Formula One

[EldonZ]

Max pulls the same style of move at Imola in a low speed corner and Horner gives Max kudos. I'll give Max credit, he says he wants to ignore the "Noise" and just race. In the US, we see a lot of this posturing from the supporting staff but not the actual drivers. I think a lot of this is driven by the media to create interest.

I cannot believe that Red Bull is pushing the incident to the level that they are. It was racing and should be left at that. Build the best car and put your best driver in charge of it. Let the drivers race!

Later,
Eldon

[SJP68]

I think Red Bull are pushing the incident, more due to the financial impact, now that budgets are capped. They have the means to spend more than the set budget, but are now limited on what they can spend, any accident repair costs, will reduce, what's left in the pot, for rest of the season. Which may be why they went public with the cost to rebuild Max's car (1.3 million), that's money that could have been spent on developments. If it's accepted that Lewis was at fault, then Red Bull may want compensation from Mercedes or a change to the budget rules, where certain things are exempt. Are we going to end up with teams claiming off each other and drivers exchanging insurance details, after a coming together, with the team saying over the radio, 'are you OK', followed by 'don't accept liability'. Although with drivers, it's always the other drivers fault.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Compoculture gone mad!

I guess now that miss-selling mortgages is off the list, the no win no fee lawyers are ready for another gravy train.

Time to go back through the F1 crash archives… let’s start with Max Verstappen.

Really, much less well-off teams have had to take plenty of crashes on the chin this year. They never claimed off the other Party. What’s different now? Pathetic.

[C8RKH]

4 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

Pathetic

Got it in one.

Red Bull should be fined for bringing the sport into disrepute.

[Chillidoggy]

Put the pitchforks away.

Red Bull is within its rights (and the FIA regs) to challenge the decision. If you read the text in the BBC link, it’s clear that without new evidence, there would be no review. This, presumably, means RB believes it has that evidence.

[C8RKH]

1 hour ago, Chillidoggy said:

Put the pitchforks away.

Really? Lol.  

The Pitchforks are out, certainly in my hands, due to what I perceive as unsportspersonlike behaviour from the Red Bull team management and leaders. It's not about Regs and Rights, but it is about behaviours. Attitudes. Etc.

My "pitchfork" is aimed squarely at the likes of Horner and Marko, not Max who has been relatively quiet around all of this which is a credit to him.

So no, I'll not be putting my pitchfork away as it is "within my right" to express my views and opinions on a forum.   Just hit the mute button and your peace will be restored.

 

[910Esprit]

My hope is that Red Bull do indeed appeal and the FIA remind RB what 'predominantly' actually means with a token penalty imposed on RB, to hopefully take some heat out of this.  Both drivers are now going to be so wound up its not fair upon them.

[Chillidoggy]

I’m waiting to see the outcome. It could go either way, or end up getting thrown out.

35 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

Really? Lol.  

The Pitchforks are out, certainly in my hands, due to what I perceive as unsportspersonlike behaviour from the Red Bull team management and leaders. It's not about Regs and Rights, but it is about behaviours. Attitudes. Etc.

My "pitchfork" is aimed squarely at the likes of Horner and Marko, not Max who has been relatively quiet around all of this which is a credit to him.

So no, I'll not be putting my pitchfork away as it is "within my right" to express my views and opinions on a forum.   Just hit the mute button and your peace will be restored.

 

 

I think it is all about Regs and Rights; the FIA will make the decision, and that will be the end of it in my mind.  Speculation won’t change that. I happen to think the challenge will fail, but F1 is a business, and in my experience bitching, whingeing, claims and counter claims happen all time in business!

[C8RKH]

I agree @910Esprit in that it is not as cut and dry as some people are making out in that Hamilton was not "wholly" to blame for the incident. I think people are confusing the fact Hamilton got the penalty with it was all Hamilton's fault.

This is what the Stewards actually found. Reading it is interesting especially when they say that when car 33 (Verstappen) turned in, Car 44 (Hamilton) did not avoid contact!  Given that Hamilton had already backed out three or four times to avoid contact on that lap, I think Mercedes will have just a strong case as Red Bull in any appeal. It also to me shows the mindset of Verstappen which is I am going to take the line I want and the other driver HAS to back down / get out of the way.

The way I understand it the Stewards statements are crafted during quite a long and considered process and the wording they use is very PRECISE and therefore significant. If they had thought it was all Hamilton's fault they would have used the word "WHOLLY" instead of "PREDOMINANTLY". As ever, the devil is in the detail and not in how it is interpreted. I think if Hamilton was judged to have been "wholly" to blame then Red Bull would have a much stronger case.

