2021 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, July 16 - 18

[Fnatic1]

Actually 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

True, still the defending party should have left a car width on the outside, which they did not.

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.

Nope, the person on the outside, defending must YIELD.

VER must yield.

Could you elaborate? You make a statement without any clarification.

So with your logic you are not allowed to defend on the outside anymore and you always have to yield, no matter how much speed the attacking party on the inside takes into a corner.

[214270]

True, still the defending party should have left a car width on the outside, which they did not.

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.

Nope, the person on the outside, defending must YIELD.

VER must yield.

Could you elaborate? You make a statement without any clarification.

So with your logic you are not allowed to defend on the outside anymore and you always have to yield, no matter how much speed the attacking party on the inside takes into a corner.

Implicit in the rules is the understanding that an inside overtake is riskier/more dangerous than one on the outside. The person undertaking an inside overtake will be on a compromised line, will have overspeed compared to the defending party and will as a result wash wide on exit. The rules are therefore written this way, because they are NOT trying to facilitate a side-by-side. This would be dangerous.

Therefore the one on the inside overtakes, the one defending is expected to yield. Safety is maintained.

[Fnatic1]

Nope, the person on the outside, defending must YIELD.

VER must yield.

Could you elaborate? You make a statement without any clarification.

So with your logic you are not allowed to defend on the outside anymore and you always have to yield, no matter how much speed the attacking party on the inside takes into a corner.

Implicit in the rules is the understanding that an inside overtake is riskier/more dangerous than one on the outside. The person undertaking an inside overtake will be on a compromised line, will have overspeed compared to the defending party and will as a result wash wide on exit. The rules are therefore written this way, because they are NOT trying to facilitate a side-by-side. This would be dangerous.

Therefore the one on the inside overtakes, the one defending is expected to yield. Safety is maintained.

It is correct that a car on the inside is on a compromised line. This does not automatically mean the car on the inside will wash wide, that depends on the speed the car on the inside takes into the turn.

The responsibility is thus on the car on the inside to not make contact, provided that the party on the outside leaves the space (= car width).

This is exactly why the penalty has been issued to HAM. I am certain stewards are better aware of the rules than you.

[zibby43]

Honda engine boss on the incident:

“I think it was a racing incident because both drivers were also on each other's heels in all the previous corners, but the other driver is a seven-time champion,"

the Japanese chief said.

You have to applaud him for sticking his neck out and saying that. Fair play to him.

Huge amount of respect for seeing it without team glasses on.

I mean, I understand James Allison is biased, but he’s a extraordinarily high-caliber human, and his explanation of the incident in the debrief was quite reasonable to me, eliminating all fandom out of the equation.

[Fnatic1]

Honda engine boss on the incident:

“I think it was a racing incident because both drivers were also on each other's heels in all the previous corners, but the other driver is a seven-time champion,"

the Japanese chief said.

You have to applaud him for sticking his neck out and saying that. Fair play to him.

Huge amount of respect for seeing it without team glasses on.

I mean, I understand James Allison is biased, but he’s a extraordinarily high-caliber human, and his explanation of the incident in the debrief was quite reasonable to me, eliminating all fandom out of the equation.

Still, he acted like it was 100% HAM corner and VER had to yield, no matter what.

He forgot to mention VER left the car width (which the defending party on the outside is obliged to) and HAM understeered wide, and thus initiated the contact.

I get why he does not touch upon this but there is a clear reason why the penalty was awarded to HAM and this is perfectly in accordance with the rulebook.

[Just_a_fan]

Regarding 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.

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).

The one car's width rule applies when a driver changes line to defend against an attack. Not in every random situation on track.

An alternative view as to why Hamilton was slowing down is that Max turned in to him and Hamilton was trying to avoid a ham-fisted defence. Or is that too controversial?

[El Scorchio]

Honda engine boss on the incident:

“I think it was a racing incident because both drivers were also on each other's heels in all the previous corners, but the other driver is a seven-time champion,"

the Japanese chief said.

You have to applaud him for sticking his neck out and saying that. Fair play to him.

Huge amount of respect for seeing it without team glasses on.

I mean, I understand James Allison is biased, but he’s a extraordinarily high-caliber human, and his explanation of the incident in the debrief was quite reasonable to me, eliminating all fandom out of the equation.

Agree. I was wondering if he would address it or just skirt the issue, but I suppose it had to be done. I thought he was good at stressing it was just his personal opinion and interpretation of the rules as they pertain, and gave a decent simple explanation of why. Well handled.

[Just_a_fan]

Honda engine boss on the incident:

“I think it was a racing incident because both drivers were also on each other's heels in all the previous corners, but the other driver is a seven-time champion,"

the Japanese chief said.

If it was the Honda engine from last year, Red Bull would be decrying him for that. But the engine is good this year and Red Bull want advice in developing it, so no response was the swift reply.

[Fnatic1]

Regarding 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.

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).

The one car's width rule applies when a driver changes line to defend against an attack. Not in every random situation on track.

An alternative view as to why Hamilton was slowing down is that Max turned in to him and Hamilton was trying to avoid a ham-fisted defence. Or is that too controversial?

HAM came in too hot (hence understeered), and had to reduce speed in order to make the corner and eventually ended up on the exit kerb.

[Jolle]

You have to applaud him for sticking his neck out and saying that. Fair play to him.

Huge amount of respect for seeing it without team glasses on.

I mean, I understand James Allison is biased, but he’s a extraordinarily high-caliber human, and his explanation of the incident in the debrief was quite reasonable to me, eliminating all fandom out of the equation.

Still, he acted like it was 100% HAM corner and VER had to yield, no matter what.

