planetf1.com

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:23 pm

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:58 pm

Any 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.

Could 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.

The business of F1 versus what little seems to remain of the sport of F1.

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:04 am

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:23 pm

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:58 pm

Any 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.

Could 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.

The business of F1 versus what little seems to remain of the sport of F1.

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.

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

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:04 am

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:23 pm

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:58 pm

Any 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.

Could 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.

The business of F1 versus what little seems to remain of the sport of F1.

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.

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

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:53 am

The stewards are going to be extremely reluctant to find a different verdict anyway. It just sets such a precedent that they can really do without.

Fiki wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:26 am

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:04 am

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:23 pm

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:58 pm

Any 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.

Could 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.

The business of F1 versus what little seems to remain of the sport of F1.

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.

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

Thanks for your extensive post Alien. It will be interesting to see on what grounds they have launched their appeal.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:53 am

The stewards are going to be extremely reluctant to find a different verdict anyway. It just sets such a precedent that they can really do without.

I can't believe they want a different verdict, I would expect them to seek a more appropriate penalty.

By chance I watched Netflix's episode on Pièrre Gasly's Italian GP win of last year. After Leclerc's crash the pitlane was closed initially, though Hamilton did make a pitstop. His penalty struck me, as I had forgotten all about it - not at all difficult at my age. After the restart, Hamilton received a 10 second stop-and-go penalty, which removed any chance of a race victory, and rather appropriate. No danger was involved in the incident at all, unlike the one in the British GP.
I'm not one to take the stewards to task over inconsistency, their job is difficult enough as it is. But I do find the difference between the two penalties disproportionate. Because of that, I hope the appeal will go ahead. It should be interesting.

Fiki wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:26 am

By chance I watched Netflix's episode on Pièrre Gasly's Italian GP win of last year. After Leclerc's crash the pitlane was closed initially, though Hamilton did make a pitstop. His penalty struck me, as I had forgotten all about it - not at all difficult at my age. After the restart, Hamilton received a 10 second stop-and-go penalty, which removed any chance of a race victory, and rather appropriate. No danger was involved in the incident at all, unlike the one in the British GP.
I'm not one to take the stewards to task over inconsistency, their job is difficult enough as it is. But I do find the difference between the two penalties disproportionate. Because of that, I hope the appeal will go ahead. It should be interesting.

Option or Prime wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:37 am

Isn't this Christian Horner playing mind games. That is to be seen to be supporting his driver and try to paint Lewis Hamilton in a different, more villainous light.

On the collision, some have said it will make MV more aggressive, I think a couple of things might happen, first it might make other driver less likely to give in to his aggressive tactics and second with much more to lose it might have the opposite effect, making him more circumspect. Its a lesson LH learned a few years ago.

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:40 am

Fiki wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:26 am

By chance I watched Netflix's episode on Pièrre Gasly's Italian GP win of last year. After Leclerc's crash the pitlane was closed initially, though Hamilton did make a pitstop. His penalty struck me, as I had forgotten all about it - not at all difficult at my age. After the restart, Hamilton received a 10 second stop-and-go penalty, which removed any chance of a race victory, and rather appropriate. No danger was involved in the incident at all, unlike the one in the British GP.
I'm not one to take the stewards to task over inconsistency, their job is difficult enough as it is. But I do find the difference between the two penalties disproportionate. Because of that, I hope the appeal will go ahead. It should be interesting.

Penalties are not there to functionally remove a race winning opportunity. The stewards are not there to decide who may or may not win - unless it is disqualification level offence (which is a totally different issue)

The reason for Hamilton's penalty in Imola being so severe is two fold. One - the penalty was made disproportionately more severe than intended because of the red flag. Under normal circumstances it would have dropped him down to the low points positions.

