F1

[Buggaluggs]

Tasty race today.

[Puja]

I'm amazed at the comments of Verstappen and Horner about it being 'a professional foul'. Verstappen spent the majority of that first lap driving very aggressively to keep Hamilton behind him: veering off line at one corner to force Hamilton wide, turning into him to bump wheels when they were going side-by-side down the straight, and, when Hamilton's got the run and the slipstream on him coming out the final corner, Verstappen weaves both right and then left to try and cut him off. Now, Verstappen is allowed by the rules to do all of these things, but he's able to get away with them because both of them are exquisite talents and Hamilton's reactions and skills are good enough for them not to both be taken out. On the actual crash, Hamilton is going faster than Verstappen, but is on a less advantageous line, so is likely going to fall behind again under braking. Verstappen knows he's there on the inside; he's seen him attempting the pass and, while he might not know *exactly* where, he knows he's somewhere on the apex.

Capture.PNG

According to the rules, Hamilton is the one that causes the crash (and thus takes the penalty from the stewards) - he's not made it clearly in front at any point and he's understeered slightly and not made the perfect point of the apex. However, Verstappen has no high horse to be up on because he's driven into that corner incredibly aggressively, on the assumption that Hamilton will either be absolutely perfect or back off in the face of that aggression, and on this occasion neither of those things have been true.

There's no way it's 'a professional foul' as Hamilton gains nothing from both of them going out* and it's impossible to deliberately orchestrate a crash at 160mph for only one car to DNF (and even if it was possible, you wouldn't do it like that!). According to the rules, it's Hamilton's fault because it's the overtaker who is responsible to make the move safely, but it's very, very far from being entirely his fault.

Puja


*Unlike Schumacher in 1995, where he absolutely drove into Damon Hill because both cars getting a DNF won him the Championship and, even then, he was a little bit lucky because Hill very nearly managed to escape without race-ending damage.

[Buggaluggs]

Verstappen drives a bit like Schumacher. Very aggressive. Concede or crash into me. One or the other. This outcome was inevitable and whining won't change that. Surprised a bit at Horner being such a big girl's blouse.

[Digby]

In fairness to Horner he's putting in some strong work to make Ron Dennis look a likeable chap

[Big D]

I'm amazed at the comments of Verstappen and Horner about it being 'a professional foul'. Verstappen spent the majority of that first lap driving very aggressively to keep Hamilton behind him: veering off line at one corner to force Hamilton wide, turning into him to bump wheels when they were going side-by-side down the straight, and, when Hamilton's got the run and the slipstream on him coming out the final corner, Verstappen weaves both right and then left to try and cut him off. Now, Verstappen is allowed by the rules to do all of these things, but he's able to get away with them because both of them are exquisite talents and Hamilton's reactions and skills are good enough for them not to both be taken out. On the actual crash, Hamilton is going faster than Verstappen, but is on a less advantageous line, so is likely going to fall behind again under braking. Verstappen knows he's there on the inside; he's seen him attempting the pass and, while he might not know *exactly* where, he knows he's somewhere on the apex.

Capture.PNG

According to the rules, Hamilton is the one that causes the crash (and thus takes the penalty from the stewards) - he's not made it clearly in front at any point and he's understeered slightly and not made the perfect point of the apex. However, Verstappen has no high horse to be up on because he's driven into that corner incredibly aggressively, on the assumption that Hamilton will either be absolutely perfect or back off in the face of that aggression, and on this occasion neither of those things have been true.

There's no way it's 'a professional foul' as Hamilton gains nothing from both of them going out* and it's impossible to deliberately orchestrate a crash at 160mph for only one car to DNF (and even if it was possible, you wouldn't do it like that!). According to the rules, it's Hamilton's fault because it's the overtaker who is responsible to make the move safely, but it's very, very far from being entirely his fault.

