2021 Race 10 - British Grand Prix

[Nitrodaze]

Seriously ?
Max had no blame in that one .
Ocon was a complete tool there .

They should have let Max get to him in the garage .

I disagree. He was winning that race. All he had to do was to let Ocon go as he was unlapping himself. But like the Silverstone scenario, he threw the race win away crashing in a fight that he did not need to fight.


Unfortunately, Verstappen is in a championship-winning car but he still lacks some level of maturity. If he ends up losing this championship which looks unlikely at the moment, it would most likely be due to this immature aspect of his racing.

[Zico]

Why not, a tougher sanction for racing for the championship should be imposed. All drivers should also be instructed to keep a two meters distance from each other on the track for covid reasons. A single file from start to the end of the race should also be mandatory.

Just take some time to read your post. Maybe you should take up watching horse racing instead of F1. It is becoming too much for Zico.

I can see that basic comprehension is not one of your forte's, it's actually you who needs to re read my post, in fact I'll try and make it real simple just for you and hopefully you will finally understand instead of just carrying on with your continual sarcastic condescending mockery and woke culture accusations of prejudice and racism, not only to me and also anyone else who disagrees with you.

I simply don't want to see a championship won in a war of attrition between two bitter rivals with strong personal feelings affecting their racecraft and won ​by the driver who punts his rival into the wall more times or most successfully, I can't think of anything more lame or dangerous and IMO that's not racing.

I'm concerned one or both of these two are going to get seriously hurt because the penalty system in place is so lame that its not that much of a deterrent.

Why not have a rule where if you are involved in an incident that is judged to predominantly your fault you can score no more points than your collision 'victim' ?

Does someone have to be seriously injured or die first?

[truefan72]

I don't think the argument is to defend Hamilton per se. It is to state that it was a racing incident. And on this point, you would find most of the racing experts agree. Including Brundle.

What most anti-Hamilton post on here has been trying to peddle, is that it was solely Hamilton's fault. And they begrudge him the fact that he won the race even with the penalty awarded.

I and most posts on here refuting that notion are simply saying it was a racing incident, and Verstappen was not an innocent party in the accident. The Palmer youtube podcast indicated more serious similar collisions in the past that were declared a racing incident and thus were not punished.

If you are quoting from Fortitude's random sources which are mostly from non-racing specialists or Redbull's rhetorics, then l would have to say you have disappointed me.

Essentially that is what we have been saying. It was a racing incident. just like many others.

[airshifter]

Lewis did get it wrong yesterday but to isolate blame on Lewis alone is not fair because Max also got it wrong. He could have gone much wider at Copse and given Hamilton more room. They both erred, and Max paid the price.

Otmar Szafnauer immediately called it a racing incident. Initially I thought Hamilton was to blame but then seeing that Verstappen didn't give him enough room as well in Chandhok's analysis made it clear to me it was a racing incident. While I fully understand your position that Hamilton got it wrong, I don't understand why you can't see that Max also got it wrong.

IMHO Max took a risk that Lewis would back out, and that is the only thing he was wrong about. As the regs currently stand, the driver on the racing line and leading dictates the corner with the stipulation that they must leave a cars width to the opposing car. Lewis was grossly off line, had missed the apex, and was carrying too much speed for a corner that would have two cars in it.

Don't get me wrong. Max would have been wise to just back out and let Lewis go wide, pass or not. Playing the long game would have worked much better. But neither driver is thinking about those details at 180 mph heading into the corner really. They are thinking that they have the corner and their opponent doesn't.... that's why they are good drivers.

I don't think the argument is to defend Hamilton per se. It is to state that it was a racing incident. And on this point, you would find most of the racing experts agree. Including Brundle.

You really should read the entire piece before you use it as a professional opinion that backs your own.

Quoted from the Brundle piece.....

"Max was not at fault although for his own race and championship campaign he could have left a little more space on the inside given Hamilton was bound to be compromised on that line, and perhaps have been less convinced that Lewis would yield."

If you are disappointed about an unknown source from another poster and questioning them on it, you might want to take a look in the mirror and consider how it makes you look to only use part of a persons opinion that you agree with, while ignoring the part you don't.




And in the end, even the former drivers can't agree on the issue. I don't value Brundle's position any more than the other drivers, and they have varied versions of where they think the blame lies in the case. There is no absolute authority on any of it, other than the enforcement arm that is the stewards. The rules are written in a way that they provide a guideline and not much more really. Short of having all kinds of geometric markings on any corner showing differing approach angles, spaces, limits, along with rules that clearly state "driver A owns the corner if they make it to angle XYZ first"...... controversial calls will be a thing in the future as well. But as usual, often people on the internet want to feel that their opinion is absolute fact. Come on folks.... humans are humans, subject to biases and favoritisms, whether conscious of it or not, and yelling at the internet doesn't make us win anything.

Maybe people should just accept that their opinion is just that... their opinion. Others can agree or disagree with it all they want. But it's certainly no reason to start the insults, claims of racism, and general hate and discontent. IMHO it's just childish and proves that people are grasping at straws to claim that the only valid opinion is the one they hold. Posting over and over and over saying the same things doesn't make an opinion any more valid either.... it just usually proves that the person who won't budge on their opinion thinks that the world around them is wrong and they are the only ones that can fix it.

