Formula 1 Pirelli British Grand Prix 2021Formula 1 

  • Thread starter Jimlaad43
  • 883 comments
  • 42,554 views
Next race I can see Verstappen trying to punt Hamilton off and completely botching it and taking both of them out. The gloves are off and Max is the kind of driver to go for revenge in a hotheaded way. I really hope this doesn't happen as it will tarnish reputations and look bad for everyone, but I won't be surprised if it happens.
I don't see this happening myself, but what I do see is what Max has done before - Max braking extremely late and pushing Lewis clean off the road, against the rules of overtaking manoeuvres requiring the need to give the other person at least a car's width at the edge of the circuit. This kind of rubbish has to stop because it's certainly not fair racing.
This is a stupid thing to say, Verstappen raced him fairly to say he will now just take him out is silly considering he wasn't mostly at fault for the collision. a Championship is at stake here he might be aggressive but he isn't stupid.
When Max and Lewis have gone head to head, Verstappen has rarely, if ever, fought fairly against Hamilton (see Spain and San Marino Emilia Romagna amongst others). If the latter had driven in the same way that Max had driven yesterday, there would have been many more accidents already, but discretion being the better part of valour, Lewis has given way on occasion. I believe we've seen a switch being flicked now, and Lewis will be prepared to fight just as hard as Max - as we have seen in 2016.
 
No, he allowed Verstappen to take himself out.


All of the previous examples have Verstappen sending it up the inside not caring what's on the outside, and a crash has only been avoided by the car on the outside avoiding it - usually Hamilton. This time Hamilton put Verstappen on the outside (and stated this is what he did, after regretting taking the outside himself in the F1 Sprint the day before) and put Verstappen in the position he usually puts other drivers in. Even the stewards agree that Hamilton let himself get hit.

We've seen it countless times this season, where a car going on the outside has collided with a car on the inside, and the inside car has taken the penalty - Norris and Perez at Austria are very recently examples, Russell in F1 Sprint too only on Saturday (and that was an insane penalty), but Verstappen somehow never gets the penalty, even when he straight up bodied Leclerc out of the way at Austria.

Hamilton reversed the roles knowing that Verstappen had the choice of yielding (like everyone else apparently has to against Verstappen), or hitting him. I'm pretty sure it wasn't even about this race either - the collision would have retired Hamilton's car if not for the red flag - but for the future; next time Verstappen is racing wheel-to-wheel with Hamilton, he might think twice.
I dont wach F1 races since 2012. Just happen to see the highlights for this one, and got pissed off, as for me Hamilton clearly "let this accident happen". But this clarifies a lot. I stand corected. But again there should be other ways to teach one a lesson.
 
After an evening to digest everything from the incident, here's some thoughts.

  1. The seriousness of the crash shouldn't really ever be a reason to penalise. I saw no penalty for Kvyat after Grosjean's Bahrain crash as it was a Racing Incident, with Romain being the causer, but not the one to blame (there is a difference). Stewards will look up until after the collision, so stop watching once Max is backwards.
...which the FIA have come out and again clarified for the thousands calling on them to do so. Whether Max ended up in the barriers or he just span and continued on his way the 10 second penalty would have been the same, and that is correct.


Also importantly, it was the teams who agreed on this.
What? How can they NOT look at the consequences? This is yet another dangerous precedent set by the FIA. Look if I hit someone and put them out of a race online I would get a very severe penalty. Heck, one guy who turned me around got a 25 second penalty, and that was a very slow crash which didn't do any damage. However it cost me track position and that consequence validated the penalty. The contact wasn't intentional but it happened. Same in this case. Hamilton didn't crash into Verstappen intentionally but Verstappen was ruled out of the GP, preventing him from carrying on. What the FIA is saying suggests that they'll give a 10 second penalty no matter what happens to the victim. The consequences MUST be taken into consideration.
Seeing Red Bull suggesting they might appeal for a greater penalty is just a pathetic grab... Even the line about celebrating a hollow victory, your telling me that Verstappen and Red Bull wouldn't celebrate winning that race yesterday if roles were reversed?...
Well put it this way; I don't think Verstappen would've paraded around the track, gotten out his car and waved the Dutch flag all over the place. Verstappen is a bit more restrained in his celebrations, and doesn't say "best fans" all the time.
Next race I can see Verstappen trying to punt Hamilton off and completely botching it and taking both of them out. The gloves are off and Max is the kind of driver to go for revenge in a hotheaded way. I really hope this doesn't happen as it will tarnish reputations and look bad for everyone, but I won't be surprised if it happens.

