Whats the difference

[Godius]

Lewis could not afford to cruise against Roserg, he started to cruise since Bottas became the #2 driver.

[AeroDynamic]

Lewis could not afford to cruise against Roserg, he started to cruise since Bottas became the #2 driver.

Where is this discussion going? I don’t see the point.

Max couldn’t cruise with Ricciardo hence he lost to him twice and binned weekends like Monaco. We then had team mates that didn’t know how to drive the red bull like Ricciardo and Max do. So I guess he will cruise if no other team have a car as good as his?

Hamilton in comparison to max and ricciardo, actually did cruise against Rosberg if you look at the big picture. He had him completely covered until Rosberg enjoyed a large reliability disparity between their engines in 2016. Even with such disparity in bad luck, he barely managed to edge him out. Rosberg did not make lewis overdrive the car like Danny and lewis did to max. If you are overdriving, then you aren’t cruising.

[Just_a_fan]

It's also interesting to look at the difference in, for example, Monza. When racing with Ricciardo, Max gave room and didn't try to send it in the first chicane. Against Lewis, Max just lobbed it in in his classic "I pass or we crash" style.

The difference? Against Ricciardo, a collision hurt only Max's chances. Against Lewis, a collision was likely to hurt both of them (as it indeed did) so that's a nett win for Max.

What it shows is that Max can race wheel to wheel and avoid collisions when he needs to. If you see him banging wheels it's because he's taken a calculated decision to do so.

This was shown nicely in Silverstone where he threw it up the inside at the end of the Wellington Straight. Lewis left him room - indeed he took deliberate avoiding action by turning away from Max - and Max went through. Two corners later, in the reversed situation, Max didn't take avoiding action at all. He took a calculated decision which, in that instance, came out against him. Quite often that same situation would have seen them both off track as Max would have expected. Why? Because it would be a nett win for Max as he was well ahead in the title race and had a car that, at the time, was looking to be the title winning car.

[AeroDynamic]

It's also interesting to look at the difference in, for example, Monza. When racing with Ricciardo, Max gave room and didn't try to send it in the first chicane. Against Lewis, Max just lobbed it in in his classic "I pass or we crash" style.

The difference? Against Ricciardo, a collision hurt only Max's chances. Against Lewis, a collision was likely to hurt both of them (as it indeed did) so that's a nett win for Max.

What it shows is that Max can race wheel to wheel and avoid collisions when he needs to. If you see him banging wheels it's because he's taken a calculated decision to do so.

This was shown nicely in Silverstone where he threw it up the inside at the end of the Wellington Straight. Lewis left him room - indeed he took deliberate avoiding action by turning away from Max - and Max went through. Two corners later, in the reversed situation, Max didn't take avoiding action at all. He took a calculated decision which, in that instance, came out against him. Quite often that same situation would have seen them both off track as Max would have expected. Why? Because it would be a nett win for Max as he was well ahead in the title race and had a car that, at the time, was looking to be the title winning car.

I noticed that as well. The Monza crash is definitely less 50/50 and more Max’s fault. I think lewis’ part only extends to max going on the kerbs. But that doesn’t mean it’s your fault that another driver desperately sent his car in at such speed that as soon as it makes contact with your car, it cannot slow down and bump wheels, instead it catapults on top of your head and takes you both out off track. That’s what happens when you don’t slow down enough to make the corner properly. He should’ve got a heavier penalty.

[NathanOlder]

At Silverstone they hadn't even arrived at the apex before the contact. He missed it because it was still well ahead of him. You can see it in the picture. It's on that red and white kerbing ahead of him.

It's ok having a view but at least make it consistent with the observable facts.

Also what is the fascination with the apex, I dont believe the rules state anywhere about reaching the apex. For example, Verstappens move on Leclerc in 2019, he never made the apex, but they bumped wheels. This would mean Max should have had a penalty ? Max was on the inside, didnt reach the apex, they bumped wheels. In Silverstone Lewis was on the inside, doesnt look like he will reach the apex, they bumped wheels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABKY6nbKIL4

Totally different situation, Max was alongside Leclerc, frontwheel touched front wheel.
And yes, there are no rules about reaching the apex. That's irrelevant though, it's all about who's (predominantly) at fault. That's the one who should've taken a different trajectory-if possible. Hence, the 'fascination' with the apex.

The reasons they werent side by side in Silverstone is because 1, Lewis braked earlier, 2 Max was carrying more speed than he did in Qualifying (if memory serves me right).

Could you answer this, would it have been ok for Lewis to brake later and go in even faster, hit front wheel to front wheel and force Max off track that way ?

