[Official] British Grand Prix 2021: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 10 of 23

[Aysedasi]

Not a theory I subscribe to. They're both hard racers and both wanted to be in front. My theory is simpler....

[ascarracinguk]

I dont think Hamilton is losing his touch, quite the opposite. Youve seen multiple times this year in Imola, Spain even the opening lap at Silverstone where Lewis has had to go wide to avoid Max crashing into him

I think this was a case of Lewis giving way too many times this year....he plays the long game because Lewis has more to lose and Max knows it....if that continued, Max could continually bully Lewis around the track, knowing every time Lewis would back out.

Its somewhat role reversal, Max usually has nothing to lose so can make agressive moves, Lewis knows the only way Mercedes can win this year is to out race Red Bull.

Now Max knows Lewis is prepared to keep his nose in.

Lets not forget the other side too... Max turned in a second time when he saw Lewis....he didnt have to do that and could have avoided the incident Like Lewis has done multiple times.

As above, 2 hard headed racers not prepared to give in.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Its somewhat role reversal, Max usually has nothing to lose so can make agressive moves, Lewis knows the only way Mercedes can win this year is to out race Red Bull.

Now Max knows Lewis is prepared to keep his nose in.

I think this is a perceptive observation. Verstappen could have just shrugged and let Hamilton past. Who knows how the rest of the race would have played out. The worst outcome for Verstappen would have been second place. Instead he fought for a corner he didn’t need and lost 25 points of his WDC lead. Knowing when to scrap and when to hold back is not something Verstappen has yet needed to learn.

Sometimes a driver needs to be Senna, sometimes they need to be Prost.

[ascarracinguk]

Now is probably a good time to Quote Christian Horner from the Spanish GP.

"Turn 1 was mega, i mean Max, that was full Max Verstappen - He was going for it - and he positioned the car fanstastically well. Thankfully Lewis had got out of it because otherwise he would have ended up in the fence"

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Now is probably a good time to Quote Christian Horner from the Spanish GP.

"Turn 1 was mega, i mean Max, that was full Max Verstappen - He was going for it - and he positioned the car fanstastically well. Thankfully Lewis had got out of it because otherwise he would have ended up in the fence"

We've had the quote once or twice already and it is real 'biter bit' stuff......

[ascarracinguk]

ah sorry missed that!

Indeed though. Wasnt it Silverstone last year too where Albon took out the HAAS and Horner saw it as a racing incident...

...the way Red Bull, Marko, Max have responded to this leaves a bit to be desired.

I can understand emotions run high, but the insults and language used is not great. Other teams and drivers have been taken out from the lead or points positions before and i dont remember this sort of vitriol from team managers etc.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Wasnt it Silverstone last year too where Albon took out the HAAS and Horner saw it as a racing incident...

It certainly was - he praised Albon for 'putting his nose in up the inside' as well as 'pulling off great overtakes at Copse'.

[GusGasfuss]

My opinion: a racing incident, which could be avoided, but thats life/racing.


Problem is, that the "more guilty" driver only had this 10s penalty. I think, its not a good signal to say "you can push your hardest opponent and still win with ease".



Maybe drive-through can be a better penalty, and will prevent drivers from doing so.

And also no one will complain, if after such penalty, Lewis would still win. Then he can be real proud of hin win.



Actually i can't see it as a excellent race, if you had pushed out the only real opponent in first round...
So Celebrations look very odd...

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by GusGasfuss

My opinion: a racing incident, which could be avoided, but thats life/racing.


Problem is, that the "more guilty" driver only had this 10s penalty. I think, its not a good signal to say "you can push your hardest opponent and still win with ease".



Maybe drive-through can be a better penalty, and will prevent drivers from doing so.

And also no one will complain, if after such penalty, Lewis would still win. Then he can be real proud of hin win.



Actually i can't see it as a excellent race, if you had pushed out the only real opponent in first round...
So Celebrations look very odd...

The problem is you have to penalise the action not the outcome.

