Max vs Lewis - Handbags at dawn

[Adam43]

Such a fatuous line of thought.

Max could have removed more points from Hamilton, except Hamilton avoided the collision in Imola, Brazil, Saudi, ...

Max is world champion. Whichever had won the championship would be!

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Alan 52
The rules are clear for the use of the safety car.
The procedure was not followed in full.
The communication to the lapped cars was not to all as per the regulation but only to the five between Max and Hamilton.
The safety car was pulled off the track a lap early not according to the regulation.
So the regulated procedure was not followed.
Furthermore Red Bull had pitted Max for new tyres.
That was their decision.
But then Horner pressed the RD to move the lapped cars that had been there as a result of his decision to pit and put Max on new tyres.
The RD had already indicated to the teams that the lapped cars could not pass the safety car.
Then he changed his mind and allowed it after Horner requested it thereby putting Max in a prime position to pass on the final lap due to his new soft tyres.
His vacillating, then changing his mind, without due regard for his previous announcements for the procedure he was going to follow then put Mercedes at a disadvantage they could not recover from.
That is deliberate, whether intended or not, changing a procedure that distinctly advantaged one competitor and disadvantaged another in a way that determined the outcome of the race and the championship.

He does have the power and authority to throw a red flag if he considers the track to be unsafe or require a full clean before racing can begin again.
That is a part of his job as race director.

If he changed his original decisions to suit Horner's requests that was unwise, allowing a competitor to influence his decision and I would also consider it unprofessional.
I have officiated at over 400 events in my national body as a race director/CoC, steward, chief steward etc, including national and regional championships.
I'm not unaware of rule books and the rules of competition nor the responsibilities holding those positions entail.

Mercedes decision was the correct one for them in the light of the information from the RD about what procedure he would follow.
Red Bull only gained an advantage from those decisions because he changed his mind after they had approached him with suggestions that would advantage them.
That he did so means that his vacillating and subsequent changes materially changed the outcome of the race and subsequently the championship.

That is what happened and that is why the outcome of this event has so many far reaching consequences for F1, the FIA and the future of motorsport.

Can you point to another instance in F1 under the current rules where lapped cars haven’t been moved out of the way for a SC restart?
Also whatever discussions between Masi and the team bosses happened while the safety car was out was irrelevant to their tactics.Those were made in the first 30 seconds after the safety car was called and Mercedes opted not to pit while Red Bull pitted.All precedent suggested the lapped cars would be moved out of the way.Mercedes bet the house that the race wouldn’t be resumed and lost.To suggest the future of motor sport is imperilled because Mercedes made a bad strategy call is pretty melodramatic.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Teretonga can view the title as illegitimate. But unless Hamilton won by at least 35 points, time will pass, most people will settle and recognise Verstappen was the legit champion.

People can ignore the elephant of the room that is Silverstone, but that will only be to their loss.

Not illegitimate on Max's behalf because he has earned it through other events but the win in Abu Dhabi is clouded by the race directors actions in the handling of the final race incident and subsequent interference in the race result.

I'm not against Max being awarded the title of world champion but as I said this race was not handled well.
Just as your take on Silverstone is the elephant in your room, that elephant does not dwell in mine.
We all have our own rooms and we determine who lives and dwells in them.
As I already indicated I have personal views about a number of incidents in F1 over the last 60 years that I have followed F1 and about the people involved. Titles are awarded and people come and go but we are all entitled to our views about what we see through our windows on the world.

The Bottas incident in Hungary was a race incident not an assault on Max by Mercedes. That is racing on track. What happened in Abu Dhabi was something else, which is why it has garnered so much diverse opinion and attention.
But from this point nothing will actually change because the FIA does not possess a time machine. It cannot wind back the clock.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Alan52

Add Hungary to that list.Mercedes crashed Max out of probably 44 points with no consequences to Hamilton’s point score.

Hungary is an unfortunate collision, but there were extenuating circumstances. RB/Verstappen just have to cop that one on the chin.

Originally Posted by Adam43

Such a fatuous line of thought.

Max could have removed more points from Hamilton, except Hamilton avoided the collision in Imola, Brazil, Saudi, ...

Max is world champion. Whichever had won the championship would be!

