Poll: Official 2024 Austrian Grand Prix Race Thread - Red Bull Ring, Spielberg - Race 11/24

[GravyMonster]

Chandhok says in that tweet: "Lando will have to think about using those extra few inches when racing against Max in the future...".

I'd say the converse is also true. Max also now knows that Lando isn't going to just jump out of his way when he shows him a wheel.

 

[bayo000]

Back to serious stuff

 

[jonneymendoza]

Me? Red Bull/ Verstappen glasses?

You're new around here aren't you?

I still can't see Norris as 100% innocent in this. As the FIA states, Verstappen was predominantly at fault, but Norris did not help himself at all.

New? Ha this part of the forum use to be super chilled but now it's turned into a toxic thread at times like in the footy thread with tribals and sides arguing at each other

 

[jonneymendoza]

The 'trumpian' level of 'troll' in this thread is strong. I actually lol'd at a couple of the above comments.

Still it was the best race in ages, so I gave it an 8, happy for Russell to get his second win!

Roll on Silverstone, i'll even know the corners on that track given we're driving it this evening (in the OCUK VR race series ), i'll also know most of the grassy bits

Ha no. I thought Canada was a better race overall.


This race was only good in the last 15 odd laps but Canada was brilliant throughout most of the laps.

The top 6 kept changing positions right until the final two laps

 

[Journey]

Chandhok says in that tweet: "Lando will have to think about using those extra few inches when racing against Max in the future...".

I'd say the converse is also true. Max also now knows that Lando isn't going to just jump out of his way when he shows him a wheel.

It's like living with a teenager watching Max give every excuse under the sun while trying to avoid saying sorry. The 10 second penalty awarded shows that he was at fault, and could have avoided the crash if he wanted, instead he was playing chicken hoping Lando would go off track and compromise his entire race. Will be interesting to see what happens if he ever ends up in a midfield car again in '26 etc. will he be able to stop himself doing the whole 'Max smash' thing, I somehow doubt it.

 

[t2na]

It's like living with a teenager watching Max give every excuse under the sun while trying to avoid saying sorry. The 10 second penalty awarded shows that he was at fault, and could have avoided the crash if he wanted, instead he was playing chicken hoping Lando would go off track and compromise his entire race. Will be interesting to see what happens if he ever ends up in a midfield car again in '26 etc. will he be able to stop himself doing the whole 'Max smash' thing, I somehow doubt it.

I imagine if the Red Bull isn't a top 2/3 car in 2026 he'll call it a day in F1 and race in another series, he's always said he competes to win so I imagine he wouldn't want to trundle around in 8th or 9th again.

 

[cuke2u]

That’s all you needed to say.

You can 'cherry pick' and edit what I've written, however it doesn't change the two facts:
1 Both drivers were at fault, not just one and the resulting collision could have been avoided by either.
2 If it wasn't for the battle between Norris and Max the race would have been very boring and then we'd have complaints about that.
Another Norris statement
BBC News - Norris on 'nerve-wracking' battle with Verstappen and confidence in McLaren

Lando Norris: Nerve-wracking battles with Verstappen and confidence in McLaren

Lando Norris says he will try to work out a way to prevent another on-track clash with Max Verstappen following their collision while battling for victory at the Austrian Grand Prix.

www.bbc.com

What ever opinions people might have, and this situation will always polarise these opinions, as far as I'm concerned bring on more of it. Let's have racing, let's have stout defending to the point where the boundaries are pushed. As far as I am concerned this season is turning out to be not one of Max heading off into the distance at every race, as predicted by some, and both teams and both drivers should be congratulated for what could be now a very entertaining season.
Exactly why I watch F1...

 

[SimonRigga]

1 Both drivers were at fault, not just one and the resulting collision could have been avoided by either.

Both drivers were at fault, not just one (This is NOT a Fact!)....

and the resulting collision could have been avoided by either. (This is a fact.. and I suspect why you are conflating the two!)

We all want to see more close racing, but unfortunately, unless Max gets his own way, the only thing I can see is more crashes.

The shame of it is, he's a generational talent, in a very good car.

He could probably drive fairly and still win the championship, and along the way he'd also win a lot more admirers.

R.

 

[cuke2u]

Both drivers were at fault, not just one (This is NOT a Fact!)....

and the resulting collision could have been avoided by either. (This is a fact.. and I suspect why you are conflating the two!)

We all want to see more close racing, but unfortunately, unless Max gets his own way, the only thing I can see is more crashes.

The shame of it is, he's a generational talent, in a very good car.

He could probably drive fairly and still win the championship, and along the way he'd also win a lot more admirers.

R.

By conflating you mean I am combining the two, then I am correct both drivers were at fault because either drivers could have avoided a collision.
'Facts' it seems in this thread is playing a blame game and, as I've already stated, with polarised viewpoints.

You could be correct about your last line, however this could be termed a 'fact' by some with polarised views also. However, and I think Hamilton stated this, it is the 'we are here to win, not make friends' that is Max. Personally I don't really care as long as the racing is exciting.
Senna being the perfect example of that...

 

[SimonRigga]

By conflating you mean I am combining the two, then I am correct both drivers were at fault because either drivers could have avoided a collision.
'Facts' it seems in this thread is playing a blame game and, as I've already stated, with polarised viewpoints.

You are correct about your last line, thus this could be termed a 'fact'.

q. if you (you IRL) are driving along the road and someone drives into you, are you 50% to blame? Would you say this to your insurance?

because it is always a fact that you "Could" have avoided the collision..

 

[cuke2u]

q. if you (you IRL) are driving along the road and someone drives into you, are you 50% to blame? Would you say this to your insurance?

because it is always a fact that you "Could" have avoided the collision..

Seriously?

