Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the
Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
On 9/12/2021 12:00 PM, Bigbird wrote:
Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the
Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
The official summons documents on the FIA site are the same for both;
neither has the text above.
They just got around to posting the official summons for Stroll -
alleged failure to slow for yellow flags.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:22:16 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:00 PM, Bigbird wrote:
Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the
Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
The official summons documents on the FIA site are the same for both; neither has the text above.
They just got around to posting the official summons for Stroll -
alleged failure to slow for yellow flags.
--Good point.
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:27:11 AM UTC+10, build wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:22:16 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:00 PM, Bigbird wrote:
Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
The official summons documents on the FIA site are the same for both; neither has the text above.
They just got around to posting the official summons for Stroll -
alleged failure to slow for yellow flags.
COPIED from fia.com pdf's--Good point.
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The driver and team representative are required to report to the Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40.
---
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX
9 - 12 September 2021
The driver and team representative are required to report to the Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 44 - Lewis Hamilton
Reason Incident with car 33 in turn 2 at 15:40.
On 9/12/2021 12:00 PM, Bigbird wrote:
Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the
Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
The official summons documents on the FIA site are the same for both;
neither has the text above.
On 9/12/2021 12:00 PM, Bigbird wrote:
Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the
Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
The official summons documents on the FIA site are the same for both;
neither has the text above.
They just got around to posting the official summons for Stroll -
alleged failure to slow for yellow flags.
Documents 55 & 56.
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
So just a site error.
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
So just a site error.The URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid
place drop for Max.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menuThe URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/ fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
So just a site error.
place drop for Max.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021 The Stewards, having
received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56)
and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda Time
16:10 Session Race Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen),
the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed
the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33
braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point
in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted
that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have
given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left
behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto
the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the
driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 09:50:58 -0700, build wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menuThe URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/ fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
So just a site error.
place drop for Max.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021 The Stewards, havingSeems reasonable, pretty much the same a Silverstone, driver went for a
received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56)
and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda Time 16:10 Session Race Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period) Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen),
the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point
in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
pass in a place that it was just never going to happen.
Both ended in rather nasty crashes that could have been much worse.
Fortunately the Halo has again proved its worth, without it we would be discussing something much worse
--
To be trusted is a greater compliment than to be loved.
Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:00 PM, Bigbird wrote:
Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the
Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
The official summons documents on the FIA site are the same for both;
neither has the text above.
They just got around to posting the official summons for Stroll -
alleged failure to slow for yellow flags.
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
So just a site error.
Hamilton again bashes his competitor into a wreck.
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 1:54:42 PM UTC-7, alister wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 09:50:58 -0700, build wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menuThe URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/ fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
So just a site error.
place drop for Max.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021 The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56) and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and determine the following:Seems reasonable, pretty much the same a Silverstone, driver went for a pass in a place that it was just never going to happen.
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda Time 16:10 Session Race Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s
next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period) Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
Both ended in rather nasty crashes that could have been much worse.
Fortunately the Halo has again proved its worth, without it we would be discussing something much worse
Maybe I'd not clocked this previously, but that chicane sweeps back a little even--That chicane is way to narrow for these oversized cars, and why is it there to start with?
To be trusted is a greater compliment than to be loved.
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56) and
heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and
determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.
Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44
(Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with
Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before
Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to
move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any
further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was
the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the
apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to
pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or
by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an
avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the
Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into
the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted
too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that
his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the
incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
On 12/09/2021 16:50, build wrote:
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56) and
heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and
determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.
Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44
(Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and >> determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with
Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before
Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to
move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any
further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was
the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the
apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to
pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or
by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an
avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the
Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into
the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted
too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that
his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was >> predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the
incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
What a mealy-mouthed judgment.
"Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does
Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44".
Was Car 33 required to be any further in front?
Martin Brundle mentioned well before this incident that if the overtaking car had its front axle
further forward than the rear axle of the other car, the latter had to allow space. This position
had clearly happened in this incident.
But...
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line,
although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb".
In other words, Car 44 did not allow enough room for Car 33.
And further,...
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the
entry into Turn 1."
That's what happens during an outbraking overtake into a corner.
So Car 33 braked better, quite possibly because of Car 44's trip into and out of the pits, which
may have resulted in tyres and brakes that were not performing fully.
Is out-braking due to superior performance now a crime?
And this is a travesty of justice:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards
determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the incident".
One might be forgiven for thinking that in the pursuit of Hamilton's record-breaking eighth world
championship, it's now a case of Verstappen versus Hamilton and The Stewards.
On 13/09/2021 8:05 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
Hamilton again bashes his competitor into a wreck.Just when I was staring to think you might be knowledgeable...
No, one might not - and no it's not.
On 12/09/2021 16:50, build wrote:
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director,
summoned (documents 55, 56) and
heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the
following matter and
determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code.
Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen),
the driver of car 44
(Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence
and
determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the collision with
Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the
50m board before
Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late
and started to
move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car
33 get any
further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the
incident was
the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and
“squeezing” him to the
apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car
33 attempted to
pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing
off sooner, or
by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an
avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the
kerb. But further, the
Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until
significantly into
the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre
was attempted
too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing
room”. While Car 44 could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards
determined that
his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car
33 was
predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only
considered the
incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
What a mealy-mouthed judgment.
"Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just
behind the front wheel of Car 44".
Was Car 33 required to be any further in front?
Martin Brundle mentioned well before this incident that if the
overtaking car had its front axle further forward than the rear axle of
the other car, the latter had to allow space. This position had clearly happened in this incident.
But...
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto
the kerb".
In other words, Car 44 did not allow enough room for Car 33.
And further,...
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
That's what happens during an outbraking overtake into a corner.
So Car 33 braked better, quite possibly because of Car 44's trip into
and out of the pits, which may have resulted in tyres and brakes that
were not performing fully.
Is out-braking due to superior performance now a crime?
And this is a travesty of justice:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the incident".
One might be forgiven for thinking that in the pursuit of Hamilton's record-breaking eighth world championship, it's now a case of Verstappen versus Hamilton and The Stewards.
What a mealy-mouthed judgment.
"Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just
behind the front wheel of Car 44".
Was Car 33 required to be any further in front?
Martin Brundle mentioned well before this incident that if the
overtaking car had its front axle further forward than the rear axle of
the other car, the latter had to allow space. This position had clearly happened in this incident.
But...
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto
the kerb".
In other words, Car 44 did not allow enough room for Car 33.
And further,...
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
That's what happens during an outbraking overtake into a corner.
So Car 33 braked better, quite possibly because of Car 44's trip into
and out of the pits, which may have resulted in tyres and brakes that
were not performing fully.
Is out-braking due to superior performance now a crime?
And this is a travesty of justice:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the incident".
One might be forgiven for thinking that in the pursuit of Hamilton's record-breaking eighth world championship, it's now a case of Verstappen versus Hamilton and The Stewards.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:15:22 -0400, News wrote:
and fuck Toto the hypocrite for his 'strategic foul' claim
Its fairly obvious that I wont agree with most of your position but I do agree that Toto's suggestion of a professional foul is unfounded
and fuck Toto the hypocrite for his 'strategic foul' claim
On 2021-09-12 9:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:00 PM, Bigbird wrote:
Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
The official summons documents on the FIA site are the same for
both; neither has the text above.
