2021 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, July 16 - 18

[Big Tea]

Typical knee jerk reaction to someone complaining. Red Bull complained about Toto and now this change has been announced. Let's hope for Red Bull's sake that it isn't them wanting to go to the stewards next time. That would be ironic.

The annoying thing is the flip-flop nature of it all. Masi told Toto to go to the stewards. So Toto did. Now, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world and could even get someone DSQ. Really? Is the sport being run by teenagers?

Did Masi not say he is OK with teams going to see the stewards, as long as it was after the race? A quick look around does not find it, but I'm reasonably sure (or Possibly it was Charlie?)

No, Masi definitely said teams were welcome to go the stewards any time, and reminded us of when Lewis went up to them re. Entering the pits when closed during the red flag session

If you look into his comments further, I don’t think he means people can’t go to the stewards, he just says you can’t go barging-in, you have to wait for them to open the door… so to speak

F1's race director has allegedly sent a note to competitors clarifying that in the future access to the stewards' office for team personnel will be contingent on a "prior approval"

https://f1i.com/news/413098-masi-restri ... ffice.html

That sounds fair enough to me.

[SmallSoldier]

Can I just ask, what those that support HAM think about the stewards saying he was predominantly to blame? Why do you think this is?

I can see why VER had some part of the blame coming to him. Yes he did absolutely leave racing room but perhaps could have turned in slightly later (I wasn’t driving, I guess he wanted to try and make the corner side by side somehow and thought he had to turn in this hard). But perhaps he could have done it at less of a turn in ratio?

But where do you think HAM was actually at fault? I genuinely want to know.

I’m not a Hamilton supporter (I support teams, not drivers… and I’m a McLaren fan)… To your question, I believe they gave assigned more blame to Hamilton than Verstappen?

A) Because they only considered the moment of impact… I don’t think they took into account during their review the precedent position of the cars (farther right on track compare to the normal line and car positioning before corner entry).
B) Because they interpreted the white line as part of the Apex of the turn, therefore their comment about “not meeting the Apex” even though neither car was close to been at the Apex yet (and unless they have extremely sophisticated simulation tools at their disposal, that can show them what the trajectory would be based on steering angle, grip levels, tire compound, etc etc etc… It is very hard to tell whether either car would have meet such Apex).
C) Because Hamilton wasn’t on full steering lock (not that it would have avoided the contact or even possible to apply more steering at the speed they were going)… But with more room on the right side of Hamilton, there is an assumption that he could have turned in more.

I’m of the opinion that either no driver is at fault (therefore a racing incident) or both driver were… Either driver could have avoided the contact, neither driver did everything possible (slowing down more, yielding before corner, turn more (HAM), turn less and later (VER)… But either way, it was the action of both that created the incident…

[Kingshark]

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

When you read between the lines of Hamilton's comments about the crash, it's fairly similar: "I wasn't going to be bullied"

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.

Well, given that the vast majority of incidents are given 5 second penalties these days, a 10 second penalty is fairly slam dunk. Let's not forget that Vettel received a 5 second penalty for wiping out Bottas in France 2018. Everyone was in agreement that Vettel was at fault for that incident, and it ruined Bottas' race, and yet only 5 seconds.

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.

The fact that you are clinging onto the word predominantly is just semantics. Predominantly could just as easily mean 99% Hamilton as well. The bottom line is that LH was the one at fault and was the one who received the penalty.

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.

The stewards don't take influencing the race result into the equation when judging penalties. A 10 second penalty won't become a drive through just because the guy receiving it is in second place and in a much faster car than the guy who is leading. That's not how Formula 1 works.

[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.

Kimi clearly outbraked himself. In other words he was behind before the braking zone. It was a dive-bomb. He didn't own the corner.

https://youtu.be/7rlDGjWZ7GI
https://youtu.be/_HkmYvKVx58

Raikkonen was alongside Hamilton before braking going into turn 3, and he was on the inside. By your own logic, it was Raikkonen's corner and Hamilton was to blame for the incident.

