Poll: Official 2024 Hungarian Grand Prix Race Thread - Hungaroring, Budapest - Race 13/24
- Thread starter chrismscotland
- Start date
Just seen the onboard of Max for his collision with Lewis which I don't think they showed at the time:
Looks even worse from the onboard.
How the **** did he not get a penalty for that? Clearly braked far too late, with no hope of making the corner, and caused a collision. No 1st lap excuse or any of that stuff.
That was just plain bad driving, and almost completely ruined Lewis's (and his own) race.
Looks even worse from the onboard.
How the **** did he not get a penalty for that? Clearly braked far too late, with no hope of making the corner, and caused a collision. No 1st lap excuse or any of that stuff.
That was just plain bad driving, and almost completely ruined Lewis's (and his own) race.
Last edited:
Yeah I'm not sure what is classified as causing a collision if going into a corner too fast, braking too late isn't?
The cheek of the stewards to lay any blame on LH is laughable. It's particularly worrying after MV's comments on the first lap...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,579
Yeah I'm not sure what is classified as causing a collision if going into a corner too fast, braking too late isn't?
Some things don’t change.
Associate
It's also comical considering Max kept talking about Lando's 'divebombs' in Austria only to do exactly the same, if not worse!Yeah I'm not sure what is classified as causing a collision if going into a corner too fast, braking too late isn't?
Soldato
The stewards must be seeing something in the technology they have to support the conclusion they've reached.They aren't stupid and they have far more technology to hand to reach a judgement.
Whilst there will be always those who disagree, because they think they know better and that in this forum they can say what they like, unless they can prove the stewards wrong by using the same technology, not just either personal bias or assumptions made from their armchairs, any argument against the stewards decision falls flat and is illegitimate.
The stewards do a very difficult task under very difficult circumstances and under extreme pressure, people should respect that and not be so judgemental. Put up or shut up or maybe follow a different sport..
Whilst there will be always those who disagree, because they think they know better and that in this forum they can say what they like, unless they can prove the stewards wrong by using the same technology, not just either personal bias or assumptions made from their armchairs, any argument against the stewards decision falls flat and is illegitimate.
The stewards do a very difficult task under very difficult circumstances and under extreme pressure, people should respect that and not be so judgemental. Put up or shut up or maybe follow a different sport..
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,579
You must be new to F1
Soldato
They did post the data they used which is why we are discussing it - TLDR
- Max went into the corner faster than he had before
- Max broke at the same point as previous laps - even though he went in faster
- Hamilton turned into the corner at the same time as previous laps.
The FIA’s full verdict read: “The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 1 (Max Verstappen), the driver of Car 44 (Lewis Hamilton), team representatives and reviewed positioning/marshalling system data, video, timing, telemetry, and in-car video evidence.
“On the approach to turn 1, both Car 44 and Car 1 overtook Car 23. Car 44 returned to the racing line before the braking zone and commenced to turn into turn 1.
“Car 1 approached the turn faster than on previous laps (due to DRS) and braked at the same point as previously. The driver of Car 1 argued that Car 44 was changing direction under braking. The driver of Car 44 stated that he was simply following his normal racing line (which was confirmed by examination of video and telemetry evidence of previous laps).
“It was clear that Car 1 locked up both front wheels on the approach to turn 1 prior to any impact occurring but missing the normal cornering line for a typical overtaking manoeuvre.
“The driver of Car 44 stated that this was a racing incident, whilst the driver of Car 1 argued that this was a case of changing direction under braking.
“The Stewards do not consider this to be a typical case of “changing direction under braking” although it is our determination that the driver of Car 44 could have done more to avoid the collision.
“Accordingly we determine that no driver was predominantly to blame and decide to take no further action.
“Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.”
“On the approach to turn 1, both Car 44 and Car 1 overtook Car 23. Car 44 returned to the racing line before the braking zone and commenced to turn into turn 1.