TBH, knowing Hamilton he'd escape being punted at like T2 with a harmless spin while Max's wheel breaks off.
I want it to happen so Lando Norris wins the championship.
 
And nobody would try to rig a race by making a rival have such a big crash they have to stop the race.
Senna did this, he even admitted it a few years later.
While renault did not crash into someone they did plan a crash to bring out the SC.
 
Max was way to tight, because he wanted to keep his position.
What?
Lol that makes no sense to me given that Hamilton had a ton of space inside further inside but understeered off his line into Max Verstappens line.
This fellow also lays out the facts here, and his credentials are impeccable…This sums up my view much better than I did. I am a fan of good racing, and what Lewis did was very poor and amateurish in my view. But, he is human and made that big mistake. NOWAY was it an intentional dirty move NOWAY. Just a dumb mental error imo. I think after 2.00 mark here avoids the ad…
 
Last edited:
I like how people discussing about this overtake just looking on footage. Every person who had decent experience in racing sims know that Copse isn't for two cars at all! Diving there for a position is for Italians only (scuzi, ragazzi, this is true).

NOWAY was it an intentional dirty move NOWAY. Just a dumb mental error imo.
Well, what is 'intentional'? Did he move on Max's rear right? No. Did Lewis his best to prevent contact in the most tricky and fast corner? Don't think so.
 
Last edited:
What? How can they NOT look at the consequences?
Because little can be done about the consequence once it happens. What can be looked at and adjusted is the incident that caused the consequence to happen in the first place. Taking the consequence into consideration and/or ignoring the context can and does lead to inconsistent and unfair penalties. (Edit: It also calls into question the impartialness of the stewards, because there's now the possibility of 2 sets of drivers getting different punishments for the same transgression solely because of who's involved).

This is yet another dangerous precedent set by the FIA. Look if I hit someone and put them out of a race online I would get a very severe penalty.
A) Online racing often doesn't translate well to real racing (and considering how rules will very greatly from game-to-game, that's just a poor standard to go by in general).

B) Penalizing a driver just because "they hit someone" removes context for the situation, which needs to be considered when penalties might be in play. I.e, if I'm on a straightaway, and a driver in front of me comes across my bumper and takes themselves out, why am I at fault, and not the driver who lacked the situational awareness to make sure they were clear of me?
Heck, one guy who turned me around got a 25 second penalty, and that was a very slow crash which didn't do any damage. However it cost me track position and that consequence validated the penalty.
What validated the penalty was the act of the other driver that caused the crash. The fact that you crashed out because of the transgression has no real bearing, nor should it for that matter. Drivers can be and are punished for dangerous driving, even if the acts themselves did not result in an accident (see Mazepin during Sakhir F2 Round 2 last year).
The contact wasn't intentional but it happened. Same in this case. Hamilton didn't crash into Verstappen intentionally but Verstappen was ruled out of the GP, preventing him from carrying on.
And Verstappen could've also done something to keep that from happening, especially since he knew he had an equally aggressive Lewis Hamilton in his right-rear quarter.
What the FIA is saying suggests that they'll give a 10 second penalty no matter what happens to the victim.
Which, quite frankly, is dumb, and creates a situation where hard and exciting racing is highly discouraged due to the risk of getting a penalty. It also runs the risk of drivers being punished for factors that are out anyone's control after the initial contact.