 

[GravyMonster]

By conflating you mean I am combining the two, then I am correct both drivers were at fault because either drivers could have avoided a collision.

You're driving on the motorway. You're in the left lane. There's a car next to you in the right lane. He moves in to your lane and hits your car. How would an insurance company apportion blame in that instance?

*Edit*

I just noticed the above post from Simon making the same point - that'll teach me to read the whole thread first

 

[GravyMonster]

Seriously?

Yeah seriously. Every accident is avoidable. Every single one. It just depends on how far you expect any perceived victim to have gone with their actions to avoid it as to how you apportion blame.

In the Lando/Max incident, Lando was entitled by the letter of the regulations to a car's width of space from the white line marking out the track. Max did not give him that space, and got a deserved penalty. The fact other drivers in the past have made the choice to submit their position on track in order to avoid a collision is not relevant here. That merely proves that the FIA has not, and does not, police this offence enough - and that is exactly the point Andrea Stella made in his comments to Ted.

 

[Greboth]

You can 'cherry pick' and edit what I've written, however it doesn't change the two facts:
1 Both drivers were at fault, not just one and the resulting collision could have been avoided by either.
2 If it wasn't for the battle between Norris and Max the race would have been very boring and then we'd have complaints about that.
Another Norris statement
BBC News - Norris on 'nerve-wracking' battle with Verstappen and confidence in McLaren

Lando Norris: Nerve-wracking battles with Verstappen and confidence in McLaren

Lando Norris says he will try to work out a way to prevent another on-track clash with Max Verstappen following their collision while battling for victory at the Austrian Grand Prix.

www.bbc.com

What ever opinions people might have, and this situation will always polarise these opinions, as far as I'm concerned bring on more of it. Let's have racing, let's have stout defending to the point where the boundaries are pushed. As far as I am concerned this season is turning out to be not one of Max heading off into the distance at every race, as predicted by some, and both teams and both drivers should be congratulated for what could be now a very entertaining season.
Exactly why I watch F1...

So you want good racing yet you’re ok with the WDC leader crashing in to his rivals to stop them overtaking him because every collision ever can fall under the ‘well the other driver could have avoided it’?

That’s not good racing and won’t lead to good racing either as other drivers will avoid trying to pass Max or there’ll just be more crashes.

You keep spouting the same nonsense about Norris could have avoided the collision but very scarce on how he was supposed to do that? Keeping in mind Norris picked his line and braking point at around 100m when Verstappen was in the middle of the track and Verstappen only closed the gap from around the 50m board. I see it as Norris had 3 options;

1. Brake harder - unlikely to avoid the collision given going for the overtake he would be braking as late as possible so would really only end up in a lock up (and it was Max that moved in to the collision so Norris, even locked up, would have continued in a straight line and in to the collision)
2. Drive off track - Norris’ already had some track infringements and you’ve moaned about them too so surely this gets ruled out as an option? Not to mention everything about leaving space, can’t force drivers off track wtc.
3. Not go for an overtake at all - Probably about the only real way for Norris to avoid the collision. But then this goes against your supposed ‘lets have racing’ ethos.

 

[Slam62]

Max didn’t give Lando a full car’s width to the white line, but the curb was drive able, I think Lando was probably doubly concerned because of the track limits warnings.

However while not as bad as things he got away with in the past, I think Max drove incorrectly according to the rules, he definitely moved over when he didn’t need to and I believe you have to brake in a straight line or something.

He probably thought he was taking the racing line which you are allowed to do, but probably not drive into a competitor in the process.

 

[cuke2u]

Yeah seriously. Every accident is avoidable. Every single one. It just depends on how far you expect any perceived victim to have gone with their actions to avoid it as to how you apportion blame.

In the Lando/Max incident, Lando was entitled by the letter of the regulations to a car's width of space from the white line marking out the track. Max did not give him that space, and got a deserved penalty. The fact other drivers in the past have made the choice to submit their position on track in order to avoid a collision is not relevant here. That merely proves that the FIA has not, and does not, police this offence enough - and that is exactly the point Andrea Stella made in his comments to Ted.

Agreed, every 'incident', no such thing as an accident, can be avoidable. It was obvious from Lando''s point of view that there a piece of tarmac he was aiming for that was diminishing, thus he could have slowed down. He presumed Max would see him and move over, not Max's style and Lando knows that.

Look, whatever the views are on this collision, and I'm not apportionment any blame towards Lando, I'll support him over Max any day, but the whole scenario could have been avoided by either driver. I have also stated that Max's penalty was correct, as he should have been more mindful of the situation. But whether he deliberately moved is a moot point and as far as I am concerned he just closed the door. However some will apportion blame towards Max even if he just breaks wind

As for the FIA not policing this enough, that is another debate and personally I feel the less rules there are then the better racing it will be.

 

[Greboth]

It was obvious from Lando''s point of view that there a piece of tarmac he was aiming for that was diminishing, thus he could have slowed down.

But that’s the point; it wasn’t a diminishing piece of tarmac until after Lando had commited to the move at which point it’s too late to ‘slow down more’.

He presumed Max would see him and move over, not Max's style and Lando knows that.

So you’re not apportioning any blame on Lando while basically it was Lando’s fault for even attempting a move on Verstappen.

 

[SimonRigga]

1 Both drivers were at fault, not just one

I'm not apportionment any blame towards Lando

So you've changed your mind.. which is nice to see!

 

[cuke2u]

So you've changed your mind.. which is nice to see!

Er, no, as stated either driver could have avoided the collision. I apportion the same for Max, however it was Max who got penalised.
Scraping the barrel.

On the topic of causing collisions this season https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1-penalty-points-drivers

 

[GravyMonster]

I really don't like that the give drivers penalty points for unsafe releases. That's 100% on the team, not the driver. It should be a financial penalty.