“Car 1 approached the turn faster than on previous laps (due to DRS) and braked at the same point as previously. The driver of Car 1 argued that Car 44 was changing direction under braking. The driver of Car 44 stated that he was simply following his normal racing line (which was confirmed by examination of video and telemetry evidence of previous laps).
“It was clear that Car 1 locked up both front wheels on the approach to turn 1 prior to any impact occurring but missing the normal cornering line for a typical overtaking manoeuvre.
“The driver of Car 44 stated that this was a racing incident, whilst the driver of Car 1 argued that this was a case of changing direction under braking.
“The Stewards do not consider this to be a typical case of “changing direction under braking” although it is our determination that the driver of Car 44 could have done more to avoid the collision.
“Accordingly we determine that no driver was predominantly to blame and decide to take no further action.
“Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.”
Last edited:
Associate
And one of those stewards was part of the group decided that this was a 5s penalty - but Max's wasn't worthy of anything.
Caporegime
The only differences between what Max did and Bottas-bowling is that the outcome was different and that he doesn't have the excuse of a wet track. Don't the stewards keep telling us they don't look at outcomes?
I'd imagine that this shouldn't have been the case when mid-fight and overtaking a back-marker. Obviously a minor point but reads as "he didn't look" but probably because he also had more speed than he realised.
Last edited:
I didn't check any of the media post race, but I thought someone said he got a 5sec penalty? I guess they're taking into account that he lost out on a guaranteed 3rd/close 2nd, and ended up 5th through his own fault but without affecting another driver.
Soldato
But the stewards checked all the telemetry and did not take Lewis's word for it.
Where you in the room, have you a recording of what took place?
Last edited:
Soldato
Where is the data, I see none apart from what the stewards deduced from the telemetry. The stewards decision is final and the debate, if there is any, is over, it cannot be changed. From what the stewards, in their professional minds, have seen it was a 50/50 incident.
It also isn't a debate when some have made their there minds up because of they're prejudice and the outcome in their minds is set already without having to establish any facts or proof..
Last edited:
Associate
Nope, no penalty at all in the end.
I'm not sure where you finish should impact the type of penalty you get. I believe it should be less about the penalty impacting your finishing position and more about the response to the incident. A 5s penalty puts him behind Sainz, a 10s penalty does the same (and only further penalties would put him behind Perez).
Ultimately, the move wasn't on, it was rash and hot headed but it does happen because it's racing - and I'd rather they were critical of that rather than thinking about placement when giving a penalty.
Caporegime
They say it doesn't effect their decisions, but that doesn't seem to reflect reality. I do think they should change the penalty system to give a minimum number of places lost if the penalty is applied post race. Say 1 place for a 5s, 2 for a 10s, 3 for a drive through, and 4 for a stop and go.
Associate
Yeah, definitely agree that it doesn't seem to reflect reality.
Stewards should be ruling irrespective of the drivers opinion in an incident, the outcome of the incident or the driver causing the incident. They just can't seem to get it right and they take so long to come to a decision at times.
I wouldn't mind seeing the implementation of a 'long lap penalty' like there is in MotoGP. Either a single long lap or double long lap - however, they see fit depending on the incident. If it's not carried out within 3 laps, the rider is given a 10s stop and go. If they don't follow that, it's a black flag.
The majority of people think the long lap penalty has been a great way to handle penalties for MotoGP - but it needs the stewards to be actually on it so that the punishment is handed out within a lap or two of the incident occurring - and it should not have teams passively aggressively making comments on the radio as a way to get stewards to give them a break ('I was ahead at the apex' etc.)
Soldato
I feel like we have been here before....the majority of ex-drivers, and commentators all agreed Max was mainly at fault, the important data points mentioned by the stewards point towards Max being the driver that did not modify his breaking point based on his increased speed. The common factor in crashes at the front is Max..... Ironically, it is not too dissimilar to Lewis 5-7 years ago.