Secondly, the penalty for this offence was very specifically made very draconian, at the request of the teams. This was after Daniel Ricciardo received a 5s time penalty for doing the same thing in Brazil 2016 and after the race the teams said to the FIA that with such a minor penalty it meant that there was an incentive to take the hit for the penalty and gain the advantage from pitting under safety car conditions. As the pit lane is only closed for safety critical reasons, they asked for the maximum time penalty to be applied so there was no competitive advantage from pitting in a closed pitlane.

Johnson wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:09 am

The pit lane is only closed for safety reasons, it was closed at Monza because men were in the pit lane entry pushing a broken down car.

Johnson wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:09 am

The pit lane is only closed for safety reasons, it was closed at Monza because men were in the pit lane entry pushing a broken down car.

Fiki wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:57 am

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:40 am

Fiki wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:26 am

By chance I watched Netflix's episode on Pièrre Gasly's Italian GP win of last year. After Leclerc's crash the pitlane was closed initially, though Hamilton did make a pitstop. His penalty struck me, as I had forgotten all about it - not at all difficult at my age. After the restart, Hamilton received a 10 second stop-and-go penalty, which removed any chance of a race victory, and rather appropriate. No danger was involved in the incident at all, unlike the one in the British GP.
I'm not one to take the stewards to task over inconsistency, their job is difficult enough as it is. But I do find the difference between the two penalties disproportionate. Because of that, I hope the appeal will go ahead. It should be interesting.

Penalties are not there to functionally remove a race winning opportunity. The stewards are not there to decide who may or may not win - unless it is disqualification level offence (which is a totally different issue)

The reason for Hamilton's penalty in Imola being so severe is two fold. One - the penalty was made disproportionately more severe than intended because of the red flag. Under normal circumstances it would have dropped him down to the low points positions.

Secondly, the penalty for this offence was very specifically made very draconian, at the request of the teams. This was after Daniel Ricciardo received a 5s time penalty for doing the same thing in Brazil 2016 and after the race the teams said to the FIA that with such a minor penalty it meant that there was an incentive to take the hit for the penalty and gain the advantage from pitting under safety car conditions. As the pit lane is only closed for safety critical reasons, they asked for the maximum time penalty to be applied so there was no competitive advantage from pitting in a closed pitlane.

Again a very interesting post Alien, thanks.

5s was indeed a minor penalty and the move to increase it logical. What I find hard to reconcile though, is that entering a closed pitlane is seen as a bigger foul than causing an avoidable collision at racing speed in a fast corner. I don't believe closing the pitlane has anything to do with safety critical reasons, at least not in the pitlane.

EPROM wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:33 pm

To IDFD, Lewis had already conceded the corner earlier in the turn when he backed off. Pretty clear where the order of primacy lay after that point. And the assertion that others view this as 100% Lewis' fault ("as much as you want to blame Lewis 100%") is a red herring / moving the goalposts of the discussion (nice try). Rarely is anyone 100% at fault / not at fault in this sport. Claiming that others are claiming such is not sincere (IMO).

IDFD wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:32 pm

In football a frivolous appeal would see you receive an extra game ban.

The FIA need to stamp down on this and make sure it doesn't become routine.

UnlikeUday wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:33 pm

A gentle reminder for Horner (check from 0:09 seconds):

KingVoid wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:21 pm

IDFD wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:49 pm

Do you at least acknowledge this is partially because people jump out of Max's way because of how aggressive he is so they usually go the extra mile to avoid incidents?

Maybe you should have told that to Leclerc at Silverstone 2019, who raced Verstappen harder than anyone has raced Hamilton in recent history, and yet they kept it clean.

And it's not just Lewis. It's on camera with Bottas and Seb both saying you give Max a wide berth because he's an aggressive driver so if you don't try and stop the crash both cars are going out. It's a good reputation for Max to have because it makes his life easier but it isn't fair or good driving just because others jump out of his way.

