2021 - Race 14 Itallian GP at Monza

[Nitrodaze]

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.

[F1nKS]

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.

[Average Sim Racer]

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.

[denkimi]

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.

[Nitrodaze]

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.

[Nitrodaze]

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.

[Average Sim Racer]

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.

[F1nKS]

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.

[Nitrodaze]

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.

[Nitrodaze]

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.