2021 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, July 16 - 18

[Kingshark]

The inside man that is alongside going into the braking zone has always "owned" the corner as long as I have watched motor racing. So I was sorta shocked that Max would risk so much.

Nope. That's not how it works.

If those were the rules, then Hamilton was at fault for hitting Raikkonen at Silverstone 2018, using your exact rules.

[Jolle]

Obviously Verstappen was moving. You are supposed to move your car if you want to turn it into a corner. The fact that Hamilton was “minding his own business” (aka not turning) when he was supposed to turn is precisely why Hamilton is at fault for the accident.

Hamilton had a big handful of lock applied in to the corner and was going around the corner. Ergo, he was turning.

Well, given the fact that Verstappen gave him approximately 2 car widths of space down the inside and Hamilton still ran into him, evidently he didn’t steer early enough for the situation he found himself in (carrying lots of speed and on a narrow angle).

If you are on the inside line, you have to steer later instead of earlier to make the corner (with less speed, to rotate the car more). If you steer in to soon, you will miss the corner.
As for “Verstappen left him enough space” (if the FIA/Allison guide lines are applied) is a simple no, because they collided. In a case of “it needs two to tango”, Hamilton was leading in this case, and would have first dibs on the line he wanted to make the corner, Verstappen should have give him space to do so (and that is why Hamilton gave him all the space a few corners before that).

With the FIA/Allison rules in hand, Verstappen should of let his car run his car much wider (like Hamilton did earlier in the turn).

[Just_a_fan]

"ran in to him" is emotive. It's also relative. From the perspective of Hamilton's car, Max's car hit it. And from Max's car, the other way round.

From an external frame of reference, Max's car tried to take a radius that brought him across the arc that Hamilton's radius was taking him. As those two arcs intersected, there was always going to be contact unless one or other made longitudinal separation. Max thought that he had made that separation and so continued on his chosen arc. Unfortunately for him, the separation didn't exist - there was still an overlap - and contact occurred.

This kind of pseudoanalysis sounds great on the surface but it is fairly meaningless. The exact words in this post of yours could be used to argue that every singe incident in F1 history is a racing incident. After all, in every incident, the perception of whose car hit who depends on the frame of reference. In every incident, two arcs of two different cars intersect.

That is why we have rules in racing, to determine who is at fault for these type of incidents. Max was ahead. Max left space down the inside. Max did his part. It was up to Lewis to control his car, use the space on the inside, and not hit the driver on the outside (who was ahead). Lewis failed to achieve this, just like Brazil 2019 and Austria 2020. That is why the race stewards, who have access to telemetry and data, judged Lewis at fault for the accident.

There was no deliberate attempt by either driver to make contact - they both know what that means to their own chances in the race. Deliberate touches do happen, but not in very high speed corners. They're done in low speed stuff where damage to the tapping car is less likely (but not impossible).

Did I ever call it deliberate? If not, why are you even bringing it up?

The "pseudoanalysis" was just showing that "ran in to him" is emotive and can imply deliberate action.

Most shunts are racing incidents, to be fair. Most shunts are just one or two drivers misjudging something. Very few are deliberate attempts to cause an accident. That blame is apportioned and penalties given is more to do with making sure drivers don't decide to carry out deliberate actions that cause accidents / damage to other cars.

A divebomb up the inside might be considered a deliberate attempt to crash - it's saying the other driver make way or we crash. But a bit of wheel to wheel jockeying for position, as happened in the race and Sunday, is just a racing incident.

The stewards gave a weak penalty purely to be seen to be doing something and prevent ire being directed their way.

[Just_a_fan]

I predict that in the next wheel-to-wheel bit of racing between Max and Lewis, if Lewis is the one slightly ahead, Max will touch him and try to spin him. I think he'll be too blatant and then we'll see what the stewards do. I fear this relationship will spiral out of control as the season goes on, with the flames fanned by the media etc.

[Fnatic1]

The inside man that is alongside going into the braking zone has always "owned" the corner as long as I have watched motor racing. So I was sorta shocked that Max would risk so much.

Nope. That's not how it works.