They just got around to posting the official summons for Stroll -
alleged failure to slow for yellow flags.
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
So just a site error.
"Never attribute to malice that which adequately be explained by
stupidity."
:-)
On 12/09/2021 16:50, build wrote:
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director,
summoned (documents 55, 56) and
heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the
following matter and
determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code.
Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen),
the driver of car 44
(Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence
and
determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the collision with
Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the
50m board before
Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late
and started to
move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car
33 get any
further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the
incident was
the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and
“squeezing†him to the
apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car
33 attempted to
pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing
off sooner, or
by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an
avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the
kerb. But further, the
Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until
significantly into
the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre
was attempted
too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing
roomâ€. While Car 44 could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards
determined that
his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car
33 was
predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only
considered the
incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
What a mealy-mouthed judgment.
"Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just
behind the front wheel of Car 44".
Was Car 33 required to be any further in front?
Martin Brundle mentioned well before this incident that if the
overtaking car had its front axle further forward than the rear axle of
the other car, the latter had to allow space. This position had clearly happened in this incident.
But...
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto
the kerb".
In other words, Car 44 did not allow enough room for Car 33.
And further,...
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
That's what happens during an outbraking overtake into a corner.
So Car 33 braked better, quite possibly because of Car 44's trip into
and out of the pits, which may have resulted in tyres and brakes that
were not performing fully.
Is out-braking due to superior performance now a crime?
And this is a travesty of justice:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the incident".
One might be forgiven for thinking that in the pursuit of Hamilton's record-breaking eighth world championship, it's now a case of Verstappen versus Hamilton and The Stewards.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:15:22 -0400, News wrote:
and fuck Toto the hypocrite for his 'strategic foul' claim
Its fairly obvious that I wont agree with most of your position but I do agree that Toto's suggestion of a professional foul is unfounded
Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-12 9:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:00 PM, Bigbird wrote:
Summons
The driver and team representative are required to report to the
Stewards at 17:15 in relation to the
incident below.
The Stewards
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Reason Incident with car 44 in turn 2 at 15:40
Nothing similar for Mercedes.
The official summons documents on the FIA site are the same for
both; neither has the text above.
They just got around to posting the official summons for Stroll -
alleged failure to slow for yellow flags.
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
So just a site error.
"Never attribute to malice that which adequately be explained by
stupidity."
:-)
Like a misappropriate quote? :-)
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menuThe URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
So just a site error.
place drop for Max.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56) and
heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and
determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.
Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44
(Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with
Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before
Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to
move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any
further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was
the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the
apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to
pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or
by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an
avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the
Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into
the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted
too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that
his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the
incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 02:08:05 UTC+1, XYXPDQ wrote:
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 1:54:42 PM UTC-7, alister wrote:Maybe I'd not clocked this previously, but that chicane sweeps back a little even
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 09:50:58 -0700, build wrote:That chicane is way to narrow for these oversized cars, and why is it there to start with?
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson wrote: >>>>> On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/
Seems reasonable, pretty much the same a Silverstone, driver went for aThe URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid >>>>> place drop for Max.
So just a site error.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021 The Stewards, having
received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56)
and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the >>>> following matter and determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda Time
16:10 Session Race Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s >>>> next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen),
the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed >>>> the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m >>>> board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33
braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point >>>> in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the >>>> front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the >>>> incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and >>>> “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted >>>> that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have
given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left
behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto >>>> the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all >>>> alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the >>>> opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the >>>> driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards >>>> determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the >>>> driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only
considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
pass in a place that it was just never going to happen.
Both ended in rather nasty crashes that could have been much worse.
Fortunately the Halo has again proved its worth, without it we would be
discussing something much worse
--
To be trusted is a greater compliment than to be loved.
beyond 90deg these days (not by much) in the first part which makes it even more
likely that such an incident could occur.
I agree with the stewards' decision making (not that they care about whether I agree
or not). It seems to me that if they hadn't made the ruling they made, we'd have been
in a position where a driver could be behind at the entrance to part 1 of a chicane,
remain behind into part 2 of the chicane, but have the absolute right to dictate the
position of the leading car through the middle part / second corner of a chicane
in a way which massively advantages the attacking car, and massively disadvantages
the leading car.
We can agree to differ on Hamilton's positioning at Silverstone as to his contribution
to the accident there, but there was far less "thinking time" in the Silverstone crash
than Max had in the Monza crash. Hamilton on lap 1 showed what drivers should do
when the leading driver asserts their position in the second half of a chicane (even
if he did whinge about it on the radio shortly after); bail because you know you will
crash. Max made the wrong decision by instinct, it seemed to me.
On 2021-09-13 4:04 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 02:08:05 UTC+1, XYXPDQ wrote:
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 1:54:42 PM UTC-7, alister wrote:Maybe I'd not clocked this previously, but that chicane sweeps back a
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 09:50:58 -0700, build wrote:That chicane is way to narrow for these oversized cars, and why is it
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark JacksonSeems reasonable, pretty much the same a Silverstone, driver went for a >>>> pass in a place that it was just never going to happen.
wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menuThe URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid >>>>>> place drop for Max.
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/ >>>> fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
So just a site error.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021 The Stewards, having
received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56) >>>>> and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have
considered the
following matter and determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda Time >>>>> 16:10 Session Race Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the
driver’s
next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period) >>>>> Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), >>>>> the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives,
reviewed
the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At
the 50m
board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 >>>>> braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point >>>>> in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just
behind the
front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the >>>>> incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1
and
“squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted >>>>> that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have >>>>> given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left >>>>> behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go
onto
the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at
all
alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In
the
opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the >>>>> driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 >>>>> could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards >>>>> determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that
the
driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only
considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
Both ended in rather nasty crashes that could have been much worse.
Fortunately the Halo has again proved its worth, without it we would be >>>> discussing something much worse
--
To be trusted is a greater compliment than to be loved.
there to start with?
little even
beyond 90deg these days (not by much) in the first part which makes it
even more
likely that such an incident could occur.
I agree with the stewards' decision making (not that they care about
whether I agree
or not). It seems to me that if they hadn't made the ruling they
made, we'd have been
in a position where a driver could be behind at the entrance to part 1
of a chicane,
remain behind into part 2 of the chicane, but have the absolute right
to dictate the
position of the leading car through the middle part / second corner of
a chicane
in a way which massively advantages the attacking car, and massively
disadvantages
the leading car.
We can agree to differ on Hamilton's positioning at Silverstone as to
his contribution
to the accident there, but there was far less "thinking time" in the
Silverstone crash
than Max had in the Monza crash. Hamilton on lap 1 showed what
drivers should do
when the leading driver asserts their position in the second half of a
chicane (even
if he did whinge about it on the radio shortly after); bail because
you know you will
crash. Max made the wrong decision by instinct, it seemed to me.