Puja


*Unlike Schumacher in 1995, where he absolutely drove into Damon Hill because both cars getting a DNF won him the Championship and, even then, he was a little bit lucky because Hill very nearly managed to escape without race-ending damage.

It shows a new dynamic to their rivalry. Before when Hamilton was in the lead he would cede position at times. Now he needs to take a chance. He got it wrong on Sunday he was "predominantly at fault" and needs to accept that.

Red Bull really have excelled themselves at whining like little bitches. If Max is happy to make statements like he did late in 2020 "Sometimes you have to drive aggressively and sometimes not, but making mistakes is part of it” then he needs to take the times when rivals make mistakes.

[Banquo]

In fairness to Horner he's putting in some strong work to make Ron Dennis look a likeable chap

Marrying a former Spice Girl will do that to ya.

[Banquo]

I'm amazed at the comments of Verstappen and Horner about it being 'a professional foul'. Verstappen spent the majority of that first lap driving very aggressively to keep Hamilton behind him: veering off line at one corner to force Hamilton wide, turning into him to bump wheels when they were going side-by-side down the straight, and, when Hamilton's got the run and the slipstream on him coming out the final corner, Verstappen weaves both right and then left to try and cut him off. Now, Verstappen is allowed by the rules to do all of these things, but he's able to get away with them because both of them are exquisite talents and Hamilton's reactions and skills are good enough for them not to both be taken out. On the actual crash, Hamilton is going faster than Verstappen, but is on a less advantageous line, so is likely going to fall behind again under braking. Verstappen knows he's there on the inside; he's seen him attempting the pass and, while he might not know *exactly* where, he knows he's somewhere on the apex.

Capture.PNG

According to the rules, Hamilton is the one that causes the crash (and thus takes the penalty from the stewards) - he's not made it clearly in front at any point and he's understeered slightly and not made the perfect point of the apex. However, Verstappen has no high horse to be up on because he's driven into that corner incredibly aggressively, on the assumption that Hamilton will either be absolutely perfect or back off in the face of that aggression, and on this occasion neither of those things have been true.

There's no way it's 'a professional foul' as Hamilton gains nothing from both of them going out* and it's impossible to deliberately orchestrate a crash at 160mph for only one car to DNF (and even if it was possible, you wouldn't do it like that!). According to the rules, it's Hamilton's fault because it's the overtaker who is responsible to make the move safely, but it's very, very far from being entirely his fault.

Puja


*Unlike Schumacher in 1995, where he absolutely drove into Damon Hill because both cars getting a DNF won him the Championship and, even then, he was a little bit lucky because Hill very nearly managed to escape without race-ending damage.

It shows a new dynamic to their rivalry. Before when Hamilton was in the lead he would cede position at times. Now he needs to take a chance. He got it wrong on Sunday he was "predominantly at fault" and needs to accept that.

Red Bull really have excelled themselves at whining like little bitches. If Max is happy to make statements like he did late in 2020 "Sometimes you have to drive aggressively and sometimes not, but making mistakes is part of it” then he needs to take the times when rivals make mistakes.

Wasn't Verstappen heavily criticised by other drivers early in his career for recklessness?

[Big D]

I'm amazed at the comments of Verstappen and Horner about it being 'a professional foul'. Verstappen spent the majority of that first lap driving very aggressively to keep Hamilton behind him: veering off line at one corner to force Hamilton wide, turning into him to bump wheels when they were going side-by-side down the straight, and, when Hamilton's got the run and the slipstream on him coming out the final corner, Verstappen weaves both right and then left to try and cut him off. Now, Verstappen is allowed by the rules to do all of these things, but he's able to get away with them because both of them are exquisite talents and Hamilton's reactions and skills are good enough for them not to both be taken out. On the actual crash, Hamilton is going faster than Verstappen, but is on a less advantageous line, so is likely going to fall behind again under braking. Verstappen knows he's there on the inside; he's seen him attempting the pass and, while he might not know *exactly* where, he knows he's somewhere on the apex.

