2021 - Race 14 Itallian GP at Monza

Martin Brundle: “Max hasn’t done anything wrong there. It is fair enough to go around the outside. Lewis can’t cross over until the white line finishes… …and Max’s car hit the rollover hoop of Lewis’s car, that is where the damage has come from!”


Verstappen & Hamilton Clash at Turn 2 | 2021 Italian Grand Prix
Sep 12, 2021
FORMULA 1

Title rivals come together once again! Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton clash at Turn 2, causing a double retirement and for a safety car to be deployed. Thankfully, both drivers walked away unharmed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VSwwZYDW94

Here we go again.

It was a bloody ess double corners. Anybody in their right mind would know there was no way they would be able to overtake through there especially coming from behind. That accident was 100% Verstappen's fault and very dangerous. It was a very stupid attempt at overtaking.

When a driver has a poor judgement of an imminent crash occurring then he has become dangerous to every driver on the grid. I think people can attempt to excuse this very stupid sort of driving. But a fatality is very much on the cards this season due to this kind of reckless determination we are seeing with Verstappen. To put everything on the line is to invite a moment when it would be the ultimate sacrifice.

Horner is an idiot. Verstappen or someone else would get killed at this rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

Well the stewards agreed with my assessment and Verstappen has been given a 3 place grid drop at the next GP and 2 penalty points/

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...0collision.pdf
Here is the ruling:

"Fact - Collision with car 44 in turn 2.

Offence - Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.

Decision - 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)

Reason - The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.

Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44. During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb.

The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.

In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.

The Stewards Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits"

I wonder if Brundel will now eat humble pie and admit he was wrong and if DiResta will do the same.
This is a well deserved penalty and a culmination of all the bully driving that Max has engineered.
This time he nearly injured a fellow competitor because he doesn't care or is unwilling to compromise with anyone on the track.

---

I guarantee the Anti-Hamilton brigade would not agree with this very clear verdict of obvious bad judgement by Verstappen. The fellow is trying too hard to try to beat Hamilton. What we are seeing here is ugly.

The poor pitstops for both set up this crash. I don't think there is anyone on the current grid who has won races with three teams; Redbull, Renault and Mclaren. What a racer Ricciardo is. Except Alonso of course; Renault, Mclaren and Ferrari

I don't have to be anti-Hamilton to point out that he used to smash into Massa for fun and Albon etc.

Besides the usual hamilton fanboys, i have only seen people call it a racing incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denkimi

Besides the usual hamilton fanboys, i have only seen people call it a racing incident.

---

Ha ha ha LOL

You are so predictable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Average Sim Racer

I don't have to be anti-Hamilton to point out that he used to smash into Massa for fun and Albon etc.

---

We can say similar things for Verstappen and any driver on the grid. Try to say something original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

furthermore a 10 sec penalty in race, is far worse than a 3 place grid slot. TBH
At worst, verstappen will start in p5/6 as opposed to dropping back much further with an in-race 10second penalty.
A big difference.
If I am being honest, a fair penalty would be to start the next race and get a 10 second penalty at his first pit stop

---

Unfortunately, time penalty is only applied during the race. With the 3 places drop, Verstappen can recover to a podium position or even win the race depending on the conditions. Regardless, that is the only applicable penalty for this occasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zico

Anyway.. its interesting that we seem to have a new set of unwritten rules. Getting alongside to just behind the front wheels is no longer deemed to be enough anymore....and thats fair enough but they have set a new precedent now which they really have to abide by going forward.

---

The problem here is Verstappen was trying force open a gap in a tight corner. Any other driver would realize that it was not possible to overtake there and try a better line to attack on the next corner. It surprises me when you guys defend stupidity. That was a crash or give way move. It was daft but calculated to prevent Hamilton from winning the race if he was not going to win it himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitrodaze

i don't think there is anyone on the current grid who has won races with three teams; redbull, renault and mclaren. What a racer ricciardo is. Except alonso of course; renault, mclaren and ferrari

---

kimi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pantealex

kimi

---

YES of course Mclaren, Lotus and Ferrari

I watched the incident again and it is quite clear that it was fortuitous that the halo was introduced before Verstappen joined the F1 grid. This incident would have definitely killed Hamilton if it wasn't on the car. There is no doubt about that. Verstappen is a very dangerous driver.

