No they review it based on the rulebook and similar incidents in the past.
If it was Lecrec racing him Verstappen would happen every race , just the ferrari not up there yetPlatinumZealot wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 19:55I'm really done arguing over the incident itself. People won't change their beleifs over night.
All i know is that Lewis and Mercedes have benefited big time over this!!
Bagged 25 points to cut the lead down to 8 Pts.
Bagged 40 constructors points.
Rival chassis is destroyed. That will disrupt the rival team's schedules, cost them more money and likely an engine penalty too!
On the driver side the rival driver is shaken up, luckily he haa two weeks to heal... AND bonus points: he will suffer some sort of PTSD every tume he comes up on Lewis now.
So yeah these reprocussions (##blessings## if you are Lewis) or setbacks for the rival should go a far way in fighting the championship.
People refer to Hamilton understeering as a result of taking too much speed into the corner. He could have made the inside if he took less speed into the corner.Marty_Y wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 20:55Regarding all this apex stuff, am I totally mistaken in thinking that drivers don't have to hit the apex, generally drivers try to hit the apex because in most cases that is the fastest way through a corner?
Also Hamilton hadn't even reached the apex of the corner before the incident took place, so that argument is null and void.
No, you’re conflating overtake attempts on the outside with the inside. The rules are different. You’re making the same mistake the TV coverage guys made, this is why terms/phrases like ‘leaving space, apex’ etc. have no place in this discussion; it was an inside manoeuvre.
Yes the guide is explained on motorsport if you are on the inside you need to be less ahead of a car to claim the corner then when you overtake from the outside214270 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 21:01No, you’re conflating overtake attempts on the outside with the inside. The rules are different. You’re making the same mistake the TV coverage guys made, this is why terms/phrases like ‘leaving space, apex’ etc. have no place in this discussion; it was an inside manoeuvre.
I’m convinced the stewards were taking their cues from the Sky, who themselves got it wrong.
He doesnt have to hit the apex necessarily. But since the other driver isnt obliged to give more than one cars width of space, he would need to make the corner within that space and without making contact imo. In this case he understeered slightly forward into him (which is also why HAM was on the breakes).Marty_Y wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 20:55Regarding all this apex stuff, am I totally mistaken in thinking that drivers don't have to hit the apex, generally drivers try to hit the apex because in most cases that is the fastest way through a corner?
Also Hamilton hadn't even reached the apex of the corner before the incident took place, so that argument is null and void.
The one car width does not come into play whilst in the corner, Hamilton also left one car width. Both drivers are steering right and the gap on the right is therefore decreasing, with this logic Max can just keep turning until there is one car width regardless of a car being there.aMessageToCharlie wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 21:04He doesnt have to hit the apex necessarily. But since the other driver isnt obliged to give more than one cars width of space, he would need to make the corner within that space and without making contact imo. In this case he understeered slightly forward into him (which is also why HAM was on the breakes).Marty_Y wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 20:55Regarding all this apex stuff, am I totally mistaken in thinking that drivers don't have to hit the apex, generally drivers try to hit the apex because in most cases that is the fastest way through a corner?
Also Hamilton hadn't even reached the apex of the corner before the incident took place, so that argument is null and void.
You have to applaud him for sticking his neck out and saying that. Fair play to him.
Actually different situations:
True, still the defending party should have left a car width on the outside, which they did not.SmallSoldier wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 21:19Actually different situations:
A) On the NOR-PER incident, the driver on the inside is the defending car
B) On the NOR-PER incident, the penalty is for not leaving a car width space on the outside for the overtaking car
Nope, the person on the outside, defending must YIELD.Fnatic1 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 21:27True, still the defending party should have left a car width on the outside, which they did not.SmallSoldier wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021, 21:19Actually different situations:
A) On the NOR-PER incident, the driver on the inside is the defending car
B) On the NOR-PER incident, the penalty is for not leaving a car width space on the outside for the overtaking car
Verstappen was in this case the defending party, in this case on the outside. He left the car width, which he is entitled to.
Hamilton the attacking party who induced the understeer by taking too much speed into the corner at that kind of angle, hence the initiator of the contact and therefore at fault.