If those were the rules, then Hamilton was at fault for hitting Raikkonen at Silverstone 2018, using your exact rules.

As Kingshark said, that ruling would mean the car on the inside (defending or attacking party) always has the right to push the car on the outside off the track.

It doesn’t work like that, see Austria this year for example.

You got to respect the car on the outside, especially if the car on the outside was technically slightly ahead.

I am a bit baffled because some explanations I see here would not put HAM at blame at all for this incident.

How come the stewards then deemed it his fault? Oh, wait, there are sporting regulations.

If the stewards deem it is a racing incident, neither of them would get a penalty. Don’t challenge this, because it is stated in the sporting regulations.

[Jolle]

I predict that in the next wheel-to-wheel bit of racing between Max and Lewis, if Lewis is the one slightly ahead, Max will touch him and try to spin him. I think he'll be too blatant and then we'll see what the stewards do. I fear this relationship will spiral out of control as the season goes on, with the flames fanned by the media etc.

This may come down to experience. Hamilton has a good bag of that with the fights with Rosberg, who did exactly that in the races following Spain 2016, trying to follow the guidelines but taking it a step to far (Austria comes to mind), but in racing craft and car control in wheel to wheel positioning, I think Verstappen is much more comfortable at that then Rosberg was. Both Verstappen and Hamilton seem to have the ability to race a F1 car right on the edge and still have the mental capacity to react what is happening around them, which we’ve seen over and over again very few other drivers possess (looking at you Vettel).

As for mind games, Redbull is trying to wind things up, Hamilton/Mercedes are likely to react to it with half smile and not engaging, winding someone like Verstappen up even more (and by that falling in their own trap).

[nzjrs]

I predict that in the next wheel-to-wheel bit of racing between Max and Lewis, if Lewis is the one slightly ahead, Max will touch him and try to spin him. I think he'll be too blatant and then we'll see what the stewards do. I fear this relationship will spiral out of control as the season goes on, with the flames fanned by the media etc.

Can you imagine if Perez spins Hamilton! That would be something to behold.

I would guess that the rules of engagement for Perez vs Hamilton do not include yielding at all....

I think Verstappen will be fine. Both Hamilton and Verstappen made their point about not conceding, it will be back to normal service.

[Kingshark]

Most shunts are racing incidents, to be fair. Most shunts are just one or two drivers misjudging something. Very few are deliberate attempts to cause an accident. That blame is apportioned and penalties given is more to do with making sure drivers don't decide to carry out deliberate actions that cause accidents / damage to other cars.

It’s very common for the fanbase of the driver who is primarily at fault for an accident to argue that it was a racing incident.

Would you have accepted it if a Rosberg fan tried to argue racing incident after Spa 2014?

“Racing incident” when your driver is predominantly at fault is like a guilty party trying to settle in court.

A divebomb up the inside might be considered a deliberate attempt to crash - it's saying the other driver make way or we crash. But a bit of wheel to wheel jockeying for position, as happened in the race and Sunday, is just a racing incident.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with divebombs when they are executed correctly; and they certainly do not imply a deliberate crashing attempt. A divebomb, if executed correctly, can create a beautiful overtake (see Monza 2007).

Silverstone 2021 was not a divebomb though. It was clumsy from Hamilton and a little bit reckless, but it was not a divebomb.

The stewards gave a weak penalty purely to be seen to be doing something and prevent ire being directed their way.

A 10 second penalty is not actually considered a weak penalty. Drive through are becoming increasingly rare. Most incidents these days are either 5 or 10 seconds, so the fact that it was 10 seconds instead of 5 alone is a statement.

Secondly, your claim that the stewards only gave a penalty to Hamilton in order to avoid backlash is not supported by any evidence. The stewards analyzed the incident and gave a clear explanation as to why Hamilton was deemed predominantly at fault.

A statement from the FIA read: “The Stewards reviewed video and telemetry evidence. Cars 33 [Verstappen] and 44 [Hamilton] entered turn 9 with Car 33 in the lead and Car 44 slightly behind and on the inside.

“Car 44 was on a line that did not reach the apex of the corner, with room available to the inside. When Car 33 turned into the corner, Car 44 did not avoid contact and the left front of Car 44 contacted the right rear of Car 33. Car 44 is judged predominantly at fault.”

