[Tengocity]

Scott Mansell is a pro driver and instructor and generally has an analysis balanced towards "letting them race". In the previous incidents he's said Lewis was at fault at Silverstone and that it was racing incident at Monza.
This time round he's saying Max is at fault as he left the track, and this is the factor which takes it from hard but fair racing to unfair racing.

It does seem to be the critical factor in this incident.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by JustChris

I'd agree with all this too…but this season at Silverstone Hamilton got a 10s penalty and precedent was set.

In the same season the Stewards need to be applying the same ruling and judgement to similar 'offences'.

- Neither given and hard racing - ok
- Both given - ok

- Given to Mercedes driver and not Red Bull because of ??? (Levelling up to make the series exciting - just suggesting) - Not ok

I agree in terms of consistency, where the circumstances and outcomes were the same.

Yesterday I don't recall seeing Hamilton tipped off the track, hitting the barriers at great speed, and having a 53g impact. Car ruined, race over and requiring a medical evaluation.

Yesterday's Turn 4 incident had no effect on the outcome of the race; Hamilton had no damage to his car or person.

The two incidents are completely different.

It's a difficult area, and the stewards have an impossible task.

Apply every rule to the absolute letter of the rule book => every rule infringement HAS to be penalised due to precedence => every team will work the rule book even more than they do already => racing arguably suffers.

Allow some leeway based upon the circumstances => everyone will call "inconsistency" and bias.

The former-F1 commentators (Coulthard and Webber, to name a couple) always want less intervention and penalties, more genuine/hard racing. I'm in that camp as well (opinion, not ex-F1 racer ). Let the drivers race, as long as it doesn't get too dirty.

Racing shouldn't be perfect. The human element should always make it unpredictable and exciting. Sometimes circumstances and outcomes will ebb and flow between teams. If we want perfect compliance we may as well move to pre-programmed esports (no AI, due to the potential for inconsistency).

[Kyuuseishu]

Originally Posted by Watsey

I agree in terms of consistency, where the circumstances and outcomes were the same.

Yesterday I don't recall seeing Hamilton tipped off the track, hitting the barriers at great speed, and having a 53g impact. Car ruined, race over and requiring a medical evaluation.

Yesterday's Turn 4 incident had no effect on the outcome of the race; Hamilton had no damage to his car or person.

The two incidents are completely different.

It's a difficult area, and the stewards have an impossible task.

Apply every rule to the absolute letter of the rule book => every rule infringement HAS to be penalised due to precedence => every team will work the rule book even more than they do already => racing arguably suffers.

Allow some leeway based upon the circumstances => everyone will call "inconsistency" and bias.

The former-F1 commentators (Coulthard and Webber, to name a couple) always want less intervention and penalties, more genuine/hard racing. I'm in that camp as well (opinion, not ex-F1 racer ). Let the drivers race, as long as it doesn't get too dirty.

Racing shouldn't be perfect. The human element should always make it unpredictable and exciting. Sometimes circumstances and outcomes will ebb and flow between teams. If we want perfect compliance we may as well move to pre-programmed esports (no AI, due to the potential for inconsistency).

Whilst I agree that the incidents had different results, by the stewards own admission, they only the consider the act and not the consequence. What if Hamilton had lost control of his car and spun out into the barrier? Or toppled down the order allowing Max to run off from the same incident. Any of them could have happened from that one move of Max's, doesn't make it any more allowed because it didn't change the result, or result is a hefty physical/personal penalty for the other person.

I can think of a similar incident that Sirotkin did in Singapore in 2018, was overtaken, basically outbraked himself intentionally forcing another driver off the track, in this case almost into a barrier and was given a 5 second time penalty. Yes it wasn't a fight for the championship, but precedent is precedent.

Max intentionally forced Lewis to leave the track by intentionally not making the corner himself. If he'd have made the corner, fine, bravery on the brakes, but he didn't. He was overtaken, forced Hamilton off the track by not making the corner himself and gained that place back, therefore a lasting advantage. Yes it didn't change the result in the end, but it could have well done depending on if Lewis kept it pointing the right way going onto that dusty section.

Heck this news story here just is beggars belief that the stewards didn't even have access to footage which could have incriminated Max, but only had access to outboard shots.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Watsey

I agree in terms of consistency, where the circumstances and outcomes were the same.