He forgot to mention VER left the car width (which the defending party on the outside is obliged to) and HAM understeered wide, and thus initiated the contact.

I get why he does not touch upon this but there is a clear reason why the penalty was awarded to HAM and this is perfectly in accordance with the rulebook.

I don’t know if I saw the same video, but “no matter what”? He stated “you have to make the corner”, and as he was pointing out, he did.
If the FIA guidelines are as Allison say they are, I can believe his conviction that it wasn’t Hamilton’s fault.
Plus, I don’t see on the onboard “understeering into Verstappen”, but I might be missing something. I only see the slight understeer you have in a high speed corner while trail braking (especially with high fuel loads). No smoke, no opening up the steering to let the car grip again, no corrections…

[Just_a_fan]

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).

The one car's width rule applies when a driver changes line to defend against an attack. Not in every random situation on track.

An alternative view as to why Hamilton was slowing down is that Max turned in to him and Hamilton was trying to avoid a ham-fisted defence. Or is that too controversial?

HAM came in too hot (hence understeered), and had to reduce speed in order to make the corner and eventually ended up on the exit kerb.

Says who? Only one person knows whether the car was understeering and that's the driver.

[Fnatic1]

Huge amount of respect for seeing it without team glasses on.

I mean, I understand James Allison is biased, but he’s a extraordinarily high-caliber human, and his explanation of the incident in the debrief was quite reasonable to me, eliminating all fandom out of the equation.

Still, he acted like it was 100% HAM corner and VER had to yield, no matter what.

He forgot to mention VER left the car width (which the defending party on the outside is obliged to) and HAM understeered wide, and thus initiated the contact.

I get why he does not touch upon this but there is a clear reason why the penalty was awarded to HAM and this is perfectly in accordance with the rulebook.

I don’t know if I saw the same video, but “no matter what”? He stated “you have to make the corner”, and as he was pointing out, he did.
If the FIA guidelines are as Allison say they are, I can believe his conviction that it wasn’t Hamilton’s fault.
Plus, I don’t see on the onboard “understeering into Verstappen”, but I might be missing something. I only see the slight understeer you have in a high speed corner while trail braking (especially with high fuel loads). No smoke, no opening up the steering to let the car grip again, no corrections…

He forgot to mention there’s a car alongside, technically slightly ahead, who was perfectly entitled to take that corner.

There’s clear evidence HAM understeered, hence he came out of the throttle.

Here’s the onboard:

[cheeRS]

Regarding 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.

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).

The one car's width rule applies when a driver changes line to defend against an attack. Not in every random situation on track.

An alternative view as to why Hamilton was slowing down is that Max turned in to him and Hamilton was trying to avoid a ham-fisted defence. Or is that too controversial?

As a Ham fan, I cannot say I am unbiased, but IMO that explanation seems most accurate to me. Max turned in to fast/sharp for Lewis to really go anywhere as Lewis was backing off slightly.

Look at it this way: a driver can always go wider on a corner provided there is enough track and/or runoff, Of which there is ample amount at Copse. If roles and WDC points were reversed, I totally see Lewis running wide to the runoff with Max taking the inside. Exactly what he did in Hungary 2019 or 2020 for example.

When Max looked in his mirror and saw that Lewis was still there at Copse, he corrected left. He should have gone a bit more left instead of turning sharply right again. I say ‘should have’ with the assumption that Max actually wants to still win the WDC this year

[Fnatic1]

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).

The one car's width rule applies when a driver changes line to defend against an attack. Not in every random situation on track.

An alternative view as to why Hamilton was slowing down is that Max turned in to him and Hamilton was trying to avoid a ham-fisted defence. Or is that too controversial?

As a Ham fan, I cannot say I am unbiased, but IMO that explanation seems most accurate to me. Max turned in to fast/sharp for Lewis to really go anywhere as Lewis was backing off slightly.

Look at it this way: a driver can always go wider on a corner provided there is enough track and/or runoff, Of which there is ample amount at Copse. If roles and WDC points were reversed, I totally see Lewis running wide to the runoff with Max taking the inside. Exactly what he did in Hungary 2019 or 2020 for example.

When Max looked in his mirror and saw that Lewis was still there at Copse, he corrected left. He should have gone a bit more left instead of turning sharply right again. I say ‘should have’ with the assumption that Max actually wants to still win the WDC this year

Interesting that a driver now is allowed to run wide (outside track limits) and in Bahrain not.

VER left the required amount of space according to the rulebook.

This does not take away VER could have avoided this incident if he decided to back out before Copse.

[Jolle]

The one car's width rule applies when a driver changes line to defend against an attack. Not in every random situation on track.

An alternative view as to why Hamilton was slowing down is that Max turned in to him and Hamilton was trying to avoid a ham-fisted defence. Or is that too controversial?

As a Ham fan, I cannot say I am unbiased, but IMO that explanation seems most accurate to me. Max turned in to fast/sharp for Lewis to really go anywhere as Lewis was backing off slightly.

Look at it this way: a driver can always go wider on a corner provided there is enough track and/or runoff, Of which there is ample amount at Copse. If roles and WDC points were reversed, I totally see Lewis running wide to the runoff with Max taking the inside. Exactly what he did in Hungary 2019 or 2020 for example.

When Max looked in his mirror and saw that Lewis was still there at Copse, he corrected left. He should have gone a bit more left instead of turning sharply right again. I say ‘should have’ with the assumption that Max actually wants to still win the WDC this year

Interesting that a driver now is allowed to run wide (outside track limits) and in Bahrain not.

VER left the required amount of space according to the rulebook.

This does not take away VER could have avoided this incident if he decided to back out before Copse.

Now you’re just trolling. Of course you can run wide if the track allows you to. But, of course you will have to give the place back.