2023 Belgian Grand Prix - Spa-Francorchamps, July 28 - 30

[taperoo2k]

Perez wrecked his tyres, if he'd kept them alive then Lewis would have likely never seen the gap. Swap positions and Perez would have done the same thing. It was a racing incident nothing more.
As Senna said if your not going for the gap then you are no longer racing.

So the point with this is, there is a gap, but Lewis understeered and slided into Perez. Not on purpose, but he was the cause of the collision. My issue with seeing this as a racing incident is that you need to be in control of your car. If you are not and cause a collision, you should be punished. Now let clear, I do not think Lewis did this on purpose, but we will never be 100% sure if a driver introduces oversteer on purpose or it is because of a misjudgement. And thus I think in this kind of situation a penalty is always in place.

Then F1 shouldn't hold races in the wet, or they should just be led around by the safety car.
The FIA can tell from the steering inputs of a driver and footage we don't see if a driver has made
a deliberate move to push another driver off the track. The root cause of the collision was Perez's inters going off, introducing a gap most drivers would go for.

I'd be saying the same thing if Max had collided with Perez. It was a racing incident in the wet, nothing more.

[Willy]

As Senna said if your not going for the gap then you are no longer racing.

One of the most dumbest lines anyone can say. He could never differentiate between a gap is opening and a gap that is diminishing. That's why he was regarded as a wrecker by his compatriots. It's what Max was before "late 2018".

[chrisc90]

Perez wrecked his tyres, if he'd kept them alive then Lewis would have likely never seen the gap. Swap positions and Perez would have done the same thing. It was a racing incident nothing more.
As Senna said if your not going for the gap then you are no longer racing.

So the point with this is, there is a gap, but Lewis understeered and slided into Perez. Not on purpose, but he was the cause of the collision. My issue with seeing this as a racing incident is that you need to be in control of your car. If you are not and cause a collision, you should be punished. Now let clear, I do not think Lewis did this on purpose, but we will never be 100% sure if a driver introduces oversteer on purpose or it is because of a misjudgement. And thus I think in this kind of situation a penalty is always in place.

Then F1 shouldn't hold races in the wet, or they should just be led around by the safety car.
The FIA can tell from the steering inputs of a driver and footage we don't see if a driver has made
a deliberate move to push another driver off the track. The root cause of the collision was Perez's inters going off, introducing a gap most drivers would go for.

I'd be saying the same thing if Max had collided with Perez. It was a racing incident in the wet, nothing more.

So the point of understeer is null then because the tyres were ‘gone off’ on the other car and there was half a sniff at a gap?

Fine to overtake if you can do it whilst remaining in control of your car. By losing control from being on the kerb causing understeer isn’t ok. Hence a penalty

[Cs98]

Then F1 shouldn't hold races in the wet, or they should just be led around by the safety car.
The FIA can tell from the steering inputs of a driver and footage we don't see if a driver has made
a deliberate move to push another driver off the track. The root cause of the collision was Perez's inters going off, introducing a gap most drivers would go for.

I'd be saying the same thing if Max had collided with Perez. It was a racing incident in the wet, nothing more.

The root cause of the collision was Hamilton understeering into the side of Perez. Perez gave Hamilton space on the inside and his reward for that was a big fat hole in his sidepod which ruined his race. That's a penalty, wet or dry. In fact, 5 seconds is not a hefty price for putting someone out of a race and being predominantly at fault.

[ab_f1]

Fine to overtake if you can do it whilst remaining in control of your car. By losing control from being on the kerb causing understeer isn’t ok. Hence a penalty

So any overtake resulting in contact should result in penalty?
So processions

[ab_f1]

Then F1 shouldn't hold races in the wet, or they should just be led around by the safety car.
The FIA can tell from the steering inputs of a driver and footage we don't see if a driver has made
a deliberate move to push another driver off the track. The root cause of the collision was Perez's inters going off, introducing a gap most drivers would go for.

I'd be saying the same thing if Max had collided with Perez. It was a racing incident in the wet, nothing more.

The root cause of the collision was Hamilton understeering into the side of Perez. Perez gave Hamilton space on the inside and his reward for that was a big fat hole in his sidepod which ruined his race. That's a penalty, wet or dry. In fact, 5 seconds is not a hefty price for putting someone out of a race and being predominantly at fault.

I think below is a good post on twitter in giving full picture.

[Just_a_fan]

Then F1 shouldn't hold races in the wet, or they should just be led around by the safety car.
The FIA can tell from the steering inputs of a driver and footage we don't see if a driver has made
a deliberate move to push another driver off the track. The root cause of the collision was Perez's inters going off, introducing a gap most drivers would go for.

I'd be saying the same thing if Max had collided with Perez. It was a racing incident in the wet, nothing more.

The root cause of the collision was Hamilton understeering into the side of Perez. Perez gave Hamilton space on the inside and his reward for that was a big fat hole in his sidepod which ruined his race. That's a penalty, wet or dry. In fact, 5 seconds is not a hefty price for putting someone out of a race and being predominantly at fault.