You can be behind and still be entitled to racing room.
The deciding factor should be:
"Can the driver ahead still adjust in time?"
That's what makes the difference between a clean move down the inside
and divebomb. You can go down the inside on a car ahead, but you need to
do so in such time that the car you're trying to pass can react.
It's the same with this one:
Did Verstappen's move down the outside (which was going to become the
inside in phase 2 of the chicane) come early enough to give Hamilton
time to react and leave him space?
I think it's a very near-run thing, and the fact that Hamilton missed
his line through the first apex by about half a car's width suggests he
did know Verstappen was there and wanted to force him off.
But this time--and especially in light of how Verstappen had forced
Hamilton off on lap 1 with no penalty at all...
...I'll accept the stewards ruling as fair play.
Verstappen should have been smart enough to realize it wasn't going to happen, run over the sausage kerbs (curbs?), hope for the best and see
if he could get a strong enough tow to try it into turn 4.
On 14/09/2021 4:42 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-13 4:04 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 02:08:05 UTC+1, XYXPDQ wrote:
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 1:54:42 PM UTC-7, alister wrote:Maybe I'd not clocked this previously, but that chicane sweeps back a
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 09:50:58 -0700, build wrote:That chicane is way to narrow for these oversized cars, and why is
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jacksonfia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix >>>>>>>>
wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/ >>>>>>>>
Seems reasonable, pretty much the same a Silverstone, driver wentSo just a site error.The URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid >>>>>>> place drop for Max.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021 The Stewards, having
received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56) >>>>>> and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have
considered the
following matter and determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda Time >>>>>> 16:10 Session Race Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the
driver’s
next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period) >>>>>> Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), >>>>>> the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives,
reviewed
the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At
the 50m
board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 >>>>>> braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no
point
in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just
behind the
front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of >>>>>> the
incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn
1 and
“squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted >>>>>> that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have >>>>>> given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left >>>>>> behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was >>>>>> driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to
go onto
the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not
at all
alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1.
In the
opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for >>>>>> the
driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 >>>>>> could
have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the
Stewards
determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find
that the
driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only >>>>>> considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
for a
pass in a place that it was just never going to happen.
Both ended in rather nasty crashes that could have been much worse.
Fortunately the Halo has again proved its worth, without it we
would be
discussing something much worse
--
To be trusted is a greater compliment than to be loved.
it there to start with?
little even
beyond 90deg these days (not by much) in the first part which makes
it even more
likely that such an incident could occur.
I agree with the stewards' decision making (not that they care about
whether I agree
or not). It seems to me that if they hadn't made the ruling they
made, we'd have been
in a position where a driver could be behind at the entrance to part
1 of a chicane,
remain behind into part 2 of the chicane, but have the absolute right
to dictate the
position of the leading car through the middle part / second corner
of a chicane
in a way which massively advantages the attacking car, and massively
disadvantages
the leading car.
We can agree to differ on Hamilton's positioning at Silverstone as to
his contribution
to the accident there, but there was far less "thinking time" in the
Silverstone crash
than Max had in the Monza crash. Hamilton on lap 1 showed what
drivers should do
when the leading driver asserts their position in the second half of
a chicane (even
if he did whinge about it on the radio shortly after); bail because
you know you will
crash. Max made the wrong decision by instinct, it seemed to me.
You can be behind and still be entitled to racing room.
The deciding factor should be:
"Can the driver ahead still adjust in time?"
Or need he ?
That's what makes the difference between a clean move down the inside
and divebomb. You can go down the inside on a car ahead, but you need
to do so in such time that the car you're trying to pass can react.
It's the same with this one:
Did Verstappen's move down the outside (which was going to become the
inside in phase 2 of the chicane) come early enough to give Hamilton
time to react and leave him space?
Why should he leave space that early ? Surely the idea is to make it difficult for one's opponent to pass, rather than hand it on a plate.
It's not as if VER had afforded him that 'courtesy' previously.
I think it's a very near-run thing, and the fact that Hamilton missed
his line through the first apex by about half a car's width suggests
he did know Verstappen was there and wanted to force him off.
No, to block him, just as VER had done previously.
But this time--and especially in light of how Verstappen had forced
Hamilton off on lap 1 with no penalty at all...
...I'll accept the stewards ruling as fair play.
Consistent logic then. Not.
JohnM <John.Milner@gmx.invalid> wrote:
What a mealy-mouthed judgment.
"Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no
point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just
behind the front wheel of Car 44".
Was Car 33 required to be any further in front?
Martin Brundle mentioned well before this incident that if the
overtaking car had its front axle further forward than the rear axle of
the other car, the latter had to allow space. This position had clearly
happened in this incident.
But...
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto
the kerb".
In other words, Car 44 did not allow enough room for Car 33.
And further,...
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until
significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
That's what happens during an outbraking overtake into a corner.
So Car 33 braked better, quite possibly because of Car 44's trip into
and out of the pits, which may have resulted in tyres and brakes that
were not performing fully.
Is out-braking due to superior performance now a crime?
And this is a travesty of justice:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and
therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the incident".
One might be forgiven for thinking that in the pursuit of Hamilton's
record-breaking eighth world championship, it's now a case of Verstappen
versus Hamilton and The Stewards.
That's not how I read this judgement.
I think this (along with the Silverstone one) represents a form of
precedent setting to seek to clarify the meaning of the rules in
exceptional circumstances. I think that (in itself) is controversial,
but I think there is an analogy to be drawn here with the technical
rules (e.g. exploiting various loopholes for performance) and how they
are able to respond to new developments.
With some of the new "tricks" adopted - things that were not envisaged
when the rulebook was written - the normal behaviour seems to be that
the pitlane splits between:
- It's legal! We should stick to the letter of the rulebook and, if
we can find ways to exploit it, we should be free to do so until
we can agree formal amendments to the next version of the
rulebook.
- It's clearly against the (spirit of the) rules! While the rulebook
might not be explicit, you are clearly doing something that was
never intended.
Both arguments can be made with more or less strength depending on the precise situation.
When it comes, however, to behaviour and the sporting code -
particularly where there is a particular risk to drivers, teams,
stewards or spectators - it can't be simply left for weeks or months
before you take a decision.
The rule on where you must leave a full car's width came in because of
very aggressive lines which bullied passing cars off the track where
they would otherwise clearly be able to complete the pass if they
weren't being blocked by "taking the racing line" (even when that line
is not clear). It's been refined numerous times. It's really tricky to
have a rule that covers every scenario.
There's the relative pace issue:
- Close-running cars with little difference in pace
- A "fast" car closing in on a much slower car
combined with different conditions:
- A "fast" vs "slow" track
- A "tight" vs "open" turn
- High grip vs low grip (or even wet/rainy conditions)
and a multitude of other factors (aero setups, track temperature, wind conditions etc.) mean that these decisions are finely balanced.
