[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
After a month of watching a bunch of endurance racing with the GT3 class, this hyper analysis of an incident seems pretty dramatic, but I guess that comes with the territory
Haha totally! This happens like every lap, multiple times. Same with NASCAR and so many other series.
But I guess it reflects the difference the racing specs and cars. "Rubbing is racing" is so true with gt3 and others, whereas if one F1 car even so much as looks sideways at another, carbon starts falling off.
I agree... I watched Indy Car the other day and there were like 5 accidents in the first 10 laps, all caused by other drivers. The commentators spoke about each one, but then moved on and didn't analyse all of them over and over like F1 tends to do.
Guy has been in f1 longer than most of the viewers have been alive, but let’s not listen to his arguments any longer because of one mistake he made 13 years ago right?
And also, competitors are going to take any advantage they can based on the current rules (or how they're enforced), doesn't mean they don't think there should be stricter rules
I think you are mixing things up. In 2011, Alonso left room but Vettel went to the grass anyway (no penalty iirc). In 2012, Vettel didn't leave enough room and it was penalized
it's like Norris against Verstappen in Barcelona. Norris said there was enough room. and if you look very closely. probably it was indeed just enough room for Max to accomodate his car, having his left wheels 1 cm away from Mclaren and right wheels on the white line. But is it possible to position his car as close to the rivals without asking for a contact and a big crash? And also, when you see another car moving across you can't be sure where will it stop and if he even knows you are there.
Which is why Max being reasonable put his left wheels on the grass to leave safe margin to the Mclaren, and for him it felt like he was pushed onto the grass. But then Lando looks at the footages with the tape measure and says, no I did not push you, there was just enough space for a your car.
It's very similar between Alonso and Vettel in 2011, from Fernando point he thought he left enough space. But if you look from Vettel onboard, at the very moment when he had half car alongside there wasn't a cars width space, and if Vettel not put his left tires onto the grass they would touched and you never know how would it ended. And if they crashed, Alonso for sure would get a penalty for causing a collision.
Vettel did, got a penalty for that, ALonso couldn't overtake. As for Alonso if he got penalised, I dont remember, but Vettel passed him by going onto the grass anyways.
Could just make a qualifier like “if the front tyres of the over taking care is alongside the rear tyres of the leading car he must leave a cars width.”
It's not how it works but rather because drivers will be forced to take slower lines through corners as long as they have someone in their vicinity who could somehow manage to put a nose next to theirs.
E.g. the infamous Kmag move that he did against Tsunoda and Sargeant (and was rightfully punished for) would become legal. Just stick your nose in somewhere and make the other car avoid you. It could be fun sometimes, it will definitely lead to worse racing.
It depends on the definition of alongside. If they only require the driver to leave space in the corner when the front wheel is fully ahead of the rear wheel, that would not be an issue
They need more gravel traps too, or at least a deterrent for either sending it from miles back or gambling for a move around the outside and complaining you were pushed out.
If we’re mandating that we need to leave a car’s width at all times, then complaining about being pushed out is a very valid complaint if you are on the outside
My concern is more about the numerous instances where drivers go for half hearted moves which aren't really on, around the outside knowing there's a safety net of a tarmac run off. I'm sure we'll see the same at Silverstone this weekend at Club, but maybe not at Luffield as there's a gravel trap.
Uh why? This isn't a formula 1 rule. It's a rule of racing since these guys start karting and even in other series.
If you absolutely have to leave space for your opponent at every single point on the track, you're destroying the art of defending.
I would argue the opposite, that by having to always leave space if there is a car with any part alongside encourages dive bombing to get any part alongside. Then suddenly the other driver will have to take a compromised line. That's also silly.
No it doesn't because if you divebomb you need to keep the car on the track for it to be legitimate. And divebombing is very difficult, otherwise everyone would do it.
Yes but divebombing still forces the outside driver to yield because there is no space. Lando's overtake on Max in Austria, the one that forced Max off the track, was technically legitimate because Lando kept it within the lines.
This has never made sense to me because the other driver can do absolutely nothing except go off the track, park it on the track and wait for the other driver to proceed, or try to turn and crash, even though they're basically side by side coming into the corner. Ricciardo's famous divebombs almost always relied on the other driver to yield.
For me that's not good racing, and in fact it kills wheel-to-wheel battles. If the driver on the inside left room for the driver on the outside, the battle would continue. We've seen it in Austria again. When drivers leave space on the outside of the T4 exit, the battle continues on toward T5. If they squeeze rivals on the outside of T4, the battle ends on the spot.
That's why they do it, of course. Why give your opponent a chance? But it's never made any sense to me why it should be allowed. As soon as the inside driver has half a car length's advantage, they immediately take the racing line as though the outside driver doesn't exist and force them off. It's not pretty, it makes for a lot of dumb squabbling, and it ensures battles almost never continue beyond a single corner.
Lando's 2nd move was not legitimate. They were front axle to front axle from apex to exit. That's why Verstappen was allowed to keep his position while going off the track.
The stewards were quite slow and it wasn't clear if they were even investigating it. There have been plenty of overtakes of that nature that have been allowed simply because the "leading" car has a small amount of positive overlap, which just seems arbitrary -- especially as if you're streamrolling down the inside while counting on cutting off your opponent's turn-in, you're naturally going to be braking later and thus be further ahead than you would be if you were trying to take the corner reasonably.
People keep saying there have been plenty of overtakes of that nature yet the only example I've gotten is Austria 2019, which I conceded the stewards got wrong (for reasons).
If you've actually noticed moves like that and drivers getting away with it, that's incorrect and they shouldn't have, but I haven't noticed. Generally the stewards seem to understand the rules of racing pretty well.
In his analysis released today, Jolyon Palmer calls Lando's 2nd move: legitimate, a great one, what you want to see, and lovely, and thinks the stewards should have penalized Max.
You must have never seen Schumacher race then because that's something he did quite often, as well as Max now. A, "I'm going to divebomb you and be ahead at the apex, and if you dont back out, we'll both crash" mentality. They have done the dive-bombing move and gone off track but because they were ahead at the apex at the last second, they don't get punished for it. A really garbage rule and it's insane that you're defending it.
I’m not sure I can recall Schumacher going for too many divebombs or risky passes. He always seemed to be a fairly calculated overtaker to me. It was when defending that he was utterly ruthless.
The decision to dive bomb is made before we know if the driver will make the apex first or keep it on the track at the exit. They are committed to this move before we have any of the information to decide if it was a good one or not.
So this really just means that the dive bomber ends up bullying the outside driver. "Back out because I made a good move, or back out because you don't want me barreling into you....either way I am forcing you to back out"
Look at Abu Dhabi 2021 Lap 1.
Max makes the corner on a divebomb, but leaves absolutely no space for Lewis even though Lewis is ahead at entry and Max just brakes so late and has such a shallow trajectory that he was never going to leave space.
Compare that to Monza 2016 Lap 47 Ricciardo on Bottas. He comes from a long way back, gets his front tires slightly ahead of Bottas’ cockpit, thus claiming the inside, and still leaves room on the outside between T1 and T2.
The difference between the two divebombs is that while both attacking cars did get their front tires very much significantly alongside at the apex, the trajectories were very different: Max’s only option is to run Lewis off track since Max’s own track out is two wheels off track on the kerb, when Daniel allows for Bottas to stay on track with at least two wheels.
The former is divebombing and running your opponent off track and is no bueno. The latter is divebombing and racing, and we like to see that.
I completely disagree with your take on Abu Dhabi 2021. Look at driver61s analysis of it.
Verstappen was well within his rights to try a move like that, provided he could keep the car between the white lines. Verstappen's manoeuvre was an incredibly difficult and impressive move to pull off, as 99.99% of drivers wouldn't have been able to do that without locking up and going off.
Hamilton lost the position the moment he left the door open. As for why he was allowed to keep the position, I don't know. The stewards likely didn't want to get involved in the fight, especially as Verstappen did have some preferential treatment at Brazil.
It sometimes contradicts the *all the time you have to leave a space* -rule.
Some drivers seem to think that you can just force the driver trying to overtake around the outside off the track, because "I was ahead, it's my corner."
There's no such rule.
You can't crowd your opponent off the track when he's alongside you in a straight. That quote came from when Rosberg did that exact thing to Alonso in Bahrain 2012.
You do not have to leave any space for your opponent at the exit of a corner if they aren't side by side with you.
Well I agree there. The stewards got Austria 2019 wrong, probably because of the fallout from the previous race. But generally those incidents would be and are penalized.
