2021 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, July 16 - 18

[ringo]

Not quite the same, but at the point of contact, Lance left Max room.

Haha. Where is than anger now?This accident is even worse!!
The turn is a 90 degree turn. 2 cars cannot go there and Max chooses to squeeze.
Anyhow i think its just emotions from most people. This video came at the perfect time.
No objective person will really say what happened in Sunday's race was not a racing incident. Here we have a perfect example eith Max blaming Stroll. So he should blame his self for turning in on Lewis like Stroll turned in on him. lol

[ringo]

But the crash left the Dutchman furious.

"Is this f---ing guy blind?" he screamed on the radio.

"What the f--- is wrong with him? Jesus Christ. What a r-----. I have damage. What a mongol. I swear.

"He f--- his lap, I'm trying to prepare my lap, and he just f---- my lap by just opening DRS and staying on the normal line. No respect. But yeah, doesn't matter."

Forgot about this, incredibly tasteless.

Imagine if Lewis reacted like this when he touched with Max? He would be in state prison for this and banned from the sport!

[RZS10]

I've seen a discussion about the term "predominantly" vs "wholly" somewhere but that might have been part of an off topic discussion in the RBR Team Thread.
Edit: found it

I’ve never seen any different language being used but I also have to admit not always reading these reports

This is from Silverstone 2019 when Vettel took out Max: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... %2033).pdf

"The Stewards concluded that the driver of car 5 was wholly to blame for the incident"


We had a "causing a collision" decision this weekend already with Russell vs. Sainz.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... lision.pdf

"Car 63 is judged at fault for the incident."


There is a very clear discinction between full blame and shared blame.

[Just_a_fan]

British GP stewards ruled that Hamilton was responsible for the incident, but the punishment was extremely lenient. Besides, he ruined Max's race and improved his own championship chances and has induced millions in car damages. It makes a good enough reason for taking the fight out of track for Red Bull.

On the contrary, I think it's silly, extremely OTT, and opens a very dangerous can of worms for the future of the sport.

Masi mentioned that the penalty system doesn't take into account the impact of the incident, which is such a critical aspect in racing. If the governing body doesn't recognize this and if it need to forced by teams to incorporate it, it's actually a good thing for the sport. The governing system need to improve and FIA doesn't recognize it themselves. The penalties have been farsicical at best and they are afraid of charging penalties to the top teams. Race stewards have been erratic and inconsistent and to that effect, an external force being applied should move the sport in the right direction.

How do you define consequences? Is it only the force of a resulting impact? The cost of the damage? The loss of points for the other driver and his team? The affect on another driver's title chances? All of these?

For example, when attempting to overtake up the inside, Kimi taps Mazepin in to a spin and his car touches the wall costing $100k of damage but the drive is totally ok. Max DNFs for a mechanical fault in the last race, Hamilton needs to win to take the title. Perez taps Hamilton in to a spin when he is leading and he gets stuck in gravel. No damage but loses the title. George taps Bottas in to a spin, his car digs in, rolls across the gravel and comes to rest against the wall. Car's a write off, Bottas spends the night in hospital feeling dizzy and is diagnosed with concussion and a sprained neck. They're all the same incident - a ham fisted overtake attempt, but each has very different consequences ranging from basically none, to losing a title, to huge financial cost and an injured driver. How would you want those each dealt with based on consequences?

It becomes hugely subjective as to whether something has a bigger consequence than something else. For Haas, the loss of $100k is a big deal in a low fund team. The loss of a title isn't really an issue to anyone other than the driver. An injured driver and a written off car is hugely emotive. But to fans, the Haas incident is probably "oh well, never mind", the title loss is either "OMG nooooo!" or "yyyeeeessssss!!!!" depending on the fans. The last one makes everyone remember how dangerous racing is. So which consequences apply and why?

[Tvetovnato]

On the contrary, I think it's silly, extremely OTT, and opens a very dangerous can of worms for the future of the sport.

Masi mentioned that the penalty system doesn't take into account the impact of the incident, which is such a critical aspect in racing. If the governing body doesn't recognize this and if it need to forced by teams to incorporate it, it's actually a good thing for the sport. The governing system need to improve and FIA doesn't recognize it themselves. The penalties have been farsicical at best and they are afraid of charging penalties to the top teams. Race stewards have been erratic and inconsistent and to that effect, an external force being applied should move the sport in the right direction.

How do you define consequences? Is it only the force of a resulting impact? The cost of the damage? The loss of points for the other driver and his team? The affect on another driver's title chances? All of these?

For example, when attempting to overtake up the inside, Kimi taps Mazepin in to a spin and his car touches the wall costing $100k of damage but the drive is totally ok. Max DNFs for a mechanical fault in the last race, Hamilton needs to win to take the title. Perez taps Hamilton in to a spin when he is leading and he gets stuck in gravel. No damage but loses the title. George taps Bottas in to a spin, his car digs in, rolls across the gravel and comes to rest against the wall. Car's a write off, Bottas spends the night in hospital feeling dizzy and is diagnosed with concussion and a sprained neck. They're all the same incident - a ham fisted overtake attempt, but each has very different consequences ranging from basically none, to losing a title, to huge financial cost and an injured driver. How would you want those each dealt with based on consequences?

It becomes hugely subjective as to whether something has a bigger consequence than something else. For Haas, the loss of $100k is a big deal in a low fund team. The loss of a title isn't really an issue to anyone other than the driver. An injured driver and a written off car is hugely emotive. But to fans, the Haas incident is probably "oh well, never mind", the title loss is either "OMG nooooo!" or "yyyeeeessssss!!!!" depending on the fans. The last one makes everyone remember how dangerous racing is. So which consequences apply and why?