I think that the judgement reads as an informal clarification that you
can't simply outbrake into a very tight chicane leaving the leading
driver with no credible line to take that can't be (in exceptional circumstances) invalidated by someone coming in very fast. That you
might essentially (to keep 100% clear) have to give up the whole chicane before you even enter it...just in case someone tries a very aggressive
move from a good way back. I don't disagree with that per se, but I
think the FIA need to be clearer on what they are doing for both the
teams and the fans.
They seem to have judged that while he made a start on the pass ahead of
the chicane, he couldn't even get fully alongside for the second phase leaving himself and Hamilton little choice on where to go in a pretty
tight part of the track. As a consequence, they seem to be saying that
he wasn't entitled to that extra space. If that's the case, don't hint
at it in an adjudication, make it really explicit. (Of course, I don't
know that that hasn't been said, I just haven't read it yet).
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until
significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto
the kerb".
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and
therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the incident".
I'm sure that there will be Verstappen fans very clear that it's all
about protecting Hamilton while all the Hamilton fans will be arguing
that Verstappen was completely in the wrong.
Personally, I think it should just be treated as an incident and (as I
said at the time) there should be a stern talking to both drivers about
being sensible about when a pass can realistically take place. If this
is a clarification of the rules, though, I would also like (with little expectation) a clear statement (not just the ruling) on what that means
in terms of future incidents.
There has to be a consistent understanding of the rules and how
penalties are applied.
It's my view that the stewards tried to have things both ways here, demonstrated by their comments that:
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car
44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
...thus admitting that Verstappen was alongside Hamilton - and so
should have given Max the room demanded by the rules,
On 2021-09-13 10:43 p.m., geoff wrote:.
You can be behind and still be entitled to racing room.
The deciding factor should be:
"Can the driver ahead still adjust in time?"
Or need he ?
Absolutely, yes.
Otherwise the leading car can simply drive anyone who tries to pass off
the track.
That's what makes the difference between a clean move down the inside
and divebomb. You can go down the inside on a car ahead, but you need
to do so in such time that the car you're trying to pass can react.
It's the same with this one:
Did Verstappen's move down the outside (which was going to become the
inside in phase 2 of the chicane) come early enough to give Hamilton
time to react and leave him space?
Why should he leave space that early ? Surely the idea is to make it
difficult for one's opponent to pass, rather than hand it on a plate.
It's not as if VER had afforded him that 'courtesy' previously.
I think it's a very near-run thing, and the fact that Hamilton missed
his line through the first apex by about half a car's width suggests
he did know Verstappen was there and wanted to force him off.
No, to block him, just as VER had done previously.
And blocking once an overtaking car has achieved a certain position by a certain time isn't legal.
But this time--and especially in light of how Verstappen had forced
Hamilton off on lap 1 with no penalty at all...
...I'll accept the stewards ruling as fair play.
Consistent logic then. Not.
Absolutely consistent.
In the first incident, it was completely clear that Hamilton had gotten alongside Verstappen with sufficient time for Verstappen to leave him space... ...but he didn't. To my mind, a clear failure to leave racing
room (one car width) to a competitor and should have been a penalty.
In the second incident, it wasn't as clear-cut. Verstappen got a lot alongside Hamilton, but very deep into the chicane. But there has to be
a cutoff as to how late you can make your move, and the stewards felt
that Verstappen's move was beyond that cutoff.
On 2021-09-12 9:50 a.m., build wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson
wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
So just a site error.The URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3
grid place drop for Max.
-- Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director,
summoned (documents 55, 56) and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and determine
the following: No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the
driver’s next event. (2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points
in the 12 month period) Reason The Stewards heard from the driver
of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton)
and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and
determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2. Car 44 was exiting the pits.
Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1,
Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and
started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the
sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the
front wheel of Car 44. During the hearing the driver of Car 33
asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44
opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex
of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have given up the corner
either by backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go
onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was
not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into
Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was
attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to
racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb
to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position
was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident. In coming to the penalty
the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident
itself and not the consequences thereof.
I've created my own thread about this, but:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable"
And my question is:
Why did Hamilton adopt the "reasonable" position that was half car's
width of his normal line through that apex?
JohnM wrote:
It's my view that the stewards tried to have things both ways here,
demonstrated by their comments that:
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car
44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
...thus admitting that Verstappen was alongside Hamilton - and so
should have given Max the room demanded by the rules,
Wrong.
You wouldn't make any such suggestion if you had a clue what is
involved in changing trajectory.
On 14/09/2021 6:20 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-13 10:43 p.m., geoff wrote:.
You can be behind and still be entitled to racing room.
The deciding factor should be:
"Can the driver ahead still adjust in time?"
Or need he ?
Absolutely, yes.
Otherwise the leading car can simply drive anyone who tries to pass
off the track.
Only if the overtaking car tries to overtake where there is no room to overtake.
That's what makes the difference between a clean move down the
inside and divebomb. You can go down the inside on a car ahead, but
you need to do so in such time that the car you're trying to pass
can react.
It's the same with this one:
Did Verstappen's move down the outside (which was going to become
the inside in phase 2 of the chicane) come early enough to give
Hamilton time to react and leave him space?
Why should he leave space that early ? Surely the idea is to make it
difficult for one's opponent to pass, rather than hand it on a plate.
It's not as if VER had afforded him that 'courtesy' previously.
I think it's a very near-run thing, and the fact that Hamilton
missed his line through the first apex by about half a car's width
suggests he did know Verstappen was there and wanted to force him off.
No, to block him, just as VER had done previously.
And blocking once an overtaking car has achieved a certain position by
a certain time isn't legal.
But this time--and especially in light of how Verstappen had forced
Hamilton off on lap 1 with no penalty at all...
...I'll accept the stewards ruling as fair play.
Consistent logic then. Not.
Absolutely consistent.
In the first incident, it was completely clear that Hamilton had
gotten alongside Verstappen with sufficient time for Verstappen to
leave him space... ...but he didn't. To my mind, a clear failure to
leave racing room (one car width) to a competitor and should have been
a penalty.
... if sufficiently alongside, else it would make passing ridiculously
easy on any corner.
Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-12 9:50 a.m., build wrote:https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson
wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
The URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3
So just a site error.
grid place drop for Max.
-- Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director,
summoned (documents 55, 56) and heard from the drivers and team
representatives, have considered the following matter and determine
the following: No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the
driver’s next event. (2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points
in the 12 month period) Reason The Stewards heard from the driver
of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton)
and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and
determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2. Car 44 was exiting the pits.
Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1,
Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and
started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the
sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the
front wheel of Car 44. During the hearing the driver of Car 33
asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44
opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex
of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33
attempted to pass very late and should have given up the corner
either by backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go
onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was
not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into
Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was
attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to
racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb
to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position
was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the incident. In coming to the penalty
the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident
itself and not the consequences thereof.
I've created my own thread about this, but:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable"
And my question is:
Why did Hamilton adopt the "reasonable" position that was half car's
width of his normal line through that apex?