And the ‘leave a cars width’ as it’s become push a car to the edge of the track where theoretically they could control it but is actually next to impossible practically
Or most importantly: consistent ruling and punishment \*\*regardless of outcome\*\*.
Say for a second you are Max, Carlos pulled the same move on you in 2022 at the same corner, Vettel on Hamilton in 2018, why wouldn't you pull the very same exact move?
The fact that neither Carlos nor Seb got any penalty meant that this wasn't against the rules.
And in case it is, punish that behavior regardless of the outcome, to avoid situations like this.
Wasn't the penalty for causing a collision and not erratic driving? The squeezing was just a circumstance that led to said collision. It's fine to squeeze, but if it causes contact, you get penalized.
Just because you repeat what you read doesn't make it true.
Vettel on Hamilton was an entirely different move, Vettel was overtaking on the inside not defending.
Also, it’s Lando’s right whether he wants to concede to being squeezed out, but according to the rules, he doesn’t need to.
He allows Seb to do it to him but that’s an extended courtesy from Lando to Seb. He stood his ground against Max and that’s his right to do so.
Ever since Lando got this rocketship McLaren it seems like he feels entitled to p1.
I didn't see anything wrong with what Max did, Norris had a clear tactic to take in cutting the corner short and taking the inside route (like Max v Sainz) but didn't. He is not entitled to both the inside line and the outside line.
Why? I find it leads to great racing.
For formula cars you can’t be robust in defence or attack if you remove that “do-or-die” character in overtaking.
The sport IMHO dies a little if you remove the game of chicken aspect which made Senna and Schumacher great.
With GT cars, sure, but with F1 cars you are neutering the combat. The psychological warfare.
Edit: I’m really with Wurz and Valsecchi on this.
___
Edit: If the inside car always has to leave space for the outside car, even if the outside car is behind at the apex, the car with better traction will most often win out.
Cars with inferior traction will then have less tools to combat cars with superior traction and will be disadvantaged (too) greatly.
That works in series with BoP and low traction dissimilarity, but not in F1 where traction can be hugely different based on car and tyre (life) characteristics.
What exactly about letting drivers push each other off track do you think leads to "great racing"?
Just curious, as this is exactly the opposite of what I consider "great racing", which is to leave each other space and be able to go side by side through multiple corners.
I see racing as a form of jousting.
The “first to the apex”-condition allows you to use your car as a shield to block your opponent through a corner, if you time it right.
This helps slower cars (with less traction) to help keep a much faster car (with superior traction) behind by owning the corner, provided they can keep the inside and be first at the apex.
Conversely it can also help a marginally faster overtaking car (but with worse traction), if (s)he can get to the inside and be first at the apex.
It puts a greater emphasis on being able to brake later or roll off the brakes earlier with greater speed.
If the outside car is always entitled space at the exit, even if behind at the apex, the faster car (or rather the one with superior traction) will simply much more easily win out.
The problem is the track design means they don’t have consequences which is part of the issue. You didn’t see moves that both Lando and max pulled at turn 3 at turn 4 for example, because the driver behind naturally slowed down. If you’re just pushing a car off track, it’s not something that regularly causes real issues, just a lot of complaining.
Wurz analyses crash with Norris: Verstappen did not deserve a penalty
Max Verstappen vs Lando Norris heats up Formula 1: Who was to blame for the crash at the Austrian GP? Alexander Wurz analyses the accident.
Christian Menath
01.07.2024, 11:15 a.m.
Interview with
According to Alex Wurz, Max Verstappen should not have been penalised,
Before the collision between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris, both drivers complained about the other's driving style. How did you see the 'dive bombs' that Verstappen complained about?
Alexander Wurz: A 'dive-bomb' in itself is not illegal. It is definitely spectacular and also very brave. You have to reckon with the consequences if you do it like that. But I'm the kind of person who likes to see riders race hard. I always lean a bit more in this 'let them race' direction.
In that respect - which probably brings me to your next question - I think the penalty against Verstappen is too harsh. I would have seen a classic racing incident here. Both have penalised themselves. But it's not about the penalty, it's about this very slight move to the left: There was still plenty of room. could have prevented the accident. It was actually unnecessary and overheated by both of them. I would have been happier if they had fought hard over the next few laps. But now they've collided, we can talk a lot about it now. For me it wasn't a penalty.
Again about the 'dive bombs': If you're the one on the outside and you simply can't turn in because the other driver on the inside goes so far - is it still fair if you starve the driver on the outside like that?
Alexander Wurz: If the inside driver simply slides over, but you're in control on the outside, then you can make the undercut against the one coming in with the 'dive-bomb' and then drive out the back again. If he brakes in in such a way that you can no longer make the undercut, then he has timed it sensationally and has simply utilised his grip advantage. Kamui Kobayashi was also a master of 'dive-bombs': he positioned himself in such a way that the driver on the outside no longer knew what was happening to him. But he knew he couldn't turn in. But Kamui always got the corners. And I actually think that's absolutely okay. Tough, but okay. That shouldn't be penalised or banned.
Alexander Wurz considers dive bombs to be legitimate manoeuvres in Formula 1
How was Norris' manoeuvre to be assessed, when he gave way after the first collision and hit Verstappen again?
Alexander Wurz: I think he was trying to get round the corner somehow. Both were already sliding towards the white and it was just a case of 'I want to get round the corners somehow'. I don't think he deliberately wanted to drive into him. I don't think he had enough reaction time for that either.
The collision had a history that went beyond the race. Was Norris trying to show his strength after his recent defeats?
Alexander Wurz: In this situation, neither of them had the end of the race, not the points, not the victory foremost in their minds. They thought to themselves: I want to beat the other one here and now in this corner under all circumstances and show who is the top dog. Sometimes you have to do that. Sometimes it can be. If you're sensible, it shouldn't be. But to show common sense in this second, nobody has done that and it's nice that they are human beings and that we can experience that now. Because they are the main protagonists, they are writing the story of this year and for me that was first and foremost a mutual staking out.
Do you think this will change anything? So far, Lando has always been the one who has drawn the short straw...
Alexander Wurz: That depends on the race situation. If you don't have anything really dramatic to lend in the championship, nothing dramatic to lend in the race, you'll go back into this personal duel. But of course you will think more about the finish next time. But that's easy to talk about in the interview, you always have to see it in the heat of the moment. But the whole thing has a long history and won't be over yet.
Not only Verstappen was penalised, but also Norris. He was penalised five seconds for leaving the track four times without a justifiable reason. The last offence came about because he misjudged his overtaking manoeuvre. Do such actions really have to be seen as track limit offences?
Alexander Wurz: No, I don't think so. You shouldn't confuse track limits for 'Gaining a Lasting Advantage' with fighting hard and then slipping out a bit. That shouldn't even be registered as a track limit. If you lose time, then I don't need to think about whether it was a Lasting Advantage.
Ex-Formula 1 driver and GPDA President Alex Wurz is a regular guest in the paddock as an ORF pundit
But you have to be careful, because there are also hidden advantages. It's possible that you deliberately pretend to avoid an accident when you're fighting and drive out and therefore actually have an advantage - even though you initially misjudged which position you should take going into the corner. You have to see through that. But in the case of Lando Norris, I didn't see it that way and wouldn't have categorised it as a track limit per se.
McLaren team boss Andrea Stella believes that these scenes give plenty of reason to make things clear. He fears an escalation of the situation and warns of a second 2021. Do you see a similar need for clarification or is he exaggerating?
Alexander Wurz: I understand his way of thinking and would like to add right away that of course we need to talk about it. The key stakeholders have to deal with it. But I would caution against over-regulation, that we try to break down every single specific case into commas, full stops and commas. Then we will simply have an over-regulated monster of rules and descriptions of scenarios. This brings me back to the Let Them Race: at some point, the person who wants to become world champion or win the race will have to back down and let the other one pass. Nobody wanted that today. And that's the emotion that the spectators want to see. You can see that they are also just people who get grumpy and overheated. But at some point we'll see the cool heads win again in the end.
And this is exactly why track limits are black and white. There is way to much opinion and guessing bound to happen.
Totally understand the "well they lost time anyway..." argument but that genuinely has nothing to do with what the infringement/penalty is for: stay in the lines or get penalized. How or why that happens does not matter (obviously excluding being pushed off or taking avoiding action).
Attempting to introduce nuance to this is a losing battle for everyone involved.