That press conference was completely cringe. Three drivers making fun of the aggression of one driver who wasn’t even there to defend themselves. Two of those drivers (Hamilton and Vettel) have been collecting penalty points for fun in recent years, while the other driver (Bottas) is so bad at racing that his inability to overtake is a meme.

Perhaps they should look at themselves first.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:12 pm

IDFD wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:49 pm

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:43 pm

F1 MERCENARY wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:31 pm

WHoff78 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:38 pm

The thing is though Max is very aggressive in all scenarios. I don't see how you can compete with that except for backing out when the risk is too high (which Hamilton has done on multiple occasions) and matching the aggression at the right moments - easier said than done. In this case Hamilton was every bit as aggressive as Max but he will have to do that at moments while the Red Bull is the faster car. It's incredible that there was not contact earlier in the lap. Prior to Brooklands I believe Max makes a clear move to the inside but then aggressively try's to forces Hamilton to the outside on the approach so that he has a better line. It's amazing that they don't touch at that point. Fully expect there to be more contact going forward and it is going to come down to who plays the percentages better. Dangerous game though.

The thing is that Who the hell is Max to be able to do as he pleases and everyone else has to tip toe around him because he refuses to adhere to the same etiquette as everyone else driving in FIA sanctioned events??!?!?

Do you not see the preposterousness of your statement?

So if a driver were to hit the scene who didn't like to turn left and simply drove straight over all left hand turns because that's what he feels like doing, everyone else should take note of that and adjust their driving accordingly to allow him to just cut all left turns straight?

This is the pinnacle of motorsport and if you want to play with the big boys you do it fairly and without ruthless intent if you want to be regarded as one of the elites.


This is just a snippet of some of Max's antics, which set a clear precedent...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkAoSghdD6Y&t=31s

Hamilton has been penalised 3 times for crashing into other cars since Max's last penalty for hitting anyone.

Do you at least acknowledge this is partially because people jump out of Max's way because of how aggressive he is so they usually go the extra mile to avoid incidents?

This is why Max and Red Bull are so angry. They're not used to actually racing people anymore. We've already seen 2 or 3 times this season where Lewis would usually keep it in but he knows it's Max and it isn't worth the crash so had backed off as Max won't be fair and will crash / go over the limit.

And it's not just Lewis. It's on camera with Bottas and Seb both saying you give Max a wide berth because he's an aggressive driver so if you don't try and stop the crash both cars are going out. It's a good reputation for Max to have because it makes his life easier but it isn't fair or good driving just because others jump out of his way.

Where has Lewis actually backed out this season? Imola he certainly didn't.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:53 am

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:04 am

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:23 pm

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:58 pm

Any 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.

Could 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.

The business of F1 versus what little seems to remain of the sport of F1.

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.

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

Yeah, the only thing I can think of that would fulfil the criteria needed to reopen the case would be some kind of strong evidence of Hamilton having crashed deliberately. Anything less than that strikes me as a waste of time. The stewards are going to be extremely reluctant to find a different verdict anyway. It just sets such a precedent that they can really do without.

Note for clarity - I'm not saying Hamilton did take Verstappen out on purpose or that the existence of evidence that suggests he did is remotely likely.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:55 pm

I believe telemetry shows that Hamilton had decreased his speed by 13kph while Max actually increased speed by 2kph so while Hamilton had backed out of it Max still had his foot planted.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:11 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:55 pm

I believe telemetry shows that Hamilton had decreased his speed by 13kph while Max actually increased speed by 2kph so while Hamilton had backed out of it Max still had his foot planted.

This is a point that interest me. It's been mentioned that Hamilton went into Copse as fast as he had all race and was not going to make the corner exit. Yet Verstappen went in faster (by virtue of pulling back ahead) and, whilst on a wider entry, was he expected to make the exit himself?
It's a bit f an aside to the incident itself but, as I said, it's piqued my curiosity.

Interesting interview between Mark Webber and Max on Sunday morning - shown during C4 build up program.