[Aesop]

Also what is the fascination with the apex, I dont believe the rules state anywhere about reaching the apex. For example, Verstappens move on Leclerc in 2019, he never made the apex, but they bumped wheels. This would mean Max should have had a penalty ? Max was on the inside, didnt reach the apex, they bumped wheels. In Silverstone Lewis was on the inside, doesnt look like he will reach the apex, they bumped wheels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABKY6nbKIL4

Totally different situation, Max was alongside Leclerc, frontwheel touched front wheel.
And yes, there are no rules about reaching the apex. That's irrelevant though, it's all about who's (predominantly) at fault. That's the one who should've taken a different trajectory-if possible. Hence, the 'fascination' with the apex.

The reasons they werent side by side in Silverstone is because 1, Lewis braked earlier, 2 Max was carrying more speed than he did in Qualifying (if memory serves me right).

Could you answer this, would it have been ok for Lewis to brake later and go in even faster, hit front wheel to front wheel and force Max off track that way ?

High speed vs low speedcorner, so no, that would not be ok, allthough Lewis would probably end up in the wall as well...

[NathanOlder]

Totally different situation, Max was alongside Leclerc, frontwheel touched front wheel.
And yes, there are no rules about reaching the apex. That's irrelevant though, it's all about who's (predominantly) at fault. That's the one who should've taken a different trajectory-if possible. Hence, the 'fascination' with the apex.

The reasons they werent side by side in Silverstone is because 1, Lewis braked earlier, 2 Max was carrying more speed than he did in Qualifying (if memory serves me right).

Could you answer this, would it have been ok for Lewis to brake later and go in even faster, hit front wheel to front wheel and force Max off track that way ?

High speed vs low speedcorner, so no, that would not be ok, allthough Lewis would probably end up in the wall as well...

High speed and Low speed are not factored in when it comes to did he break the rules or not though. You cant bump someone out the way because it was slow speed. The speed will make the consequences far different, but as Masi is quoted saying, "it's a fundamental principle that stewards do not take the consequences of an incident into account"

So the rules will be the same no matter what speed the cars are doing. Its not ok to bump and miss apexes because its slow. So when you look at the Silverstone incident and RedBull Ring incident, if one is legal, they are both legal, if 1 is a penalty, both are a penalty. The current "let them race" BS would suggest the stewards would be more lenient on a 2021 incident over a 2019 incident as well .

[Aesop]

It's not about consequences, it's about potential consequences and the risk a driver takes. Max made sure Leclerc could not turn in and like the previous lap could not retake the lead. Punishable? Perhaps. Dangerous? No.
Silverstone was already a dangerous move by Lewis, let alone if he would have tried to brake later.

[TimW]

but as Masi is quoted saying, "it's a fundamental principle that stewards do not take the consequences of an incident into account"

Since when is Masi regarded as expert on these matters?

Seriously though, I think it is one of the fundamental flaws on how rules were interpreted.
Maybe (probably) they should not take into account the actual consequences as it happened, which can be more or less severe because of luck. But they should very much take into account the possible consequences of an action. The amount of risk taken should be a factor. If an action has a serious risk of killing someone, definitely there should be a harsher punishment than some low speed low risk incident.

[NathanOlder]

but as Masi is quoted saying, "it's a fundamental principle that stewards do not take the consequences of an incident into account"

Since when is Masi regarded as expert on these matters?

Seriously though, I think it is one of the fundamental flaws on how rules were interpreted.
Maybe (probably) they should not take into account the actual consequences as it happened, which can be more or less severe because of luck. But they should very much take into account the possible consequences of an action. The amount of risk taken should be a factor. If an action has a serious risk of killing someone, definitely there should be a harsher punishment than some low speed low risk incident.

If that was the case wouldnt Max have received a hefty penalty for Monza ? His car landed on Hamiltons head, it doesnt get any more dangerous than that .

[Just_a_fan]

The amount of risk taken should be a factor. If an action has a serious risk of killing someone, definitely there should be a harsher punishment than some low speed low risk incident.

As it says on the ticket: motorsport is dangerous.

Any move that is undertaken at significant speed - say moving at the last moment as someone tries to overtake you - has the risk of a serious outcome because it will be happening at high speed. Except where a team principal cries "let them race!" in defence of such an action, of course. Then it's just "hard racing" and entirely fair.

That's the thing with this "if it's riskier then it should be punished harder" approach - what is "riskier"? Who gets to decide "riskier"? And what constitutes a "bad outcome"? A high g-loading? Injury? Death?

If we are to take outcomes in to consideration for the penalties given, we'll see drivers behaving like footballers and pretending to be hurt just to get a harsher penalty for another driver. Imagine that.

[Chuckjr]

What have I learned reading the last three pages and literally hundreds of race thread pages over the years is that in close situations the Lewis lovers will never see a situation as Lewis’ fault anymore than the Lewis haters will see the same situation as other than Lewis’ fault. It’s like this every week in the racing threads.