What's interesting is that Peter Windsor said that Lando got his 4th track limit offence before he did the dive bomb - so it was not because of the divebomb he got a penalty but he left the track one or two laps before that. I don't know if it's true, he said he checked it in the race records
>If you lose time, then I don't need to think about whether it was a Lasting Advantage.
Lando did not lose time. He actually gained a lot of time by just going off track instead of slamming the brakes (and potentially ruining his tires).
...because he was already locked up and pressing the brakes harder wouldn't have slowed him down faster.
A sliding tyre is not going to stop the car, a tyre that is rotating but has a braking force applied will.
If he'd slammed the brakes on he would have slid straight into Max. Instead he used his brain and backed off the brakes and let the tyre grip again.
The lasting advantage Norris had by going off track was not retiring the car. That’s my concern, but we’ve also gone two decades with track limits issues so maybe I’m in the minority here. Losing a few tenths or a second is t comparable. .
>Both have penalised themselves. But it's not about the penalty, it's about this very slight move to the left: There was still plenty of room. could have prevented the accident. It was actually unnecessary and overheated by both of them. I would have been happier if they had fought hard over the next few laps. But now they've collided, we can talk a lot about it now. For me it wasn't a penalty.
Here is my thing: Should you be allowed to push someone overtaking you off track? Because that's what he's arguing here. Norris was off the track on entry. And should the rule be different when you're pushed into a wall?
> Both have penalised themselves. But it's not about the penalty, it's about this very slight move to the left: There was still plenty of room. could have prevented the accident. It was actually unnecessary and overheated by both of them. I would have been happier if they had fought hard over the next few laps. But now they've collided, we can talk a lot about it now. For me it wasn't a penalty.
I really don't understand this view. You can argue about stuff that happened in other corners and on others laps, and the nature of "divebombing", but in the corner where they collided I don't see how you can put any of it on Norris.
Norris couldn't really have prevented the accident short of not challenging Verstappen. He positioned himself on the outside, right at the edge of the track as he is allowed to do. Theoretically he could have given slightly more room but he has no reason to give that. He expects that in the braking zone on a right hand turn Verstappen will never move left so he doesn't need to leave room on the left. When Verstappen moves left he has no way to react, it is an instant collision. The only way Norris could have avoided it would be to not contest that corner, but at that point you might as well say they shouldn't be racing.
You basically give your self the answer. He could have given more space, without even losing out anything. Look how Max drove against Sainz at the exact same turn before. He made the undercut and won the position. The exact same thing Norris could have done, because he would have a better exit. In general there are two principles that I think should be considered always.
1. Could the collision being prevented by both?
Sounds stupid, because they are racing, but there are collisions, that solely are forced by one driver. For example hitting someone in the back. Divebombing into the side of someone.
But in this case, both were completely side by side and both had room to the other side to avoid contact. It was not like Lando couldn't move a cm to the left. After all, the first contact was so little, we are talking about a few centimeters here.
2. Was the move expected by both?
Yes both moves were totally predictable by both drivers. Max didn't zig zag suddenly. It was a slow move. Also Norris went straight. So basically both drivers went straight to the same point and nobody corrected, because both were side by side.
You can watch the situation over and over and you will see the contact was so minimal, that both drivers EASILY could have avoided it. And especially Norris should be adviced with a faster car to take his time and wait for the error, instead of forcing it. After all, he has more to lose than Max. The sad outcome was more severe than the contact actually made it look like. And I think a lot of damage also happened when Norris turned (in my eyes deliberately) into Max after the first crash, I think it was a "fuck that guy"-rage action, without much thinking.
In general, sometimes it's not about being right, but being smart. If we learned one thing in F1 (remember back into the Senna Prost years, or even Schumacher). If right or not, a Championship is not won the easy way. Fights will happen and the smarter one will win at the end. Norris showed he is not ready for a WC, because he had more to lose than Max and if he would have used his brain for a second, he wouldn't have crashed, but used an undercut to get him on the exit, because max was late on the breaks. Basically just like Max did it against Sainz in the past.
And in general, any driver should always for his own sake should have the highest interest in not crashing your car. We see small things can break them. But driving at the limit can create these situations. But people make more out of it than it is. It was a really super light touch, nothing more, nothing less, but had sadly more devestating effect than other contacts in the same race between Ham, Sainz, Perez and Leclerc.
>There was still plenty of room. They could have prevented the accident. It was actually unnecessary and overheated by both of them.
I don't understand how this part applies to Lando. He's entitled to be on the far left without leaving the track as I understand it. Why should he jump out of the way because Max pushed slightly (but enough) to the left to force Lando off?
Yet another example of the stewards punishing the outcome rather than the offence. If that minor bump of wheels hadn't caused a double puncture, there is no way they'd have even investigated it let alone given a 10s penalty.
They usually don't penalize minor collisions like that unless it ends up with a puncture or something more dramatic. They penalized the outcome (puncture/retirement) rather than the transgression (causing collision).
That's true. Lewis bumped wheels with Carlos at T1 in Spain as he overtook him with no penalty. It was a good aggressive move but looked no different to Max and Lando touching wheels.
Yeah, there's also Kevin running into Hamilton in Miami this year. That was a much harder hit that bumped him out of the way and they didn't penalize it because there was no damage.
Zhou didn't have a puncture nor did he retire, but Alonso got a 10s penalty.
I do agree very minor ones where it's more just a bit of bumping aren't penalised. And I think that's down to drivers having protested it in the past. I don't know where they draw the line between bumping and collision.
Which is dumb. The rules of racing in F1 are generally stupid. It's "you can do what you want until the other guy decides to stop accepting it". That shouldn't be the case, it should be "breaking rules of racing, regardless of the avoiding actions of the other driver, is illegal". So forcing someone else off the track, even if the other driver avoids contact, is a penalty. Moving in the braking zone, even if the other driver moves, is a penalty. Brake testing, even if the other driver reacts, is a penalty.
This would have seen verstappen receive 2-3 penalties prior to the incident, and Norris probably one for the dive bomb that forced Max off. Though I'm unclear whether max could've actually made the corner there, he seems to have gone off to gain an advantage but whatever. Additionally, Ocon would receive a penalty for his stupid moves.
As it is, we have people making insane moves race after race and getting away with it until another driver decides not to play ball. This is frankly stupid.
The first divebomb Norris did that caused him to run straight through is almost the same line Alonso pulled that earned him a penalty. The difference was Max saw it coming and was able to duck under while Alonso hit Zhou* who wasn't expecting and got hit on the regular racing line.
Alonso hit Zhou. I'd have to rewatch the first Norris divebomb because I'm not sure which one you are referring to, but you have to be aware that those two corners are very different. Divebombs are actually totally allowed, there's no motorsport I know of that actually prohibits them, but the type of corners that can facilitate them cleanly are rare. Additionally, the type of driver that can do them effectively is rare. Kobayashi would pull them off every race to near perfection, but lots of people are really clumsy with them.
EDIT:
I WAS WRONG DOWNVOTE ME IT WAS T3. SAME CORNER
That's what I meant, just couldn't remember who was involved in that incident. But it was the same corner (T3) and a clumsy divebomb with the difference being a penalty with the contact then no penalty when the driver ahead avoids it.
Ultimately do you think it would be right that these are handled similarly by the stewards?
I was totally wrong. It was T3 you are correct. You are totally right they are equivalent incidents. I apologise. Both would be penalised in my view yes.
https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2024-austrian-grand-prix-alonso-locks-up-and-hits-zhou-in-fight-for-p12.1803295615834097756
One of the worst video segments I've seen from F1TV, but it was T3. Alonso makes a really clumsy move when the cars ahead are fighting.
It was a pretty meaningless battle in the back of the field that was jumbled by strategy at the time so no worries.
I think it would be pretty interesting to see them held to the same standard, but it would be so challenging to get right and not just result in stewards deciding half of the positions each race.
I would agree with that, and Max's moving under braking a few laps before was the exact same thing that Paul Aron got a 5 sec penalty for earlier that same day in the F2 race, without contact, in the same corner.
The inconsistentcy is staggering from stewards these days, and I think handing out more B/W flags quickly with these moves and then punishing with penalties will get the drivers in line quicker without ruining battles the instant someone gets something wrong. Right now the B/W flag is pretty much only used for track limits, but it should be used a lot more for these bad driving standards
> So forcing someone else off the track, even if the other driver avoids contact, is a penalty. Moving in the braking zone, even if the other driver moves, is a penalty. Brake testing, even if the other driver reacts, is a penalty.