Well put. This is exactly why the consequences cannot be taken into account.

[Jolle]

A reminder for everyone that demands consequences to be taken in account of a penalty: The stewards don’t take it into consideration on request of the teams and the drivers. Including Marko.

[Ryar]

On the contrary, I think it's silly, extremely OTT, and opens a very dangerous can of worms for the future of the sport.

Masi mentioned that the penalty system doesn't take into account the impact of the incident, which is such a critical aspect in racing. If the governing body doesn't recognize this and if it need to forced by teams to incorporate it, it's actually a good thing for the sport. The governing system need to improve and FIA doesn't recognize it themselves. The penalties have been farsicical at best and they are afraid of charging penalties to the top teams. Race stewards have been erratic and inconsistent and to that effect, an external force being applied should move the sport in the right direction.

How do you define consequences? Is it only the force of a resulting impact? The cost of the damage? The loss of points for the other driver and his team? The affect on another driver's title chances? All of these?
{Doesn't matter text}

Impact is the race result of a driver that got hit and the position in the race when taken out. When stewards identify the guilty party, surely they can asses the impact as well. No rocket science there. Rules cannot be static and they should evolve as the understanding progresses. Not making an attempt to improve is stupidity and justifying the lack of trying as if it is impossible is going backwards in evolution.

[dans79]

But I can't help but feel Max struggles as a person in the strict boarding school run by Helmut. I hope he moves one day so we can see the true Max.

Calling it a boarding school it putting it nicely. Based on past drivers comments and those of some of their past academy drivers, he is more like an abusive and overbearing parent imo. Phone calls all hours of the night. When you answer them you get insults and expletives hurled at you, and then hung up on.

for example one of the nicer phone calls!
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/daniel-ricc ... 14156.html

That's when Ricciardo revealed the memorable three words.

"I knew it was going to be tough because the next words were, a lot of silence, then 'you're an idiot' and hung up," he said.

[taperoo2k]

I don't think Lewis intentionally crashed into Max, he's not that daft. The Stewards will have looked at the inputs made to steering angles, accelerator and brakes of both drivers. The GPS data and so on will also have been looked at. What happened is simple, Max underestimated Lewis at that particular moment and it cost him more than it cost Lewis. In other words a racing incident.

If Lewis were intentionally crashing into Max he'd have aimed his car directly at Max, Schumacher style. Besides you don't become world champion without taking risks, not least a 7 times World Champion. I do think Max will learn from this, and be able to better defend against Lewis. I expect Max will be even more motivated to win now, so we are in for a fascinating championship battle for the rest of the year. When you've got two drivers at the top of their game, you have to expect crashes and incidents. You tend to lose that when one team dominates for years (unless team mates are evenly matched).

[Alvareth]

1) Max on the racing line
2) Hamilton on the inside
3) Max makes a little evasive action to the left
4) Hamilton on the inside, missing the apex completely
5) Hamilton hits with his left front wheel the right back wheel of Max his car
6) Max crashes extremely hard into the barrier
7) Charles thanks them both

Action 3 not done, both would have crashed
Action 4 done on the apex, both would have been fine
Ergo: Action 5 triggers Action 6.

Rules are simple: Only the action gets penalized, not the consequences.
In my opinion because of action 3, Hamilton got lucky with only 10s.
Also an appeal can only affect the given penalty points.

In soccer it is the same, actions get penalized, not the consequences.
And sometimes players get lucky with a yellow card, while they deserve a red one.
It's all in the game.

There are cases in soccer where players got legally sued and convicted in court for consequences (broken legs,..)
For the NFL there is a list with players having chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) because of concussions.
https://www.brainforestcenters.com/news ... your-brain

And the game goes on....

[adrianjordan]

For me the voice of both experience and reason on this one is Alonso who has no political axe to grind.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/alonso-h ... pen-clash/

An unfortunate racing incident. Case closed.

What I have said before is that, had Max just run wide, he could likely have claimed he was forced off the track and gotten Lewis awarded a penalty or, at the very least, been given the place back.

C'est la vie.

[zeph]

Best self-own of the weekend: Horner saying that Hamilton as an 8-time world champion should know better. Like he has already given up

[dans79]

I've seen a discussion about the term "predominantly" vs "wholly" somewhere but that might have been part of an off topic discussion in the RBR Team Thread.
Edit: found it

I’ve never seen any different language being used but I also have to admit not always reading these reports

It's actually specifically called out the way in the sporting regulations. I was going to edit my now erased respone to @darkpino with the following.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -07-12.pdf

47.2 a

It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide if any driver involved in an Incident
should be penalised.

Unless it is clear to the stewards that a driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for
an Incident no penalty will be imposed.

[gshevlin]

The idea that the punishment should not be related to the severity of the impact is a nice one, but you have to consider what would have happened if Max had been knocked unconscious, and then it emerged that he had a hematoma and needed emergency surgery and was out of racing for months.
In that scenario, I find it impossible to believe that the FIA and Liberty could survive the PR impact of saying that the initial 10 second time penalty was all they would be levying as punishment.

[Ryar]

But I can't help but feel Max struggles as a person in the strict boarding school run by Helmut. I hope he moves one day so we can see the true Max.

Calling it a boarding school it putting it nicely. Based on past drivers comments and those of some of their past academy drivers, he is more like an abusive and overbearing parent imo. Phone calls all hours of the night. When you answer them you get insults and expletives hurled at you, and then hung up on.

for example one of the nicer phone calls!
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/daniel-ricc ... 14156.html

That's when Ricciardo revealed the memorable three words.

"I knew it was going to be tough because the next words were, a lot of silence, then 'you're an idiot' and hung up," he said.

This adds so much to the technical quality of this forum.