The fact that he did not check if Hamilton was hurt shows he doesn't really care what happens to the other driver either. Ruthless and callous, a very bad combination

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

We can say similar things for Verstappen and any driver on the grid. Try to say something original.

---

That's the point. You are making him out to be the worst driver on the grid. Pringles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Ha ha ha LOL

You are so predictable

---

I'm wondering why i keep trying to have a decent discussion with fanboys like you.

Its always ends up the same, a waste of time because they are stuck in their religious loop of blaming everybody else for everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Average Sim Racer

That's the point. You are making him out to be the worst driver on the grid. Pringles.

---

No point in arguing with fanboys like him. Unfortunately not all such morrons stick with football to express their blind hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denkimi

No point in arguing with fanboys like him. Unfortunately not all such morrons stick with football to express their blind hate.

---

There is no hate in my posts buddy. You on the other hand are quite entertaining with your responses.

I call it as l see it regardless of the driver. I cannot say that for you .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Average Sim Racer

That's the point. You are making him out to be the worst driver on the grid. Pringles.

---

No that is not the point you were making. You were attacking the victim of the crash. There is hard racing and there is sheer recklessness. And what we saw on sunday at the Italian grandprix was reckless by Verstappen. And you have to be very biased not to see it as it was.

Ok let's talk seriously about this crash. I honestly think it was a racing incident. But the incident was avoidable with a little commonsense. A majority of drivers during the race have yielded to the car ahead to get through that corner safely. Verstappen is fully entitled to challenge Hamilton going into the corner. The main reason why Verstappen is blamed for the crash was his error of judgement in not knowing when to back down and fight at the next corner. Everyone else including Hamilton took to the escape path around the sausage kerb in corners when the space available to the attacking car approaching corners have become unrealistic. Hence, why the stewards indicated that Verstappen was predominantly to blame for the crash. The wording is no different to how they saw the Silverstone crash. Thus, there is some consistency here.

The problem with this crash was that it was potentially fatal. Which has escalated the risk factor of the championship battle. It has reached a point now where the FIA, F1M and both teams fighting for the championship need to objectively look at the situation and dial down the level of risk reached so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

No that is not the point you were making. You were attacking the victim of the crash. There is hard racing and there is sheer recklessness. And what we saw on sunday at the Italian grandprix was reckless by Verstappen. And you have to be very biased not to see it as it was.

---

I don't take kindly to being lied about or victim-shaming.

The recklessness from Verstappen is no worse than the recklessness from Hamilton, especially at a similar age. That was the point. That was not denying recklessness. I'm not prepared to argue. My position is clear as is my conscience.

I feel it is a racing incident given the stewards' previous rulings and track limits and two drivers unwilling to compromise and both being reckless. I would have to be biased from previous poor decisions to want to penalise an over-taking driver.

I already stated in my opinion it is a different kettle of fish to blame an over-taking driver with momentum for being squeezed into a sausage kerb by a slower car with new tyres coming from the pit lane. The car coming from the pits has to be extra careful in that situation as they are the one re-joining the race track and causing the obstacle at a tight corner with a hazard off-track.

I feel no differently to this than the racing incident of Bottas and Russell in which again Russell was blamed as the over-taking driver despite Bottas being slower and purposefully discarding his line in poor conditions and forcing Russell dangerously off track with a careless blocking move to the right under breaking.

My genuine position is the car in front has more responsibility to leave space at tight over-taking corners and the FIA are not caring about protecting the line of the over-taking driver.

If you are arguing that it is reckless to over-take when there is no clear and obvious gap then Hamilton ought to have been black flagged and had grid places dropped for Silverstone, with Mercedes paying for the damages to Red Bull's car.

In this incident Mercedes have a point to raise with the FIA about sausage kerbs ruining their car unfairly and endangering their driver.

If you argue Max has a responsibility to not go over the sausage kerb then in my opinion you also have to argue Lewis has a responsibility to respect the sausage kerb as a dangerous track limit for Max.

Lewis has had decisions in the past at Monza, for example when Leclerc pushed him off track and got a warning, but the difference is it wasn't in the wet or with sausage kerbs so it wasn't as reckless as when the Mercedes cars have done it recently.