There's an assessment elsewhere that shows/suggest that Red Bull have significant outwash with the front tyre wake being pushed outboard of the rear tyre. If so, it would have affected Hamilton's front wing increasing any propensity to understeer.

Ironically, it's quite possible that Perez's own car caused the issue without him or Hamilton knowing how/why.

Such are the fine margins involved.

[chrisc90]

Fine to overtake if you can do it whilst remaining in control of your car. By losing control from being on the kerb causing understeer isn’t ok. Hence a penalty

So any overtake resulting in contact should result in penalty?
So processions

Not what I said.

Overtaking is fine. As long as you remain in control of your car. Happens plenty of times

[ab_f1]

Fine to overtake if you can do it whilst remaining in control of your car. By losing control from being on the kerb causing understeer isn’t ok. Hence a penalty

So any overtake resulting in contact should result in penalty?
So processions

Not what I said.

Overtaking is fine. As long as you remain in control of your car. Happens plenty of times

Isn't it the hard racing RBR always calls out when its one of their cars? BTW in this case it wasn't too hard TBH. Contact happened but none of the parties were too be blamed.

[basti313]

So any overtake resulting in contact should result in penalty?
So processions

Not what I said.

Overtaking is fine. As long as you remain in control of your car. Happens plenty of times

Isn't it the hard racing RBR always calls out when its one of their cars? BTW in this case it wasn't too hard TBH. Contact happened but none of the parties were too be blamed.

No, understeering into your opponent from behind is not what hard racing is. That is bad racing.

[SiLo]

Then F1 shouldn't hold races in the wet, or they should just be led around by the safety car.
The FIA can tell from the steering inputs of a driver and footage we don't see if a driver has made
a deliberate move to push another driver off the track. The root cause of the collision was Perez's inters going off, introducing a gap most drivers would go for.

I'd be saying the same thing if Max had collided with Perez. It was a racing incident in the wet, nothing more.

The root cause of the collision was Hamilton understeering into the side of Perez. Perez gave Hamilton space on the inside and his reward for that was a big fat hole in his sidepod which ruined his race. That's a penalty, wet or dry. In fact, 5 seconds is not a hefty price for putting someone out of a race and being predominantly at fault.

I think below is a good post on twitter in giving full picture.

That's a good review really, and you can see the space available to each at the time.

My take is that he more than likely deserved a penalty because if the understeer and correction that caused the collision, but he was also right to attempt the move in the first place.

[DDopey]

Perez wrecked his tyres, if he'd kept them alive then Lewis would have likely never seen the gap. Swap positions and Perez would have done the same thing. It was a racing incident nothing more.
As Senna said if your not going for the gap then you are no longer racing.

So the point with this is, there is a gap, but Lewis understeered and slided into Perez. Not on purpose, but he was the cause of the collision. My issue with seeing this as a racing incident is that you need to be in control of your car. If you are not and cause a collision, you should be punished. Now let clear, I do not think Lewis did this on purpose, but we will never be 100% sure if a driver introduces oversteer on purpose or it is because of a misjudgement. And thus I think in this kind of situation a penalty is always in place.

Then F1 shouldn't hold races in the wet, or they should just be led around by the safety car.
The FIA can tell from the steering inputs of a driver and footage we don't see if a driver has made
a deliberate move to push another driver off the track. The root cause of the collision was Perez's inters going off, introducing a gap most drivers would go for.

I'd be saying the same thing if Max had collided with Perez. It was a racing incident in the wet, nothing more.

No, the FIA cannot always tell from the steering inputs and footage if a driver did something deliberate or if it was an accident. They do not know the level of grip at that moment and then should calculate something from the angle, steering input, speed, acceleration, deceleration. So that is pretty impossible. Also, introducing a gap, is not inviting to get hit by another car, I find that strange reasoning. Thats a shift of responsibility which would make racing quite weird.

[Willy]

So any overtake resulting in contact should result in penalty?
So processions

Not what I said.

Overtaking is fine. As long as you remain in control of your car. Happens plenty of times

Isn't it the hard racing RBR always calls out when its one of their cars? BTW in this case it wasn't too hard TBH. Contact happened but none of the parties were too be blamed.

The onus of keeping things clean in an overtake is on car attempting overtake. Understeering into another car is bad driving. Equally, if the chasing car is alongside, giving a car's width and not crowding, is on the car ahead. Perez did what rules say, where he gave enough room on the inside. Then Lewis lost control with an understeer, which is against the rule of keeping it clean. That's exactly how Stewards saw it and awarded penalty to Lewis. This is not the first time Lewis has done and got penalty anyways.

[Mogster]

This starts with Perez being slow and sliding around, so much that Hamilton was almost fully alongside quite rapidly. I don’t think squeezing Hamilton onto the kerb in the wet was particularly bright of Perez. Considering the conditions I thought it was a harsh penalty.

I did think it was odd how Perez’s pace dropped off a cliff after the impact, although his tyres looked shot before the damage.

[chrisc90]

It was the same with sainz’s damage on the Sunday. His pace also dropped off a cliff.
Just shows the sidepod must be a key part of the car