[Chuckjr]

How wrong is this part!

Firstly there was a high chance Max wasn't staying within track limits. Reason being, he got to Copse with the speed he was doing, he turned in, then he opened the steering as he realised Lewis was actually still there. Then re applied the lock. He wasnt going to make the apex because of this, but he was carrying the speed that would require the apex to be hit. If you ever get chance on a track (in a kart or car) or even on a decent sim try taking a corner on your limit so your using all of the track width. Then do it again with the same speed but after your initial turn in, open the wheel up, and then see if you still make the corner.

Secondly Lewis went wide after the contact, the contact caused him to go wider, the contact didn't keep him on a tighter line. 1 part was becasue the contact straightened the front wheels of the Mercedes for a brief moment, and secondly it upset the balance and lightly unloaded the outside tyres losing him grip.

Not a single thing you said here is factually true. The onboard camera shows Max's steering wheel continuing to turn right with no opening up as you proclaim. The first time his hand moves is after contact with Lewis and then you see the car is out of control. Max was not going off the track before the contact and anybody who thinks this is 100% wrong. Leclerc did the exact same thing later on in the race to Lewis and he made the corner because Charles wasn't a championship threat like Max is and so Lewis backed out. If anything Charles was wider then Max.

Lewis knew that this would probably be his last chance to get past Max in the race and this is why he put his car where he did. He was going in there no matter what and that is why it is exactly like Senna vs Prost at Suzuka 1990. It may not have been as pre meditated as Senna but it is still a take out by Lewis on Max and worthy of a much greater penalty then the 10 seconds he got.

I have many Grand Prix games and I can tell you that if you turn in from Max's position you will make club corner but if you turn in from Lewis position you need to brake or lift if you are to stay on the track and not go wide.The contact didn't make Lewis go wide but rather it slowed him down and then he still went wide. If Max backs down then Lewis from his line would have ended up somewhere off track between where Max ended up in the barrier and where he ended up off track.

This is another reason why Lewis did what he did because he would have lost 1-2 seconds and maybe more to Max if he backs down and then Max would pull away. In many ways it is also similar to Senna and Brundle at Donnington park where Senna just put his car where Brundle was going.

Great assessment. I understand what happened better now. Thank you. I fully expect Lewis to continue to crack under pressure because he can’t match Max’s natural speed. He’s in his 30’s and 30 year olds are slower than 20 year olds. Just a fact of life. The Merc has camouflaged Lewis’ deterioration with its dominance, and it’s beginning to surface in his mistakes when the tension is highest. Max will win the season because he’s a faster driver, handles the tension better, and Red Bull will continue car development until the last race if necessary.

[NathanOlder]

How wrong is this part!

Firstly there was a high chance Max wasn't staying within track limits. Reason being, he got to Copse with the speed he was doing, he turned in, then he opened the steering as he realised Lewis was actually still there. Then re applied the lock. He wasnt going to make the apex because of this, but he was carrying the speed that would require the apex to be hit. If you ever get chance on a track (in a kart or car) or even on a decent sim try taking a corner on your limit so your using all of the track width. Then do it again with the same speed but after your initial turn in, open the wheel up, and then see if you still make the corner.

Secondly Lewis went wide after the contact, the contact caused him to go wider, the contact didn't keep him on a tighter line. 1 part was becasue the contact straightened the front wheels of the Mercedes for a brief moment, and secondly it upset the balance and lightly unloaded the outside tyres losing him grip.

Not a single thing you said here is factually true. The onboard camera shows Max's steering wheel continuing to turn right with no opening up as you proclaim. The first time his hand moves is after contact with Lewis and then you see the car is out of control. Max was not going off the track before the contact and anybody who thinks this is 100% wrong. Leclerc did the exact same thing later on in the race to Lewis and he made the corner because Charles wasn't a championship threat like Max is and so Lewis backed out. If anything Charles was wider then Max.