Again, I am not denying the recklessness or victim shaming. I am recognising the scale of danger in context. Bottas and Lewis deserved warnings, perhaps more for being reckless in defensive situations where there was even more danger off-track than what Leclerc did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Average Sim Racer

My genuine position is the car in front has more responsibility to leave space at tight over-taking corners and the FIA are not caring about protecting the line of the over-taking driver.

If you are arguing that it is reckless to over-take when there is no clear and obvious gap then Hamilton ought to have been black flagged and had grid places dropped for Silverstone, with Mercedes paying for the damages to Red Bull's car.

In this incident Mercedes have a point to raise with the FIA about sausage kerbs ruining their car unfairly and endangering their driver.

If you argue Max has a responsibility to not go over the sausage kerb then in my opinion you also have to argue Lewis has a responsibility to respect the sausage kerb as a dangerous track limit for Max.

Lewis has had decisions in the past at Monza, for example when Leclerc pushed him off track and got a warning, but the difference is it wasn't in the wet or with sausage kerbs so it wasn't as reckless as when the Mercedes cars have done it recently.

Again, I am not denying the recklessness or victim shaming. I am recognising the scale of danger in context. Bottas and Lewis deserved warnings, perhaps more for being reckless in defensive situations where there was even more danger off-track than what Leclerc did.

---

Your problem is you have double standards. When Verstappen did it at the start of the race it was fine with you. When the favour was returned you proclaim more room should have been given. You are as confused as you are pretentious of holding a genuine opinion on the matter. All you have is a biased opinion that is blind to one side and accusative to the other regardless of the actuality of the situation. You lack objectivity, hence you can only talk rubbish on the matter.

Why the hell should the car in front give more room to a car well behind. For a start that is not racing. That is not what Mercedes or any team pay their drivers to do. It actually is the obligation of the car behind to know when an overtaking manoeuvre is untenable and use their better judgement to avoid causing a crash.

And no, you have completely misjudged the scale of this incident relative to the incidents that you have quoted. You have the luxury to make those statements because there was no fatality. The Redbull car could be clearly seen to have knocked Hamiltons head forward and downwards. It was situation that could have resulted in a broken neck if the security devices on that car had not done their job.

My beef with your post is the insensitivity to the potential fatality that we are lucky was averted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denkimi

No point in arguing with fanboys like him. Unfortunately not all such morrons stick with football to express their blind hate.

---

Jolyn Palmer actually has an excellent analysis of the incidents. He shows a clip of Giovanazzi pulling the almost same move as Verstappen. The difference was Leclerc ended up giving Giovanazzi a little extra room, where Hamilton did the opposite and squeezed Verstappen.

Leclerc still ended up in front of Giovanazzi even though he gave room, and Hamilton probably would have been in front of Max also. But I think we are seeing how desperate Hamilton and when he is under pressure he makes mistakes and bad judgments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Your problem is you have double standards. When Verstappen did it at the start of the race it was fine with you. When the favour was returned you proclaim more room should have been given. You are as confused as you are pretentious of holding a genuine opinion on the matter. All you have is a biased opinion that is blind to one side and accusative to the other regardless of the actuality of the situation. You lack objectivity, hence you can only talk rubbish on the matter.

Why the hell should the car in front give more room to a car well behind. For a start that is not racing. That is not what Mercedes or any team pay their drivers to do. It actually is the obligation of the car behind to know when an overtaking manoeuvre is untenable and use their better judgement to avoid causing a crash.

And no, you have completely misjudged the scale of this incident relative to the incidents that you have quoted. You have the luxury to make those statements because there was no fatality. The Redbull car could be clearly seen to have knocked Hamiltons head forward and downwards. It was situation that could have resulted in a broken neck if the security devices on that car had not done their job.

My beef with your post is the insensitivity to the potential fatality that we are lucky was averted.

---

I don't think I have double standards and I don't think it is my problem. You're insensitive to the fact it was the sausage kerb that caused the near-fatality. If you want to blame Max for going over it instead of taking an escape road then fair enough, but I seriously don't think he intended to be airborne with his back wheels flying into Lewis. He intended to make the corner legally and had no room.