I looked up "fatuous" and it is a wrong use of the word. It's more avoiding of the elephant in the room.

You can bring up Imola, Brazill and Saudi Arabia. But Hamilton won 2 of those and finished 2nd in the other. So there's no point.

Everything's provisional til the race ends. So far, I still haven't seen a clear 2nd in the championship punt 1st off and win the race to get maximum value in the standings.

I told ascarracinguk (and others who shared his view) many times since, but he just did not want to listen.

Well, there you have it. Enjoy.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

]
Just as your take on Silverstone is the elephant in your room, that elephant does not dwell in mine.

Can you clarify this?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I looked up "fatuous" and it is a wrong use of the word.

No, it was the correct word for what I was saying.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

You can bring up Imola, Brazill and Saudi Arabia. But Hamilton won 2 of those and finished 2nd in the other.

Exactly! He avoided being in a crash.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Yeah, and?

At Imola, Brazil & Abu Dhabi (I didn't see Saudi Arabia), he could've braked slightly earlier, cut inside, avoided contact and taken the lead (As we've seen plenty of times in racing). Verstappen couldn't do that at Silverstone.

What is "avoiding being in a crash"?

Any time you're not in a crash/collision, you're avoiding being in a crash, including when making a banzai, dive bomb attempted pass.

You could be driving a second behind the car in front of you for the whole race, and you're avoiding a crash.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Yeah, and?

It was smart racing. As you point out he won some of those races.

The cut back didn’t look possible in those situations.

The rest of your post and most of your other posts proves again you’re interested more in a battle on the internet rather than discussion.

I strongly suggest you engage in a more courteous and open manner to other members of this forum.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Yeah, I'm interested in a battle on the internet. Especially with the mod that's handed 3 of the 4 infractions I have.

Cut back would've been possible at Brazil and AD. It's just whether you have the foresight and/or courage to do it, or if it's not worthwhile because it could cause other problems (which was not the case in Brazil and AD).

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Such a fatuous line of thought.

Max could have removed more points from Hamilton, except Hamilton avoided the collision in Imola, Brazil, Saudi, ...

Max is world champion. Whichever had won the championship would be!

Not really.Dealing with what actually happened not could have’s.
From those 2 races where the Mercedes drivers were found guilty of driving infringements and received penalties-or in the case of Silverstone a non penalising penalty -the point score was Lewis 43 and Max 2.
A huge actual points swing rather than a theoretical one.

[Adam43]

Max is world champion.

And there are always moments in any championship. Blown engines. Crashes. Weather. Dodgy race control calls. My additional point to all these was simply if Hamilton had turned in those situations then we might have had many points the other way. He didn’t, which as it turned out was smart.

But ultimately that doesn’t matter in the end as Max is world champion.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Yeah, I'm interested in a battle on the internet. Especially with the mod that's handed 3 of the 4 infractions I have.

Cut back would've been possible at Brazil and AD. It's just whether you have the foresight and/or courage to do it, or if it's not worthwhile because it could cause other problems (which was not the case in Brazil and AD).

I'm sorry to hear you have infractions 2 litre Touring Car Star.
I hope they're not from anything I said.
Regarding your question on the elephant in the room.

We all have our opinions on past events. The Silverstone Max and Hamilton incident may carry some weight against Hamilton in your room on your scales but that elephant is not with me. I did my own review of the evidence and so that elephant has never appeared to me.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Cut back would've been possible at Brazil and AD. It's just whether you have the foresight and/or courage to do it, or if it's not worthwhile because it could cause other problems (which was not the case in Brazil and AD).

At the risk of raking over this - the same could be said of Max in Silverstone, Monza etc.
Instead of getting into an incident that ended his race, he could have backed out and continued the contest.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

At the risk of raking over this - the same could be said of Max in Silverstone, Monza etc.
Instead of getting into an incident that ended his race, he could have backed out and continued the contest.

Exactly so. I've just done a quick check of all the rooms in the house. Not a single elephant.

[davec]

for me 2 things have come out of this season and the last race.