Capture.PNG

According to the rules, Hamilton is the one that causes the crash (and thus takes the penalty from the stewards) - he's not made it clearly in front at any point and he's understeered slightly and not made the perfect point of the apex. However, Verstappen has no high horse to be up on because he's driven into that corner incredibly aggressively, on the assumption that Hamilton will either be absolutely perfect or back off in the face of that aggression, and on this occasion neither of those things have been true.

There's no way it's 'a professional foul' as Hamilton gains nothing from both of them going out* and it's impossible to deliberately orchestrate a crash at 160mph for only one car to DNF (and even if it was possible, you wouldn't do it like that!). According to the rules, it's Hamilton's fault because it's the overtaker who is responsible to make the move safely, but it's very, very far from being entirely his fault.

Puja


*Unlike Schumacher in 1995, where he absolutely drove into Damon Hill because both cars getting a DNF won him the Championship and, even then, he was a little bit lucky because Hill very nearly managed to escape without race-ending damage.

It shows a new dynamic to their rivalry. Before when Hamilton was in the lead he would cede position at times. Now he needs to take a chance. He got it wrong on Sunday he was "predominantly at fault" and needs to accept that.

Red Bull really have excelled themselves at whining like little bitches. If Max is happy to make statements like he did late in 2020 "Sometimes you have to drive aggressively and sometimes not, but making mistakes is part of it” then he needs to take the times when rivals make mistakes.

Wasn't Verstappen heavily criticised by other drivers early in his career for recklessness?

He seemed to have grown out of it, but often expects his opponents to concede the space. Hamilton now he isn't thinking defensively is obviously less inclined to do so (and got it wrong yesterday). But Max cant say statements like the above then get on his high horse when an opponent gets aggressive and gets it wrong.

Marko has been entertaining over the last few days; wanting Lewis banned then saying he ruined Albons career.

[Buggaluggs]

Not really sure where Max thought Hamilton would go. Just assumed he would back off.

F1.jpg

[Digby]

The onus is on Lewis to back off if he can't make the move, and as much as Max might be asked where did you think Lewis would go one might equally ask of Lewis why didn't you think Max would turn for the corner.

Had Lewis got ahead down the straight things would be different. As is I don't mind the outcome of it's a time penalty so it's not far off a racing incident but they consider Hamilton is a little out of order. I do wonder though had Max lifted would Lewis have been asked to give the position back? And if not is it right that outcome is considered as in this case (that may indeed be correct as per F1 regs, I have no idea)

[Puja]

The onus is on Lewis to back off if he can't make the move, and as much as Max might be asked where did you think Lewis would go one might equally ask of Lewis why didn't you think Max would turn for the corner.

I supect Hamilton's answer to that question would've been along the lines of assuming Verstappen knew about physics meaning two objects can't occupy the same space and thus assuming he wouldn't want to try it experimentally.

If Verstappen had not touched him, then there's no way he would've been asked to give the position back. It's definitely rude to shove your car in there and force the other driver wide, but it's hardly unprecedented or something that Verstappen's never done. If you can make it stick, then it's a perfectly valid overtaking manoeuvre.

The fact remains that he didn't make it stick, so I agree with your agreement on the time penalty being just about right.

Puja

[Digby]

The onus is on Lewis to back off if he can't make the move, and as much as Max might be asked where did you think Lewis would go one might equally ask of Lewis why didn't you think Max would turn for the corner.

I supect Hamilton's answer to that question would've been along the lines of assuming Verstappen knew about physics meaning two objects can't occupy the same space and thus assuming he wouldn't want to try it experimentally.

If Verstappen had not touched him, then there's no way he would've been asked to give the position back. It's definitely rude to shove your car in there and force the other driver wide, but it's hardly unprecedented or something that Verstappen's never done. If you can make it stick, then it's a perfectly valid overtaking manoeuvre.

The fact remains that he didn't make it stick, so I agree with your agreement on the time penalty being just about right.