Do you want to see hard, tight racing in motorsport, or do you want to see drivers punished for any and all kinds of transgression, even when all parties involved are at fault in some capacity? Because you cannot have it both ways.
The consequences MUST be taken into consideration.
See above.
Well put it this way; I don't think Verstappen would've paraded around the track, gotten out his car and waved the Dutch flag all over the place. Verstappen is a bit more restrained in his celebrations, and doesn't say "best fans" all the time.
It's been mentioned multiple times already, but Hamilton had no idea that Verstappen had been transported to the hospital during the podium celebrations and interviews.
I want it to happen so Lando Norris wins the championship.
I'd love to see Norris win the title, but it would be a very hollow victory under those circumstance, and it'd be an even worse look for F1.
 
Last edited:
Because little can be done about the consequence once it happens. What can be looked at and adjusted is the incident that caused the consequence to happen in the first place. Taking the consequence into consideration and/or ignoring the context can and does lead to inconsistent and unfair penalties.
A) Online racing often doesn't translate well to real racing (and considering how rules will very greatly from game-to-game, that's just a poor standard to go by in general).

B) Penalizing a driver just because "they hit someone" removes context for the situation, which needs to be considered when penalties might be in play. I.e, if I'm on a straightaway, and a driver in front of me comes across my bumper and takes themselves out, why am I at fault, and not the driver who lacked the situational awareness to make sure they were clear of me?
The incident and consequences of said incident must be considered at the same time. I'm not saying that everyone who does make contact should get a penalty, because not all result in a crash. If it does cause a crash which results in a driver losing positions or retiring, the penalty should be more severe.
What validated the penalty was the act of the other driver that caused the crash. The fact that you crashed out because of the transgression has no real bearing, nor should it for that matter.
Yes it did, it prevented me from catching the leader who I was gaining on at the time. If the crash did not occur I would've had the chance to fight for the lead.
And Verstappen could've also done something to keep that from happening, especially since he knew he had an equally aggressive Lewis Hamilton in his right-rear quarter.
Watch the replay of the crash from the front. Verstappen gave Hamilton enough space to make the pass but Hamilton turned in too late. He was still going straight as Verstappen turned into the corner. He was never going to make the move stick.
Which, quite frankly, is dumb, and creates a situation where hard and exciting racing is highly discouraged due to the risk of getting a penalty. It also runs the risk of drivers being punished for factors that are out anyone's control after the initial contact.

Do you want to see hard, tight racing in motorsport, or do you want to see drivers punished for any and all kinds of transgression, even when all parties involved are at fault in some capacity? Because you cannot have it both ways.
I'm not against hard racing and I don't want drivers punished for all and any kind of transgression, I just don't want them getting away with serious crashes that cause massive damage. It must be discouraged so drivers think twice about risky moves. It is possible to race together without making contact you know.
 
after the abuse lewis received on social media post-crash, I better never see another dumba** reporter ask him if he thinks f1 has "done enough" to combat racism
 
The incident and consequences of said incident must be considered at the same time.
They shouldn't, for reasons I already explained. You're asking for drivers to be punished differently for the same transgressions based on factors that cannot be controlled.
I'm not saying that everyone who does make contact should get a penalty, because not all result in a crash.
Which can create a different kind of dangerous precedent. Again, see the 2nd F2 Sahkir race last year, where Nikita Mazepin was given 10 seconds of penalties for running one of his opponents into the pit wall multiple times. No contact was made, neither driver crashed and were able to carry on, yet Nikita got penalties that were 100% deserved because of his dangerous driving. The penalties knocked him down from 3rd to 8th (?) in the final result.

In this case, he was punished because of the incident, not because of the consequence. Under the system you're advocating for, Mazepin could've gotten away scot-free, and he would've sent a message up-and-down the paddock that moves like that were not only allowed, but encouraged.
If it does cause a crash which results in a driver losing positions or retiring, the penalty should be more severe.
Once again, my example of a driver coming across my front bumper applies. You're advocating for the removal for context just because of the result.
Yes it did, it prevented me from catching the leader who I was gaining on at the time. If the crash did not occur I would've had the chance to fight for the lead.
And that's great, I guess. Since computers tend to be emotionless, mostly objective things, I have a feeling that the game did not care that you were gaining on the leader when the incident happened.

