and improved their driving (Vettel, Grosjean, Perez). Some didn’t (Maldonado).

            Max is a great, exciting driver, but I think he would be an even better driver if he was a little less aggressive.

            I’m a fan of Lewis, but more of F1. I think that Max could win this championship cleanly, but that so far he’s still being a little bit too aggressive.

            1. @jimg

              And perhaps Lewis would be a better driver if he didn’t make moves like Silverstone or the one on Albon, or …

              I’m getting really tired of the double standards.

            2. @aapje did you just mention Albon in the same sentence as better driver? :-) What did grammarly say about that?

            3. @freelittlebirds

              Albon was the victim of a very poor overtake attempt by Lewis. But I guess that you expunged that from your memories to prevent cognitive dissonance.

            4. @aapje I agree, I think Lewis has made a couple of desperate moves this year. All the more reason for Max to keep his cool and win cleanly.

    6. someone or something
      20th September 2021, 14:15

      They both caused this collision to a significant extent, by stubbornly expecting the other driver to yield. The Stewards had no business getting involved in there, and their justification for apportioning the predominant blame to Verstappen is hair-raising. I can live with the reasoning that if you make a very late move around the outside, you haven’t earned the right to a car’s width of space. That’s a good argument for not penalising the defending driver. Pretty inconsistent with previous rulings, such as the second incident involving Pérez and Leclerc in Austria, but if you look at it in isolation, it makes sense.
      However, taking that argument and turning it around, to signify that the driver who hasn’t earned the right to racing room is wholly or predominantly to blame in the event of a collision … That one doesn’t fly with me.
      The Monza ruling reeks of false equivalency.

      1. Pretty consistent imho. Leclerc was fully alongside Perez on the outside so should have been given room, just as Norris should have given Perez room in Austria.
        Verstappen wasn’t fully alongside on the outside so couldn’t claim the car width room.

    7. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
      20th September 2021, 14:23

      Pretty unnecessary article with the thousands already on this but just my thoughts.

    8. I voted Max mostly responsible because that is what the stewards determined, and that’s where the buck stops.

      1. @robbie – Sarcasm?

        If not, this makes little sense. So whatever F1 says is what you think?

        1. @hobo Not at all. For the Silverstone incident I took the same stance. LH was predominantly at fault as per the stewards ruling there. The point of my comment really is that I don’t see how this article was really necessary, nor the other one on Silverstone, and ultimately it is what it is. The ones entrusted to adjudicate certain incidents have their say, and that’s that, pending any appeals of course. I’m willing to go along with that, for that’s what we have, and talking about it here ad infinitum isn’t going to change anything. Sure, debating it here is fun and entertaining, but ultimately the buck stops with the stewards on these things.

          1. @robbie I don’t agree. If fans and participants of a sport is showing a dislike of it’s current rules and interpretations of those rules there is a chance that changes are considered for the future. If everyone just sits around pretending that every ruling is fine, even if they don’t think they are, nothing would ever change for the better. Do the actual rule-makers of F1 look specifically at these articles and comment threads for suggestions of future changes? Probably not. But people within the F1 community talk to each other. Some of them look here from time to time. Fans read these comments, get inspiration for new ideas or simply spread other peoples opinions in other forums and so on.
            Oh, and if you are not interested in a particular discussion, article, video clip or whatever, the best thing to do is simply to ignore it. Any like, or dislike, will indicate an increase in site traffic and interest for the subject. Ignoring it is what will drop stuff to the bottom of the pages and show the authors that the content doesn’t work out for the audience.

    9. I’d say Silverstone 80/20 (80 Lewis) and 60/40 Monza (60 Max). I don’t think Monza was the last one this year either.

    10. My thoughts are it’s about time we got on with the next race

      What happened happened, neither will change approach, so either the stewards get tough with penalties on the one they deem to blame, or we let these drivers continue to collide until one’s injured

      Based on the stewards ruling here, one of them was to blame for taking another car out of the race but got nothing but a slap on the wrist. What a joke!

      1. I agree it’s ridiculous to dwell on things forever, but discussing what happened in an incident like this can be useful. We all want stewards decisions that we feel are just and fair, right? In this particular case peoples opinions seem to differ so much that they cover the full spectra from “driver A should be penalized” all the way to “driver B should be penalized”. Why? By not discussing it stewards decisions, or the racing rules themselves, have no chance to evolve in the right direction. It’s just a sport where the rules are made up by people, so people need to discuss them to improve them.