But what’s really entertaining, is hearing all the pundits claim they “see the situation clearly”. LOL. Actually my friend, nothing changes no matter what you see on track. It’s the same people going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on for 200+ pages writing the same “I know what I’m talking about” every race and in every off season test. Every year. Same thing. Same people. Same claims of authority. Same claims of unbiased opinion in one biased way or another. I’ve been watching it here on this site for a decade now and it still is entertaining to this very day. Its like an SNL skit that repeats the same tomfoolery over and over and over and over again. Heck, I even throw in some posts in the race threads just to watch in amazement the reactions and unreasonable outbursts. It’s fantastic.

So, can I just say thank you to the entertainers here? Thank you. Your ability to see things the way you want despite the facts is truly something to behold. Really. The situation reminds me of a great Terence McKenna quote I heard 30 years ago: “Don’t confuse me with the facts because I’ve already made up my mind!”

Thanks everybody.

[Stu]

What have I learned reading the last three pages and literally hundreds of race thread pages over the years is that in close situations the Lewis lovers will never see a situation as Lewis’ fault anymore than the Lewis haters will see the same situation as other than Lewis’ fault. It’s like this every week in the racing threads.

But what’s really entertaining, is hearing all the pundits claim they “see the situation clearly”. LOL. Actually my friend, nothing changes no matter what you see on track. It’s the same people going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on for 200+ pages writing the same “I know what I’m talking about” every race and in every off season test. Every year. Same thing. Same people. Same claims of authority. Same claims of unbiased opinion in one biased way or another. I’ve been watching it here on this site for a decade now and it still is entertaining to this very day. Its like an SNL skit that repeats the same tomfoolery over and over and over and over again. Heck, I even throw in some posts in the race threads just to watch in amazement the reactions and unreasonable outbursts. It’s fantastic.

So, can I just say thank you to the entertainers here? Thank you. Your ability to see things the way you want despite the facts is truly something to behold. Really. The situation reminds me of a great Terence McKenna quote I heard 30 years ago: “Don’t confuse me with the facts because I’ve already made up my mind!”

Thanks everybody.

I did try to put a 1000’ perspective on this earlier (it’s on the previous page), your Terrence McKenna quote neatly sums up the reaction to it!!

[Oleo]

Pretty much this:
Difference is Massa left no space inside, Max did. And in Silvertone Lewis missed the apex.

At Silverstone they hadn't even arrived at the apex before the contact. He missed it because it was still well ahead of him. You can see it in the picture. It's on that red and white kerbing ahead of him.

It's ok having a view but at least make it consistent with the observable facts.

Observable fact, missed apex:


Hamiltons line is barely affected by the contact, he misses the apex, because he carries too much speed and understeers away from the corner. I guess I could have said Lewis was going to miss the apex, sure.

Also what is the fascination with the apex, I dont believe the rules state anywhere about reaching the apex. For example, Verstappens move on Leclerc in 2019, he never made the apex, but they bumped wheels. This would mean Max should have had a penalty ? Max was on the inside, didnt reach the apex, they bumped wheels. In Silverstone Lewis was on the inside, doesnt look like he will reach the apex, they bumped wheels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABKY6nbKIL4

Totally different situation, Max was alongside Leclerc, frontwheel touched front wheel.
And yes, there are no rules about reaching the apex. That's irrelevant though, it's all about who's (predominantly) at fault. That's the one who should've taken a different trajectory-if possible. Hence, the 'fascination' with the apex.

The reasons they werent side by side in Silverstone is because 1, Lewis braked earlier, 2 Max was carrying more speed than he did in Qualifying (if memory serves me right).

Could you answer this, would it have been ok for Lewis to brake later and go in even faster, hit front wheel to front wheel and force Max off track that way ?

I have not heard this info about carrying more speed than in Qualifying, but considering he takes a different line and is probably fine with slightly comprimising his cornerexit, since he is not trying to set a fastest lap, but trying to keep first place, its really not relevant. What is relevant is that the person on the racing line, turning in from the outside can keep his speed up higher than the person who is on the dirty part of the track comprimising his line, it is therefore logical for Hamilton to brake earlier. Hamilton was already not/barely making that corner, going even faster/braking later would be absurd.

[dans79]

Hamiltons line is barely affected by the contact, he misses the apex, because he carries too much speed and understeers away from the corner. I guess I could have said Lewis was going to miss the apex, sure.

I'm not sure if you are aware or not, but any car in the position will lose a lot of downforce because of the outwash from the other car will disturb the flow over its aero surfaces.

And in spite of the contact and loss of aero downforce he still made the corner!

Not to mention the car does not instantaneously go back to full downforce/settle after driving through dirty air, or after contact!