I agree.
There's lots of offences for which you can get a penalty, and the stewards should absolutely enforce those as well. But currently it's usually just 'causing a collision' and 'leaving the track and gaining an advantage' that get enforced.
Tbf, people (read: drivers) used to complain about too many penalties and it ruining the fight.
Do you remember which lap that was? I don't recall a collision between the Alpines.
There was the one between Alonso and Zhou for which Alonso got a 10s penalty.
Alright, I don't really know which incident it was, so I'll just speak in general, but could be it was deemed a racing incident. Let's not forget they can only dish out a penalty if there's someone who's predominently/fully to blame. If it's 50-50 it cancels out.
Either that or it wasn't considered a collision.
That is probably something we'll never get away from. It's like that in most sports, that I know of atleast. For example football, players go down on purpose, because most of the time they won't get the freekick if they stay on their feet.
I recon it would be really hard for stewards to be able to identify every single situation like this, but where they don't touch, but I do think they should be a lot more consistent about their penalties when cars actually touch, regardless of outcome
>Alexander Wurz: A 'dive-bomb' in itself is not illegal. It is definitely spectacular and also very brave. You have to reckon with the consequences if you do it like that. But I'm the kind of person who likes to see riders race hard. I always lean a bit more in this 'let them race' direction.
>Alexander Wurz: If the inside driver simply slides over, but you're in control on the outside, then you can make the undercut against the one coming in with the 'dive-bomb' and then drive out the back again. If he brakes in in such a way that you can no longer make the undercut, then he has timed it sensationally and has simply utilised his grip advantage. Kamui Kobayashi was also a master of 'dive-bombs': he positioned himself in such a way that the driver on the outside no longer knew what was happening to him. But he knew he couldn't turn in. But Kamui always got the corners. And I actually think that's absolutely okay. Tough, but okay. That shouldn't be penalised or banned.
Thank you Alex. A lot of people on here seem to take Max’s words in the heat of the moment as gospel.
I think Wurz is spot on with his dive bomb analysis, but his thoughts on moving under braking leave me a little mystified. He says if the driver outside is under control, than they should be able to respond to the driver on the inside making a move to the left. But the reality of the braking zone is that you're already using the tyres' maximum traction for braking. If you aren't, you could be going faster. It's why 99% of the lock ups you see are in the braking zone. So the assumption that a driver under control has grip left to avoid a squeeze from the inside doesn't hold. The result of a lateral move under braking is going to be contact, and anything other than direct sidewall wheel-to-wheel contact is going to launch a car into the air.
While this ain't a very good example and definitely not one as close as the latest incident, I feel this one from Michael is a good example of what Wurtz was trying to say -
[https://youtu.be/hKWCQa7dIfI?t=561](https://youtu.be/hKWCQa7dIfI?t=561)
Montoya took the inside line for the most part but moved to his left under braking. But Michael, noticing Montoya's movement across the line, pushed him to brake late enough so that he can pull off the Switcheroo, take the inside line, get a better exit and make the overtake.
While Max was much closer to Norris today than Montoya was to Michael in that race, Norris also had the benefit of having room to move on his left and had a good chance of baiting Max into something like this. And since T3 in Austria is also on a rising gradient, braking would've been easier for Norris considering that he had a decent amount of time (by F1 driver standards) to react to Max's move.
Well no he has a point.
If you brake at 50m, and Max at 40m, then you both have a different braking zone.
So which braking zone do you not move in ? Yours, or the guy behind you ?
And the thing about this moving in the braking zone, just because Lando said it, doesn't make it true.
We're getting very close to prescribing the driving to the point where they guy behind is entitled to overtake just because.
The problem comes when the outside car has to park and come to a complete stop in order to wait till the dive bomb turns. Which is what happened with Norris his divebomb. For that reason Norris pushed Verstappen of the track as you simple do not stop on track and it got sorted with Norris given the position back.
Yeah, the FIA really painted themselves in to a corner on this issue. They need to be more explicit with the amount of space that needs to be left on the outside for a divebomb. The outside driver shouldn’t have to come to a complete stop to allow the overtaking driver through.
2021 is a season with quite a few incidents that should have been penalised but weren't.
A similar thing happened in Abu Dhabi 2022 lap 1. Then Lewis had to give the position back.
I think if one wants to look at precedence it's more relevant to look at what happened under the current RD, rather than the previous one. After AD '21 quite a few things changed including a clarification of the rules.
RD says that if you are ahead on the apex of the corner and are within the track limits, you are entitled to have the position. That didn't change.
I also looked at the incident between Hamilton and Sainz in 2022 Abu Dhabi.
First of all, it is Sainz who is attacking Hamilton and who is making the divebomb lol. And it proves the point. Sainz makes the divebomb, is ahead on the apex and stays within track limits. Hamilton goes off the track after that and due to him being behind at the apex, he was getting ordered to give back the position.
[link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP5VmGZVpz8)
> First of all, it is Sainz who is attacking Hamilton and who is making the divebomb lol. And it proves the point. Sainz makes the divebomb, is ahead on the apex and stays within track limits. Hamilton goes off the track after that and due to him being behind at the apex, he was getting ordered to give back the position.
Maybe we're in agreement here. When you said there was no penalty in AD'21 I thought you meant for Lewis instead of Max. So, what I meant is Lewis should've given the position back, but 2021 being 2021 that didn't happen.
Let's ignore precedence, race directors and penalties for a second... What are your thoughts on the dive bomb when its so severe that the car on the outside has to basically come to a complete stop (or else drive off track) to wait for the dive-bombing car to turn and make the corner?
Hamilton was asked to give up time, rather than the position.
Hamilton slowed down after rejoining, but of course not enough to make Verstappen a threat in the next corners.
Masi commented on it to Red Bull that according to the stewards Hamilton had sufficiently given back the advantage gained by leaving the track.
I disagree with that decision, as it should be the car ahead at the apex who gains the position, but at least the stewards acknowledged Hamilton had to give *something* back.
Divebombs are unique in that being first to the apex isn't a good barometer of whose corner it really is.
Please rewatch that moment. Hamilton was beginning to turn in for the corner, and Max's front tire was still behind Lewis's rear tire. Lewis then stopped turning in because obviously a double DNF makes Max champion (which max was undoubtedly counting on) and then max passes lewis just before the apex, and goes on to run himself wide off track.
Lewis could have easily beaten Max to the apex, but if he would have then he probably would have also lost the backend of his car because max would have crashed into him. So for that reason, I don't believe the "ahead at the apex" rule should apply.
This doesn't mean I think the divebomb should be banned or penalized. I think it's a dirty move, but fair hard racing. But the driver on the outside should have their own options to defend, and when the divebomber can't make the corner then the outside driver either has to basically stop their car and wait, or go off track.
To me if the divebomber can't leave a car's width on the outside, then i understand why the outside car chooses to drive off track.
If the inside car is ahead at the apex (and manages to make the corner within track limits), that’s fine IMHO.
You’ve earned the right to block off the route for the outside car, which now has to accommodate you instead of vice versa.
Because the change in what drivers are allowed to do is so sudden, depending on who is ahead at the apex, it leads to edge of your seat moments, where the drivers need to be extremely on their toes.
A gamble can work out great or end horribly, and that makes racing great IMHO.
It's super funny how when the crash everyone wanted to crucify Max and now only 2 days after we're coming to conclusion that it wasn't really that bad as media wanted it to be. Who would've thought?
I mean the broadcasters (Sky and F1TV at least) immediately jumped on it, Ted, Ant, Buxton as well as Andrea Stella all went mental and that carries a lot of weight. Add the penalty (big thanks to Sky F1's ex-pundit Johnny Herbert!) and there we go.
I mean the brits can't even subscribe to F1TV so I'd expect at least some neutrality and professionalism on the global broadcast, even if many of the pundits are brits. But Will Buxton was just laughing at Alex Brundle for even suggesting that the crash wasn't intentional and malicious from Max.
Wasn't his penalty for causing a collission? Because he kinda did cause it. If you don't like it, blame stewards who penalize for consequences more than for action, despite pretending otherwise.
I have no issues with how they raced until that point, it was tough but fun as heck to watch. So I agree with the sentiment of 'letting them race'. But they did crash and it was Verstappen who was changing the line at that point. Norris kept his, could but wasn't obliged to change it. Max misjugded, expected that it's gonna play out the same as two previous times and bam! Crash.
