If it was available to either the stewards or the complainant at the time, then it's not admissible. If it was available to a third party (eg Mercedes) but they didn't share it with the stewards/the stewards were unaware of it, then it's admissible.Fiki wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:23 pmCould evidence that was available but unexamined at the time of the GP be admissable as "new", I wonder? Telemetry has been named by some on the forum. I think it's possible Red Bull hope to get the penalty increased, by making the stewards/FIA see that Verstappen bore no responsibility in the accident. An increased penalty could make all the difference come the final stage of the season, should Max's accident engine indeed need to be replaced.Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:58 pmAny predictions on what the new evidence is.
For it to be admissible it has to have been:
Not evidence the stewards were aware of at the time of the original verdict.
Unavailable at the time to the party lodging the appeal of the original verdict.
Substantially different to evidence used in the original verdict.
This would rule out telemetry data or different camera angles.
The business of F1 versus what little seems to remain of the sport of F1.
But it still has to clear the criteria of being fundamentally different to evidence already considered to pass the first stage.
That's also important, the first stage isn't the appeal, it's too determine if an appeal is legitimate (ie, the new evidence meets the criteria) - clearing that bar doesn't actually have any bearing on whether the appeal will be a success. It could even backfire and the new evidence could lead to Hamilton being cleared of wrong doing and his penalty points taken away (and maybe even 10 seconds subtracted from his race time, although as that wouldn't change the result it isn't really worth doing) - they could even decide Max was at fault and penalise him.
But the only new information they are likely to add is video evidence, which will fall into one of three types: another angle of the crash (this would fail to progress to appeal) - a video analysis using the telemetry (something like Crashalong's videos on YouTube) which would be dismissed for the same reason as Chandok's video with Ferrari, or some kind of smoking gun (Hamilton saying things that imply he deliberately made sure Max went off)
It's unlikely that a video exists of Hamilton outright saying it was deliberate (even in the unlikely event that he did do it deliberately) because that would be a stupid thing to let slip. It's possible they may attempt to argue that reading between the lines on his comments that they are inferring it was deliberate. And I think as this is an opinion of interpretation it also will fail.
The final suggestion is that they have looked at the telemetry and are going to argue this was Hamilton's fastest entry into Copse all weekend and he would never have made the corner. This also fails as being new evidence as the stewards would have known his speed at the time and would have had the option of looking at his corner speeds all weekend. Also, that itself isn't proof he wouldn't make the corner. He could have been doing 1,000mph and Mercedes can just argue their car has the downforce to take copse at that speed. Hamilton had only got to that speed because of the tow from Max, Mercedes had been planning that overtake All weekend because they had analysed the GPS data from the red bull and seen the Honda engine was not deploying MGU-K at the apex of Woodcote to prevent damage, so they could set up to take advantage of that