Also, why exactly does online racing (I assume you're talking about GT Sport) have any relevance to F1, where there is likely a completely different ruleset and penalties are discussed and handed out be actual people, not computers?
Watch the replay of the crash from the front. Verstappen gave Hamilton enough space to make the pass but Hamilton turned in too late. He was still going straight as Verstappen turned into the corner. He was never going to make the move stick.
And Verstappen knew exactly where Hamilton was, as evidenced by the slight correction to the left that Verstappen made during corner entry.

While Hamilton played a bigger overall role in the accident, this was still a racing incident. Both drivers knew where each other were, both were (I'm assuming) expecting the other one to back down (which they both should've), and neither of them did, hence the incident. Both drivers were attacking hard and giving each other no quarter, and both drivers played a significant role in how it all turned out.
I'm not against hard racing and I don't want drivers punished for all and any kind of transgression,....
You're advocating for a system that would encourage punishments for any transgression.
I just don't want them getting away with serious crashes that cause massive damage.
An argument can be made that Hamilton did, as his 10-second penalty was basically inconsequential to his final result (and also totally asinine). Why even go for harsher penalties if they end up doing nothing?

If the answer is "then give a harsher penalty," than you've proven my point of giving harsher punishments based on factors out of the drivers control and/or who's involved.
It must be discouraged so drivers think twice about risky moves. It is possible to race together without making contact you know.
Yes, it is, and there are ways to encourage that type of racing. Inconsistently punishing drivers because of factors after an incident that are outside of one or both parties control is not the way to do it.
 
after the abuse lewis received on social media post-crash, I better never see another dumba** reporter ask him if he thinks f1 has "done enough" to combat racism
Don't know what F1 can do to stop a bunch of racist a**holes throwing racist jargon. Having a bunch of "racism is bad" around cars and signs won't stop these people.
 
Lads, I figured it out. Hamilton just needed practice.

azPYjkM.jpeg
 
They shouldn't, for reasons I already explained. You're asking for drivers to be punished differently for the same transgressions based on factors that cannot be controlled.

Which can create a different kind of dangerous precedent. Again, see the 2nd F2 Sahkir race last year, where Nikita Mazepin was given 10 seconds of penalties for running one of his opponents into the pit wall multiple times. No contact was made, neither driver crashed and were able to carry on, yet Nikita got penalties that were 100% deserved because of his dangerous driving. The penalties knocked him down from 3rd to 8th (?) in the final result.

In this case, he was punished because of the incident, not because of the consequence. Under the system you're advocating for, Mazepin could've gotten away scot-free, and he would've sent a message up-and-down the paddock that moves like that were not only allowed, but encouraged.
It was a stupid penalty because Mazepin didn't cause his opponents to crash. Yes it was a questionable tactic but it didn't jeopardize or ruin anyone's race, it just caused a small inconvenience.
Once again, my example of a driver coming across my front bumper applies. You're advocating for the removal for context just because of the result.
It's not removing context, why do you say that? It puts the crash into context.
And that's great, I guess. Since computers tend to be emotionless, mostly objective things, I have a feeling that the game did not care that you were gaining on the leader when the incident happened.
It was an online league race in Assetto Corsa Competizione. The penalty was handed down by real people, not a computer.
And Verstappen knew exactly where Hamilton was, as evidenced by the slight correction to the left that Verstappen made during corner entry.

While Hamilton played a bigger overall role in the accident, this was still a racing incident. Both drivers knew where each other were, both were (I'm assuming) expecting the other one to back down (which they both should've), and neither of them did, hence the incident. Both drivers were attacking hard and giving each other no quarter, and both drivers played a significant role in how it all turned out.

You're advocating for a system that would encourage punishments for any transgression.

An argument can be made that Hamilton did, as his 10-second penalty was basically inconsequential to his final result (and also totally asinine). Why even go for harsher penalties if they end up doing nothing?