Lewis knew that this would probably be his last chance to get past Max in the race and this is why he put his car where he did. He was going in there no matter what and that is why it is exactly like Senna vs Prost at Suzuka 1990. It may not have been as pre meditated as Senna but it is still a take out by Lewis on Max and worthy of a much greater penalty then the 10 seconds he got.

I have many Grand Prix games and I can tell you that if you turn in from Max's position you will make club corner but if you turn in from Lewis position you need to brake or lift if you are to stay on the track and not go wide.The contact didn't make Lewis go wide but rather it slowed him down and then he still went wide. If Max backs down then Lewis from his line would have ended up somewhere off track between where Max ended up in the barrier and where he ended up off track.

This is another reason why Lewis did what he did because he would have lost 1-2 seconds and maybe more to Max if he backs down and then Max would pull away. In many ways it is also similar to Senna and Brundle at Donnington park where Senna just put his car where Brundle was going.

Firstly, Max did open the steering on corner entry , are you that blind ?

Secondly, Lewis never got near enough to Leclerc to own the corner, so he backed out.

Thirdly, if you think bumping someone in a grand prix car will help you get round a corner, then there is no reason to continue talking to you as you don't understand what you are talking about.

[NathanOlder]

Secondly Lewis went wide after the contact, the contact caused him to go wider

Your understanding of basic physics is wrong. If you are accelerating forward and you make contact with a solid object, that will slow down your momentum, not speed you up.

The fact that Hamilton went slightly wide despite hitting Verstappen shows that he would have gone well wide if Verstappen’s car ghosted. He was never going to make the corner at that speed from that angle. It was a reckless manoeuvre.

No no no!!! These cars are planted at those speeds, they load the outside tyres before fully turning in, mid corner the car is fully loaded, ANY bump or knock will unsettle the car and cause it to lose grip. This doesn't help a car go round a corner!!!!

If 2 cars touch in a braking zone, they always overshoot or go deeper than planned. They were unsettled. Its not bumper cars for goodness sake. These cars or on the absolute limit of adhesion! you cant bump them mid corner.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... and then suddenly it's "he took him out", "51g, man!", and .....

51g where and when ? (I wonder)

if Mr Verstappen's insides had experienced 51g 'facewards' this would be borderline for retinal detachment
for this to happen his skull etc would need perhaps 500 millisec of the 51g (eg Stapp's self-tests c.60 years ago)

presumably ....
the 51g was detected on the car's structure not on the driver
the response of the driver's various body parts is modeled in determining the impact regulations

[Just_a_fan]

Most shunts are racing incidents, to be fair. Most shunts are just one or two drivers misjudging something. Very few are deliberate attempts to cause an accident. That blame is apportioned and penalties given is more to do with making sure drivers don't decide to carry out deliberate actions that cause accidents / damage to other cars.

It’s very common for the fanbase of the driver who is primarily at fault for an accident to argue that it was a racing incident.

Would you have accepted it if a Rosberg fan tried to argue racing incident after Spa 2014?

Yes, up until the point that Rosberg admitted that he "left his nose there on purpose".

“Racing incident” when your driver is predominantly at fault is like a guilty party trying to settle in court.

I don't have a driver.

A divebomb up the inside might be considered a deliberate attempt to crash - it's saying the other driver make way or we crash. But a bit of wheel to wheel jockeying for position, as happened in the race and Sunday, is just a racing incident.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with divebombs when they are executed correctly; and they certainly do not imply a deliberate crashing attempt. A divebomb, if executed correctly, can create a beautiful overtake (see Monza 2007).

Silverstone 2021 was not a divebomb though. It was clumsy from Hamilton and a little bit reckless, but it was not a divebomb.

A dive bomb requires the defending driver to see and react to the attacking driver. If you divebomb and the other driver turns in on you then you're usually held to at fault. I don't think many people have an issue with that.

The stewards gave a weak penalty purely to be seen to be doing something and prevent ire being directed their way.

A 10 second penalty is not actually considered a weak penalty. Drive through are becoming increasingly rare. Most incidents these days are either 5 or 10 seconds, so the fact that it was 10 seconds instead of 5 alone is a statement.

Secondly, your claim that the stewards only gave a penalty to Hamilton in order to avoid backlash is not supported by any evidence. The stewards analyzed the incident and gave a clear explanation as to why Hamilton was deemed predominantly at fault.

