Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
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.



Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
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.




Quote Originally Posted by Zico View Post
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.