And I'm fine with you ruling that the car behind should be the one always to blame because then it means that Lewis was to blame for the Leclerc incident at Monza and Lewis was to blame for the Silverstone incident. My position was that Lewis wasn't to blame for the incident with Leclerc at Monza and the FIA set a dangerous ruling that has escalated out of hand.

I don't feel halos saved Lewis. I feel sausage kerbs endangered him. As they have done many drivers. I would say the same if it was Lewis airborne over Max. I don't think it is reasonable or appropriate to suggest that his recklessness is the only significant factor. Racing is highly dangerous for many reasons. Half of it is due to most of the drivers racing unsafely, and half of it is due to the FIA not recognising cars bouncing in the air and bouncing back in common situations due to their track limit enforcements is negligent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nKS

Jolyn Palmer actually has an excellent analysis of the incidents. He shows a clip of Giovanazzi pulling the almost same move as Verstappen. The difference was Leclerc ended up giving Giovanazzi a little extra room, where Hamilton did the opposite and squeezed Verstappen.

Leclerc still ended up in front of Giovanazzi even though he gave room, and Hamilton probably would have been in front of Max also. But I think we are seeing how desperate Hamilton and when he is under pressure he makes mistakes and bad judgments.

---

I'm not sure.

Normally going around the outside there should not work because you compromise your exit speed too much and lose out at the straight.

But hamilton had just left the pits so his tyres were still cold, which would also comprise his exit speed.

So perhaps verstappen actually could have made it stick in the end. Perhaps not. But i understand why lewis didn't want to try it out and decided to push him off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nKS

Jolyn Palmer actually has an excellent analysis of the incidents. He shows a clip of Giovanazzi pulling the almost same move as Verstappen. The difference was Leclerc ended up giving Giovanazzi a little extra room, where Hamilton did the opposite and squeezed Verstappen.

Leclerc still ended up in front of Giovanazzi even though he gave room, and Hamilton probably would have been in front of Max also. But I think we are seeing how desperate Hamilton and when he is under pressure he makes mistakes and bad judgments.

---

I would not argue with your perspective it is a reasonable one. But you are missing the point. That move by Hamilton was payback for Verstappen doing exactly the same thing to him earlier in the race. When Verstappen squeezed Hamilton, Hamilton had the good sense to abort and take the escape route around the sausage kerb. When Hamilton squeezed Verstappen, he did not have the good sense to take the escape route, hence the crash.

It was a tit for tat situation. Hamilton had no obligation to give any room. Verstappen got a taste of his own medicine and he simply showed he is still quite immature as a racer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Average Sim Racer

I don't think I have double standards and I don't think it is my problem. You're insensitive to the fact it was the sausage kerb that caused the near-fatality. If you want to blame Max for going over it instead of taking an escape road then fair enough, but I seriously don't think he intended to be airborne with his back wheels flying into Lewis. He intended to make the corner legally and had no room.

And I'm fine with you ruling that the car behind should be the one always to blame because then it means that Lewis was to blame for the Leclerc incident at Monza and Lewis was to blame for the Silverstone incident. My position was that Lewis wasn't to blame for the incident with Leclerc at Monza and the FIA set a dangerous ruling that has escalated out of hand.

I don't feel halos saved Lewis. I feel sausage kerbs endangered him. As they have done many drivers. I would say the same if it was Lewis airborne over Max. I don't think it is reasonable or appropriate to suggest that his recklessness is the only significant factor. Racing is highly dangerous for many reasons. Half of it is due to most of the drivers racing unsafely, and half of it is due to the FIA not recognising cars bouncing in the air and bouncing back in common situations due to their track limit enforcements is negligent.

---

Now you are showing naivety. The point was the sausage kerb should have been avoided in the first place as a crash was inevitable otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Now you are showing naivety. The point was the sausage kerb should have been avoided in the first place as a crash was inevitable otherwise.

---

I think he avoids the sausage kerb if Hamilton doesn't force him into it. You can see from Hamilton's steering input that he squeezes unnaturally with multiple shifts of the steering wheel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

I would not argue with your perspective it is a reasonable one. But you are missing the point. That move by Hamilton was payback for Verstappen doing exactly the same thing to him earlier in the race. When Verstappen squeezed Hamilton, Hamilton had to good sense to abort and take the escape route around the sausage kerb. When Hamilton squeezed Verstappen, he did not have the good sense to take the escape route, hence the crash.