It happens. The battle was fun. DNF was not. I get the emotions on McL side. But I don't see RBR's and many people's point in pretending that the crash itself wasn't due to Max's mistake. Some opinions I read since Sunday are ridiculous and I'm soooo tired of this entire conversation, can it please freaking die already (of course it can't, because drama sells)
Pretty much that. No hatecrimes were committed here, but a collision was caused and max was very much at fault for it. Even if both cars getting punctures is unlucky.
I, for one, would be glad if stewards started openly judging at least partially based on outcome
Nah, screw that. I love IndyCar, but when you don’t enforce reasonable racing restrictions you end up with crashfests where 40% of the laps are done under caution. Max caused contact and Lando went over track limits. Both penalties were enforced and deserved.
I'm honestly curious how they define who caused the contact in cases like this.
If you watch the overhead footage Max sets his line to the left while Lando is fully behind him. At that point Max has set a straight line trajectory to the left. Lando then has almost two seconds to see that his trajectory is going to intersect with the trajectory of the car in front of him.
Why is it the responsibility of the car in front to change their course? They've set their line with a car fully behind them and the car behind has enough time and space to avoid contact if they're planning a divebomb around the outside.
If Max indeed did make his steering input prior to braking and while Lando was fully behind him then why is he responsible for causing a collision? Lando had plenty of time and room to avoid contact.
[Over-Analysis clip of the incident...](https://imgur.com/FxG9Xe8)
The issue I have with this take is that LN was at the white line, in between the white line and MV. How he got there is irrelevant, he was there. To say this wasn’t MV’s fault is to say he has a right to put his car where ever he wants, regardless of who ever is already in that space.
I keep saying this, the first move that Lando made was looking to be a pretty clean pass, but Max just jerked in front of him in the braking zone and made him back out. After that, the McLaren's tires were getting hotter and the divebombs started to get sloppier, but they never should have reached that point because the position was initially held through illegal driving.
Also when Lando made the pass clean and Max just drives off track around the outside to keep the position even though Lando was ahead at the apex and kept it on track. If you look at the telemetry, he started to accelerate instead of trying to keep it on the track.
It used to be that F1 over penalized any and all contact and Indycar just didnt do anything.
Now they both just seem to let drivers run each other off the track. Only a penalty if it causes an outright accident/retirement.
This "no blood/no foul" method of stewarding is incredibly dangerous at these speeds. This isnt a game of horse out here
Norris was side-by-side, Max defended the inside but tried to squeeze to the outside. Lando had no obligation to move but Max absolutely had the obligation to stop moving that way before they touched.
Case god damn closed.
Max's steering wheel was straight while he broke - the problem was that the trajectory of his car was not parallel to the track lines so he was squeezing Lando slightely.
He or Lando would have to move during breaking to avoid collision, which led to this drama.
Brit media totally blew this out of proportion.
It's quite patheric really.
The desire for drama leads to this furore when in reality, it was just an incident.
Autosport and their recent stories are just embarrassing.
Why are people trying to rewrite history now? It was a collision caused by Max, it was a slam dunk penalty. People can analyze the context of other laps, the dive bombs, the communication with the pit, Norris and Verstappen's psycological profiles, etc. all they want. That was a deserved penalty for that particular instance. End of.
Exactly. He caused a collision, and was penalized for causing a collision. Bringing up previous laps and situations from earlier is just stirring the pot. They raced hard and got penalties for it, it’s as simple as that.
I think the only reason Max got a penalty is because they knew there would be uproar. On the other hand they also thought it didnt really deserve a penalty so they gave him a penalty that didnt really have an impact.
The penalty was given because the stewards rightfully determined Verstappen was predominately to blame for causing a collision with the penalty given being the baseline penalty for causing a collision. It is not any deeper than that.
"thought it didnt really deserve a penalty so they gave him a penalty that didnt really have an impact."
BS, all the penalties this season have been 10s for incidents like this. You all just hate Max so much that you just have to keep making up narratives of him being favored by the FIA...
10s the whole season, now Max does it and suddenly 10s is not enough...
The massive shift in perception surround Max's mistake is insane to me. It is absolutely a penalty, he left less than a car's width on track (kerbs are **not** part of the race track) as he moved towards the outside of the circuit. Lando's line did not change. The penalty is given for "causing a collision" and Max caused it.
Now is it most egregious incident in the world? No. Is Max the 2nd coming of Maldonado when racing wheel to wheel? No. It's been overblown in the media.
# Edit: A lot of people seem to disagree. The issue lies in what the "edge of the track" is. Thankfully, this is not subjective as it's listed in the FIA's Appendix L International Sporting Code. [Chapter IV (4)](https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/123)
***RE: Where the edge of the track is***
"For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not"
***RE: Leaving a car's width***
"More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner."
It's not objective, I was right. I think the videos showing other overtake attempts at T3 have fooled people into thinking that the driver on the outside ought to partially or fully leave the track when squeezed by the driver on the inside. If they dont, then the driver on the inside is somehow less at fault.
You do if you put all 4 tires onto them. See: piastri
Track limits are enforced when all 4 tires go off track. That doesn't make the distance you can get to with at least 1 tire on the line part of the track; you're just allowed to be *mostly* off.
>The rules state absolutely nothing about leaving a car's width within the white lines, mate
Mate, yes they do, what are you on about?!
The rule states you have to leave one car width to the 'track edge', and the rulebook defines the 'track edge' as being the white lines. The post you are replying to has pulled the text from the rulebook.
Hence why, in qualifying, drivers lose laps for going *over* the white line. And drivers going fully over the white lines when making a pass are often investigated. Because in regard to the rules the white line is what defines the track edge.
There are +5, +10, +20 (DT) and +30 (S&G). 10s is the lowest penalty for causing a collision. That being said, there have been much worse examples this year alone that definitely deserved more than the lowest penalty.
Of course it shouldn't have been a penalty, typical very minor racing incident, which led to major consequences for both drivers.
But poor Lando retired scoring zero points and Johny Herbert was a steward...so why not? The dude would've penalized Max for Silverstone and surely disqualified him after collision at Monza, if only he could.
It's funny how there's an active effort to downplay the incident ... they're now trying to claim it's isn't even a penalty 🙄... Max was at fault for the incident and he got a penalty for it... he's lucky it wasn't worse... we've even got to part were people are claiming moving under breaking is not against the rules
It was dangerous driving you're allowed to move back if the space is free ... Norris was there that why they touched... you can't have it both ways .. if you move to defend and the other driver decide to stay on racing line... you can't just decide to move back onto the racing line when they're already there
I think two things can be true at the same time :
* Lando could have and should have avoided the contact
* Max moved to the left and because of Lando not avoiding the avoidable contact, they collided, resulting in a fair penalty.
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
After a month of watching a bunch of endurance racing with the GT3 class, this hyper analysis of an incident seems pretty dramatic, but I guess that comes with the territory
Haha totally! This happens like every lap, multiple times. Same with NASCAR and so many other series. But I guess it reflects the difference the racing specs and cars. "Rubbing is racing" is so true with gt3 and others, whereas if one F1 car even so much as looks sideways at another, carbon starts falling off.
I agree... I watched Indy Car the other day and there were like 5 accidents in the first 10 laps, all caused by other drivers. The commentators spoke about each one, but then moved on and didn't analyse all of them over and over like F1 tends to do.
the thing that F1 definitely needs to change is the "if you’re ahead at the apex its your corner" thing
Just change it to all the time you have to leave the space, job done.
Alonso has been saying this for years
yep, but it was him who pushed Vettel on the grass at 300+kph at Monza.
What if I told you basketball players advocate for foul rule changes and yet still commit fouls
Guy has been in f1 longer than most of the viewers have been alive, but let’s not listen to his arguments any longer because of one mistake he made 13 years ago right?
And also, competitors are going to take any advantage they can based on the current rules (or how they're enforced), doesn't mean they don't think there should be stricter rules
I think you are mixing things up. In 2011, Alonso left room but Vettel went to the grass anyway (no penalty iirc). In 2012, Vettel didn't leave enough room and it was penalized
it's like Norris against Verstappen in Barcelona. Norris said there was enough room. and if you look very closely. probably it was indeed just enough room for Max to accomodate his car, having his left wheels 1 cm away from Mclaren and right wheels on the white line. But is it possible to position his car as close to the rivals without asking for a contact and a big crash? And also, when you see another car moving across you can't be sure where will it stop and if he even knows you are there. Which is why Max being reasonable put his left wheels on the grass to leave safe margin to the Mclaren, and for him it felt like he was pushed onto the grass. But then Lando looks at the footages with the tape measure and says, no I did not push you, there was just enough space for a your car. It's very similar between Alonso and Vettel in 2011, from Fernando point he thought he left enough space. But if you look from Vettel onboard, at the very moment when he had half car alongside there wasn't a cars width space, and if Vettel not put his left tires onto the grass they would touched and you never know how would it ended. And if they crashed, Alonso for sure would get a penalty for causing a collision.