In a document explaining their reasons for the sanction, the stewards said that Hamilton could have done more to avoid the incident – as he had room on the inside of Copse to avoid a collision.

“The stewards reviewed video and telemetry evidence,” the stewards said. “Cars 33 [Verstappen] and 44 [Hamilton] entered Turn 9 with Car 33 in the lead and Car 44 slightly behind and on the inside.

 

“Car 44 was on a line that did not reach the apex of the corner, with room available to the inside.

“When Car 33 turned into the corner, Car 44 did not avoid contact and the left front of Car 44 contacted the right rear of Car 33. Car 44 is judged predominantly at fault.”

1 minute ago, Chillidoggy said:

in my experience bitching, whingeing, claims and counter claims happen all time in business!

Only in bad businesses in my experience. And I do think these days that includes F1. So we agree there I believe.

[Chillidoggy]

 

 In my experience it happens in successful businesses. 

[TdM]

Max has an awful lot to say about it for someone who wanted to stay out of it though:

https://www.racefans.net/2021/07/29/verstappen-surprised-stewards-did-not-wholly-blame-hamilton-for-crash/

https://www.racefans.net/2021/07/29/hamilton-waving-a-flag-like-nothing-happened-shows-what-mercedes-are-really-like-verstappen/

Honestly hope this is just thrown out. What a waste of time. Racing incident through and through

[pete]

8 hours ago, C8RKH said:

44 is judged predominantly at fault.

To me that means a high percentage 75 to 80%

[mg4lotus]

If someone is wholly responsible that would be 100%. Is there an official table to describe responsibility and percentages?

I think I'm being flippant or are there actual guidelines for the stewards in this situation? And how would they decide the percentage of responsibility?

 

I do think Hamilton was driving to avoid a collision, heading towards the corner both cars were almost level, Hamilton was backing out of the overtake when Verstappen turned in, that is why Hamilton's front tyre and Verstappen's back tyre touched. I do think Verstappen drives to cause a collision. Unless he changes his driving style he will continue to have collisions in the future. He's a hazzard to himself and others. He's fast (in a fast car) but dangerous.

[Bibs]

29 minutes ago, mg4lotus said:

Is there an official table to describe responsibility and percentages?

In the RAF back in the day there was a huge volume on allocation of blame and you'd get a percentage result for each person at the end of the enquiry. Don't ask me how I know!

[PaulCP]

Thrown out 👍

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/58014629

[C8RKH]

1 hour ago, mg4lotus said:

I think I'm being flippant or are there actual guidelines for the stewards in this situation?

I believe there are hence why the statements are so carefully worded. However, happy to be proven wrong.

[Bravo73]

 

https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1420820343451697168

 

[mg4lotus]

Libel and defamation of character court case on the cards?

[TdM]

I don't think so, unless RB keep pushing the narrative strongly. Hopefully they can move on after a bit of complaining this weekend.

[exeterjeep]

The best way (for them) would be to get pole by a country mile, win the race and lap Lewis who finishes well down, and so to increase their lead in the points.

Personally I want a British guy to win the race, eg Lando as it would be great for them.. Certainly would prefer Lewis to win the WDC for a record time. (and upset RB)

[Chillidoggy]

I’m pleased to see due process has been served.

Hopefully we can now get back to enjoying the racing.

[Neal H]

The stewards said they “noted with some concern certain allegations” made by Red Bull. I wonder precisely what Red Bull alleged?

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

I wonder if this WDC will be decided in the kitty litter a la Prost & Senna? I guess there’s a long way to go yet and Verstappen will probably have it all sewn up before the final race or two. But if the opportunity arises for something like Silverstone to happen again with the title at stake, I reckon Verstappen would take the hit and both retire.

[electro_boy]

Thank god the fisty cuffs and handbags have stopped and they can get back to racing!  It was getting a bit silly! 

52 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

But if the opportunity arises for something like Silverstone to happen again with the title at stake, I reckon Verstappen would take the hit and both retire.

Only to let Noris take all the points and take the WDC win!!!  😂🤞🏾

[910Esprit]

Too funny -  (apologies to anyone that thinks sportsmanship is alive and well) - I cant believe RedBull didn't see that coming.  WTF would they put their cars behind the Mercedes who already had banker laps?