It was a tit for tat situation. Hamilton had no obligation to give any room. Verstappen got a taste of his own medicine and he simply showed he is still quite immature as a racer.

---

If that was Hamilton's mindset, then it actually demonstrates his lack of maturity and even an even darker side to him. And if this was a tit for tat, then we can assume the the GB grandprix was too - and that was the race where somebody could have been killed, not in the Monza low-speed corner.

I personally don't think Hamilton was serving "payback", it was just a racing incident that actually very common in that corner in Monza. Hamilton was flustered probably with his pit stop and to find him coming out right among Norris and Verstappen - another Mercedes strategy failure.

Then you had Max who was feeling the "red mist" from his own team pit mistake. He sees Hamilton coming out of the pit, knows he's on cold tires thus this he knows he has a chance to beat him through the corner so he goes all in. It is a remarkable probability problem.

Milli-seconds earlier or later, a foot here or foot there this probably not a thing. It is amazing how all the events and decisions that came together to bring these two together at this corner.

From most of all the people (in the profession of discussing f1) that I watch or talk about F1 seem to agree this was a "racing incident" and if you have to apportion blame then Max was a little more at fault than Hamilton but Hamilton's hands are not clean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Average Sim Racer

I think he avoids the sausage kerb if Hamilton doesn't force him into it. You can see from Hamilton's steering input that he squeezes unnaturally with multiple shifts of the steering wheel.

---

I think if he was not trying to force a space to open up for him, he should know that Hamilton was going to squeeze him and he should have taken the escape route in order not to damage the car. But Verstappen did not mind the car been damaged or that a crash would occur. It was within Hamilton's right to close the door on Verstappen. To suggest that he had to give space is ridiculous. He did not as Verstappen did not have to give space when he squeezed Hamilton off the track at the beginning of the race.

I would like to know how much Redbull has paid to fix damages resulting from crashes alone this season. I am sure it is the highest in the paddock.

I think Hamilton is still being very gentle. He is not driving at the level of aggression that he was when he was duelling with Rosberg. As a result, Verstappen is taking liberties. And he has now escalated it to the point where the FIA and F1M need to be particularly concerned. Because the next step is Hamilton is going to escalate his racing to match what Verstappen has just done and probably more. And the next time, Verstappen would be experiencing a similar situation. Only he might get killed in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nKS

If that was Hamilton's mindset, then it actually demonstrates his lack of maturity and even an even darker side to him. And if this was a tit for tat, then we can assume the the GB grandprix was too - and that was the race where somebody could have been killed, not in the Monza low-speed corner.

I personally don't think Hamilton was serving "payback", it was just a racing incident that actually very common in that corner in Monza. Hamilton was flustered probably with his pit stop and to find him coming out right among Norris and Verstappen - another Mercedes strategy failure.

Then you had Max who was feeling the "red mist" from his own team pit mistake. He sees Hamilton coming out of the pit, knows he's on cold tires thus this he knows he has a chance to beat him through the corner so he goes all in. It is a remarkable probability problem.

Milli-seconds earlier or later, a foot here or foot there this probably not a thing. It is amazing how all the events and decisions that came together to bring these two together at this corner.

From most of all the people (in the profession of discussing f1) that I watch or talk about F1 seem to agree this was a "racing incident" and if you have to apportion blame then Max was a little more at fault than Hamilton but Hamilton's hands are not clean.

---

I agree it was a racing incident. No racing is clean per se. But the onus lies with the attacker to not cause a collision. Because that is where his racecraft is expressed; to attack and overtake cleanly. It is not ok if the attacker crashes into the defender who is perfectly entitled to defend.

And to say it is immature to give Verstappen a taste of his own bad driving is ridiculous. This is the only way to convey his feelings about how Verstappen is being reckless.

