2021 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, July 16 - 18

[TimW]

Is it time to carve race threads out onto a new forum url - f1emotional.net?

f1fanboy.net

[selvam_e2002]

horner et al cannot take hard racing :d lol.. it was not even hard racing actually. it was utter dangerous driving on max's part. you cannot view anything in vacuum. as I wrote before, max defended by going outside the track on 1st corner then he swerve like crazy constantly, he pushed Hamilton to the wall which incidentally made Lewis to take a more acute angle to copse. Lewis was perfectly side by side going into corner and had every right for the passing move but on top of all these max tuned into him expecting lewis to back off. yeah.. right.. max will not learn because this is what redbull feeds on. media hype... on so called greatness.. we see where their previous "great" is now. No offense to seb, I actually like him but redbull is just a media machine they are not racers as proved by saying "that corner is not where passing happens brooaoaoghh ". get real.

Also they literally forgave team points to get 1-point away from Lewis.. How low is that!!@! So from now on dear redbull fans, you cannot say a single word about Bottas being a wing man.

Nice comment and truthful one. 100% agree with it. I also afraid of RB building next Vettel. Till you are in comfort zone, you will never learn from mistake.

[PlatinumZealot]

No, i just wasn't aware that it would get embedded, when you go to FB there should be an automatic translation to whichever language FB is set to.
Here's the translation of the post:
https://i.imgur.com/cSXKgBh.png
Translated image:

So for Hamilton he is the green car on the image on the left. He has a right to the corner if he can do it cleanly.

For Max he is the green on the secons image to the right. He is more or less level with Kewis before the corner and he also has a right to the corner. And the car on the insidd MUST leave him space.

Now the question logically then is did Lewis leave Max enough space?

The answer is unsequivocally, YES.

So going by this diagram Lewis was not penalized for this. He was penalize for other reasons.

[Fulcrum]

"It is your corner if you can get through it cleanly."

I guess not then.

[PlatinumZealot]

He's the green car on the inside in the first image, he doesn't have to be ahead.

The diagram does not make sense as for the situation on the left both drawings are the same. But on the most left the green car must be ahead as it says that the car on the inside must be significantly ahead.

Your miscomprehend what the Image is saying. Look at the keywords.

"equal right. yield. leave enough space. Go through corner cleanly"

Hamilton had equal right and left enough space the corner can be taken cleanly with both cars, so he didn't have to yield. He simply was penalized for another sort of infringement IMO.

Causing a collision they said. Still not sure. It seemed Max caused the collision himself to me. But as the balanced person I am I can see that Lewis did an extremely risky move. It's not wreckless, becauae he had it under control. But it opened up risk from the outside driver turiing in and crashing. Lewis knows this and uses it his advantage on the inside. He know Mac woukd try to chop accross.

Imo His penalty was simply because did something unconvential that eneded another's race. Sort of dangling a carrot but not before slipping a steel rod inside of it!

[PlatinumZealot]

"It is your corner if you can get through it cleanly."

I guess not then.

It was possible because no had commited to the corner yet. See Leclerc.

[Phil]

Part of this issue stems from an half assed attempt by Verstappen to protect the inside line sufficiently.

Had he done that with committment, Lewis would have had to go to the outside, where the roles would have been reversed and it would either be Hamilton punted into the barriers or having to back out.

What pretty much happened in the sprint race, only Hamilton took the sensible choice.

It’s really that simple.

Yes, you can try to stick it around the outside and all these diagrams are nice and rosy, but they will always place you in a vulnerable position. Even if Hamilton lost the case on who should be punished, one walked away and could go on to win the race, the other had a first class ticket off the track. Which one is better for the championship?

[Fulcrum]

Yes, and the positioning of Lewis in both situations was very different. Ironically, with Leclerc, Lewis was a full car width closer to the inside of the track, while Leclerc himself was a full car width wider, meaning there was much more space for both.

It takes two to tango, Lewis clearly felt like dancing, and Max won't change. More accidents in-bound.

[NathanOlder]

Mercedes should pay for the repairs of the Red Bull car since its driver Hamilton was deemed responsible by Michael Masi and the stewards at Race Control. . F1 is on a budget cap and Dr. Helmut Markko is correct in complaining about the costs of fixing the car. Red Bull should not be penalized financially for the accident caused by Hamilton. This is something the FIA should look into and probably implement a system in the near future . Anybody else agree ?

Absolutely. Implementing cost cap is also a process of learnings these undesired impacts on the proceedings. Today it's Red Bull and tomorrow it will be Mercedes, again. So it's critical for FIA to have the cost cap regulations updated. The spirit of budget cap is to stop overspend on development, it shouldn't hamper racing operations just because someone made a dumb move from the other team.

I don't recall you fighting this rule when Russell wiped out Bottas in Imola. I must have missed that. What was the reaction from the Williams fans back then ?

[NathanOlder]

When you watch it in slow motion from the onboard of Lewis, he is still heading towards the apex right up to the point of contact, but it does look like he loses a little bit of turn in just as Max gets very close. The RedBull would have taken some of the clean air away from Lewis the closer he got to the Mercedes. It really was a pinch from Max that caused the whole thing. Charles didn't pinch Lewis in the same way and both cars came through. Another thing to add was, like turn 1, Max wouldn't have made the corner, so if he kept the position, he would have had to give it back, like he should have at turn 1.
My reasoning for this being, anyone who has driven a car on track anywhere near its limit will know, once you turn in to a corner, you cant unwind the lock on entry and turn in again and still make the corner. If you are on the limit (speed wise) you wont have enough grip to turn in, then straighten up, then turn in again. You will always run wide.