Also funny that you would bring up Driver61. He's the same guy who slam-dunk blamed Hamilton for this incident:

https://youtu.be/I2fn0D2wqko

[Kingshark]

If your beleive in the Stewards so much... what do you think was Verstappen's portion of the blame? Let us see if you are unbiased....

When did I ever say I believe the stewards so much?

I responded to Just_a_fan's claim that the stewards only penalized Hamilton to satisfy angry fans. I asked him for evidence of his claim (he failed to provide any) and I then showed him the steward verdict of their line of thinking before they penalized Hamilton.

When did I ever claim that I always believe the stewards? Please read and interpret my posts correctly before responding to me next time.

[Just_a_fan]

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.

The fact that you are clinging onto the word predominantly is just semantics. Predominantly could just as easily mean 99% Hamilton as well. The bottom line is that LH was the one at fault and was the one who received the penalty.

But it also, importantly, means that Max wasn't blameless - something that some people on here seem to think is the case.

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.

The stewards don't take influencing the race result into the equation when judging penalties. A 10 second penalty won't become a drive through just because the guy receiving it is in second place and in a much faster car than the guy who is leading. That's not how Formula 1 works.

Er, have you been watching F1 for the last, ooh, 20+ years? Decisions have been made on the basis of the effect on the race / title. Black flags in Monza, for example. "Oh, we'll use black flags to tell people off", Charles puts Lewis on the grass and nearly causes him to crash, "oh, yes, well, erm, er, um, ah." Black flag a Ferrari that's in the lead at Monza? No way they were going to do that even though it's a slam dunk breach of the rules.

It's naïve to think that stewards aren't susceptible to bias whether it be conscious or unconscious. They're human, after all. There have been plenty of races where the leaders have been given lesser penalties than backmarkers for similar offences. Heck, it gets called out in race threads here quite often.

[Kingshark]

But it also, importantly, means that Max wasn't blameless - something that some people on here seem to think is the case.

It also shows that it wasn't a racing incident. If it was racing incident then there wouldn't have been a penalty. The fact that a 10 second penalty was handed out suggests fault from one particular driver.

Er, have you been watching F1 for the last, ooh, 20+ years? Decisions have been made on the basis of the effect on the race / title. Black flags in Monza, for example. "Oh, we'll use black flags to tell people off", Charles puts Lewis on the grass and nearly causes him to crash, "oh, yes, well, erm, er, um, ah." Black flag a Ferrari that's in the lead at Monza? No way they were going to do that even though it's a slam dunk breach of the rules.

It's naïve to think that stewards aren't susceptible to bias whether it be conscious or unconscious. They're human, after all. There have been plenty of races where the leaders have been given lesser penalties than backmarkers for similar offences. Heck, it gets called out in race threads here quite often.

Subconscious bias does exist, but I find it very funny that you would bring up Monza 2019. You believe that Leclerc got off easy that weekend because it was Ferrari's home race. By the same logical extension, I can just as easily make the argument that Hamilton got off easy this weekend because it's his home race. If this type of incident happened at a high speed corner in Spa instead of Silverstone, it's perfectly possible that Hamilton would receive a black flag. Of course, because it happened in Silverstone in front of the British crowd, they "only" gave Hamilton a 10 second penalty. There's no chance that they would ever DSQ Hamilton in front of the British crowd.

Do I have any evidence for this claim? No, I have about as much evidence for it as you have evidence for your claim that they only penalized Hamilton to satisfy angry Verstappen fans. Since you have shown no intention of sticking to facts only when debating, I too can jump into the hypothetical.

[i70q7m7ghw]

F1's race director has allegedly sent a note to competitors clarifying that in the future access to the stewards' office for team personnel will be contingent on a "prior approval"

https://f1i.com/news/413098-masi-restri ... ffice.html

That sounds fair enough to me.

I assume Masi saying Toto should go see the stewards counts and prior approval then? So perhaps this was in response to the fact Horner went to the stewards without any kind of approval.

[Just_a_fan]

But it also, importantly, means that Max wasn't blameless - something that some people on here seem to think is the case.

It also shows that it wasn't a racing incident. If it was racing incident then there wouldn't have been a penalty. The fact that a 10 second penalty was handed out suggests fault from one particular driver.