It is funny how those referencing Palmer only focus on the Gio bit. Not verstappen essentially shoving off Massa a couple of seasons prior, which was practically identical to what he attempted on Sunday. Mind you in that same race, he tried to pass Massa foolishly again at retofilo and got a puncture for that attempt. Despite his bullish driving and moaning, the stewards deemed it a racing incident. It shows that the guy never learns and is still reckless and a danger to others. Still crickets on his lack of sportsmanship towards checking on Hamilton. I cant even imagine the vitriol if the situation was reverse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

It is funny how those referencing Palmer only ficus on the Gio bit. Not verstappen essentially shoving off Massa a couple of seasons prior, which was practically identical to what he attempted on Sunday. Mind you in that same race, he tried to pass Massa foolishly again at retofilo and got a puncture for that attempt. Despite his bullish driving and moaning the stewards deemed it a racing incident. It shows that the guy never learns and is still reckless and a danger to others. Still crickets on his lack of sportsmanship towards checking on Hamilton. I cant even imagine the vitriol if the situation was reverse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ha ha , tell me about it. The Anti-Hamilton brigade would be up in arms with all manner of castigations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

I agree it was a racing incident. No racing is clean per se. But the onus lies with the attacker to not cause a collision. Because that is where his racecraft is expressed; to attack and overtake cleanly. It is not ok if the attacker crashes into the defender who is perfectly entitled to defend.

---

Hence Hamilton getting a penalty in GB and Verstappen getting the penality in Monza.

Quote:

---

And to say it is mature to give Verstappen a taste of his own bad driving is immature is ridiculous. This is the only way to convey his feelings about how Verstappen is being reckless.

---

Mature driver would have had the long game in mind - Hamilton whether Verstappen came out of the corner in front or not, was going to be ahead of him at the end of the race. So in the end, not a bad result for Verstappen to be shown "feelings", when it clear he was in the 3rd best car this weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

I think if he was not trying to force a space to open up for him, he should know that Hamilton was going to squeeze him and he should have taken the escape route in order not to damage the car. But Verstappen did not mind the car been damaged or that a crash would occur. It was within Hamilton's right to close the door on Verstappen. To suggest that he had to give space is ridiculous. He did not as Verstappen did not have to give space when he squeezed Hamilton off the track at the beginning of the race.

I would like to know how much Redbull has paid to fix damages resulting from crashes alone this season. I am sure it is the highest in the paddock.

I think Hamilton is still being very gentle. He is not driving at the level of aggression that he was when he was duelling with Rosberg. As a result, Verstappen is taking liberties. And he has now escalated it to the point where the FIA and F1M need to be particularly concerned. Because the next step is Hamilton is going to escalate his racing to match what Verstappen has just done and probably more. And the next time, Verstappen would be experiencing a similar situation. Only he might get killed in the process.

---

Well, there is no doubt the squeezing is a problem for both parties. I empathise with when Lewis got squeezed by Leclerc at Monza and I feel it was reckless of the FIA not to penalise it more, as the F1 drivers have taken liberties in terms of thinking squeezing is okay, Verstappen included.

I genuinely feel other drivers give other drivers room at that situation which just happened between Lewis and Max. I feel if Lewis lets Max avoid the sausage kerb, then if Max pushes Lewis off track, it is Max's fault and he should be penalised.

I get that Lewis probably feels Max won't be penalised enough if he does give more room but the problem is he squeezed Max way too late and didn't even have the speed at the first apex to be the dominant car owning the line into the second apex.

If he squeezes Max early then I feel Max goes down the escape road or tries an outside line at the second apex.

I genuinely don't feel Max intends to damage his car over a sausage kerb or run into another car to the point of damaging them both. More to the point, his past experience may have informed him that the move was okay there with a bit of the sausage kerb.

But yeah, maybe Verstappen and co. ought to have been penalised more for contact in the past.

This contact was entirely kerb related because he had no room. If the kerb is lower or spits him out differently there is no crazy contact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Average Sim Racer

Well, there is no doubt the squeezing is a problem for both parties. I empathise with when Lewis got squeezed by Leclerc at Monza and I feel it was reckless of the FIA not to penalise it more, as the F1 drivers have taken liberties in terms of thinking squeezing is okay, Verstappen included.

I genuinely feel other drivers give other drivers room at that situation which just happened between Lewis and Max. I feel if Lewis lets Max avoid the sausage kerb, then if Max pushes Lewis off track, it is Max's fault and he should be penalised.

I get that Lewis probably feels Max won't be penalised enough if he does give more room but the problem is he squeezed Max way too late and didn't even have the speed at the first apex to be the dominant car owning the line into the second apex.

If he squeezes Max early then I feel Max goes down the escape road or tries an outside line at the second apex.