Yesterday I don't recall seeing Hamilton tipped off the track, hitting the barriers at great speed, and having a 53g impact. Car ruined, race over and requiring a medical evaluation.

Yesterday's Turn 4 incident had no effect on the outcome of the race; Hamilton had no damage to his car or person.

The two incidents are completely different.

It's a difficult area, and the stewards have an impossible task.

Apply every rule to the absolute letter of the rule book => every rule infringement HAS to be penalised due to precedence => every team will work the rule book even more than they do already => racing arguably suffers.

Allow some leeway based upon the circumstances => everyone will call "inconsistency" and bias.

The former-F1 commentators (Coulthard and Webber, to name a couple) always want less intervention and penalties, more genuine/hard racing. I'm in that camp as well (opinion, not ex-F1 racer ). Let the drivers race, as long as it doesn't get too dirty.

Racing shouldn't be perfect. The human element should always make it unpredictable and exciting. Sometimes circumstances and outcomes will ebb and flow between teams. If we want perfect compliance we may as well move to pre-programmed esports (no AI, due to the potential for inconsistency).

Watsey for chief of police - speeding would only matter if there was an actual accident as a result!!

[Tengocity]

It's a little curious that the shot that everyone wants to see... the onboard footage of what Max does with his hands, is the one that's not been shown.

I do also find the terminology that is used a little odd...
an incident can be noted, or it can be under investigation.

How do they decide that no investigation is necessary? Surely it's by doing a little, you know, investigating?

As soon as they say it's under investigation then you know they already have and they're going to penalise.

[M33DLO]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

It's a little curious that the shot that everyone wants to see... the onboard footage of what Max does with his hands, is the one that's not been shown.
.

Yep.. If he understeered all the way out to the run off with noticeable inputs to correct then fair dos.
But if he opened the steering with little to no correction to make the corner then it's just plain dirty racing, we've seen Lewis be on the recieving end of this sort of tactic many times.

I recall a few similar dirty tricks by Rosberg too. H on the outside, R on the inside. R makes zero effort to make the apex and just continues wide, then turns at the last second when both cars are almost at a standstill. Obvious corner blocking by R. I think Suzuka was a good example of this move.

Hamilton really does get a raw deal with years of opponents using questionable tactics against him, hardly ever punished.
He's cool as a cucumber at press breifings, interviews and radio chat when others are throwing toys out, swearing at their mechs and blaming everyone else, etc etc.
He's a driver hopefully many young upcoming drivers aspire too be like, both in talent and attitude.

[DaveA]

To be honest, and this is just my view, I don't see that the incident the other day in Brazil was all that much different to the one at Silverstone from the point of view of the FIA looking at things like driving standards etc... Yes, the outcomes were different, but that is simply because the driver on the outside reacted differently in each case...

In both, a high speed corner was approached by one driver on the inside who, in the mind of the other, was approaching too fast and too tight to make the corner (that is basically as I recall Red Bull describing Silverstone) and thus creating. situation where the inside car would run wide, impacting the outside car in some way...

The difference between the two incidents was that, in Brazil, the outside car went even wider to allow both to run off track and carry on... and also the inside car clearly did not make the corner either...

I am sure Max will tell you that this was not an option for him in Silverstone... None of us were in the car, so we cannot really know, but I wondered at the time (and still do) why he did not back out and simply take the race lead later on (Max had a better car that day)... Lewis made the corner at Silverstone but, of course, there was the collision to factor in to whether or not he might have done...

Lewis got the ten second penalty for causing a collision at Silverstone (IIRC), so you cannot say the same penalty applies as there was not a collision in Brazil so, yes, in some ways, the FIA are being consistent between the two in that respect...

However, that is not to say that there was no other "offence" in Brazil...

I understand that the FIA's guidance stipulates that any car making such a manoeuvre should be on a line whereby they would be safely able to get around a corner, without a collision... This from the Mercedes explanations after Silverstone...

Max did not make the corner, he ran off and forced Lewis into making the choice to run wider... Lewis, unlike Max at Silverstone (and I already mentioned Max may tell you he did not have that option for some reason), immediately saw and computed the bigger picture in the moment and went on to win the race... However, that still does not absolve Max of having to abide by the rules...

IMHO, the move was unfair as, not only did it seem to me to contravene the guidelines on being able to get around the corner (and they may have changed since I read them, I accept) but there was also potential to adversely influence the race in a way that it would not be normally influenced... Forcing Lewis wide could have resulted in a puncture or a race retirement... Max also gained a lasting advantage by the move as he came out back in front... He completed the overtake...