If the answer is "then give a harsher penalty," than you've proven my point of giving harsher punishments based on factors out of the drivers control and/or who's involved.
Yes, it is, and there are ways to encourage that type of racing. Inconsistently punishing drivers because of factors after an incident that are outside of one or both parties control is not the way to do it.
Verstappen made space for Hamilton to get by but he didn't commit to the move properly, causing the crash. If Hamilton made the move stick, Verstappen would've gone wide and lost the position. Just like Verstappen did to Leclerc in Austria 2019. No penalty, just close racing. Hamilton's error ended Verstappen's race and prevented him from fighting back which I believe warrants a substantial penalty. Turning a blind eye to the consequences is the wrong thing to do in my opinion. I'm probably taking this too far and you'll say that I'm contradicting myself by saying this but if this is the precedent the FIA has set, it suggests to me that even if the driver on the receiving end of the contact ends up getting killed, the penalty will be the same. That disturbs me. But using this logical you'll say that the guy who drove into Hubert should have been penalised or even disqualified, but here's the thing: Manuel Correa didn't know what was in front of him and didn't have a clue where Hubert was until it was too late. Hamilton and Verstappen were aware of each other's presence and Verstappen literally moved over to give Hamilton the space he needed to make the move.
 
Well put it this way; I don't think Verstappen would've paraded around the track, gotten out his car and waved the Dutch flag all over the place. Verstappen is a bit more restrained in his celebrations, and doesn't say "best fans" all the time.
We talking about the guy who got told earlier this month not to do burnouts after winning when cars are still coming across the line?
Max Verstappen says he will no longer celebrate race victories by completing a burnout on the pit straight after he was told by the FIA that such a celebration would not be tolerated again.

"OK, if it's not allowed I won't do it again, but at the time I thought it was really funny and safe, but of course I understand they don't want to see this happening again, which is fine for me."
Lads, I figured it out. Hamilton just needed practice.
side by side comparison pictures
Did he? Because I think everyone caught your attempt at humor the first time around less than 48 hours ago.
andrea
He needed practice.
side by side comparison pictures
 
Watch the replay of the crash from the front. Verstappen gave Hamilton enough space to make the pass but Hamilton turned in too late. He was still going straight as Verstappen turned into the corner. He was never going to make the move stick.
Verstappen went to turn, saw Hamilton was there and straightened a little. A split second later fully well knowing Hamilton was there dived for the apex cutting across Hamilton. It doesn't really matter where Hamilton is at this moment as he was cutting him off and would always clip Hamilton. Yes if Lewis was further over it may have only been a wheel to wing contact which would no doubt cause a tyre failure later on. But Vestappen was too aggressive in closing Hamilton off and takes a portion of the blame in this accident. You say Hamilton turned too late, but the corner was only starting to open. By the same measure Verstappen turned too early and too sharply.
It was a stupid penalty because Mazepin didn't cause his opponents to crash. Yes it was a questionable tactic but it didn't jeopardize or ruin anyone's race, it just caused a small inconvenience.
If this is how you view a dangerous manoeuvre then how can we trust your judgement on this?
 
It was a stupid penalty because Mazepin didn't cause his opponents to crash. Yes it was a questionable tactic but it didn't jeopardize or ruin anyone's race, it just caused a small inconvenience.
Dude, Seriously?



You're seriously going to bang on about punishing drivers for causing crashes, yet defend ^that? A crash in that scenario would've caused much worse results than what we saw in Silverstone this weekend, and there was a greater risk for one of those incidents to effect multiple drivers. That's why it's important to spend more time focusing on the incident rather than the end result.

If you think that standard of driving is acceptable, than quite frankly your ability to judge dangerous driving in an objective manner is not at all trustworthy.
It's not removing context, why do you say that? It puts the crash into context.
Because you're primarily focusing on the end result, not the cause of the result. It's entirely possible that you perhaps put yourself in a bad position which played a part in making wreck happen, as we saw with Hamilton and Verstappen. I don't know, since all I'm hearing is your side of the story.

