Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

F1 2021 Round 10 : Silverstone

12627282931

Comments



  • Ha. Not sure where you got the impression that f1 fans were immune to that kind of nonsense.

    Between suggestions that Hamilton tried to kill max and the the incident was akin to Jerez 97.

    Fact is it was a crash where one driver was more to blame than the other and while the infraction was relatively minor, the consequences (in terms of the championship and safety) were relatively major.

    The punishment fits the crime, not the consequences of the crime and from that perspective, justice was served. If the punishment was supposed to fit the consequences of the crime, then justice would not have been served.

    Post edited by El_Duderino 09 on




  • The punishment didn't fit the crime though. I've said it before, some people have blinkers on when looking at what happened. Honestly think some posters on here watched a different race and most of them were Lewis fans!





  • Can you post a quote where any of what you have in quotes please.



  • Advertisement


  • I can't quote what isn't there, and there has been no discussion about anything else except Lewis, OK the monkey term wasn't from boards it was from the comments section of Max's instagram post where it garnered 7k likes before a moderator quietly took it down.

    Hate has won here. People are following Formula1 purely to hate Hamilton and they're succeeding in dragging all formula one fans with them.

    Lewis needs to withdraw from the championship and move to Indycar as soon as possible.





  • There has been plenty of discussion but seeing as it was the main incident in the race what do you expect people to talk about, strange post





  • So basically you made stuff up about people on boards.





  • You can't quote it but can talk about it. While complaining about people dragging down the discussion. When its only YOU discussing it.



  • Advertisement


  • but it did

    FIA Race Director Michael Masi has defended the decision of the British Grand Prix race stewards to award Lewis Hamilton a 10-second penalty for his part in the clash that saw Max Verstappen retire from the Silverstone race on Lap 1.

     But speaking after the race, Masi said that it was the stewards’ job to award penalties based on the incidents themselves, rather than on their outcomes.

    “So when you judge incidents, they judge the incident itself, the merits of the incident and not what happens after as a consequence, and that’s been something the stewards have done for many years and have been advised to do from the top down – and I’m talking team involvement and so forth. That’s the way the stewards judge it, because if you start taking consequences into it, there are so many variables rather than judging the incident itself.”

    The stewards’ verdict deemed that Hamilton had been ‘predominantly’, rather than ‘wholly’, at fault in the incident – with Masi going on to explain how Hamilton might have avoided sanction, which also included two penalty points to take his current tally to four in the last 12 months.





  • Ah yeah, sure the stewards never got anything wrong did they. That's fine above but to me it still didn't and some of their decisions have left fans and commentators scratching their head in previous occasions. As for the incident that Hamilton was 'predominantly' at fault for it send Max in to a wall. This is the incident not the aftermath. Of course Michael Masi is going to come out and defend the decision, never expected otherwise.





  • The stewards were right from the letter of the law-10 second penalty is correct when you look at it from the incident only. Lewis was mainly at fault as he had space to move into, but he didn’t turn into max or specifically look to crash or anything.

    Still feels wrong that you have a system that you can be judged at fault for causing a crash that you ultimately massively benefit from, though. Imagine it happened in the final race and that’s how the championship was decided!





  • I think it did. It was a foolish move but there are good arguments that Hamilton had his car half way along verstappens and so he had the right to take that inside line. But he understeer and hit verstappen so he got a 10s penalty. That's about right.

    The punishment fits the crime which its supposed to do. It doesn't fit the consequences of the crime, but it's not supposed to do that.





  • Go outside and get some fresh air. What a ridiculous post.





  • I have to laugh at the "hate has won" comments.

    You're allowed to say lewis was in the wrong, or heck you're allowed to dislike his public personality, without being racist. I dont rate Nico Rosberg at all, and I really dislike Bottas, and his personality. Am I anti-white then?

    Lewis was in the wrong and for me he benefitted from his "crime", in that he repaired the car under the red flag and still got +25 on his rival. It's exactly the same as schumacher crashing into hill in adelaide 1994. I'm a schumacher fanboy but michael had a nasty habit of crashing out rivals. He tried it in Jerez 1997 against Villeneuve and Brundle on comms even mentioned it "you hit the wrong part of him my friend".

