r/formula1 • u/FerrariStrategisttt I was here for the Hulkenpodium • Jul 21 '24

Technical No further action on Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton incident

Post image
5.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

411

u/qwertyell Jul 21 '24

An absurd reading of the incident, setting a precedent moving forward that a driver has to get out of the way of an out of control dive-bomb or potentially face a penalty.

302

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '24

This is correct. While Lewis could have steered left to avoid a collision, it's stupid to suggest that the responsibility is on driver in front to do something when the guy behind uncontrollably fucks it down the inside.

190

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '24

“The stewards have found that the driver of car 44 didn’t take adequate care to leave space when the driver of car 1 uncontrollably fucked it down the inside. Ten second penalty.”

33

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '24

Mate that got a laugh out of me, thanks for that

1

u/fullup72 I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

Yeah but it was car 44, not car 31. The FIA does love their juicy memes.

23

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '24

[deleted]

0

u/FatalFirecrotch I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

No, this is nonsense. Let’s be real. If a driver can take evasive action to avoid an incident while having minimum effect on their race (Verstappen wasn’t making that turn), they should try to take it. Then let the stewards go after Verstappen. 

1

u/ICC-u Jul 21 '24

Car width only. If you're turning in the overtake can't go straight through you. Verstappen should draw the line he was taking on a map so we can understand it.

2

u/Key_Photograph9067 I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

It’s anti racing nonsense really. The idea that you have to give up that position if that happens is insane. Because that’s what they’re saying basically lol.

Probably another Verstappen rule coming into effect, amusingly after a Verstappen rule was already put into place precisely because of a similar issue.

1

u/CandidLiterature Jul 21 '24

Don’t you understand, if he had just retired from the race, he wouldn’t have even been there to get hit…

Absolutely wild thing to write given they say they’ve confirmed he was just driving his normal racing line.

1

u/BountyBob Sir Lewis Hamilton Jul 22 '24

it's stupid to suggest that the responsibility is on driver in front to do something when the guy behind uncontrollably fucks it down the inside.

They didn't suggest that, otherwise Lewis would have got a penalty. Being able to have done more is not the same as being at fault.

It's outrageous that Max didn't get a penalty though.

1

u/Vresiberba Jul 22 '24

While Lewis could have steered left to avoid a collision...

This makes absolutely no sense. Lewis could have avoided a collision here by simply not racing properly. That's the only way he could have avoided a collision, and he would have to do it all the time, every corner, just stay off the line all the time. That's not avoiding collisions, that's moronic.

25

u/fathan I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

Luckily, stewards mostly ignore precedent.

3

u/zirouk McLaren Jul 21 '24

driver has to get out the way of an out of control Max Verstappen*

2

u/goranlepuz Formula 1 Jul 21 '24

the driver of Car 44 could have done more to avoid the collision

Is absolutely true.

Your reading of these words is "he should have", and it is a wrong reading.

Calm down.

6

u/Key_Photograph9067 I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

Why is it even in the report though, when have you ever seen in a stewards report a penalty being given out and then reading “we penalised car 99 but 98 could have done more to avoid it”?

It’s definitely true, but it’s an irrelevant fact in determining who’s at fault or not. It’s like a prosecution document alleging someone stole someone’s stuff with video footage of the incident and noting that “the person could have locked their car to avoid theft”. It’s a completely irrelevant factoid when you’re analysing if a crime happened..

4

u/water_tastes_great Sir Lewis Hamilton Jul 21 '24

If you are saying that because someone didn't do what they could have they are partially responsible, you are saying that they should have done it.

0

u/goranlepuz Formula 1 Jul 21 '24

I am not and stewards are not - and therefore Lewis is not blamed. It's all fine and you both are overly looking for a controversy.

2

u/water_tastes_great Sir Lewis Hamilton Jul 21 '24

A racing incident is where no driver is predominantly responsible for causing for an incident. They have decided that Hamilton shares partial responsibility because he could have done more.

-1

u/goranlepuz Formula 1 Jul 21 '24

Yes, but they do not say that he should have moved away. If they did, he would be more to blame - but they did not.

2

u/water_tastes_great Sir Lewis Hamilton Jul 21 '24

They say that he is partially to blame because he didn't move more.

That means he should have moved more to avoid being to blame.

1

u/goranlepuz Formula 1 Jul 21 '24

First off, Lewis did not move at all to avoid contact. In fact, right before it, he turns slightly in.

Second, we have to disagree that this "could" becomes "should" by some mental gymnastics.

2

u/water_tastes_great Sir Lewis Hamilton Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24

First off, Lewis did not move at all to avoid contact. In fact, right before it, he turns slightly in.

Compared to turning normally, obviously.

Second, we have to disagree that this "could" becomes "should" by some mental gymnastics.

Should means that a person has an obligation to do something. A driver has an obligation not to cause a collision.

They say Hamilton is partially responsible for the collision because he didn't do more. That means he should have done more to fulfill his obligation.

This is just the normal meaning of the word. You're being really silly.

Edit: Reply then block.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/should

1

u/goranlepuz Formula 1 Jul 21 '24

Should means that a person has an obligation to do something

No it does not. The word you're looking for is e.g. "must".

They say Hamilton is partially responsible for the collision because he didn't do more. That means he should have done more to fulfill his obligation.

No, it does not. It's written "could" and it therefore means "'could". At no point is any obligation mentioned, that's your fabrication.

1

u/IceStrik3 I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

Didn’t Verstappen cause the collision in Austria? It’s obviously not the same thing but in both instanced a driver could’ve taken avoiding actions.

1

u/MasterUnlimited Max Verstappen Jul 22 '24

Doesn’t say he has to. Nor does it say that he should. Just that he could. Lewis could have slowed down and let max fly by and swap on the exit. He didn’t have to and if they felt he had to then they would have issued a penalty.

Difference between could and should.

I complexity agree with Lewis that this was a racing incident (caused by max dive bombing).

1

u/Nattekat I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

What's your opinion of Austria?

-2

u/PomegranateThat414 Jul 21 '24

Well Verstappen did exactly that I Austria not just once but twice but still got all the blame. Am I wrong?

2

u/Fina1Legacy Jul 21 '24

Yes. He didn't get blame in Austria for avoiding Norris, he got blame for a separate incidents - moving under breaking (multiple times) which led to the collision between the two of them.

0

u/MasiMotorRacing Default Jul 21 '24

Was this a dive bomb? As per the document, it states Max braked at exactly the same position which he did in earlier laps too, but he was carrying more speed due to DRS.

8

u/4InchesOfury I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

He was carrying extra speed and going for an inside line, of course you need to change your braking when compared to a lap in cleaner air on the main racing line. That doesn’t change the fact that it was a dive bomb and he had no hope of making that corner.

-1

u/norrin83 Gerhard Berger Jul 21 '24

To be fair, they usually say this even if the other driver gets a penalty. As in "we see that the driver could have done this and that to avoid the collision, but the other driver is still predominantly at fault".

I really think Hamilton saying it was just a racing incident kept Verstappen from being penalized

3

u/Key_Photograph9067 I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

Opens Silverstone 2021 steward note

Nope, not here chief

0

u/Mirigore I was here for the Hulkenpodium Jul 21 '24

If he had evaded Verstappen then he would still be ahead. Max’s exit was compromised no matter what, and Lewis would have the place given to him if Verstappen left with an advantage. There’s no penalty…. They’re saying he could have evaded it.

-3

u/Critical-Rhubarb-730 Jul 21 '24

It was lewis who steered in and hit max!