1) The wrong person won in Abu Dhabi but the right person won the championship (in my opinion) when you take all the luck/races into account. Max lost more through luck/others then Lewis did. If we assume that the stewards were right in Silverstone and Monza then from 2 "equal" incidents Max was the unlucky one. In Baku Max had a puncture and Lewis made a mistake and Hungary Bottas was clearly at fault. Max pushed the limits massively this year because he had to as Lewis is an incredible driver and I honestly think he deserved it.

2) The second thing I believe is that Max and Lewis are really the only 2 that have come out of Abu Dhabi with any credibility. Both have claimed this year that the rules/FIA have been against them and although I don't think there is any bias with the FIA I can understand the frustration and we should not crucify Lewis for having a bit of a strop at losing with 1km to go. BOTH have been incredible and BOTH would have deserved it but the attitude of the teams and the FIA have been pathetic at times. I dont know if it is because things have been more public this year but no one has come out looking good.

[Knowlesy]

Just more public I think. Maybe there is more more pressure nowadays as well?

I've said it many times before, but opening up the race director comms to the audience means you get the players involved ramping up the drama deliberately, just to show everyone at home "what is really going on" and how they are being shafted. It is toe-curling stuff.

But, in the past, even seemingly zen people like Ross Brawn offered little glimpses of meltdown when Montoya dared to overtake Schumacher, for example. And that was after the race was finished and he'd had a good half an hour to look at the incident.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

At the risk of raking over this - the same could be said of Max in Silverstone, Monza etc.
Instead of getting into an incident that ended his race, he could have backed out and continued the contest.

Anybody can back off at any time at their own discretion. The question is who was obliged to when contact occurs?

In almost every scenario I can think of when entering the corner, I'm saying it's the trailing car that has to back off.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I'm sorry to hear you have infractions 2 litre Touring Car Star.
I hope they're not from anything I said.

Nothing to do with us

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Regarding your question on the elephant in the room.

We all have our opinions on past events. The Silverstone Max and Hamilton incident may carry some weight against Hamilton in your room on your scales but that elephant is not with me. I did my own review of the evidence and so that elephant has never appeared to me.

Ok, I understand you are or previously have been a steward or administrator in racing? I'm an authentic keyboard warrior.

It's intriguing to me that you have such an opinion on Silvertone. I'll express my pov knowing your history.

My pov. In isolation, the Hamilton/Verstappen contact at Silverstone was innocent, it was reasonable for Hamilton to attempt to pass (til about the last 20m anyway), and Verstappen being stuffed in the all was a disproportionate consequence to Hamilton's action and intent.

The race director and stewards went through the due process and fair interpretation of the contact. They came up with a sufficient punishment for Hamilton they can justify, and therefore move on.

I'm saying that's not good enough.

I'm saying you cannot allow 2nd in the c'ship and in the race to profit from the contact like Hamilton did, even though the incident was dealt with in accordance to the rules. The gain in the c'ship cannot be overlooked because of unintended consequences, subsequent sequence of events, and that there's no provision in the rules for it.

I'm going to say that the Silverstone results ultimately left the race director and stewards in a compromised position for the rest of the season. I think this ultimately is what happened at Monza, and possibly Brazil, Saudi Arabia (I didn't see the race), and even last week.

You might be able to find similar incidents with similar punishment for 16th/17th in the race between 18th/14th in the c'ship, it is something that happened in the BTCC in the 90s, but that is not the same as 1st/2nd in the F1 c'ship in a GP.

I'm not even saying this in hindsight. I think I brought it up in the Silverstone, Monza and Mexico threads. There had to be a "correction" occur in some way.

[Kempi]

If you want consistency in decisions, the position in the race, the position in the championship or the outcome of the race cannot play a role in decision making.

The incident always needs to be isolated from that. Otherwise you will not only have discussions whether the isolated incident was handled correctly but also whether the surrounding factors have been correctly weighted.

Where would you stop? Only position in WDC or also in WCC which is much more important money wise. Would a crashed car of a rich team be of less factor than a crashed car of a poor team? Would we need to take into account driver contracts and there bonuses for good results? You would have so many things that someone would find necessary to factor in, it would be impossible to handle.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

You might be able to find similar incidents with similar punishment for 16th/17th in the race between 18th/14th in the c'ship, it is something that happened in the BTCC in the 90s, but that is not the same as 1st/2nd in the F1 c'ship in a GP.