I can see that basic comprehension is not one of your forte's, it's actually you who needs to re read my post, in fact I'll try and make it real simple just for you and hopefully you will finally understand instead of just carrying on with your continual sarcastic condescending mockery and woke culture accusations of prejudice and racism, not only to me and also anyone else who disagrees with you.

I simply don't want to see a championship won in a war of attrition between two bitter rivals with strong personal feelings affecting their racecraft and won ​by the driver who punts his rival into the wall more times or most successfully, I can't think of anything more lame or dangerous and IMO that's not racing.

I'm concerned one or both of these two are going to get seriously hurt because the penalty system in place is so lame that its not that much of a deterrent.

Why not have a rule where if you are involved in an incident that is judged to predominantly your fault you can score no more points than your collision 'victim' ?

Does someone have to be seriously injured or die first?

How dare you actually focus on a way to make solid rules that allow racing and keep things safe. Pick a side, become a fanboi extremist, and shout from the rooftops!


Yeah, the rules right now just kind of still suck at clarity, and they are leaving the door open for these kinds of things. Racing will be racing, but there has got to be a better way to sort things out and keep it somewhat safe. It's sort of a catch 22 situation.... if the rules are too strict racing suffers. If the rules are too loose, racing suffers.

But I agree the penalty system really doesn't hurt a lot of times. Especially the time based penalties, as they give advantage to guess who????... As usual the top teams. While Merc and RB can pretty much recover from a time penalty, the farther back cars are in the pack the more positions it often costs them.

[The Black Knight]

Seriously ?
Max had no blame in that one .
Ocon was a complete tool there .

They should have let Max get to him in the garage .

There was partial blame to Max, he could have left Ocon a little more room. Hamilton was right behind it as it happened and he said afterwards that you always give the other guy plenty of room. If Hamilton were in Max's position that day, I doubt him and Ocon would have collided. Ocon, though, was predominantly at fault and it was a stupid move to begin with. Max has had a range of these incidents now and in each one of them he had the ability to give the other guy more space.

[The Black Knight]

IMHO Max took a risk that Lewis would back out, and that is the only thing he was wrong about. As the regs currently stand, the driver on the racing line and leading dictates the corner with the stipulation that they must leave a cars width to the opposing car. Lewis was grossly off line, had missed the apex, and was carrying too much speed for a corner that would have two cars in it.

Don't get me wrong. Max would have been wise to just back out and let Lewis go wide, pass or not. Playing the long game would have worked much better. But neither driver is thinking about those details at 180 mph heading into the corner really. They are thinking that they have the corner and their opponent doesn't.... that's why they are good drivers.

I knew Max wouldn't back out. He's not that kind of driver and has not learned that living to fight another day is sometimes the better option. Hamilton has learned this which is why he backed out in Spain and Imola but one driver cannot have it is way the entire time. But you've summed up on your post exactly why it is a racing incident, both drivers could have done things differently to avoid the incident.

Also, on Brundles quote

"Max was not at fault although for his own race and championship campaign he could have left a little more space on the inside given Hamilton was bound to be compromised on that line, and perhaps have been less convinced that Lewis would yield."

Brundle has contradicted himself in that sentence. You can't absolve Max of blame and then say he could have left a little more space, although I would change that to he "should" have left more space, just like LeClerc did even though Hamilton was further behind into Copse at that point than he was on Max. That's the difference between a driver using (LeClerc) and not using his brain (Max).

[Nitrodaze]

I can see that basic comprehension is not one of your forte's, it's actually you who needs to re read my post, in fact I'll try and make it real simple just for you and hopefully you will finally understand instead of just carrying on with your continual sarcastic condescending mockery and woke culture accusations of prejudice and racism, not only to me and also anyone else who disagrees with you.

I simply don't want to see a championship won in a war of attrition between two bitter rivals with strong personal feelings affecting their racecraft and won ​by the driver who punts his rival into the wall more times or most successfully, I can't think of anything more lame or dangerous and IMO that's not racing.

I'm concerned one or both of these two are going to get seriously hurt because the penalty system in place is so lame that its not that much of a deterrent.

Why not have a rule where if you are involved in an incident that is judged to predominantly your fault you can score no more points than your collision 'victim' ?

Does someone have to be seriously injured or die first?

Well this sort of racing is dotted across the very depth of F1 history. From Senna and Prost, Senna and Mansell, Schumacher and Hill, Rosberg and Hamilton, Verstappen and Ricciardo, Vettel and Webber, Vettel and Verstappen, Raikonnen and Verstappen and the list goes on and on.

This is motor racing. To be the best in a season, one must defeat the best. When racing with the best, how well you measure comes down to how well one uses their head and their racecraft. The crash was avoidable. If it were any other driver it may not have happened as they would properly judge that situation better.

So your post was properly understood and l think this degree of racing is very uncomfortable for you. I get that. But this is motor racing at the highest level, not a sunday drive around the M25.