In both your and my own examples, we have 2 cases of a driver being unintentionally negligent, with both incidents resulting in a crash, difference being the circumstances that led up to it. Again, who gets the penalty in the example I gave, or does no penalty get handed because the "victim" were the cause of their own demise?
It was an online league race in Assetto Corsa Competizione. The penalty was handed down by real people, not a computer.
Ah good to know, I stand corrected in that regard. I'd still call it bad stewarding if the penalty was handed down only because it caused a crash, and not just because it was a dangerous move to begin with (also doesn't help that I'm only getting your side of the story with no replay or anything else).

You still didn't answer my question on how an online series with a clearly different ruleset and standard to driving (and cars for that matter) is relevant here.
Verstappen made space for Hamilton to get by but he didn't commit to the move properly, causing the crash. If Hamilton made the move stick, Verstappen would've gone wide and lost the position. Just like Verstappen did to Leclerc in Austria 2019. No penalty, just close racing.
Verstappen started to make space to set himself up for Copse (and possibly give HAM a little extra space), but then proceeded to go for the apex, which he had every right to do since Hamilton was not at all in a position to make a solid challenge. At that point he effectively cut across Hamilton's nose, which resulted in the wreck. During this entire time Verstappen is aware of Hamiltons position, and very much could've allowed himself to go wide and understeered further to avoid a wreck.

Once again, both drivers played a major role in the incident.
Hamilton's error ended Verstappen's race and prevented him from fighting back which I believe warrants a substantial penalty. Turning a blind eye to the consequences is the wrong thing to do in my opinion.
It also sets a precedent where drivers can be punished differently for the same type of accident depending on how the wreck transpires and who is/isn't involved. That's a great way to remove objectivity from a judgement, which you seem to be a-ok with.
I'm probably taking this too far and you'll say that I'm contradicting myself by saying this but if this is the precedent the FIA has set, it suggests to me that even if the driver on the receiving end of the contact ends up getting killed, the penalty will be the same. That disturbs me.
Sorry, but what you're advocating for here is allowing emotion to play a part in objective judgements. That very rarely leads to the right call.
But using this logical you'll say that the guy who drove into Hubert should have been penalised or even disqualified,...
Nope, especially considering that the circumstances that led to Huberts accident were pretty much out of anyone's control.
...but here's the thing: Manuel Correa didn't know what was in front of him and didn't have a clue where Hubert was until it was too late.
Correct.
Hamilton and Verstappen were aware of each other's presence and Verstappen literally moved over to give Hamilton the space he needed to make the move.
And it wasn't enough space given the positions of the 2 cars. Max had more than enough room to run slightly wide into the corner, giving Hamilton a bit of extra space through the turn. Worst case scenario they would've been even or Hamilton would've been slightly ahead by corner exit, which wouldn't be a major issue in the long run given the performance that the Red Bull has shown this year. I personally would've preferred it if Hamilton backed out going into the turn. He was not at all in a position to make that move stick, and he would've understeered anyways given his position going into Copse. He could've backed up a bit and gotten into Max's slipstream, and continued battling into and/or after Maggotts/Beckets/Chapel.
 
Last edited:
after the abuse lewis received on social media post-crash, I better never see another dumba** reporter ask him if he thinks f1 has "done enough" to combat racism
F1 is doing plenty. Its the social media platforms who need to be held accountable for the 'social media' abuse he's receiving. Not alot F1 themselves can really do about that.
 
What? How can they NOT look at the consequences? This is yet another dangerous precedent set by the FIA. Look if I hit someone and put them out of a race online I would get a very severe penalty. Heck, one guy who turned me around got a 25 second penalty, and that was a very slow crash which didn't do any damage. However it cost me track position and that consequence validated the penalty. The contact wasn't intentional but it happened. Same in this case. Hamilton didn't crash into Verstappen intentionally but Verstappen was ruled out of the GP, preventing him from carrying on. What the FIA is saying suggests that they'll give a 10 second penalty no matter what happens to the victim. The consequences MUST be taken into consideration.
I haven't read all replies since but you haven't really said WHY they should in this one. The rules dictate what a driver can and cannot do, they make no mention of outcomes of incidents. If you start judging based on the outcome dangerous manoeuvres would start going unpunished.