      2. My thoughts are Racing Incident 100%.

    11. 4: Verstappen begins to run off-track

      Lol

    12. Clearly it is the FIA and their stewards to blame.
      They have apportioned blame inconsistently.
      They have no understanding of race car dynamics.
      To promote overtaking they have giving rights to “the man standing outside your house than you inside your house”

    13. I think the stewards already decided that Keith. No need to drag it out into another nonsense article to stir things up in what is a minority website. Old news again.

    14. I went for mostly Max’s fault but would have been happy for this to be a racing incident.

      So many pundits though say the move was on for max using photo no.4, saying max still has room.

      Sorry, but that is utter rubbish. There is room if he goes over the kerb, ie off the track. That is NOT what an overtake should involve and surely if he stuck the move and stayed ahead that would be an illegal overtake and he’d have to give the place back? If this is the case, then Max DIDN’T have room, the overtake WASN’T on and he WAS more to blame for this crash.

      But I am loving this season and rivalry and don’t want them to go for chances, but this was just way too much of a gamble from Max.

      Not sure if this would be safe, but what would the reaction be if Lewis went directly in front of Max as he was coming out of the pits? He moved over towards him/the racing line but left a lot of space, but there was space for him to get right in front of Max before the chicane

    15. I don’t agree with the stewards way of seemingly looking at the chicane as one corner, to me a chicane is clearly a combination of corners. In this case a very obvious right followed by left, turns 1 and 2. The crash happened at turn 2. So even if “car 33 was not at all alongside car 44 until significantly into the entry into turn one” is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they are at all alongside going into turn 2. I would say at that point the front of Verstappens car is well beyond the midpoint of Hamiltons car, his front wing is almost side by side with Hamiltons front axle. Hamilton is ahead, but Verstappen at that point has earned the right of racing room on the inside of turn 2, which Hamilton does not leave.
      That said, Verstappen is attacking as aggressively as Hamilton is defending. And, being a slow speed corner the relative risks involved are small, unlike for example the incident at Silverstone. I would therefor say “Hamilton and Verstappen were equally responsible”, and call it a racing incident with no penalties applied.

      1. Jonathan Edwards
        21st September 2021, 2:32

        Completely agree. I would add that it’s ludicrous to continue the charade of saying incidents are penalized, not outcomes. If I recall correctly, the penalty was for causing a collision. Had they simply banged wheels, and continued on, does anyone really believe the stewards would have penalized anyone?

      2. Exactly. It has said turn 1 and turn 2 on the track map since they rebuilt the corner sequence there…
        Why did they take it as one corner?

      3. Completely agree, I don’t get that interpretation either. To me the big difference is that at Silverstone, the attacker has room on the inside but fails to use it and makes front to rear contact with the defender. Max’s right turn was aggressive but he had every right to do so, Silverstone is almost entirely Lewis’ fault. At Monza, the attacker does not have room on the inside and makes rear to rear contact with the defender (this view of course treats the chicane as two separate corners). Still, the move from Max was very optimistic. At the same time, I agree with the analysis of Driver61 on YT that Lewis should have closed the door sooner and since he did not, he should have left Max more room on the inside. This makes Monza pretty much a racing incident.

        1. Very well put, the differences between Silverstone and Monza.

          1. Indeed, I also agree with the analysis of Driver61 on YouTube.
            Lewis should have closed the door earlier, Max was a bit to optimistic, but if there is a gap, you have to go for it. He did make turn 1 well due to warmer tyres.
            Racing incident.

            The verdict of the stewards is… strange.
            Talking about being alongside in the braking zone without mentioning 2 corners.
            If that becomes the rule, we will see much less racing.

    16. Will Buxton made an interesting point on Twitter after the incident, pointing out that Hamilton was shown blue flags when exiting the pit lane as there were cars approaching down the main straight. Unlike a lapped car, this didn’t oblige Hamilton to get out of Verstappen’s way, but it effectively makes Hamilton the aggressor, and puts the burden on him to complete the move safely.

      Much of the focus (including that of the stewards) has been on what happened in the moments immediately before the collision. But I do think the blue flag puts a different complexion on things, which is why I would say Hamilton was predominantly at fault.

    17. Without looking before, I voted for the most popular answer in both polls. Clearly I should be engaged as a steward!

      Seriously though, I think the Silverstone incident was more Lewis’ fault than the Monza one was Max’s. I still think though they were the main ones at fault in the incidents they were held to be at fault for.