Perhaps because he was braking later because he was defending the
corner or perhaps simply because he was on new tyres and it wasn't
entirely intentional.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 09:50:58 -0700, build wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson wrote:fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different menu
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/
The URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision - 3 grid
So just a site error.
place drop for Max.
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021 The Stewards, having
received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 55, 56)
and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the
following matter and determine the following:
No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda Time
16:10 Session Race Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s
next event.
(2 penalty points imposed, total of 2 points in the 12 month period)
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen),
the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed
the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m
board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33
braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point
in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the
front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the
incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and
“squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted
that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have
given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left
behind the kerb.
The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto
the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all
alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the
opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the
driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could >> have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards
determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the
driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.
In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only
considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.
Seems reasonable, pretty much the same a Silverstone, driver went for a
pass in a place that it was just never going to happen.
On 13/09/2021 17:15, Mark wrote:
JohnM <John.Milner@gmx.invalid> wrote:
What a mealy-mouthed judgment.
"Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no >>> point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just
behind the front wheel of Car 44".
Was Car 33 required to be any further in front?
Martin Brundle mentioned well before this incident that if the
overtaking car had its front axle further forward than the rear axle of
the other car, the latter had to allow space. This position had clearly
happened in this incident.
But...
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto >>> the kerb".
In other words, Car 44 did not allow enough room for Car 33.
And further,...
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until >>> significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
That's what happens during an outbraking overtake into a corner.
So Car 33 braked better, quite possibly because of Car 44's trip into
and out of the pits, which may have resulted in tyres and brakes that
were not performing fully.
Is out-braking due to superior performance now a crime?
And this is a travesty of justice:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and
therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the incident".
One might be forgiven for thinking that in the pursuit of Hamilton's
record-breaking eighth world championship, it's now a case of Verstappen >>> versus Hamilton and The Stewards.
That's not how I read this judgement.
I think this (along with the Silverstone one) represents a form of
precedent setting to seek to clarify the meaning of the rules in
exceptional circumstances. I think that (in itself) is controversial,
but I think there is an analogy to be drawn here with the technical
rules (e.g. exploiting various loopholes for performance) and how they
are able to respond to new developments.
With some of the new "tricks" adopted - things that were not envisaged
when the rulebook was written - the normal behaviour seems to be that
the pitlane splits between:
- It's legal! We should stick to the letter of the rulebook and, if
we can find ways to exploit it, we should be free to do so until
we can agree formal amendments to the next version of the
rulebook.
- It's clearly against the (spirit of the) rules! While the rulebook
might not be explicit, you are clearly doing something that was
never intended.
Both arguments can be made with more or less strength depending on the
precise situation.
When it comes, however, to behaviour and the sporting code -
particularly where there is a particular risk to drivers, teams,
stewards or spectators - it can't be simply left for weeks or months
before you take a decision.
The rule on where you must leave a full car's width came in because of
very aggressive lines which bullied passing cars off the track where
they would otherwise clearly be able to complete the pass if they
weren't being blocked by "taking the racing line" (even when that line
is not clear). It's been refined numerous times. It's really tricky to
have a rule that covers every scenario.
There's the relative pace issue:
- Close-running cars with little difference in pace
- A "fast" car closing in on a much slower car
combined with different conditions:
- A "fast" vs "slow" track
- A "tight" vs "open" turn
- High grip vs low grip (or even wet/rainy conditions)
and a multitude of other factors (aero setups, track temperature, wind
conditions etc.) mean that these decisions are finely balanced.
I think that the judgement reads as an informal clarification that you
can't simply outbrake into a very tight chicane leaving the leading
driver with no credible line to take that can't be (in exceptional
circumstances) invalidated by someone coming in very fast. That you
might essentially (to keep 100% clear) have to give up the whole chicane
before you even enter it...just in case someone tries a very aggressive
move from a good way back. I don't disagree with that per se, but I
think the FIA need to be clearer on what they are doing for both the
teams and the fans.
They seem to have judged that while he made a start on the pass ahead of
the chicane, he couldn't even get fully alongside for the second phase
leaving himself and Hamilton little choice on where to go in a pretty
tight part of the track. As a consequence, they seem to be saying that
he wasn't entitled to that extra space. If that's the case, don't hint
at it in an adjudication, make it really explicit. (Of course, I don't
know that that hasn't been said, I just haven't read it yet).
It's my view that the stewards tried to have things both ways here, demonstrated by their comments that:
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until >>> significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
...thus admitting that Verstappen *was* alongside Hamilton - and so
should have given Max the room demanded by the rules,
and
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto >>> the kerb".
...suggesting that Hamilton was driving correctly but in the wrong
place. Given that Ham must have known Max was there, as he could hardly
have missed seeing Max coming down the straight, it implies some 'gamesmanship' on Ham's part - which again IMV played a part at Copse,
which was a mirror image although on a smaller scale to this incident.
But this is the mealy-mouthed part of the stewards report:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and
therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for
the incident".
...which blames Hamilton and then 'lets him off' all in one sentence.
On 2021-09-14 3:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
JohnM wrote:
It's my view that the stewards tried to have things both ways here,
demonstrated by their comments that:
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car
44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
...thus admitting that Verstappen was alongside Hamilton - and so
should have given Max the room demanded by the rules,
Wrong.
You wouldn't make any such suggestion if you had a clue what is
involved in changing trajectory.
But he is correct that there was some fairly obvious adjustment with
Hamilton driving further to the left than his normal line and not
hitting the first apex of the chicane.
I've taken yet another look at the onboard video from both cars, and I
think I see what the stewards were saying:
Hamilton only loses his ability to drive the track on any line he likes
if Verstappen gets to a certain position early enough. And in the
stewards opinion...
(And after looking at it again, I think I agree.)
...Hamilton made his decision about what line to take through the first
apex of the chicane before Verstappen had earned the right to racing room.
And Hamilton's decision to miss climbing over the apex rumble strips at
turn 1 was precisely the same one that Verstappen had made on lap one incident at turn 4. Only in the first incident, Hamilton had been along
side full for almost the entire braking zone, and Verstappen SHOULD have
left room.
So, yeah: I still think the stewards got this one right.
Verstappen didn't get alongside Hamilton early enough for Hamilton to be required to give him room. Hamilton was still free to pick his line...
...at the time he picked it.
Alan Baker wrote:
Why did Hamilton adopt the "reasonable" position that was half car's
width of his normal line through that apex?
Perhaps because he was braking later because he was defending the
corner or perhaps simply because he was on new tyres and it wasn't
entirely intentional.
On 15/09/2021 7:53 am, Alan Baker wrote:Given that I've said from the beginning that I thought Verstappen was
I've taken yet another look at the onboard video from both cars, and I
think I see what the stewards were saying:
And finally realised what others figured out instantly.
Hamilton only loses his ability to drive the track on any line he
likes if Verstappen gets to a certain position early enough. And in
the stewards opinion...
(And after looking at it again, I think I agree.)