I'm not even saying this in hindsight. I think I brought it up in the Silverstone, Monza and Mexico threads. There had to be a "correction" occur in some way.

But an incident between 16th/17th absolutely should be treated the same way. If the rules are written in a way that a lower placed competitor is treated differently to a competitor above them, the same rule should apply to all.
If there has to be a "correction", then you will get endless debate about results being adjusted after a race has finished.

As I see it, the only way to apply the type of outcome you are asking for regarding the Silverstone incident is to make the penalty for any incident (in which another driver loses places) a DSQ....

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Anybody can back off at any time at their own discretion. The question is who was obliged to when contact occurs?

In almost every scenario I can think of when entering the corner, I'm saying it's the trailing car that has to back off.

Define the trailing car then, because in Silverstone, Monza, Brazil, Saudi, Abu dahbi Max has been the trailing car on corner entry but just brakes so late that he either misses the apex and runs the other car wide or doesn’t allow room on the inside for the other car.

Technically max is ahead at the apex for all these corners but it doesn’t mean he’s done it correctly.

This is the predicament that Max’s driving gives race control I guess

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Nothing to do with us


Ok, I understand you are or previously have been a steward or administrator in racing? I'm an authentic keyboard warrior.

It's intriguing to me that you have such an opinion on Silvertone. I'll express my pov knowing your history.

My pov. In isolation, the Hamilton/Verstappen contact at Silverstone was innocent, it was reasonable for Hamilton to attempt to pass (til about the last 20m anyway), and Verstappen being stuffed in the all was a disproportionate consequence to Hamilton's action and intent.

The race director and stewards went through the due process and fair interpretation of the contact. They came up with a sufficient punishment for Hamilton they can justify, and therefore move on.

I'm saying that's not good enough.

I'm saying you cannot allow 2nd in the c'ship and in the race to profit from the contact like Hamilton did, even though the incident was dealt with in accordance to the rules. The gain in the c'ship cannot be overlooked because of unintended consequences, subsequent sequence of events, and that there's no provision in the rules for it.

I'm going to say that the Silverstone results ultimately left the race director and stewards in a compromised position for the rest of the season. I think this ultimately is what happened at Monza, and possibly Brazil, Saudi Arabia (I didn't see the race), and even last week.

You might be able to find similar incidents with similar punishment for 16th/17th in the race between 18th/14th in the c'ship, it is something that happened in the BTCC in the 90s, but that is not the same as 1st/2nd in the F1 c'ship in a GP.

I'm not even saying this in hindsight. I think I brought it up in the Silverstone, Monza and Mexico threads. There had to be a "correction" occur in some way.

OK
No disrespect to you but I do have a differing opinion about it and I will address some of the points you made where I see it a little differently.

With all the emotive stuff going on at the time from the fan boys I looked back at every piece of video I could find to get a full view of everything that happened from the start until the accident.
The sprinting on two corners leading to the accident scene did seem to result in some possible contact of Hamilton's front left to Max's right rear. I said this at the time.
Max's right rear suspension seemed to collapse quite easily and that led me to consider it had already been damaged earlier. From the overhead there is no question that Max turned down across the Hamilton's pathway as Max attempted to move down to the apex and immediately on contact the right rear suspension collapsed.
Max made no attempt to leave racing room on the inside.
The stewards decision was that Hamilton was predominantly at fault because he did not appear to have been as close to the apex as he could have been.

All the keyboard talk about him shunting Max is BS because all the evidence from the start line to the contact was that Hamilton was doing all he could to make room for Max so that he did not make contact with him. Several times leading up to the contact on previous corners Hamilton made steering correction to move away from Max. So there is no intention to contact with Max.
Max is the one who has the elbows out 'I'm coming through' style of driving, not Hamilton.

The stewards determined, rightly or wrongly, that Hamilton is predominantly at fault. How much is that? 80/20? Or 60/40? Or 52/48? We're not told.
What we do know was that race was stopped and Max was extricated from his car.
Hamilton was later given a 10 second penalty for his part in the accident following the stewards determination of the accident.