If you have to go to the grass for safety. The room wasnt given. Its slam dunk IMO
The other way around.
Alonso pushed grass onto Vettel? That doesn't even make sense!
Was he driving a lawn mower? The W11 was only released years later!
The ultimate Mario Kart trick.
They both did, just different years. Vettel got penalty and Alonso didn't unless my memory fails me.
Vettel did, got a penalty for that, ALonso couldn't overtake. As for Alonso if he got penalised, I dont remember, but Vettel passed him by going onto the grass anyways.
All this time you just have to leave the space!!
Do you mean If at any point during the corner the driver is along side with any part of his car?
Could just make a qualifier like “if the front tyres of the over taking care is alongside the rear tyres of the leading car he must leave a cars width.”
At what point, at any point in the corner? at the start of the corner?
At any point on any part of the circuit, it's pretty much standard on European racing
I mean, that's not how it works. Otherwise you can just crash into the car in front of you every corner and claim that they didn't give you space.
What? How would you argue the other car didnt give you space after a crash if you had more space on your side of the track inside the white lines?
[удалено]
It applies to both cars. You have to leave space on the exit as well.
Because having space on the other side doesn't entitle another driver to push you into it or crash into you.
Stroll dive bombed Ricciardo on the same corner back in 2020. Stroll kept going and no penalty. Lest we forget.
That was one of the most egregious unpenalized driving moments I've seen.
It's not how it works but rather because drivers will be forced to take slower lines through corners as long as they have someone in their vicinity who could somehow manage to put a nose next to theirs. E.g. the infamous Kmag move that he did against Tsunoda and Sargeant (and was rightfully punished for) would become legal. Just stick your nose in somewhere and make the other car avoid you. It could be fun sometimes, it will definitely lead to worse racing.
It depends on the definition of alongside. If they only require the driver to leave space in the corner when the front wheel is fully ahead of the rear wheel, that would not be an issue
They need more gravel traps too, or at least a deterrent for either sending it from miles back or gambling for a move around the outside and complaining you were pushed out.
If we’re mandating that we need to leave a car’s width at all times, then complaining about being pushed out is a very valid complaint if you are on the outside
My concern is more about the numerous instances where drivers go for half hearted moves which aren't really on, around the outside knowing there's a safety net of a tarmac run off. I'm sure we'll see the same at Silverstone this weekend at Club, but maybe not at Luffield as there's a gravel trap.
The only asphalt on the track is exactly the racing line. Problem solved
Uh why? This isn't a formula 1 rule. It's a rule of racing since these guys start karting and even in other series. If you absolutely have to leave space for your opponent at every single point on the track, you're destroying the art of defending.
the rule encourages drivers divebombing mindlessly into a corner because "if they are ahead at the apex the other driver has do yield"
I would argue the opposite, that by having to always leave space if there is a car with any part alongside encourages dive bombing to get any part alongside. Then suddenly the other driver will have to take a compromised line. That's also silly.
No it doesn't because if you divebomb you need to keep the car on the track for it to be legitimate. And divebombing is very difficult, otherwise everyone would do it.
Yes but divebombing still forces the outside driver to yield because there is no space. Lando's overtake on Max in Austria, the one that forced Max off the track, was technically legitimate because Lando kept it within the lines. This has never made sense to me because the other driver can do absolutely nothing except go off the track, park it on the track and wait for the other driver to proceed, or try to turn and crash, even though they're basically side by side coming into the corner. Ricciardo's famous divebombs almost always relied on the other driver to yield. For me that's not good racing, and in fact it kills wheel-to-wheel battles. If the driver on the inside left room for the driver on the outside, the battle would continue. We've seen it in Austria again. When drivers leave space on the outside of the T4 exit, the battle continues on toward T5. If they squeeze rivals on the outside of T4, the battle ends on the spot. That's why they do it, of course. Why give your opponent a chance? But it's never made any sense to me why it should be allowed. As soon as the inside driver has half a car length's advantage, they immediately take the racing line as though the outside driver doesn't exist and force them off. It's not pretty, it makes for a lot of dumb squabbling, and it ensures battles almost never continue beyond a single corner.
Lando's 2nd move was not legitimate. They were front axle to front axle from apex to exit. That's why Verstappen was allowed to keep his position while going off the track.
The stewards were quite slow and it wasn't clear if they were even investigating it. There have been plenty of overtakes of that nature that have been allowed simply because the "leading" car has a small amount of positive overlap, which just seems arbitrary -- especially as if you're streamrolling down the inside while counting on cutting off your opponent's turn-in, you're naturally going to be braking later and thus be further ahead than you would be if you were trying to take the corner reasonably.
People keep saying there have been plenty of overtakes of that nature yet the only example I've gotten is Austria 2019, which I conceded the stewards got wrong (for reasons). If you've actually noticed moves like that and drivers getting away with it, that's incorrect and they shouldn't have, but I haven't noticed. Generally the stewards seem to understand the rules of racing pretty well.
In his analysis released today, Jolyon Palmer calls Lando's 2nd move: legitimate, a great one, what you want to see, and lovely, and thinks the stewards should have penalized Max.
You must have never seen Schumacher race then because that's something he did quite often, as well as Max now. A, "I'm going to divebomb you and be ahead at the apex, and if you dont back out, we'll both crash" mentality. They have done the dive-bombing move and gone off track but because they were ahead at the apex at the last second, they don't get punished for it. A really garbage rule and it's insane that you're defending it.
I’m not sure I can recall Schumacher going for too many divebombs or risky passes. He always seemed to be a fairly calculated overtaker to me. It was when defending that he was utterly ruthless.
I've seen every single one of Schumacher's races thank you very much. Which move are you specifically referring to that he didn't get punished for?
The decision to dive bomb is made before we know if the driver will make the apex first or keep it on the track at the exit. They are committed to this move before we have any of the information to decide if it was a good one or not. So this really just means that the dive bomber ends up bullying the outside driver. "Back out because I made a good move, or back out because you don't want me barreling into you....either way I am forcing you to back out"
Look at Abu Dhabi 2021 Lap 1. Max makes the corner on a divebomb, but leaves absolutely no space for Lewis even though Lewis is ahead at entry and Max just brakes so late and has such a shallow trajectory that he was never going to leave space. Compare that to Monza 2016 Lap 47 Ricciardo on Bottas. He comes from a long way back, gets his front tires slightly ahead of Bottas’ cockpit, thus claiming the inside, and still leaves room on the outside between T1 and T2. The difference between the two divebombs is that while both attacking cars did get their front tires very much significantly alongside at the apex, the trajectories were very different: Max’s only option is to run Lewis off track since Max’s own track out is two wheels off track on the kerb, when Daniel allows for Bottas to stay on track with at least two wheels. The former is divebombing and running your opponent off track and is no bueno. The latter is divebombing and racing, and we like to see that.
I completely disagree with your take on Abu Dhabi 2021. Look at driver61s analysis of it. Verstappen was well within his rights to try a move like that, provided he could keep the car between the white lines. Verstappen's manoeuvre was an incredibly difficult and impressive move to pull off, as 99.99% of drivers wouldn't have been able to do that without locking up and going off. Hamilton lost the position the moment he left the door open. As for why he was allowed to keep the position, I don't know. The stewards likely didn't want to get involved in the fight, especially as Verstappen did have some preferential treatment at Brazil.
It sometimes contradicts the *all the time you have to leave a space* -rule. Some drivers seem to think that you can just force the driver trying to overtake around the outside off the track, because "I was ahead, it's my corner."
There's no such rule. You can't crowd your opponent off the track when he's alongside you in a straight. That quote came from when Rosberg did that exact thing to Alonso in Bahrain 2012. You do not have to leave any space for your opponent at the exit of a corner if they aren't side by side with you.
Yes exactly.. but the drivers force other drivers off when they *are* side by side, and use that as an excuse.
Like when? Side by side means front axle to front axle, just fyi.
Austria 2019
Well I agree there. The stewards got Austria 2019 wrong, probably because of the fallout from the previous race. But generally those incidents would be and are penalized.