Mark asked Max about what he thought the Merc drivers might do.

"Merc is going to throw everything at this Max, they had the race last night, in terms of splitting the stategy and the compounds, with Valteri trying to win the start, which didn't work, so they would have learnt some information from that race.

Do you think that, today, Vallteri also can play some part in upsetting what Red Bull have in mind for you."

Max's reply

"I feel quite relaxed - I know they will go flat out and try to make it difficult for me, but at the end of the day I have nothing to lose.

They have a lot to lose.

I know that I am in the lead of the championship, and I can fight, so it's fine, I'm ready for it."

pokerman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:39 pm

KingVoid wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:21 pm

IDFD wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:49 pm

Do you at least acknowledge this is partially because people jump out of Max's way because of how aggressive he is so they usually go the extra mile to avoid incidents?

Maybe you should have told that to Leclerc at Silverstone 2019, who raced Verstappen harder than anyone has raced Hamilton in recent history, and yet they kept it clean.

And it's not just Lewis. It's on camera with Bottas and Seb both saying you give Max a wide berth because he's an aggressive driver so if you don't try and stop the crash both cars are going out. It's a good reputation for Max to have because it makes his life easier but it isn't fair or good driving just because others jump out of his way.

That press conference was completely cringe. Three drivers making fun of the aggression of one driver who wasn’t even there to defend themselves. Two of those drivers (Hamilton and Vettel) have been collecting penalty points for fun in recent years, while the other driver (Bottas) is so bad at racing that his inability to overtake is a meme.

Perhaps they should look at themselves first.

Leclerc raced hard against Max at Silverstone because of what happened in Austria were Max deliberately drove Leclerc off the track in order to win the race, it was Leclerc's message to Max that he wouldn't be bullied anymore.

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:13 pm

Well the stewards threw the appeal out. No further action.

JN23 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:16 pm

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:13 pm

Well the stewards threw the appeal out. No further action.

Where you seeing this?

JN23 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:16 pm

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:13 pm

Well the stewards threw the appeal out. No further action.

Where you seeing this?

IDFD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:04 pm

With such a ridiculous bit of action from Red Bull they really should have faced some sort of action like you would in other sports.

Just a fine of sorts that would go in to youth level racing. Otherwise everyone may as well appeal everything and waste everyone's time.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:11 pm

IDFD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:04 pm

With such a ridiculous bit of action from Red Bull they really should have faced some sort of action like you would in other sports.

Just a fine of sorts that would go in to youth level racing. Otherwise everyone may as well appeal everything and waste everyone's time.

Red Bull didn't appeal. All they did was ask if there was grounds to.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:11 pm

IDFD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:04 pm

With such a ridiculous bit of action from Red Bull they really should have faced some sort of action like you would in other sports.

Just a fine of sorts that would go in to youth level racing. Otherwise everyone may as well appeal everything and waste everyone's time.

Red Bull didn't appeal. All they did was ask if there was grounds to.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:11 pm

IDFD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:04 pm

With such a ridiculous bit of action from Red Bull they really should have faced some sort of action like you would in other sports.

Just a fine of sorts that would go in to youth level racing. Otherwise everyone may as well appeal everything and waste everyone's time.

Red Bull didn't appeal. All they did was ask if there was grounds to.

IDFD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:17 pm

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:11 pm

IDFD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:04 pm

With such a ridiculous bit of action from Red Bull they really should have faced some sort of action like you would in other sports.

Just a fine of sorts that would go in to youth level racing. Otherwise everyone may as well appeal everything and waste everyone's time.

Red Bull didn't appeal. All they did was ask if there was grounds to.

Okay. Well they should be fined for trying to bring new evidence in talking all week about how Hamilton deserved a race ban and for going to the stewards with such nonsense.

Though I'm sure you think this was perfectly normal behaviour that we often see in the sport trying to get someone else's penalty increased 2 weeks after an incident in race.