I think if Max hadn't taken a high speed trip in to the barrier, it would have been called a racing incident. If it had been a rear puncture and broken front wing for them both, it would have been "no further action".

Er, have you been watching F1 for the last, ooh, 20+ years? Decisions have been made on the basis of the effect on the race / title. Black flags in Monza, for example. "Oh, we'll use black flags to tell people off", Charles puts Lewis on the grass and nearly causes him to crash, "oh, yes, well, erm, er, um, ah." Black flag a Ferrari that's in the lead at Monza? No way they were going to do that even though it's a slam dunk breach of the rules.

It's naïve to think that stewards aren't susceptible to bias whether it be conscious or unconscious. They're human, after all. There have been plenty of races where the leaders have been given lesser penalties than backmarkers for similar offences. Heck, it gets called out in race threads here quite often.

Subconscious bias does exist, but I find it very funny that you would bring up Monza 2019. You believe that Leclerc got off easy that weekend because it was Ferrari's home race. By the same logical extension, I can just as easily make the argument that Hamilton got off easy this weekend because it's his home race. If this type of incident happened at a high speed corner in Spa instead of Silverstone, it's perfectly possible that Hamilton would receive a black flag. Of course, because it happened in Silverstone in front of the British crowd, they "only" gave Hamilton a 10 second penalty. There's no chance that they would ever DSQ Hamilton in front of the British crowd.

Do I have any evidence for this claim? No, I have about as much evidence for it as you have evidence for your claim that they only penalized Hamilton to satisfy angry Verstappen fans. Since you have shown no intention of sticking to facts only when debating, I too can jump into the hypothetical.

I actually can see that line of argument applying. I wouldn't be surprised if they had shied away from a stronger penalty because they were at Silverstone. Just as I wouldn't be surprised that they gave a penalty "to be seen to be doing something".

Unlike some here, I'm not set on proving that Lewis is blameless or that Max is blameless. I think it was a racing incident and if it were any other two drivers or a lesser outcome than a huge crash, I think it would have been called that. The oft-cited first lap leeway would have been used. But the crash forced their hand.

Not that any of it matters. Max and Lewis are still multimillionaires getting paid millions to drive cars for other people. And we're sat at our computer keyboards arguing the toss about an irrelevant moment in history.

[Schuttelberg]

..... I read Shovlin's report that without the red flag, Lewis would DNF so may be we need to have a rule where the people causing the red flag cannot touch the car.

And what if someone has damage through no fault of his own?

Sometimes people are lucky, sometimes not. All part of the game

Edit: sorry, missed the part 'causing the red flag'. But that would be some weird kind of extra penalty, and you would need to wait on the stewards ruling.

This in itself is an issue. Every sport has a timeline for officials to make decisions. This needs to be regulated and I feel sorry for the stewards because the rules are written almost to create grey areas. Make things cut clear for everyone. Drivers, teams and most importantly fans.

[PlatinumZealot]

If your beleive in the Stewards so much... what do you think was Verstappen's portion of the blame? Let us see if you are unbiased....

When did I ever say I believe the stewards so much?

I responded to Just_a_fan's claim that the stewards only penalized Hamilton to satisfy angry fans. I asked him for evidence of his claim (he failed to provide any) and I then showed him the steward verdict of their line of thinking before they penalized Hamilton.

When did I ever claim that I always believe the stewards? Please read and interpret my posts correctly before responding to me next time.

You used the Steward's ruling as validation multiple times. So I'm assuming that you fully agree with the ruling? Or are you saying now that you are just cherry picking the parts you want? No problem. If you are cherry picking then it's not a good Idea to be brandishing around the Stewards rulings if you dont want to answer unbiasedly.

[Kingshark]

You used the Steward's ruling as validation multiple times.

Nope. I did not use it as validation. Please re-read the full context of the discussion before jumping in with wrong conclusions. I did not bother reading the rest of your reply because of the start off on the wrong assumption.

[PlatinumZealot]

Thing is King Shark I know where you stand. I really am going to stop myself from going in too deep (no punn intended) with you in this discussion.