If you penalise the outcome then every driver who took someone out would get a black flag....its the only fair outcome for anothers retirement, if you spin someone then how do you account for that? their time loss?

The penalty system would get incredibly messy

At the end of the day the stewards had a wide range of penalties available, he could have had a drive through, stop and go etc...penalties that would have been more severe but they chose not to hand those out, so obviously saw something in the data to mitigate hamiltons contact.

These things tend to balance out over the year

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I think I can live with all of that, actually.....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

The problem is you have to penalise the action not the outcome.

If you penalise the outcome then every driver who took someone out would get a black flag....

To a certain extent, I think they already penalise the outcome - but only the first order effects (and rightly so).

Firstly, 'Unless it is clear to the stewards that a driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for an Incident no penalty will be imposed.'
So even if the second-order consequence is extremely severe, if a driver is not (at least) predominantly to blame, then no penalty will be given.

Secondly, 'Causing a collision, repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the
track) will be reported to the Stewards and may entail the imposition of penalties up to and including the disqualification of any driver concerned'
So the outcome is causing a collision, not causing a collision that results in a car impacting at a certain speed with the external barriers.

[chillibowl]

im surprised more of an issue isnt being made on the financial side of things. a rebuild or a replacement chassis costs money and under the new cap we have already seen mention that race damage can and does affect a teams future ability to fund upgrade packages.

so not only did RB lose out on points they lost out on future performance gains...Horner should be pursuing this, imo far more reasonable, narrative as a method of pressuring the powers that be to look upon future incidents in RB's favour.

there may also be a case to make here that penalties overall need to factor in increased expenses due to contact under the budget cap era.

while i think this is a 50/50 racing incident, the stewards did decide that a portion more blame goes to Lewis...so then does it follow that RB should be able to realize a cap bump/access to more funds to offset their repair bill.

fining Lewis/Merc would be problematic but saying RB can spend an extra 5mil over the cap of their own money if they wish helps to offset an issue from bleeding over from one event and then compromising for subsequent events.

obviously as an accountant my focus goes to the money side of things and not the law!

[Aysedasi]

I don't see that. It is a risk that is taken by every team when they go racing. And again, how do you assess culpability? The same accident can result in a written off car or just a trip to the gravel trap.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

saying RB can spend an extra 5mil over the cap of their own money if they wish helps to offset an issue from bleeding over from one event and then compromising for subsequent events.

I'm completely on board with this. It would need some policing because the teams would try it on, but in principle allowing repairs from crashes deemed the fault of another driver to be paid for outside the budget cap makes sense.

[Adam43]

This is great. Again we think that that the rules need to be more complicated.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im surprised more of an issue isnt being made on the financial side of things. a rebuild or a replacement chassis costs money and under the new cap we have already seen mention that race damage can and does affect a teams future ability to fund upgrade packages.

so not only did RB lose out on points they lost out on future performance gains...Horner should be pursuing this, imo far more reasonable, narrative as a method of pressuring the powers that be to look upon future incidents in RB's favour.

there may also be a case to make here that penalties overall need to factor in increased expenses due to contact under the budget cap era.

while i think this is a 50/50 racing incident, the stewards did decide that a portion more blame goes to Lewis...so then does it follow that RB should be able to realize a cap bump/access to more funds to offset their repair bill.

fining Lewis/Merc would be problematic but saying RB can spend an extra 5mil over the cap of their own money if they wish helps to offset an issue from bleeding over from one event and then compromising for subsequent events.

obviously as an accountant my focus goes to the money side of things and not the law!

How many chassis are a team allowed to build? Back in the day, teams would often bring a third car, or T car to a GP.

[Peter Mallett]

A bit like tactical retirements so you can rebuild an entire car in Parc Ferme.

[Aysedasi]

Never known that happen.....

...not in the last 24 hours, anyway.......

[GusGasfuss]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

The problem is you have to penalise the action not the outcome.

If you penalise the outcome then every driver who took someone out would get a black flag....its the only fair outcome for anothers retirement, if you spin someone then how do you account for that? their time loss?