Also thinking about it, If Max had given the place up that he stole at turn 1, he wouldnt have ended up in the wall.

[Just_a_fan]

You can clearly see Lewis from Max’s onboard camera.

Yes, I said that. [edit, I didn't specify which on board so my apologies]

Another view is on this composite made by one the forum members here:
https://i.imgur.com/oQossKS.png

You can clearly see that Hamilton is all but exactly level with Max as they enter the corner phase. It looks ever more like Max just expected Hamilton to back out or swerve to avoid him as usual - indeed as had happened at the end of the Wellington Straight. But this time that didn't happen.

So that's a deciding moment allowing Lewis to miss the apex and send Max into a 51 g shunt? Seriously?
Let us wait for the moment that this happens to Lewis. It will be interesting....

Lewis is turning in towards the apex and is heading towards the inside line of the corner when Max comes across and hits him. Max decided to keep turning in and assumed that the other driver would yield because he is Max.

The "51g shunt" bit is Horner hyperbole and has no relevance. The result could just as easily have been a simple spin or even just a flick of instability and then back on the power.

I think Lewis wouldn't have continued to turn in once he saw another car there.

What will be interesting is whether Max continues to use the "I'm turning in / diving up the inside / whatever so you yield or we crash" technique that he's favoured for so long. I note that he doesn't move around under braking nearly so much as he did before he Baku incident with Danny.

The problem with using bully tactics - and that's what it is - is that eventually someone stands up to the bully. It's how he moves on from that moment that is interesting.

[Just_a_fan]

[...]

This pic makes it so obvious what happened. Max definitely squeezed, he should have gone wider, Ham was side by side for a long time. Max just turned in. Amazing so many of these "experts' can't see how simple this incident is. They just penalized hamilton because Max got taken out of the race after a horrific crash. If Max somehow spins but rejoins the race unscathed I'm pretty sure there would be no penalty.

Nice work on the image.

Indeed so.

I think the penalty was as much about being seen to punish as anything. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some discussion about trying to prevent "revenge" moves too.

[Ryar]

Mercedes should pay for the repairs of the Red Bull car since its driver Hamilton was deemed responsible by Michael Masi and the stewards at Race Control. . F1 is on a budget cap and Dr. Helmut Markko is correct in complaining about the costs of fixing the car. Red Bull should not be penalized financially for the accident caused by Hamilton. This is something the FIA should look into and probably implement a system in the near future . Anybody else agree ?

Absolutely. Implementing cost cap is also a process of learnings these undesired impacts on the proceedings. Today it's Red Bull and tomorrow it will be Mercedes, again. So it's critical for FIA to have the cost cap regulations updated. The spirit of budget cap is to stop overspend on development, it shouldn't hamper racing operations just because someone made a dumb move from the other team.

I don't recall you fighting this rule when Russell wiped out Bottas in Imola. I must have missed that. What was the reaction from the Williams fans back then ?

Like most others and I am no SME, my attention to the matter came to this matter of how cost cap is going hinder the teams, when Russell-Bottas incident happened. IMO, there should be an exclusion on the regulation to allow teams to repair/replace the damaged part, outside of the cost cap. The noises are higher now as it may affect the championship fight, unlike in Russell-Bottas incident. Invariably, it may affect Mercedes next. So the team loyalties shouldn't cloud the thought process in this regard.

[Just_a_fan]

Part of this issue stems from an half assed attempt by Verstappen to protect the inside line sufficiently.

Had he done that with committment, Lewis would have had to go to the outside, where the roles would have been reversed and it would either be Hamilton punted into the barriers or having to back out.

What pretty much happened in the sprint race, only Hamilton took the sensible choice.

It’s really that simple.

Yes, you can try to stick it around the outside and all these diagrams are nice and rosy, but they will always place you in a vulnerable position. Even if Hamilton lost the case on who should be punished, one walked away and could go on to win the race, the other had a first class ticket off the track. Which one is better for the championship?

Exactly so. Max pulled across to the right to claim the inside line and assumed that Hamilton would just give up. He then opened the door by pulling left to give himself the best line through the corner. And that opened the door to a car that was several km/h faster at that point and was able to get alongside him.

And the point about the championship and points is the key here. If Max doesn't learn from this then it's going to happen again. If it happens with A.N.Other driver, he potentially loses a hat full of points and gives his rival a free ride.

[Just_a_fan]

Absolutely. Implementing cost cap is also a process of learnings these undesired impacts on the proceedings. Today it's Red Bull and tomorrow it will be Mercedes, again. So it's critical for FIA to have the cost cap regulations updated. The spirit of budget cap is to stop overspend on development, it shouldn't hamper racing operations just because someone made a dumb move from the other team.

I don't recall you fighting this rule when Russell wiped out Bottas in Imola. I must have missed that. What was the reaction from the Williams fans back then ?

Like most others and I am no SME, my attention to the matter came to this matter of how cost cap is going hinder the teams, when Russell-Bottas incident happened. IMO, there should be an exclusion on the regulation to allow teams to repair/replace the damaged part, outside of the cost cap. The noises are higher now as it may affect the championship fight, unlike in Russell-Bottas incident. Invariably, it may affect Mercedes next. So the team loyalties shouldn't cloud the thought process in this regard.

Of course allowing for big shunt repairs outside of cost cap helps the big teams and not the small teams - the small teams are generally operating below the cost cap level anyway. I can't see it getting through a vote, especially for the teams in the midfield that might be close to the cap level and think they might lose if there is a change.