Puja

The sport does a bad job of setting out what's to be expected in these situations.

My expectations would have been Max was allowed to set whatever line he wanted as it was his corner, muddied by the fact Hamilton got so close to passing on the straight it's into racing incident territory because for Hamilton to judge he wasn't ahead is a matter of inches at high speed, and the more one might understandably ere on the side of caution the less they're actually racing.

Sticking your care up the inside whilst common for Senna just isn't accepted practice anymore. Less sympathy for Max of course because he has previous himself with some similar moves, and some other poor behaviour at the expense of other drivers. Not sure either had Lewis made the apex if he'd have gotten away without a penalty, he didn't just stick his care up the inside he went up the inside on a weird line around the corner, but in part it's a line born out of racing into a corner

[Big D]

The onus is on Lewis to back off if he can't make the move, and as much as Max might be asked where did you think Lewis would go one might equally ask of Lewis why didn't you think Max would turn for the corner.

I supect Hamilton's answer to that question would've been along the lines of assuming Verstappen knew about physics meaning two objects can't occupy the same space and thus assuming he wouldn't want to try it experimentally.

If Verstappen had not touched him, then there's no way he would've been asked to give the position back. It's definitely rude to shove your car in there and force the other driver wide, but it's hardly unprecedented or something that Verstappen's never done. If you can make it stick, then it's a perfectly valid overtaking manoeuvre.

The fact remains that he didn't make it stick, so I agree with your agreement on the time penalty being just about right.

Puja

The sport does a bad job of setting out what's to be expected in these situations.

My expectations would have been Max was allowed to set whatever line he wanted as it was his corner, muddied by the fact Hamilton got so close to passing on the straight it's into racing incident territory because for Hamilton to judge he wasn't ahead is a matter of inches at high speed, and the more one might understandably ere on the side of caution the less they're actually racing.

Sticking your care up the inside whilst common for Senna just isn't accepted practice anymore. Less sympathy for Max of course because he has previous himself with some similar moves, and some other poor behaviour at the expense of other drivers. Not sure either had Lewis made the apex if he'd have gotten away without a penalty, he didn't just stick his care up the inside he went up the inside on a weird line around the corner, but in part it's a line born out of racing into a corner

There was a video I saw on one of the social media sites where they should every potential coming together between the two over the last few years. In nearly all of them Lewis backed out, even when it may have been 60/40 in his favour. The common factor each time was that Hamilton was defending a world championship lead. Max isn't used to having to think "bigger picture" and Lewis isn't used to judging when to turn the aggression up to 11. Both will need to adjust even if Lewis was at fault this time.

Interestingly, the stewards found Lewis predominantly at fault not completely at fault. Not sure whether those are standard words though.

[Puja]

Very interesting analysis by Jolyon Palmer:



Puja

[Digby]

When Lewis overtakes Max on the outside Lewis allows Max to take the corner as the inside car, a few corners later with Max ahead but on the outside Max doesn't allow Lewis the inside line. Though one notes not all corners are the same, and in the actual crash Lewis isn't exactly holding to the apex. Not sure how Max wouldn't have known Lewis was there though

[Banquo]

Mad today, Mercedes really need to think more clearly….but Hamilton showing what a great racer he is.

[Puja]

Mad today, Mercedes really need to think more clearly….but Hamilton showing what a great racer he is.

I think that's the third win that Mercedes have cost Hamilton this year with barking tactical decisions - he'd be walking away with the title if they got their act together. Still 2nd place (after Vettel's demotion) is a hell of a result.

Can't blame the Verstappen fans for being irate over that race though. If you were conspiratorially minded and willing to believe that someone would crash a very fast car deliberately, Bottas's mistake was absolutely ideal for Hamilton's title chances - clearing out Verstappen, Perez, and Leclerc in one bowling-for-contenders move.