The penalty system would get incredibly messy

At the end of the day the stewards had a wide range of penalties available, he could have had a drive through, stop and go etc...penalties that would have been more severe but they chose not to hand those out, so obviously saw something in the data to mitigate hamiltons contact.

These things tend to balance out over the year

Maybe its needed to have different classes of penalties...causing a collision oder causing a crash. Maybe "Incident" and "Accident".


We had a lot of accidents in the past, where only places are lost, but not whole race. So one of the opponents needed new car nose or had a failed tyre.

If the other car spins and hits the walls, also it ends up in red flag, there should be another class of penalty.

Just to be sure, that this will not be used to win races...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by GusGasfuss

Maybe its needed to have different classes of penalties...causing a collision oder causing a crash. Maybe "Incident" and "Accident".


We had a lot of accidents in the past, where only places are lost, but not whole race. So one of the opponents needed new car nose or had a failed tyre.

If the other car spins and hits the walls, also it ends up in red flag, there should be another class of penalty.

Just to be sure, that this will not be used to win races...

I understand where you are coming from, but I feel it would be too difficult to regulate.

Yesterday's incident between Max / Lewis saw a clear outcome. But, what about an incident where one driver is pushed wide and has a possibility of recovering the car?
Do they make every effort to save the car, get out of the gravel and in doing so lose a front wing - and therefore reducing the penalty of the transgressor.
Or do they deliberately let the trajectory continue, let the front of the car run into the barriers - and therefore increase the penalty of the transgressor.

[S griffin]

You should only punish the actions. Sometimes crashes happen because of a slight misjudgement. Sometimes a dangerous move can result in no contact. See what I mean?

I have had enough of this blame culture every time there’s a collision between two cars. Of course no one wants big smashes, but it seems even a bit of unintentional contact which results in hardly any damage can result in a time penalty and that’s just ridiculous. As long it was nothing dirty and/or dangerous, then they should let it go

The fact of the matter is, incidents happen and drivers know the risks. If neither driver wants to give way then that’s when you can have problems, but you get that at times, especially when both drivers are going for the win in the late stages, we’ve seen that in the past

Should Hamilton have got a bigger penalty? I think not. He deserved at least a talking to. I can see why some can see the 10 second penalty was a bit harsh, but the FIA’s explanation for it was understandable. No need for a bigger penalty. Yes he still won, but he made it a lot harder for himself as a result

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I don't see that. It is a risk that is taken by every team when they go racing. And again, how do you assess culpability? The same accident can result in a written off car or just a trip to the gravel trap.

true, i more about the collision damage in cases where the stewards have already assigned more blame to one driver over the another.

this of course will mean more rules and a more complicated cap system which to be honest im not against. they are smart people and can figure it out and im a smart guy who can follow along. i dont need things to be simple.

but more worrisome may be this trend to not call something a racing incident. if more money can be accessed by lobbying the stewards to assign blame to the other team/driver then things will get more political. i appreciate that could be bad and annoying.

but on balance is that worse then a 23 race season and as they move the budget cap down from 175m a season to 145m and will struggle even more to improve over the course of a season?

right now we are left wit h13 races and Merc probably wont bring another big update and RB maybe have only 1 more planned.

i suppose i value the in season development battle more then other might.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i suppose i value the in season development battle more then other might.

I think this is more extreme this year due to the change in regs.

If rules are more static from one year to another then in season developments make more sense as all, or some influence of it, carry into the next year.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I think this is more extreme this year due to the change in regs.

If rules are more static from one year to another then in season developments make more sense as all, or some influence of it, carry into the next year.

fair point.

perhaps better to see what happens next season/next development cycle....and bring this idea up again then.

[Akrapovic]

Ok so the incident has rightly dominated the chat, but here's another observation:

The tyre choice being open ruined the race. It was not a good race outside of the incident, and outside of Lewis recovering the win. The Sprint was not that good and shouldn't be repeated - Qualifying was excellent, but the upsides of qualifying were negated by the race due to the Sprint.