How many times have we seen drivers move under braking causing the car behind to take avoiding action, but otherwise remain unscathed? So the consequences are nothing, does that mean he gets away with the move that rules dictate he can't do? But then if someone else does the exact same move but the driver behind can't react in time and he crashes avoiding it, then this driver gets a penalty? No, that isn't fair.

On the flipside we see a lot of times there is absolutely minimal contact in incidents that have led to retirements through bad luck, like a wing endplate barely grazing a tyre that punctures. If you start penalising based on outcome for a nothing incident you're advocating for a heavy penalty. Then again, same thing a week later, no puncture, no consequences, no penalty.

You penalise the action, not the outcome.
 
Last edited:
What? How can they NOT look at the consequences? This is yet another dangerous precedent set by the FIA.
No, not really. It's an agreement between the FIA, FOM, and the teams which stretches back years; everyone in the sport wants it this way, including Christian Horner who was team principal of Red Bull Racing when this was agreed. Except right now because it doesn't suit him and he's flapping on about "the punishment doesn't fit the crime", but then again he's always been massively hypocritical and every one of his statements so far on this incident only reinforces it.


In fact the agreement predates our own forum rule on not wishing an incident on any driver - a rule which I already reminded people of in this thread once...

Next race I can see Verstappen trying to punt Hamilton off and completely botching it and taking both of them out. The gloves are off and Max is the kind of driver to go for revenge in a hotheaded way. I really hope this doesn't happen as it will tarnish reputations and look bad for everyone, but I won't be surprised if it happens.

TBH, knowing Hamilton he'd escape being punted at like T2 with a harmless spin while Max's wheel breaks off.
I want it to happen so Lando Norris wins the championship.
... and didn't expect I'd have to be bringing up again within two days.
 
Last edited:
I like how people discussing about this overtake just looking on footage. Every person who had decent experience in racing sims know that Copse isn't for two cars at all! Diving there for a position is for Italians only (scuzi, ragazzi, this is true).
It's been ages since I last played online but I guess you may be partly right, so I won't take it as a racist comment. :D
Let's not forget Sir Hammie is English, though.
 
I like how people discussing about this overtake just looking on footage. Every person who had decent experience in racing sims know that Copse isn't for two cars at all! Diving there for a position is for Italians only (scuzi, ragazzi, this is true).
I think it's weak to start making rules about where one can and can't make passes on the track, especially when F1 doesn't have a lot of overtaking to begin with.
 
What?
Lol that makes no sense to me given that Hamilton had a ton of space inside further inside but understeered off his line into Max Verstappens line.
This fellow also lays out the facts here, and his credentials are impeccable…This sums up my view much better than I did. I am a fan of good racing, and what Lewis did was very poor and amateurish in my view. But, he is human and made that big mistake. NOWAY was it an intentional dirty move NOWAY. Just a dumb mental error imo. I think after 2.00 mark here avoids the ad…

Happy with that analysis because he agrees with you?

From what I've read and seen over the last couple of days, more people are leaning towards a racing incident with how uncompromising Max was going wheel to wheel. I'm not saying it was Max's fault or even 50-50 but he definitely played his usual zero compromise part in what happened to him.

I'd never wish the lad harm as I genuinely like him but as an F1 fan, he needed this shunt to remind him where he was and who he was racing.
 
think it's weak to start making rules about where one can and can't make passes on the track, especially when F1 doesn't have a lot of overtaking to begin with.
It’s not like formal rules are needed. In that corner, you don’t stick a wheel up the inside on a wing and a prayer…
If you have it, fine.
That’s pretty much what Mansell explained in the video I posted.
You can’t stick a wheel up the inside there.
FURTHER, if you do try it you certainly can’t run out wide like Hamilton did ALL THE WAY to the curbing.
There’s just no way he’s making that turn. None.
Max left more than a cars width-it was more than enough room, if Ham could have held his line like he should have it would have been fine.

@kilesa4568

most people? Most people don’t know what they are talking about.
I’d never agree just because it’s what “most people” said was true.
At one time most people said the earth was flat, too.
 