...Hamilton made his decision about what line to take through the
first apex of the chicane before Verstappen had earned the right to
racing room.
And Hamilton's decision to miss climbing over the apex rumble strips
at turn 1 was precisely the same one that Verstappen had made on lap
one incident at turn 4. Only in the first incident, Hamilton had been
along side full for almost the entire braking zone, and Verstappen
SHOULD have left room.
So, yeah: I still think the stewards got this one right.
Verstappen didn't get alongside Hamilton early enough for Hamilton to
be required to give him room. Hamilton was still free to pick his line...
...at the time he picked it.
..... finally.
On 2021-09-14 1:35 a.m., JohnM wrote:
On 13/09/2021 17:15, Mark wrote:
JohnM <John.Milner@gmx.invalid> wrote:
What a mealy-mouthed judgment.
"Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although
at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just >>>> behind the front wheel of Car 44".
Was Car 33 required to be any further in front?
Martin Brundle mentioned well before this incident that if the
overtaking car had its front axle further forward than the rear axle of >>>> the other car, the latter had to allow space. This position had clearly >>>> happened in this incident.
But...
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go
onto the kerb".
In other words, Car 44 did not allow enough room for Car 33.
And further,...
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44
until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
That's what happens during an outbraking overtake into a corner.
So Car 33 braked better, quite possibly because of Car 44's trip into
and out of the pits, which may have resulted in tyres and brakes that
were not performing fully.
Is out-braking due to superior performance now a crime?
And this is a travesty of justice:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and >>>> therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for >>>> the incident".
One might be forgiven for thinking that in the pursuit of Hamilton's
record-breaking eighth world championship, it's now a case of
Verstappen versus Hamilton and The Stewards.
That's not how I read this judgement.
I think this (along with the Silverstone one) represents a form of
precedent setting to seek to clarify the meaning of the rules in
exceptional circumstances. I think that (in itself) is controversial,
but I think there is an analogy to be drawn here with the technical
rules (e.g. exploiting various loopholes for performance) and how they
are able to respond to new developments.
With some of the new "tricks" adopted - things that were not envisaged
when the rulebook was written - the normal behaviour seems to be that
the pitlane splits between:
- It's legal! We should stick to the letter of the rulebook and, if
we can find ways to exploit it, we should be free to do so until
we can agree formal amendments to the next version of the
rulebook.
- It's clearly against the (spirit of the) rules! While the rulebook >>> might not be explicit, you are clearly doing something that was
never intended.
Both arguments can be made with more or less strength depending on the
precise situation.
When it comes, however, to behaviour and the sporting code -
particularly where there is a particular risk to drivers, teams,
stewards or spectators - it can't be simply left for weeks or months
before you take a decision.
The rule on where you must leave a full car's width came in because of
very aggressive lines which bullied passing cars off the track where
they would otherwise clearly be able to complete the pass if they
weren't being blocked by "taking the racing line" (even when that line
is not clear). It's been refined numerous times. It's really tricky to
have a rule that covers every scenario.
There's the relative pace issue:
- Close-running cars with little difference in pace
- A "fast" car closing in on a much slower car
combined with different conditions:
- A "fast" vs "slow" track
- A "tight" vs "open" turn
- High grip vs low grip (or even wet/rainy conditions)
and a multitude of other factors (aero setups, track temperature, wind
conditions etc.) mean that these decisions are finely balanced.
I think that the judgement reads as an informal clarification that you
can't simply outbrake into a very tight chicane leaving the leading
driver with no credible line to take that can't be (in exceptional
circumstances) invalidated by someone coming in very fast. That you
might essentially (to keep 100% clear) have to give up the whole chicane >>> before you even enter it...just in case someone tries a very aggressive
move from a good way back. I don't disagree with that per se, but I
think the FIA need to be clearer on what they are doing for both the
teams and the fans.
They seem to have judged that while he made a start on the pass ahead of >>> the chicane, he couldn't even get fully alongside for the second phase
leaving himself and Hamilton little choice on where to go in a pretty
tight part of the track. As a consequence, they seem to be saying that
he wasn't entitled to that extra space. If that's the case, don't hint
at it in an adjudication, make it really explicit. (Of course, I don't
know that that hasn't been said, I just haven't read it yet).
It's my view that the stewards tried to have things both ways here,
demonstrated by their comments that:
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44
until
significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
...thus admitting that Verstappen *was* alongside Hamilton - and so
should have given Max the room demanded by the rules,
and
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go
onto
the kerb".
...suggesting that Hamilton was driving correctly but in the wrong
place. Given that Ham must have known Max was there, as he could
hardly have missed seeing Max coming down the straight, it implies
some 'gamesmanship' on Ham's part - which again IMV played a part at
Copse, which was a mirror image although on a smaller scale to this
incident.
But this is the mealy-mouthed part of the stewards report:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and >>>> therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for >>>> the incident".
...which blames Hamilton and then 'lets him off' all in one sentence.
I've taken yet another look at the onboard video from both cars, and I
think I see what the stewards were saying:
Hamilton only loses his ability to drive the track on any line he likes
if Verstappen gets to a certain position early enough. And in the
stewards opinion...
(And after looking at it again, I think I agree.)
...Hamilton made his decision about what line to take through the first
apex of the chicane before Verstappen had earned the right to racing room.
And Hamilton's decision to miss climbing over the apex rumble strips at
turn 1 was precisely the same one that Verstappen had made on lap one incident at turn 4. Only in the first incident, Hamilton had been along
side full for almost the entire braking zone, and Verstappen SHOULD have
left room.
So, yeah: I still think the stewards got this one right.
Verstappen didn't get alongside Hamilton early enough for Hamilton to be required to give him room. Hamilton was still free to pick his line...
...at the time he picked it.
On 14/09/2021 19:53, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-14 1:35 a.m., JohnM wrote:
On 13/09/2021 17:15, Mark wrote:
JohnM <John.Milner@gmx.invalid> wrote:
What a mealy-mouthed judgment.
"Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although
at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward
than just
behind the front wheel of Car 44".
Was Car 33 required to be any further in front?
Martin Brundle mentioned well before this incident that if the
overtaking car had its front axle further forward than the rear
axle of
the other car, the latter had to allow space. This position had
clearly
happened in this incident.
But...
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was >>>>> driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go
onto the kerb".
In other words, Car 44 did not allow enough room for Car 33.
And further,...
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44
until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
That's what happens during an outbraking overtake into a corner.
So Car 33 braked better, quite possibly because of Car 44's trip into >>>>> and out of the pits, which may have resulted in tyres and brakes that >>>>> were not performing fully.
Is out-braking due to superior performance now a crime?
And this is a travesty of justice:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and >>>>> therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame
for
the incident".
One might be forgiven for thinking that in the pursuit of Hamilton's >>>>> record-breaking eighth world championship, it's now a case of
Verstappen versus Hamilton and The Stewards.
That's not how I read this judgement.