I genuinely don't feel Max intends to damage his car over a sausage kerb or run into another car to the point of damaging them both. More to the point, his past experience may have informed him that the move was okay there with a bit of the sausage kerb.

But yeah, maybe Verstappen and co. ought to have been penalised more for contact in the past.

This contact was entirely kerb related because he had no room. If the kerb is lower or spits him out differently there is no crazy contact.

---

Hamilton took the racing line through the corner, Verstappen saw and knew that. To give room would be to yield the racing line to Verstappen. That is not how to go racing. So stop dicking around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1nKS

Hence Hamilton getting a penalty in GB and Verstappen getting the penality in Monza.



Mature driver would have had the long game in mind - Hamilton whether Verstappen came out of the corner in front or not, was going to be ahead of him at the end of the race. So in the end, not a bad result for Verstappen to be shown "feelings", when it clear he was in the 3rd best car this weekend.

---

You have a knack of talking rubbish. What long game. He had to do just what he did,. It was up to Verstappen to take the long view or crash.

Does anyone here think Verstappen would have attempted that crash were it Norris coming out of the pits?

From ESPNF1:

Quote:

---

Again, we may never know, but it's interesting to pose the question of whether Verstappen would have made the same move against any driver other than Hamilton. There's no doubt that by committing to Turn 2 without having his car ahead, Verstappen was risking a collision.

A collision with another driver at that corner -- Ricciardo in the opening stint of the race, for example -- would have been disastrous for his title chances as it would have taken him out of the race and given Hamilton a free run at victory. But against Hamilton, the same move either takes them both out, resulting in zero sum game, or, if Hamilton makes space, gives him a slight chance of holding the position.

---

The answer is no he wouldn't. This is why Toto probably wasn't far off when he called it a tactical foul. He gets the move done, Max wins. He doesn't get the move done he takes them both out. Max also wins in this situation. It was a win win situation for Max and since he was most likely to take the engine penalty in Sochi anyway, which will negate the 3 place grid drop, then Max has net gained from this incident.

I think there needs to be F1 rule changes where if you have a grid drop and choose to negate it with a engine penalty that the penalty moves to the race afterwards. As it stands now he got a pretty much irrelevant 2 penalty points on his license and kept the championship lead. It's a big win for Max either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Does anyone here think Verstappen would have attempted that crash were it Norris coming out of the pits?

From ESPNF1:


The answer is no he wouldn't. This is why Toto probably wasn't far off when he called it a tactical foul. He gets the move done, Max wins. He doesn't get the move done he takes them both out. Max also wins in this situation. It was a win win situation for Max and since he was most likely to take the engine penalty in Sochi anyway, which will negate the 3 place grid drop, then Max has net gained from this incident.

I think there needs to be F1 rule changes where if you have a grid drop and choose to negate it with a engine penalty that the penalty moves to the race afterwards. As it stands now he got a pretty much irrelevant 2 penalty points on his license and kept the championship lead. It's a big win for Max either way.

---

Of course not. He would damage the car with no upside to benefit from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Does anyone here think Verstappen would have attempted that crash were it Norris coming out of the pits?

---

hahaha...I like how you phrase the question. "attempted that crash"
Yes, his attempt was quite successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Does anyone here think Verstappen would have attempted that crash were it Norris coming out of the pits?

From ESPNF1:


The answer is no he wouldn't. This is why Toto probably wasn't far off when he called it a tactical foul. He gets the move done, Max wins. He doesn't get the move done he takes them both out. Max also wins in this situation. It was a win win situation for Max and since he was most likely to take the engine penalty in Sochi anyway, which will negate the 3 place grid drop, then Max has net gained from this incident.

I think there needs to be F1 rule changes where if you have a grid drop and choose to negate it with a engine penalty that the penalty moves to the race afterwards. As it stands now he got a pretty much irrelevant 2 penalty points on his license and kept the championship lead. It's a big win for Max either way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Of course not. He would damage the car with no upside to benefit from.

---

That's why I would advocate for a 10 second in race penalty at the next race instead of a 3 place grid drop.
A racing incident should merit an in-race penalty.
I would have applied that to Bottas and Stroll as well for the Hungary incident. In fact I would have made it a 10 sec stop and go for both of them.