The FIA did have wriggle room from Silverstone, a 5-second penalty would not have been the same penalty as Silverstone... Or even make Max give the place back on the basis that the move was completed off the track...

What I think the teams are asking is where the line is to be drawn between fair and unfair racing in these respects... With Max also running wide, if I were in the Mercedes team, and this is the FIA guidance, I would feel the decision for no penalty to be harsh...

It may be a different interpretation if Max had made the corner within track limits...

So there is (IMHO) some inconsistency between the two (regardless of outcome)... and, for sure, the FIA need to start to give the drivers and teams some clarity here...

Sure, I want to see the drivers race, but it has to be in a responsible and safe manner...

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Scott Mansell is a pro driver and instructor and generally has an analysis balanced towards "letting them race". In the previous incidents he's said Lewis was at fault at Silverstone and that it was racing incident at Monza.

This time round he's saying Max is at fault as he left the track, and this is the factor which takes it from hard but fair racing to unfair racing.

It does seem to be the critical factor in this incident.

This is a great explanation and Scott’s “problems” with the move are the same as mine… and I agree with him that had Verstappen completed the move within track limits if would have been aggressive but within the guidance… in, I believe, the same way that Mercedes were arguing the Silverstone position…

As Max clearly did not complete the corner and he gained an advantage then I think that should have triggered a penalty… The easiest, and least impact, would have been to instruct Max to give the position back… adding a time penalty might have allowed Mercedes to get Bottas ahead of Max as well, so Red Bull might argue that was unfair…

[Kyuuseishu]

https://youtu.be/jAyM_zXRibE?t=475

They've got the onboard shot now. Comparing the normal steering lock required to go around the corner normally from Lewis further in the video, it certainly didn't look like he was trying to make the corner at all!

Edit: And on the back of that Mercedes has launched a right to review of the incident, which is expected to be fair.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by Kyuuseishu

https://youtu.be/jAyM_zXRibE?t=475

They've got the onboard shot now. Comparing the normal steering lock required to go around the corner normally from Lewis further in the video, it certainly didn't look like he was trying to make the corner at all!

Edit: And on the back of that Mercedes has launched a right to review of the incident, which is expected to be fair.

There was a lot of lock left in hand, wasn't there? Indefensible in my view, yet another cheating driver.

[agentorange]

Little bit of understeer Max? Yeah, right.

[DaveA]

Having watched the video a few times...

Max is behind Lewis approaching the corner (I say behind, Lewis got his rear wheel alongside Max's front wheel, so the overtake was not technically completed)... Max choses to take a faster entry, on a tighter line than Lewis does... He is clearly not choosing a line that would safely make the corner without the possibility of a collision... The fact that there was not a collision is down to Lewis, who deviates his line to avoid the collision as Max drifts over (clearer from Lewis' onboard)... Max completes the turn off the track, returning to the track back ahead...

Max might argue that his car washed out... but it did so because he chose to brake and turn in the way he did... They seem to come off the throttle at more or less the same time but Max does not slow as quickly as Lewis... Had he have decelerated in the same way that Lewis did, there would have been far more room for them both to make the corner within track limits...

Not sure why that did not result in a penalty on the basis that he caused both cars to leave the track and thereby create an advantage for himself... You could see a lot of that from the footage that was broadcast on the day...

But, I am not the rules maker or interpreter... and what would help everybody now is if the FIA now give a clear explanation of their interpretation, so we can all know...

A clean pass in these circumstances requires both drivers to cooperate... and clearly in a championship battle, neither will want to give a micrometer and so you will naturally end up in incidents like this... so I am not having a go at Max here, I fully understand and appreciate he is trying to win a championship... But what it seems is there is still a lack of understanding as to what is (and is not) acceptable...

... and we do need to know because as we head into the last three races, we do not want to see the title decided other than strictly fairly on track...

The FIA also now need to be more transparent about the rear wing stuff... Allowing Red Bull to continue to repair the wings in Parc Ferme with no explanation... other than "safety"... I mean, are we not telling them to bring a stronger wing now..?

[JustChris]

Is it known my mysteriously the footage was not available on race day? Is it fair to assume Redbull are in control of that footage and it's release?

If so and if they withheld it, surely does that not let the FIA know all they need to know.