      1. The most popular response isn’t always the right one, though.

    18. I think most drivers would have handled that situation differently to Verstappen.

      Bottas would have stayed in line… Perez would have cut straight across the chicane, not given the place back and received a 5 second penalty. Vettel would have followed Hamilton through the first part of the chicane and spun trying a very tight cutback. Alonso would have lined up the perfect cutback but would be forced to lose traction putting a wheel on the grass at the exit of curva grande. Ricciardo would have followed Hamilton through the first chicane and tried to outbrake him into the second chicane from a long way back, ultimately losing out on the cutback there. Raikkonen could try the same thing as Verstappen and Hamilton would have given him plenty of room in the full knowledge if he did so Raikkonen would to his very best to not force him wide.

    19. As a Dutch F1 fan I voted that Max was slightly more to blame than Hamilton because he was not fully alongside on the outside into turn 1, which you have to be to claim that corner. So Hamilton had the right to squeeze him to the outside, but he should have left him more room into turn 2 as Max was more than halfway along the inside turning into that corner, which is enough to be allowed room. But since it all started with Max not being fully alongside into turn 1, imho Max should have yielded that corner.

      So imho the stewards got it right, just like they did in Silverstone.

    20. The move was never on hence i voted Max fully to blame coupled with the fct that we know Max history as well as what he said after the accident

    21. I voted Max wholly responsible although I don’t really believe that. I based my vote on Red Bull’s analysis and re-creation of the accident at Silverstone. According to RB the driver behind has no right to a corner.

    22. I dont have a horse in this argument, I am neither a fan of Lewis or Max. This one was a more clearer racing incident I feel.

      I believe it was Gary Anderson on the Race podcast who said Lewis should have just left Max a bit more room and then past him into the Roggia chicane because he would have the better line.

      In comparison with Silverstone, Lewis was never going to make the apex, he was running wide, so in that instance, I would say Lewis was slightly at blame, but still, it should have just been a racing incident.

      1. Could not agree more. Both were clear cut racing incidents. Its just that penalties seem to be given out now just for drivers mistakes, which is actually sending the integrity of the sport down the toilet, because it will just end up like WWE (penalties given just for the benefit of the show) drivers are human, they make mistakes, even the very best of them. Lewis made a mistake at Silverstone, Max made a mistake at Monza. lets just leave it at that everyone please. All this ‘your either on Max’s side or Lewis’s side’ is just tearing the fans apart, and is all down to the media and their quest for ratings/clicks. Its almost a microcosm of whats happening in the wider world with the endless attempts to drive people apart whether that be politics, race, class etc

        1. Indeed, getting tired of setting up fans against each other.
          Both racing incidents, albeit with big impacts, Silverstone more than Monza for the championship.
          I hope nobody gets hurt, but I also hope we will see more close racing to decide the championship instead of blown tyres, engine failure or whatever

    23. Another article. Really?!

    24. Racing incident with Verstappen mostly to blame. Penalty justified.

    25. It doesn’t matter who’s fault it was. The worst effect with these penalties have is that soon overtaking on the straights with DRS is allowed only. Then we are back at pre Verstappen trains.

    26. Think the stewards got this right but I’d have had no complaints if it was ruled 50/50. Verstappen to blame 60/40. Lewis certainly played his part in the incident though monza was a reversal of the Silverstone incident which again, couldve been a 50/50. Both drivers played their part in that incident also but think tge blame fell 60/40 on Lewis. Good calls made by stewards but think the penalty in both incidents was probably a little harsh.

      1. Excuse the poor punctuation

    27. @keithcollantine: Really? Another article (in fact 2 articles) after more than a week? Maybe we can do a poll about who was to blame for the Silverstone crash tomorrow.

      1. Jay (@slightlycrusty)
        21st September 2021, 13:33

        The article seems a bit tardy, but it is perfectly fair to have the debate.

        Reply moderated
    28. Agree with some others here that another article wasn’t needed.
      Also, is this “Penalty Box” a new thing? Entirely for blaming one or the other?
      And pitching supporters against each other?
      I’m not a fan of that ..

      1. Why don’t you write an article and submit it then, as you know what is “needed”?

        Seems to be plenty of engagement with it, I don’t really understand why this article shouldn’t be published.

    29. The reasoning for these discussions serve only one purpose:

      Max is to blame for the crash: in a 1 vs 1, he’ll leave enough space for every driver but Lewis, including putting him in a position to cause a collision.

      Lewis is to blame for the crash: in a 1 vs 1, he’ll leave enough space for every driver but Max, including putting him in a position to cause a collision.

      We’ll see more of this until the final race… and it won’t surprise me if they don’t see the end of the final race, should RB and MB have a normal weekend.

      Popcorn ready!

    30. Corner 2 became a game of chicken. Max could have cut the corner and Lewis could have opted for a wider line.

      In order for them both to make it through one would need to yield and neither did.