Puja

[Digby]

Just the sight issue Bottas couldn't possibly know what his driving into Norris would result in. But a good day for Russell to pick up points with Williams and see Bottas panic after a slow start

[Banquo]

Mad today, Mercedes really need to think more clearly….but Hamilton showing what a great racer he is.

I think that's the third win that Mercedes have cost Hamilton this year with barking tactical decisions - he'd be walking away with the title if they got their act together. Still 2nd place (after Vettel's demotion) is a hell of a result.

Can't blame the Verstappen fans for being irate over that race though. If you were conspiratorially minded and willing to believe that someone would crash a very fast car deliberately, Bottas's mistake was absolutely ideal for Hamilton's title chances - clearing out Verstappen, Perez, and Leclerc in one bowling-for-contenders move.

Puja

Yes to the first part. I don't really buy the conspiracy bit tho.

[Puja]

Just the sight issue Bottas couldn't possibly know what his driving into Norris would result in. But a good day for Russell to pick up points with Williams and see Bottas panic after a slow start

Indeed. The only crashes I've seen which I believe were deliberate were Schumacher's and that was only because it was one-on-one to win a championship. Anything else is far too unpredictable and dangerous.

Not stopping the internet loons from claiming that Bottas has now secured his contract extension for next year though.

Puja

[Digby]

Just the sight issue Bottas couldn't possibly know what his driving into Norris would result in. But a good day for Russell to pick up points with Williams and see Bottas panic after a slow start

Indeed. The only crashes I've seen which I believe were deliberate were Schumacher's and that was only because it was one-on-one to win a championship. Anything else is far too unpredictable and dangerous.

Not stopping the internet loons from claiming that Bottas has now secured his contract extension for next year though.

Puja

There are people on the internet who claim the earth is flat and Trump is a good person. I thought it was a good day for Russell because Bottas screwed up even if the screw up happened to benefit his team

[Puja]

Just the sight issue Bottas couldn't possibly know what his driving into Norris would result in. But a good day for Russell to pick up points with Williams and see Bottas panic after a slow start

Indeed. The only crashes I've seen which I believe were deliberate were Schumacher's and that was only because it was one-on-one to win a championship. Anything else is far too unpredictable and dangerous.

Not stopping the internet loons from claiming that Bottas has now secured his contract extension for next year though.

Puja

There are people on the internet who claim the earth is flat and Trump is a good person. I thought it was a good day for Russell because Bottas screwed up even if the screw up happened to benefit his team

I liked Russell very firmly stating on the radio that, "If you need to compromise my race to help Latifi [who was in third at the time], then I'm willing to do that." He wasn't in a realistic position to help Latifi, but it was a very ostentatious announcement of his team man credentials when he knew Mercedes were listening.

Puja

[Numbers]

I really felt sorry for Lando Norris, leapt up to 3rd from 6th by the first corner only to be taken out.

[Digby]

I felt sorry for everyone who got taken out by Bottas. Perhaps some humour that it was a bit of a Vettel moment that benefited Vettel only for Vettel to end up with nowt

[Digby]

Indeed. The only crashes I've seen which I believe were deliberate were Schumacher's and that was only because it was one-on-one to win a championship. Anything else is far too unpredictable and dangerous.

Not stopping the internet loons from claiming that Bottas has now secured his contract extension for next year though.

Puja

There are people on the internet who claim the earth is flat and Trump is a good person. I thought it was a good day for Russell because Bottas screwed up even if the screw up happened to benefit his team

I liked Russell very firmly stating on the radio that, "If you need to compromise my race to help Latifi [who was in third at the time], then I'm willing to do that." He wasn't in a realistic position to help Latifi, but it was a very ostentatious announcement of his team man credentials when he knew Mercedes were listening.

Puja

Agreed, very much a plug.

That said I thought he was in position to back some drivers up and leave Latifi with a bigger interval further up the field, just maybe not quite as dramatic as Alonso holding off Lewis for the benefit of Ocon. Whether that eventuated I don't know, but it should have been possible for Russell