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by JustChris

Is it known my mysteriously the footage was not available on race day? Is it fair to assume Redbull are in control of that footage and it's release?

If so and if they withheld it, surely does that not let the FIA know all they need to know.

I don't know if F1 TV record a live feed from every car, all of the time... The only ones they have during the broadcast are the ones they manually chose to tap into at any given point (on, or off air)... This would explain why they had Lewis' footage and not Max's on the broadcast.. If they were following Lewis's car but not Max's at that precise point...

Whilst all the cars all have an onboard camera recorder, F1 TV cannot tap into that recording on a retrospective basis after an event... They only have what they were taking live as the event happened...

This will be down to how many channels the TV producer is handling throughout the race to produce the broadcast...

I assume the footage from the onboard recorder on Max's car was, however, available to the FIA immediately after the race... and has now been made available to F1 TV...

edited to add - I do not think the teams have any control over the camera and recorder... remember a few years ago when they were all told off for blocking the camera's view so you could not see them working on the car... some still do that at times...

[JustChris]

Decision tomorrow on whether it will be investigated.

[Eddamoo]

Originally Posted by JustChris

Decision tomorrow on whether it will be investigated.

Investigation has been rejected. i.e. We already know Max intentionally crowded him off track, so showing another camera angle of it doesn't constitute additional evidence for review.

Looks like a complete farce to me. I bet they'd have given a token 5s penalty had Bottas not finished 3s behind.

But a new precedent has been set, which will likely deny us in a thrilling finish and instead give us cars afraid of overtaking or worse - a nasty accident.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by Eddamoo

Investigation has been rejected. i.e. We already know Max intentionally crowded him off track, so showing another camera angle of it doesn't constitute additional evidence for review.

Looks like a complete farce to me. I bet they'd have given a token 5s penalty had Bottas not finished 3s behind.

But a new precedent has been set, which will likely deny us in a thrilling finish and instead give us cars afraid of overtaking or worse - a nasty accident.

I think it opens the door for some hard racing to the end of the season, BUT, the drivers may have very different mindsets.

Verstappen may well feel that he has been given the green light to continue to drive very assertively (personally I think it's assertive rather than aggressive) whereas Hamilton still has a points deficit and cannot risk DNF's.

They are both very skilled and confident wheel-to-wheel racers. I think it's going to be very interesting to see how this unfolds.

[F20MAW73]

Seems like the FIA really want Max to win the title this year.

Disgraceful decision imo.

[SteveChester]

I think he should have been penalised in the race but don't think they should be doing it five days after.

Watched some of the press conf with Toto and Karen Horner - spicy!!

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by Watsey

I think it opens the door for some hard racing to the end of the season, BUT, the drivers may have very different mindsets.

Verstappen may well feel that he has been given the green light to continue to drive very assertively (personally I think it's assertive rather than aggressive) whereas Hamilton still has a points deficit and cannot risk DNF's.

They are both very skilled and confident wheel-to-wheel racers. I think it's going to be very interesting to see how this unfolds.

I'm not sure it does open the door to hard racing because, as Toto Wolff and some of the drivers are now making clear, it seems that if what Max did is acceptable then this means that the inside car always controls the corner, whether or not it is ahead, and so an outside position/overtake is not going to work...

(and I think it was part of an aggressive defence, rather than an assertive move... Lewis was, IMHO, being the assertive one of the two in the manoeuvre...)

This means, for instance, that a late lunge up the inside that is likely to take you wide in the corner, even off the track, totally off line, will be OK and the car to the outside will have to take avoiding action...

Is not that different to how the events at Silverstone were viewed at the time...

I have no doubt we are yet to see the end of the fight between them (and I do definitely want to see a fight), I just hope it is not decided in a court room at some later point...

IMHO, the FIA have introduced confusion and doubt here, rather than clarification...

I am not after Max being penalised retrospectively, but the FIA ought to now issue very clear guidance for both the drivers and the stewards for future races... what is and is not acceptable...

[Chappers 71]

So refreshing to read an F1 thread that hasn't been thread jacked by MPower Belgium & M5Rick, cheers guys

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by SteveChester

Watched some of the press conf with Toto and Karen Horner - spicy!!

If I understood what Horner has said, now, he is saying that they believe that Mercedes has a moveable rear wing element that (to them) contravenes the rules... referring to the rear wing end plates scuffing up as evidence...

This is going to get heated...