      I believe Hamilton has adopted a “Charles Leclerc circa 2019” attitude and dialed up the aggression level against Max. Silverstone being a good example. Strategically it’s the right thing to do. Max might be leading the championship but it’s advantage Hamilton going into Sochi.

      That being said I think Max needs to keep up his aggression when in these situations, you risk losing points or grid penalties but if he once shows weakness he’ll lose in the long run.

      In terms of assigning blame here, I think both drivers were partially at fault but Max was behind going into turn 1 and 2, so the three place grid penalty feels right for me.

    31. Jay (@slightlycrusty)
      21st September 2021, 13:29

      A professional foul, did you notice how pleased Verstappen looked as he walked away, and how satisfied he sounded on the radio? He wasn’t frustrated at crashing, he was happy! He’d managed to eliminate Hamilton’s advantage at a Red Bull bogey track, it will be much easier for him to win the championship from this point on.

      It’s reminiscent of the 2016 clash with Rosberg. For two years Hamilton had consistently beaten Rosberg in wheel-to-wheel encounters by finely judging when he had the racing line and brutally chopping across his rival. Rosberg couldn’t match his rival’s skill in this area, so in 2016 he just resorted to ramming Hamilton whenever he tried to pass. Thanks to weak stewarding, it proved highly effective. Verstappen is not Rosberg, he has as great a skill as Hamilton (just took at his perfectly – and fairly – judged L1 T4 chop as an example), and yet he’s chosen the Rosberg tactic as an easier way to win the WDC.

      As DC said after the race: it could have all been over at L1 T4 if Hamilton had behaved as Verstappen did at T2 on the second lap. I hope the stewards don’t let another driver crash his way to the championship.

      Reply moderated
    32. I find Verstappen responsible, but in the end, Racing Incident 100%.

    33. I think Hamilton set up Max for a collision by leaving the door open. Ham knew if max got by, Max would win. No points are better than a further deficiet

    34. 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”

      While I do think that Verstappen was probably slightly more to blame, the reasoning for the steward’s decision doesn’t sit right with me. They say their reason is because Verstappen was too far behind on corner entry. But is that a relevant detail? Surely the only thing that matters is whether he was sufficiently alongside enough to be entitled to racing room by the time they are entering into turn 2. I would argue that if Verstappen had enough grip to make up an extra metre or two and got his nose ahead, then he would have been entitled to racing room and thus not responsible for any collision (assuming he was able to stick to the space he is given on the inside). But according to the stewards’ verdict this would have been irrelevant, because they deemed him to be too far behind before corner entry to turn 1.

      I would have thought if Verstappen was to be blamed, the reasoning would have been that he was either too far behind on corner entry to turn 2, or was carrying too much speed into turn 2 and would not have made the corner without colliding.

      1. This is the exact type of thing that is frustrating. Seeming lack of any ability to read the rules consistently.

        I think the stewards felt like they should punish VER, and read the scenario in such a way as to make that possible. I do not think this is some conspiracy against VER, to be clear. I simply mean that this incident made them feel like a penalty was necessary.

        So a car alongside is entitled to room doesn’t mean a car alongside. It means a car alongside by 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, completely ahead? And now VER has to be alongside (whatever that means) in the entry to the prior corner?

        I understand that circumstances differ and so decisions must be made with those circumstances in mind, this is not a rote task. However, pretending corner 2 is not a separate entity when F1’s own map says it is, is fishy at best.

        Reply moderated
    35. attempting my comment without the link to the map because ‘awaiting moderation’ comments never seem to get posted.

      This is the exact type of thing that is frustrating. Seeming lack of any ability to read the rules consistently.

      I think the stewards felt like they should punish VER, and read the scenario in such a way as to make that possible. I do not think this is some secret attack against VER, to be clear. I simply mean that this incident made them feel like a penalty was necessary.

      So a car alongside is entitled to room doesn’t mean a car alongside. It means a car alongside by 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, completely ahead? And now VER has to be alongside (whatever that means) in the entry to the prior corner?

      I understand that circumstances differ and so decisions must be made with those circumstances in mind, this is not a rote task. However, pretending corner 2 is not a separate entity when F1’s own map says it is, is very weird at best.

      Reply moderated
    36. Max was pretty clear about what was going to happen. He had not forgotten the shameless fouls and the celebrations afterwards by Sir Lewis, The Arrogant, at Silverstone. He didn’t care about the outcome and just wanted to teach the pompous giant a lesson in humility, and succeeded well. End of Discussion

      Reply moderated
      1. You’re wrong to say that it was an intentional act of revenge. There’s no evidence of it.

    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'.