A statement from the FIA read: “The Stewards reviewed video and telemetry evidence. Cars 33 [Verstappen] and 44 [Hamilton] entered turn 9 with Car 33 in the lead and Car 44 slightly behind and on the inside.

“Car 44 was on a line that did not reach the apex of the corner, with room available to the inside. When Car 33 turned into the corner, Car 44 did not avoid contact and the left front of Car 44 contacted the right rear of Car 33. Car 44 is judged predominantly at fault.”

It's a weak penalty because it's the second lowest penalty. 5s, 10s, drive-through, 30s, DSQ. As you say, drive throughs are rare.

And the word predominantly was used specifically because they held that there was joint blame. If they had used the word "wholly" then that would have been 0% Max, 100% Lewis. As it was, they felt it was <50% Max, >50% Lewis. As it was only a 10s penalty, they obviously think that Lewis was closer to 50% than 100% to blame, but we'll never know.

I think the penalty was the stewards covering themselves (so people can't accuse them of allowing shunts) without being seen to be deciding the race result. A drive-through would have been and race-over for Hamilton - he would have likely got in the points, but nowhere near the front. That's the political side of stewarding and one that falls either way for/against you at times.

[Just_a_fan]

.... and then suddenly it's "he took him out", "51g, man!", and .....

51g where and when ? (I wonder)

if Mr Verstappen's insides had experienced 51g 'facewards' this would be borderline for retinal detachment
for this to happen his skull etc would need perhaps 500 millisec of the 51g

presumably ....
the 51g was detected on the car's structure not on the driver
the response of the driver's various body parts is modeled in determining the impact regulations

Yes, the 51g was what the on-car sensor recorded. The driver won't have been subjected to that as various devices in the car are intended to prevent him from being subjected to such loads. Certainly the head restraints along the side of the cockpit opening will limit the acceleration of the head in side impacts such as this one - that's why they're there.

I can see that he will have been winded by the impact - heck, listen to his radio and you can hear that he was winded etc. It's not a pleasant sound.

[Ryar]

.... and then suddenly it's "he took him out", "51g, man!", and .....

51g where and when ? (I wonder)

if Mr Verstappen's insides had experienced 51g 'facewards' this would be borderline for retinal detachment
for this to happen his skull etc would need perhaps 500 millisec of the 51g

presumably ....
the 51g was detected on the car's structure not on the driver
the response of the driver's various body parts is modeled in determining the impact regulations

Yes, the 51g was what the on-car sensor recorded. The driver won't have been subjected to that as various devices in the car are intended to prevent him from being subjected to such loads. Certainly the head restraints along the side of the cockpit opening will limit the acceleration of the head in side impacts such as this one - that's why they're there.

I can see that he will have been winded by the impact - heck, listen to his radio and you can hear that he was winded etc. It's not a pleasant sound.

Folks are not just armchair experts of F1, but are also experts in G-force impacts. In an effort to bring legitimacy to a foul argument, a serious accident impact is being talked down with absolute disdain. That's a new low.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16531891/

An analysis of maximum vehicle G forces and brain injury in motorsports crashes.

Results: We analyzed 374 crashes. A driver in a crash with an impact of > or =50 G developed a head injury 16.0% (30/188) versus 1.6% (3/186) in those of <50 G (P < 0.001). The mean peak G for those with head injury was 79.6 (SD 28.5) versus 50.6 (SD 28.0) in those with no head injury (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Findings were that IRL car crashes with peak vehicle G > or = 50 were associated with the development of traumatic brain injuries.

https://www.bosshunting.com.au/sport/f1 ... 1-g-force/

Speed doesn’t kill you.

Hitting a wall is what kills you. Stop dead in your tracks from any of these speeds, and you’ll be just that: dead.

Inertia is the true killer. And while acceleration and deceleration might seem like basic high-school science, the physics behind gravitational force (known as g-force) in the world of Formula 1 is a threat worth unpacking to truly appreciate the likes of Red Bull’s Max Verstappen walking away from his colossal crash this morning at the British Grand Prix.