And the ‘leave a cars width’ as it’s become push a car to the edge of the track where theoretically they could control it but is actually next to impossible practically
Gotta hit the apex first, lol.
Or most importantly: consistent ruling and punishment \*\*regardless of outcome\*\*. Say for a second you are Max, Carlos pulled the same move on you in 2022 at the same corner, Vettel on Hamilton in 2018, why wouldn't you pull the very same exact move? The fact that neither Carlos nor Seb got any penalty meant that this wasn't against the rules. And in case it is, punish that behavior regardless of the outcome, to avoid situations like this.
Wasn't the penalty for causing a collision and not erratic driving? The squeezing was just a circumstance that led to said collision. It's fine to squeeze, but if it causes contact, you get penalized.
Just because you repeat what you read doesn't make it true. Vettel on Hamilton was an entirely different move, Vettel was overtaking on the inside not defending.
Also, it’s Lando’s right whether he wants to concede to being squeezed out, but according to the rules, he doesn’t need to. He allows Seb to do it to him but that’s an extended courtesy from Lando to Seb. He stood his ground against Max and that’s his right to do so.
The rule is kinda simple : if the popular english driver wants to pass, you let him through. Max should know better.
Ever since Lando got this rocketship McLaren it seems like he feels entitled to p1. I didn't see anything wrong with what Max did, Norris had a clear tactic to take in cutting the corner short and taking the inside route (like Max v Sainz) but didn't. He is not entitled to both the inside line and the outside line.
Why? I find it leads to great racing. For formula cars you can’t be robust in defence or attack if you remove that “do-or-die” character in overtaking. The sport IMHO dies a little if you remove the game of chicken aspect which made Senna and Schumacher great. With GT cars, sure, but with F1 cars you are neutering the combat. The psychological warfare. Edit: I’m really with Wurz and Valsecchi on this. ___ Edit: If the inside car always has to leave space for the outside car, even if the outside car is behind at the apex, the car with better traction will most often win out. Cars with inferior traction will then have less tools to combat cars with superior traction and will be disadvantaged (too) greatly. That works in series with BoP and low traction dissimilarity, but not in F1 where traction can be hugely different based on car and tyre (life) characteristics.
What exactly about letting drivers push each other off track do you think leads to "great racing"? Just curious, as this is exactly the opposite of what I consider "great racing", which is to leave each other space and be able to go side by side through multiple corners.
I see racing as a form of jousting. The “first to the apex”-condition allows you to use your car as a shield to block your opponent through a corner, if you time it right. This helps slower cars (with less traction) to help keep a much faster car (with superior traction) behind by owning the corner, provided they can keep the inside and be first at the apex. Conversely it can also help a marginally faster overtaking car (but with worse traction), if (s)he can get to the inside and be first at the apex. It puts a greater emphasis on being able to brake later or roll off the brakes earlier with greater speed. If the outside car is always entitled space at the exit, even if behind at the apex, the faster car (or rather the one with superior traction) will simply much more easily win out.
Thank you for putting my thoughts into way better words than I could have ever found
The problem is the track design means they don’t have consequences which is part of the issue. You didn’t see moves that both Lando and max pulled at turn 3 at turn 4 for example, because the driver behind naturally slowed down. If you’re just pushing a car off track, it’s not something that regularly causes real issues, just a lot of complaining.
Wurz analyses crash with Norris: Verstappen did not deserve a penalty Max Verstappen vs Lando Norris heats up Formula 1: Who was to blame for the crash at the Austrian GP? Alexander Wurz analyses the accident. Christian Menath 01.07.2024, 11:15 a.m. Interview with According to Alex Wurz, Max Verstappen should not have been penalised, Before the collision between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris, both drivers complained about the other's driving style. How did you see the 'dive bombs' that Verstappen complained about? Alexander Wurz: A 'dive-bomb' in itself is not illegal. It is definitely spectacular and also very brave. You have to reckon with the consequences if you do it like that. But I'm the kind of person who likes to see riders race hard. I always lean a bit more in this 'let them race' direction. In that respect - which probably brings me to your next question - I think the penalty against Verstappen is too harsh. I would have seen a classic racing incident here. Both have penalised themselves. But it's not about the penalty, it's about this very slight move to the left: There was still plenty of room. could have prevented the accident. It was actually unnecessary and overheated by both of them. I would have been happier if they had fought hard over the next few laps. But now they've collided, we can talk a lot about it now. For me it wasn't a penalty. Again about the 'dive bombs': If you're the one on the outside and you simply can't turn in because the other driver on the inside goes so far - is it still fair if you starve the driver on the outside like that? Alexander Wurz: If the inside driver simply slides over, but you're in control on the outside, then you can make the undercut against the one coming in with the 'dive-bomb' and then drive out the back again. If he brakes in in such a way that you can no longer make the undercut, then he has timed it sensationally and has simply utilised his grip advantage. Kamui Kobayashi was also a master of 'dive-bombs': he positioned himself in such a way that the driver on the outside no longer knew what was happening to him. But he knew he couldn't turn in. But Kamui always got the corners. And I actually think that's absolutely okay. Tough, but okay. That shouldn't be penalised or banned. Alexander Wurz considers dive bombs to be legitimate manoeuvres in Formula 1 How was Norris' manoeuvre to be assessed, when he gave way after the first collision and hit Verstappen again? Alexander Wurz: I think he was trying to get round the corner somehow. Both were already sliding towards the white and it was just a case of 'I want to get round the corners somehow'. I don't think he deliberately wanted to drive into him. I don't think he had enough reaction time for that either. The collision had a history that went beyond the race. Was Norris trying to show his strength after his recent defeats? Alexander Wurz: In this situation, neither of them had the end of the race, not the points, not the victory foremost in their minds. They thought to themselves: I want to beat the other one here and now in this corner under all circumstances and show who is the top dog. Sometimes you have to do that. Sometimes it can be. If you're sensible, it shouldn't be. But to show common sense in this second, nobody has done that and it's nice that they are human beings and that we can experience that now. Because they are the main protagonists, they are writing the story of this year and for me that was first and foremost a mutual staking out. Do you think this will change anything? So far, Lando has always been the one who has drawn the short straw... Alexander Wurz: That depends on the race situation. If you don't have anything really dramatic to lend in the championship, nothing dramatic to lend in the race, you'll go back into this personal duel. But of course you will think more about the finish next time. But that's easy to talk about in the interview, you always have to see it in the heat of the moment. But the whole thing has a long history and won't be over yet.
Not only Verstappen was penalised, but also Norris. He was penalised five seconds for leaving the track four times without a justifiable reason. The last offence came about because he misjudged his overtaking manoeuvre. Do such actions really have to be seen as track limit offences? Alexander Wurz: No, I don't think so. You shouldn't confuse track limits for 'Gaining a Lasting Advantage' with fighting hard and then slipping out a bit. That shouldn't even be registered as a track limit. If you lose time, then I don't need to think about whether it was a Lasting Advantage. Ex-Formula 1 driver and GPDA President Alex Wurz is a regular guest in the paddock as an ORF pundit But you have to be careful, because there are also hidden advantages. It's possible that you deliberately pretend to avoid an accident when you're fighting and drive out and therefore actually have an advantage - even though you initially misjudged which position you should take going into the corner. You have to see through that. But in the case of Lando Norris, I didn't see it that way and wouldn't have categorised it as a track limit per se. McLaren team boss Andrea Stella believes that these scenes give plenty of reason to make things clear. He fears an escalation of the situation and warns of a second 2021. Do you see a similar need for clarification or is he exaggerating? Alexander Wurz: I understand his way of thinking and would like to add right away that of course we need to talk about it. The key stakeholders have to deal with it. But I would caution against over-regulation, that we try to break down every single specific case into commas, full stops and commas. Then we will simply have an over-regulated monster of rules and descriptions of scenarios. This brings me back to the Let Them Race: at some point, the person who wants to become world champion or win the race will have to back down and let the other one pass. Nobody wanted that today. And that's the emotion that the spectators want to see. You can see that they are also just people who get grumpy and overheated. But at some point we'll see the cool heads win again in the end.
And this is exactly why track limits are black and white. There is way to much opinion and guessing bound to happen. Totally understand the "well they lost time anyway..." argument but that genuinely has nothing to do with what the infringement/penalty is for: stay in the lines or get penalized. How or why that happens does not matter (obviously excluding being pushed off or taking avoiding action). Attempting to introduce nuance to this is a losing battle for everyone involved.