The idea of ruining the race of a driver that survived a collision because the other driver's race was terminated by the collision is rubbish. You are effectively saying drivers should be banned from winning the race if they were involved in a collision. This is the worst crap anyone has said on here. How the hell is that entertaining?

The spirited drive to recover 10 seconds and taking the win was very entertaining as it was not certain that he could pull it off or whether Leclerc would allow it.

[Nitrodaze]

IMHO Max took a risk that Lewis would back out, and that is the only thing he was wrong about. As the regs currently stand, the driver on the racing line and leading dictates the corner with the stipulation that they must leave a cars width to the opposing car. Lewis was grossly off line, had missed the apex, and was carrying too much speed for a corner that would have two cars in it.

Don't get me wrong. Max would have been wise to just back out and let Lewis go wide, pass or not. Playing the long game would have worked much better. But neither driver is thinking about those details at 180 mph heading into the corner really. They are thinking that they have the corner and their opponent doesn't.... that's why they are good drivers.

As usual, your perception of things is quite at odds with reality. I really wonder if you watched the race through someone else's window. Hamilton was actually on the inside for the right-hander and on the racing line. Verstappen was ahead but off the racing line, and was trying to get back onto the racing which caused the collision. No one is suggesting that Verstappen should have backed off. As a matter of fact, that is the last thing that he should have done. What he needed to do was to take a wider line through the corner to avoid what was obviously going to be a crash. You like to spout on here but half the time you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

You really should read the entire piece before you use it as a professional opinion that backs your own.

Quoted from the Brundle piece.....

"Max was not at fault although for his own race and championship campaign he could have left a little more space on the inside given Hamilton was bound to be compromised on that line, and perhaps have been less convinced that Lewis would yield."

If you are disappointed about an unknown source from another poster and questioning them on it, you might want to take a look in the mirror and consider how it makes you look to only use part of a persons opinion that you agree with, while ignoring the part you don't.

Once again, if you read Brundle's post, you would find that he sees it as a 70:30 fault distribution between the drivers and argued that it was the reason that a Stop and Go penalty was not awarded to Hamilton. So Verstappen had 30% of the fault from the stewards perspective and Hamilton 70%. But he goes on to say that in his opinion, it was a racing incident at best. Which l have been trying to say.

But I agree the penalty system really doesn't hurt a lot of times. Especially the time based penalties, as they give advantage to guess who????... As usual the top teams. While Merc and RB can pretty much recover from a time penalty, the farther back cars are in the pack the more positions it often costs them.

Once the stewards decided to award a penalty, they actually award what was the most that should be applicable in the circumstances. Hamilton did not win the race because of the penalty award to him. Under normal conditions, he would have been out of contention for the race win. He won the race because the race was red-flagged. Which afforded Mercedes the chance to replace his cracked left front wheel that was involved in the crash. Without the red flag, Hamilton's race was done.

If you took the time to objectively look at the situation, you would understand these facts. Of course, if you are looking through a prejudiced tinted glasses, you would not see these details. This was one of those situations where the stewards were between a rock and a hard place. No decision they made was going to be free from criticism. This is why l now understand why the penalty was given. And they called it right by picking a middle road for all concerned. To be fair they did a very good job of it.

[The Black Knight]

I think that had Hamilton been eliminated from the race the Stewards would have labelled this a racing incident. I think they felt because Verstappen had been eliminated from the race there needed to be a punishment for Hamilton but didn't hold him wholly to blame and that was reflect in the lenient penalty they gave him. Had he been eliminated, on the other hand, I think they would have decided both competitors had suffered enough.

[Bagwan]

As usual, your perception of things is quite at odds with reality. I really wonder if you watched the race through someone else's window. Hamilton was actually on the inside for the right-hander and on the racing line. Verstappen was ahead but off the racing line, and was trying to get back onto the racing which caused the collision. No one is suggesting that Verstappen should have backed off. As a matter of fact, that is the last thing that he should have done. What he needed to do was to take a wider line through the corner to avoid what was obviously going to be a crash. You like to spout on here but half the time you do not know what the hell you are talking about.





Once again, if you read Brundle's post, you would find that he sees it as a 70:30 fault distribution between the drivers and argued that it was the reason that a Stop and Go penalty was not awarded to Hamilton. So Verstappen had 30% of the fault from the stewards perspective and Hamilton 70%. But he goes on to say that in his opinion, it was a racing incident at best. Which l have been trying to say.



Once the stewards decided to award a penalty, they actually award what was the most that should be applicable in the circumstances. Hamilton did not win the race because of the penalty award to him. Under normal conditions, he would have been out of contention for the race win. He won the race because the race was red-flagged. Which afforded Mercedes the chance to replace his cracked left front wheel that was involved in the crash. Without the red flag, Hamilton's race was done.

If you took the time to objectively look at the situation, you would understand these facts. Of course, if you are looking through a prejudiced tinted glasses, you would not see these details. This was one of those situations where the stewards were between a rock and a hard place. No decision they made was going to be free from criticism. This is why l now understand why the penalty was given. And they called it right by picking a middle road for all concerned. To be fair they did a very good job of it.

Here's my opinion on that .
Airshifter is one of the most un-biased posters we have here .

You are not .