    Lewis is in the wrong. MSC was in the wrong. Same "crime". Lewis got a 10 second penalty (not even stop go) and MSC got disqualified from the WDC that year.





  • If it wasn't the British GP do you think Hamilton might have backed out/left room?





  • I think it being his home race played a part in it, but I think it was moreso getting P1 in quali but still not having the same pace as Max in the sprint.

    Think the sprint taught him that if he was to stand any chance, he needed to get into P1 as soon as possible.





  • It was an unusually Minor penalty to say the least. Type of penalty that would apply to technical infringements of the rules.

    What he did was driver error causing a collision. Not technical or minor. Whether the other driver crashed or not is totally irrelevant.

    When added to - caused a collision and punted someone off - repaired his car without loss of position - lucky at Norris pitstop misfortune - lucky that LeClerc's "computer says no" - "team orders"!!!!!!, that cynical "is Max ok" radio message on the way into the pits and finally his antics after the race.

    Criticism of Red Bull officials reaction on Sunday is out of order. Their driver had suffered a big impact, might have had a serious head injury and was clearly suffering, even after getting himself out of the car. They were rattled and might have been OTT, but their driver could have been badly injured by a cowboy move made in desperation by an experienced driver





  • Lewis in Silverstone and Schumacher in Jerez 97 are not even comparable. Schumacher steered into his opponent with intention to crash into him. Lewis didn't do that, he just understeered into him because he failed to hit the apex. The very different penalties are roughly appropriate for the incidents they were applied to.



  • Advertisement


  • And why did Lewis understeer too much? Because he was trying to hard in places he shouldn't so as not to let Max break free. He made a mistake which caused another driver to go off the track, how are other people not able to see this instead of coming up with anything other than the facts. I'm done with the discussion anyway. The way I and most see it Lewis was at fault, was behind Max when it happened but because Lewis took the wrong line in desperation to get by caused the accident. unsubscribes 😂





  • He understeered because he mad ea balls of the corner and failed to hit the apex. That's not even comparable to Jerez 97.





  • I never compared it to Jerez 97, can you point to the part in my post that I did? No, you can't, ffs read the posts before you post your condescending bullshit. Which way is the ignore button, have read enough of your shite over the weekend!





  • I was responding to this post by ELM

    "Lewis was in the wrong and for me he benefitted from his "crime", in that he repaired the car under the red flag and still got +25 on his rival. It's exactly the same as schumacher crashing into hill in adelaide 1994. I'm a schumacher fanboy but michael had a nasty habit of crashing out rivals. He tried it in Jerez 1997 against Villeneuve and Brundle on comms even mentioned it "you hit the wrong part of him my friend".

    Lewis is in the wrong. MSC was in the wrong. Same "crime". Lewis got a 10 second penalty (not even stop go) and MSC got disqualified from the WDC that year."





  • That's the wrong Schumacher example, winning imola 1994 and celebrating at the ceremony was discussed even a decade later.





  • It's a different example showing different things. Crashing out his rival.


    It's similar to this because Lewis took the line knowing he'd miss the apex and was going to crash Max off





  • It's similar if you squint in a bad light and you also want to ignore the fact that he didn't deliberately try to crash his opponent out of the race. That's the crucial piece of information that distinguishes the two events. Pretending otherwise is very silly.





  • In your world I suppose lewis is correct and max should have got off the racing line to let him pass like bottas does.





  • Not one person has said this. Neither of them were going to yield.

    You're the one making baseless claims here, yet then you sarcastically imply other people are.



  • Advertisement


  • I've seen a couple of people put that point forward. But I just take the sensible approach where Lewis made a mistake and was punished roughly appropriately (on the lenient side but appropriate). The punishment could have been a bit more harsh and wouldn't have been inappropriate.

    That's my world. Which world are you living in?



Advertisement