With the logo (nice logo btw) you have been very noticeable on all the various forums and sites over the years. We have interacted before on F1 fanatic for example in the Nico Vs Lewis years.. And the Button Vs Lewis Years..and likely Autosport forums? I would be finding faded memories if i went further back.. Anyway we know where you stand when it comes to Lewis. Always fr you is very harsh criticism of this driver. It would be literally a monumental achievement if anyone in here can make you lessen your criticism of Lewis in this incident!
Almost the impossible. So imma just let you do your thang while I just kick back and wait for Hungary.

[Kingshark]

Thing is King Shark I know where you stand. I really am going to stop myself from going in too deep (no punn intended) with you in this discussion.

With the logo (nice logo btw) you have been very noticeable on all the various forums and sites over the years. We have interacted before on F1 fanatic for example in the Nico Vs Lewis years.. And the Button Vs Lewis Years..and likely Autosport forums? I would be finding faded memories if i went further back.. Anyway we know where you stand when it comes to Lewis. Always fr you is very harsh criticism of this driver. It would be literally a monumental achievement if anyone in here can make you lessen your criticism of Lewis in this incident!
Almost the impossible. So imma just let you do your thang while I just kick back and wait for Hungary.

Funny you would mention Autosport forum. I had an account on there back in 2012-2013, and I actually used to like Lewis back then! I certainly preferred him over Vettel. Lewis overtaking Vettel at USA 2012 is perhaps the hardest I have ever cheered for an overtake.

The fact that my opinion on Lewis has shifted so dramatically from 2012 until now, you can tell that the primary reason why I root against Lewis is because of Mercedes domination. I have nothing against him personally, but it’s about time for someone else to win.

[Big Tea]

Can I just ask, what those that support HAM think about the stewards saying he was predominantly to blame? Why do you think this is?

I can see why VER had some part of the blame coming to him. Yes he did absolutely leave racing room but perhaps could have turned in slightly later (I wasn’t driving, I guess he wanted to try and make the corner side by side somehow and thought he had to turn in this hard). But perhaps he could have done it at less of a turn in ratio?

But where do you think HAM was actually at fault? I genuinely want to know.

( Not a 100% HAM supporter, I also like several others including Max) To me it is because he was in the wrong place.
Leave aside if he was allowed to be there or intended to be there, it is there he was and that triggered the accident.
It is also fair to say the same about Max, but I think he got his punishment for the offense by the result.

I've been following the forum for a while, more so since Sunday. This thread has been interesting, i apologise this the the post I'm replying to. It sums the division in the forum, and perhaps gaslighting that occurred before the race at Silverstone.

The quoted post seems to remove racing rights for LH and not for MV, and believes that is balanced. It infers space belongs to MV, which is the root of MV supports arguement. I want to reverse that argument

To me it is because he (MV) was in the wrong place. Leave aside if he (MV) was allowed to be there or intended to be there, it is there he (MV) was and that triggered the accident. Given that LH, if James Allision is to believed, MV into LHs space it cannot be LHx fault.

The punishment section interests me; the 10 seconds punishes the incident, why does outcome matter for punishment? The stewards saying he was predominantly to blame; if he is predominately to blame, a proportion of that blame lasts elsewhere, is that harvey the rabbit or MV? If it's MV, i'm intested in when he'll receive his penalty.. As it it the penatly infers whole blame on LH and no predominant blame.

There is some interesting discussion; for me LH position on the track was really smart. MV for me, was schooled.

My intension here is based on the 'explanation' in the part of the Mercedes brief which concerned the email Toto sent, In which (Toto says) does not make Lewis in the wrong for being 'up the inside' at that point.

He may have been fully entitled to be there, but everyone, Lewis more than anyone knows that it was a risk.
Not saying he was wrong to take it, or that Max was wrong to react to it as he did.

I an trying to keep it to facts and not A versus B. I fully believe it was a racing incident and neither should be punished, but FlyingDutchman asked why people thought the stewards were saying he was predominantly to blame. I am not placing blame on either side just my thoughts