My determination was that Max's actions and driving style contributed hugely
to his own demise. He turned down across the line that Hamilton needed to successfully navigate the corner. So even if I accepted the stewards determination that Hamilton was more at fault it could only have been 55/45 at the most.
Therefore any penalty due was duly set and Hamilton paid the price.
The penalty is for the incident, not the consequences. This is always the case and its where many fans will argue fiercely for their 'champ' but this is motor racing, a dangerous sport where infractions and accidents occur frequently and people are not able to finish a race through no fault of their own.

In my view and that of the stewards Max had some responsibility for what happened. The stewards disagree with my view on primary fault but they clearly said it was proportional, not 100/0. Fans may disagree but that was the official determination.

You have said that the penalty was not severe enough because it materially changed the status of balance in the championship. But this is at point half way through a championship and there is another dozen or so races to go so what happens in competition is what happens.
Most accidents in motorsport are not completely someone's fault because it is wheel to wheel but that's motor racing.
Hungary was one or two persons fault where several people suffered from NO fault of their own, but that happens from time to time. It is a part of competition.

Most of the drivers accept that as a racing incident because that is what it is. They have learnt this from experience all through their developing years from karts to cars to F1.

You feel there has to be a correction of some sort to balance things out or it is not just.
You want some justice.
But this sport cannot provide that sort of justice event by event. Across a season there may be some balance but often 'bad luck' is just that.

Chris Amon in his career lead many motor races but never won a F1 GP. People would say to him in retirement you were so unlucky.
Mario Andretti said he was 'so unlucky that if he had become an undertaker people would have stopped dying....'

But in his retirement Chris said that he felt he was one of the lucky ones, because so many of his contemporaries had died before he retired. Piers, Jochen, Jo Siffert, Jimmy, Bruce, Pedro, Mark Donohue, Ken Miles, Bandini, many more, a huge list.

What happened at Silverstone many drivers had the view that it was a racing incident. That's racing. That is how they live. Its life. Get over it. They do that all the time. Life is not fair. Stuff happens to everyone but you just regroup, pull yourself together and go on.

My view is that what happened to Max at Silverstone is at least 50% his own problem, probably more. We have seen this before Silverstone and since Silverstone. He gets away with it one way or another and people get angry at race control for some of his antics but at Silverstone he didn't get away with it. And it could have stopped his life or his career at that point. He has enormous self belief as do most of the best but he has a sense of entitlement as did Senna.

I admired Senna but when I heard him once in an interview talk about Suzuka turn 1 with Prost's Ferrari I came to realize he was a massive talent, extraordinary driver and racer, but with a critical flaw. Most of us are like that and don't realize it. We are all flawed.

Hamilton took the punishment at Silverstone but used it to motivate himself. Initially he was making progress but not great. When he heard of the penalty he began to dig deep and eventually hit the front AND pulled enough lead to negate the penalty.
No official can regulate against that. And what he achieved was not unfair.
He dug deep and pulled out something extraordinary, just as he did in Brazil.

You want fairness, justice? Really.
George Russell said what happened last weekend was unacceptable. In my view he's not wrong. Race officials have a responsibility to conduct an event with scrupulous fairness where possible and never interfere with the spirit of the competition or manipulate a result. But that did happen.

So if Mercedes were to take the case forward and the FIA accepted that it had been manipulated would you be happy if they awarded Hamilton joint WDC status with Max for 2021?
Max can keep No1 and Hamilton continue with 44 but they hold equal status as joint WDC champions for 2021....?
Would that not be fair?

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

So if Mercedes were to take the case forward and the FIA accepted that it had been manipulated would you be happy if they awarded Hamilton joint WDC status with Max for 2021?
Max can keep No1 and Hamilton continue with 44 but they hold equal status as joint WDC champions for 2021....?

So that’s an interesting idea!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I'm not even saying this in hindsight. I think I brought it up in the Silverstone, Monza and Mexico threads. There had to be a "correction" occur in some way.

Just to query - what sort of "correction" should occur.

There are many comments that the last lap at Abu Dhabi was the correction that people were asking for - but:

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

And Michael Masi with the "It's car racing, we went car racing" BS?

He's just an idiot. No comprehension or tact.

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Unsatisfying, indignified ending.

Any correction would be argues as being unsatisfying. But we saw exactly what was being asked for - a correction....