Last edited:
most people? Most people don’t know what they are talking about.
I’d never agree just because it’s what “most people” said was true.
At one time most people said the earth was flat, too.
He said more people, not most....
 
In that corner, you don’t stick a wheel up the inside on a wing and a prayer…
Give or take two feet, his entire car was level at the point both cars turned right. He wasn't sticking a wheel up the inside, he was literally there - and Verstappen was in exactly the same position two corners earlier at Brooklands. Hamilton backed out rather than allowing Verstappen to hit him (like in Imola, and in Spain, and in F1 Sprint the previous day).

This notion that passing shouldn't ever be attempted at Copse is - in the words of one commentator - "disingenuous cant" from Christian Horner. He may not have done it in his exciting, lengthy, top-tier racing career, but it is absolutely a legit overtaking spot in every category, every way up and this is easily proven. Some classes go three or four wide through there. Still, his hypocrisy is legend - you don't have to look very hard to find him lauding his own drivers and critcising penalties given to them for this type of positioning (and result) even this season.


Hamilton's approach to the corner was wrong, because he went right of Verstappen (after going left the previous day and being forced to cede or crash) and had only recovered as far as the centre of the track due to Verstappen's positioning. He was trying to take a far too shallow line into a fast corner on maximum fuel load and half-lap warmed tyres, having just steered left to open the corner (the car looked very unsettled with that direction change) and doubtless understeered, despite having lifted. This notion he was "never going to make the turn" is a nonsense, because he did - despite having his steering and front wing smashed and the nose lifting and reducing downforce - but he definitely understeered.

Verstappen also doubtless came across Hamilton twice. He scythed in from the "outside" (middle), then opened the steering briefly, then turned even harder. He knew Hamilton was there and he was trying to scare him into backing out, but "Car 44 did not avoid contact" and the conclusion is a written off chassis, a fortunately unscathed Verstappen, and an enraged Horner - and Hamilton lucking into a red flag, a mended car, and a win (with two further passes at Copse, on drivers who can see a bit further ahead than the current corner).

Both drivers made errors here, but only one made a deliberate trajectory change - and he was also the only one to leave the circuit in an ambulance. Still, the FIA has made a rod for its own back by penalising every driver on the inside of a contact this season, except when it's Verstappen, so it had to give Hamilton the penalty for failing to avoid being hit.


We'll see if it changes Verstappen or the balance of power next weekend. I think he's going to think twice before trying to bully Hamilton out of the way again, though others are not so confident.
 
Last edited:
@StPeterMartyr Yes, I've seen them but I'm only interested in what led up to them. Sorry if that sounds callous but you look at things like this from their beginning, not their end.

@Groundfish
most people? Most people don’t know what they are talking about.
I’d never agree just because it’s what “most people” said was true.
At one time most people said the earth was flat, too.

'Most people' are F1 pundits along with ex and current F1 drivers.
 
Last edited:
It’s not like formal rules are needed. In that corner, you don’t stick a wheel up the inside on a wing and a prayer…
If you have it, fine.
That’s pretty much what Mansell explained in the video I posted.
You can’t stick a wheel up the inside there.
FURTHER, if you do try it you certainly can’t run out wide like Hamilton did ALL THE WAY to the curbing.
There’s just no way he’s making that turn. None.
Max left more than a cars width-it was more than enough room, if Ham could have held his line like he should have it would have been fine.
There's not really a corner on any track that isn't an overtaking opportunity if you judge it right. Copse has seen many many overtakes in F1. Even corners where it is said you do not overtake they have happened. Webber on Alonso into Eau Rouge. Villeneuve on the outside of Schumacher at the Parabolica in Estoril. When he told his team he would make that move they told him they would not enjoy scraping him off the barrier. You know what? He judged it to perfection and did it.
Hamilton ultimately went wide after having his wheel hit. He may well have drifted wide anyway but Max with his theoretically better line and speed could have gone wider and made the corner without diving for the apex. Even if he went wide of the outside kerb he would not have been penalised in the circumstances and have survived lap 1.
 
Back