I think this (along with the Silverstone one) represents a form of
precedent setting to seek to clarify the meaning of the rules in
exceptional circumstances. I think that (in itself) is controversial,
but I think there is an analogy to be drawn here with the technical
rules (e.g. exploiting various loopholes for performance) and how they >>>> are able to respond to new developments.
With some of the new "tricks" adopted - things that were not envisaged >>>> when the rulebook was written - the normal behaviour seems to be that
the pitlane splits between:
- It's legal! We should stick to the letter of the rulebook and, if >>>> we can find ways to exploit it, we should be free to do so until >>>> we can agree formal amendments to the next version of the
rulebook.
- It's clearly against the (spirit of the) rules! While the
rulebook
might not be explicit, you are clearly doing something that was
never intended.
Both arguments can be made with more or less strength depending on the >>>> precise situation.
When it comes, however, to behaviour and the sporting code -
particularly where there is a particular risk to drivers, teams,
stewards or spectators - it can't be simply left for weeks or months
before you take a decision.
The rule on where you must leave a full car's width came in because of >>>> very aggressive lines which bullied passing cars off the track where
they would otherwise clearly be able to complete the pass if they
weren't being blocked by "taking the racing line" (even when that line >>>> is not clear). It's been refined numerous times. It's really tricky to >>>> have a rule that covers every scenario.
There's the relative pace issue:
- Close-running cars with little difference in pace
- A "fast" car closing in on a much slower car
combined with different conditions:
- A "fast" vs "slow" track
- A "tight" vs "open" turn
- High grip vs low grip (or even wet/rainy conditions)
and a multitude of other factors (aero setups, track temperature, wind >>>> conditions etc.) mean that these decisions are finely balanced.
I think that the judgement reads as an informal clarification that you >>>> can't simply outbrake into a very tight chicane leaving the leading
driver with no credible line to take that can't be (in exceptional
circumstances) invalidated by someone coming in very fast. That you
might essentially (to keep 100% clear) have to give up the whole
chicane
before you even enter it...just in case someone tries a very aggressive >>>> move from a good way back. I don't disagree with that per se, but I
think the FIA need to be clearer on what they are doing for both the
teams and the fans.
They seem to have judged that while he made a start on the pass
ahead of
the chicane, he couldn't even get fully alongside for the second phase >>>> leaving himself and Hamilton little choice on where to go in a pretty
tight part of the track. As a consequence, they seem to be saying that >>>> he wasn't entitled to that extra space. If that's the case, don't hint >>>> at it in an adjudication, make it really explicit. (Of course, I don't >>>> know that that hasn't been said, I just haven't read it yet).
It's my view that the stewards tried to have things both ways here,
demonstrated by their comments that:
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44
until
significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
...thus admitting that Verstappen *was* alongside Hamilton - and so
should have given Max the room demanded by the rules,
and
"The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was >>>>> driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go
onto
the kerb".
...suggesting that Hamilton was driving correctly but in the wrong
place. Given that Ham must have known Max was there, as he could
hardly have missed seeing Max coming down the straight, it implies
some 'gamesmanship' on Ham's part - which again IMV played a part at
Copse, which was a mirror image although on a smaller scale to this
incident.
But this is the mealy-mouthed part of the stewards report:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the
incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and >>>>> therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame
for
the incident".
...which blames Hamilton and then 'lets him off' all in one sentence.
I've taken yet another look at the onboard video from both cars, and I
think I see what the stewards were saying:
Hamilton only loses his ability to drive the track on any line he likes
if Verstappen gets to a certain position early enough. And in the
stewards opinion...
(And after looking at it again, I think I agree.)
...Hamilton made his decision about what line to take through the first
apex of the chicane before Verstappen had earned the right to racing
room.
And Hamilton's decision to miss climbing over the apex rumble strips at
turn 1 was precisely the same one that Verstappen had made on lap one
incident at turn 4. Only in the first incident, Hamilton had been along
side full for almost the entire braking zone, and Verstappen SHOULD have
left room.
So, yeah: I still think the stewards got this one right.
Verstappen didn't get alongside Hamilton early enough for Hamilton to be
required to give him room. Hamilton was still free to pick his line...
...at the time he picked it.
Thanks for explaining that in some detail.
The steward's report was hardly a model of clarity in setting out the incident in detail and going through the incident stage by stage. Merely saying, as they did, that despite Hamilton being in the wrong place his actions were reasonable, might be the position they took, but making the
leap from 'wrong place' to 'reasonable' in the space of a few words did
on the face of it, seem unreasonable - hence my posting.
I've seen previously Max using the 'late apex' tactic to defend a
position, but to have been caught by others using it on two recent
occasions on him suggests Max has still got lessons to learn.
Doubtless we'll see how this plays out...
The essence of it is simple:
Pretty much everything flows from those two concepts.
Pretty much everything flows from those two concepts.
Given that I've said from the beginning that I thought Verstappen was correctly given the penalty...
Given that I've said from the beginning that I thought Verstappen was correctly given the penalty...
On 2021-09-14 3:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
JohnM wrote:
It's my view that the stewards tried to have things both ways
here, demonstrated by their comments that:
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside
Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
...thus admitting that Verstappen was alongside Hamilton - and so
should have given Max the room demanded by the rules,
Wrong.
You wouldn't make any such suggestion if you had a clue what is
involved in changing trajectory.
But he is correct that there was some fairly obvious adjustment with
Hamilton driving further to the left than his normal line and not
hitting the first apex of the chicane.
On 2021-09-14 3:06 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-12 9:50 a.m., build wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson
wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different
menu
So just a site error.The URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision -
3 grid place drop for Max.
-- Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director,
summoned (documents 55, 56) and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and
determine the following: No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the driver’s next event. (2 penalty points imposed, total of 2
points in the 12 month period) Reason The Stewards heard from
the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44
(Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video
evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight.
At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead
of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car
44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any
further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause
of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering
after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The
driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted
to pass very late and should have given up the corner either by
backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb. The
Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33
to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that
Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into
the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this
manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to
have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have
steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the
Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and
therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to
blame for the incident. In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself
and not the consequences thereof.
I've created my own thread about this, but:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid
the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was
reasonable"
And my question is:
Why did Hamilton adopt the "reasonable" position that was half
car's width of his normal line through that apex?
Perhaps because he was braking later because he was defending the
corner or perhaps simply because he was on new tyres and it wasn't
entirely intentional.
Watch his hands and the car's whole attitude from Hamilton's in-car
camera. And it's completely obvious that he was slowing EARLY for
turn 1, as that's what let Verstappen get to where he got.
To rely on such an argument would just be an expression on inane and
innate bias,
To rely on such an argument would just be an expression on inane and
innate bias,
adequate caution
Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-14 3:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
JohnM wrote:
It's my view that the stewards tried to have things both ways
here, demonstrated by their comments that:
"The Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside
Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1."
...thus admitting that Verstappen was alongside Hamilton - and so
should have given Max the room demanded by the rules,
Wrong.
You wouldn't make any such suggestion if you had a clue what is
involved in changing trajectory.
But he is correct that there was some fairly obvious adjustment with
Hamilton driving further to the left than his normal line and not
hitting the first apex of the chicane.
Irrelevant. He was exciting the pits; grip was a relative unknown. To
rely on such an argument would just be an expression on inane and
innate bias,
Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-14 3:06 a.m., Bigbird wrote:https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14/event/Italian%20Grand%20Prix
Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-12 9:50 a.m., build wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:47:01 AM UTC+10, Mark Jackson
wrote:
On 9/12/2021 12:41 PM, Bigbird wrote:
I see there are more available if you choose a different
menu
The URL I was looking at has been updated with the decision -
So just a site error.
3 grid place drop for Max.
-- Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Poverty is a choice made by governments not individuals.
- Fiona the Unemployed Bettong (Andrew Marlton)
2021 ITALIAN GRAND PRIX9 - 12 September 2021
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director,
summoned (documents 55, 56) and heard from the drivers and team
representatives, have considered the following matter and
determine the following: No / Driver 33 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Red Bull Racing Honda
Time 16:10
Session Race
Fact Collision with car 44 in turn 2.
Offence Breach of Article 2 (d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA
International Sporting Code. Decision 3 Grid Place Drop at the
driver’s next event. (2 penalty points imposed, total of 2
points in the 12 month period) Reason The Stewards heard from
the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44
(Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video
evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was
predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.
Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight.
At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead
of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car
44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any
further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.
During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause
of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering
after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The
driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted
to pass very late and should have given up the corner either by
backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb. The
Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was
driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33
to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that
Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into
the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this
manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to
have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have
steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the
Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and
therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to
blame for the incident. In coming to the penalty the Stewards
emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself
and not the consequences thereof.
I've created my own thread about this, but:
"While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid
the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was
reasonable"
And my question is:
Why did Hamilton adopt the "reasonable" position that was half
car's width of his normal line through that apex?
Perhaps because he was braking later because he was defending the
corner or perhaps simply because he was on new tyres and it wasn't
entirely intentional.
Watch his hands and the car's whole attitude from Hamilton's in-car
camera. And it's completely obvious that he was slowing EARLY for
turn 1, as that's what let Verstappen get to where he got.
So you admit he showed adequate caution on new tyres and unknown grip.
Ummmmm... ...
The steward's report was hardly a model of clarity in setting out the incident in detail and going through the incident stage by stage. Merely saying, as they did, that despite Hamilton being in the wrong place his actions were reasonable, might be the position they took, but making the
leap from 'wrong place' to 'reasonable' in the space of a few words did
on the face of it, seem unreasonable - hence my posting.
I've seen previously Max using the 'late apex' tactic to defend a
position, but to have been caught by others using it on two recent
occasions on him suggests Max has still got lessons to learn.
Doubtless we'll see how this plays out...
Nope.
On 9/16/2021 6:52 AM, JohnM wrote:
The steward's report was hardly a model of clarity in setting out the
incident in detail and going through the incident stage by stage.
Merely saying, as they did, that despite Hamilton being in the wrong
place his actions were reasonable, might be the position they took,
but making the leap from 'wrong place' to 'reasonable' in the space of
a few words did on the face of it, seem unreasonable - hence my posting.
I've seen previously Max using the 'late apex' tactic to defend a
position, but to have been caught by others using it on two recent
occasions on him suggests Max has still got lessons to learn.
Doubtless we'll see how this plays out...
If Stewards institutionalize this 'wrong-with-right-to-defend' rubric,
the ability to pursue an 'over-under' through a series of corners was
just killed, dead. And they wonder why race crowds are in decline?
On 2021-09-20 8:04 a.m., News wrote:I wonder, hypothetically, what Max would have done / said if Lewis had
On 9/16/2021 6:52 AM, JohnM wrote:
The steward's report was hardly a model of clarity in setting out the
incident in detail and going through the incident stage by stage.
Merely saying, as they did, that despite Hamilton being in the wrong
place his actions were reasonable, might be the position they took,
but making the leap from 'wrong place' to 'reasonable' in the space of
a few words did on the face of it, seem unreasonable - hence my posting. >>
I've seen previously Max using the 'late apex' tactic to defend a
position, but to have been caught by others using it on two recent
occasions on him suggests Max has still got lessons to learn.
Doubtless we'll see how this plays out...
If Stewards institutionalize this 'wrong-with-right-to-defend' rubric,Nope.
the ability to pursue an 'over-under' through a series of corners was
just killed, dead. And they wonder why race crowds are in decline?
They said it clumsily, but the actual concept was correct:
When Hamilton chose his line, it was before he was constrained to leave
space for Verstappen. So his line was only "wrong" in the sense that it wasn't the fastest way through the corner.
On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 16:24:59 UTC+1, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-09-20 8:04 a.m., News wrote:I wonder, hypothetically, what Max would have done / said if Lewis had
On 9/16/2021 6:52 AM, JohnM wrote:Nope.
The steward's report was hardly a model of clarity in setting out the
incident in detail and going through the incident stage by stage.
Merely saying, as they did, that despite Hamilton being in the wrong
place his actions were reasonable, might be the position they took,
but making the leap from 'wrong place' to 'reasonable' in the space of >>>> a few words did on the face of it, seem unreasonable - hence my posting. >>>>
I've seen previously Max using the 'late apex' tactic to defend a
position, but to have been caught by others using it on two recent
occasions on him suggests Max has still got lessons to learn.
Doubtless we'll see how this plays out...
If Stewards institutionalize this 'wrong-with-right-to-defend' rubric,
the ability to pursue an 'over-under' through a series of corners was
just killed, dead. And they wonder why race crowds are in decline?
They said it clumsily, but the actual concept was correct:
When Hamilton chose his line, it was before he was constrained to leave
space for Verstappen. So his line was only "wrong" in the sense that it
wasn't the fastest way through the corner.
braked even later for the right hand section and effectively driven
himself through the mid part of the chicane alongside the sausage kerbs.
Max would have had to have gone for the option of cutting the corner, and Lewis' line would have been so slow that his exit from the left hand corner would have been very poor and Max inevitably ended up ahead.
Max would no doubt have taken the position, but would feel aggrieved in having to gift the place back as he would see Lewis' slow line as being
the reason for his place gain, even if it did happen off track.
And he'd also argue he'd been forced off the track.
That's the extreme end of Lewis' late / missed apex approach, isn't it?
It is, but it's also moot.
There is no necessity for Hamilton to brake so late that his car leaves
the track.
The thing that people often appear not to get about road racing is that
there are times when you are committed to a line. And it's only when an overtaking driver achieves a certain position BEFORE the car he is
attempting to overtake is actually committed that a move is legal.
Hamilton made his choice on line into the first chicane when he could
see what Verstappen would try to do, but before Verstappen was
sufficiently in position to be obligated to give V room. Once committed
to that line, it's no longer even POSSIBLE for Hamilton to tighten it
enough to leave Verstappen any room.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 130:06:32 |
| Calls: | 6,855 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,360 |
| Messages: | 5,417,933 |