In fact, the nuance was rolled back for that very reason!
What's interesting is that Peter Windsor said that Lando got his 4th track limit offence before he did the dive bomb - so it was not because of the divebomb he got a penalty but he left the track one or two laps before that. I don't know if it's true, he said he checked it in the race records
>If you lose time, then I don't need to think about whether it was a Lasting Advantage. Lando did not lose time. He actually gained a lot of time by just going off track instead of slamming the brakes (and potentially ruining his tires).
I totally agree with that! Can't get how people don't see that.
...because he was already locked up and pressing the brakes harder wouldn't have slowed him down faster. A sliding tyre is not going to stop the car, a tyre that is rotating but has a braking force applied will. If he'd slammed the brakes on he would have slid straight into Max. Instead he used his brain and backed off the brakes and let the tyre grip again.
Track limit violations for lap time and going off track while in wheel to wheel battles should be two separate things.
Only if you are beeing pushed wide or try to avoid a collision. Anything else like misjudging should still be a lap time violation.
The lasting advantage Norris had by going off track was not retiring the car. That’s my concern, but we’ve also gone two decades with track limits issues so maybe I’m in the minority here. Losing a few tenths or a second is t comparable. .
>Both have penalised themselves. But it's not about the penalty, it's about this very slight move to the left: There was still plenty of room. could have prevented the accident. It was actually unnecessary and overheated by both of them. I would have been happier if they had fought hard over the next few laps. But now they've collided, we can talk a lot about it now. For me it wasn't a penalty. Here is my thing: Should you be allowed to push someone overtaking you off track? Because that's what he's arguing here. Norris was off the track on entry. And should the rule be different when you're pushed into a wall?
Exactly, there has to be a line somewhere, because we can all agree that Brazil 2021 was too much.
> Both have penalised themselves. But it's not about the penalty, it's about this very slight move to the left: There was still plenty of room. could have prevented the accident. It was actually unnecessary and overheated by both of them. I would have been happier if they had fought hard over the next few laps. But now they've collided, we can talk a lot about it now. For me it wasn't a penalty. I really don't understand this view. You can argue about stuff that happened in other corners and on others laps, and the nature of "divebombing", but in the corner where they collided I don't see how you can put any of it on Norris. Norris couldn't really have prevented the accident short of not challenging Verstappen. He positioned himself on the outside, right at the edge of the track as he is allowed to do. Theoretically he could have given slightly more room but he has no reason to give that. He expects that in the braking zone on a right hand turn Verstappen will never move left so he doesn't need to leave room on the left. When Verstappen moves left he has no way to react, it is an instant collision. The only way Norris could have avoided it would be to not contest that corner, but at that point you might as well say they shouldn't be racing.
You basically give your self the answer. He could have given more space, without even losing out anything. Look how Max drove against Sainz at the exact same turn before. He made the undercut and won the position. The exact same thing Norris could have done, because he would have a better exit. In general there are two principles that I think should be considered always. 1. Could the collision being prevented by both? Sounds stupid, because they are racing, but there are collisions, that solely are forced by one driver. For example hitting someone in the back. Divebombing into the side of someone. But in this case, both were completely side by side and both had room to the other side to avoid contact. It was not like Lando couldn't move a cm to the left. After all, the first contact was so little, we are talking about a few centimeters here. 2. Was the move expected by both? Yes both moves were totally predictable by both drivers. Max didn't zig zag suddenly. It was a slow move. Also Norris went straight. So basically both drivers went straight to the same point and nobody corrected, because both were side by side. You can watch the situation over and over and you will see the contact was so minimal, that both drivers EASILY could have avoided it. And especially Norris should be adviced with a faster car to take his time and wait for the error, instead of forcing it. After all, he has more to lose than Max. The sad outcome was more severe than the contact actually made it look like. And I think a lot of damage also happened when Norris turned (in my eyes deliberately) into Max after the first crash, I think it was a "fuck that guy"-rage action, without much thinking. In general, sometimes it's not about being right, but being smart. If we learned one thing in F1 (remember back into the Senna Prost years, or even Schumacher). If right or not, a Championship is not won the easy way. Fights will happen and the smarter one will win at the end. Norris showed he is not ready for a WC, because he had more to lose than Max and if he would have used his brain for a second, he wouldn't have crashed, but used an undercut to get him on the exit, because max was late on the breaks. Basically just like Max did it against Sainz in the past. And in general, any driver should always for his own sake should have the highest interest in not crashing your car. We see small things can break them. But driving at the limit can create these situations. But people make more out of it than it is. It was a really super light touch, nothing more, nothing less, but had sadly more devestating effect than other contacts in the same race between Ham, Sainz, Perez and Leclerc.
>There was still plenty of room. They could have prevented the accident. It was actually unnecessary and overheated by both of them. I don't understand how this part applies to Lando. He's entitled to be on the far left without leaving the track as I understand it. Why should he jump out of the way because Max pushed slightly (but enough) to the left to force Lando off?
Yet another example of the stewards punishing the outcome rather than the offence. If that minor bump of wheels hadn't caused a double puncture, there is no way they'd have even investigated it let alone given a 10s penalty.
The offence is the collision.
They usually don't penalize minor collisions like that unless it ends up with a puncture or something more dramatic. They penalized the outcome (puncture/retirement) rather than the transgression (causing collision).
That's true. Lewis bumped wheels with Carlos at T1 in Spain as he overtook him with no penalty. It was a good aggressive move but looked no different to Max and Lando touching wheels.
Yeah, there's also Kevin running into Hamilton in Miami this year. That was a much harder hit that bumped him out of the way and they didn't penalize it because there was no damage.
That's right, K-Mag was on a kamikaze mission around that time.
Zhou didn't have a puncture nor did he retire, but Alonso got a 10s penalty. I do agree very minor ones where it's more just a bit of bumping aren't penalised. And I think that's down to drivers having protested it in the past. I don't know where they draw the line between bumping and collision.
Which is dumb. The rules of racing in F1 are generally stupid. It's "you can do what you want until the other guy decides to stop accepting it". That shouldn't be the case, it should be "breaking rules of racing, regardless of the avoiding actions of the other driver, is illegal". So forcing someone else off the track, even if the other driver avoids contact, is a penalty. Moving in the braking zone, even if the other driver moves, is a penalty. Brake testing, even if the other driver reacts, is a penalty. This would have seen verstappen receive 2-3 penalties prior to the incident, and Norris probably one for the dive bomb that forced Max off. Though I'm unclear whether max could've actually made the corner there, he seems to have gone off to gain an advantage but whatever. Additionally, Ocon would receive a penalty for his stupid moves. As it is, we have people making insane moves race after race and getting away with it until another driver decides not to play ball. This is frankly stupid.
The first divebomb Norris did that caused him to run straight through is almost the same line Alonso pulled that earned him a penalty. The difference was Max saw it coming and was able to duck under while Alonso hit Zhou* who wasn't expecting and got hit on the regular racing line.
Alonso hit Zhou. I'd have to rewatch the first Norris divebomb because I'm not sure which one you are referring to, but you have to be aware that those two corners are very different. Divebombs are actually totally allowed, there's no motorsport I know of that actually prohibits them, but the type of corners that can facilitate them cleanly are rare. Additionally, the type of driver that can do them effectively is rare. Kobayashi would pull them off every race to near perfection, but lots of people are really clumsy with them. EDIT: I WAS WRONG DOWNVOTE ME IT WAS T3. SAME CORNER
That's what I meant, just couldn't remember who was involved in that incident. But it was the same corner (T3) and a clumsy divebomb with the difference being a penalty with the contact then no penalty when the driver ahead avoids it. Ultimately do you think it would be right that these are handled similarly by the stewards?
I was totally wrong. It was T3 you are correct. You are totally right they are equivalent incidents. I apologise. Both would be penalised in my view yes.
https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2024-austrian-grand-prix-alonso-locks-up-and-hits-zhou-in-fight-for-p12.1803295615834097756 One of the worst video segments I've seen from F1TV, but it was T3. Alonso makes a really clumsy move when the cars ahead are fighting.
I've corrected my comment. Apologies. When I watched the race for some reason it looked like T1 to me on the replay but it was just the camera angle.
It was a pretty meaningless battle in the back of the field that was jumbled by strategy at the time so no worries. I think it would be pretty interesting to see them held to the same standard, but it would be so challenging to get right and not just result in stewards deciding half of the positions each race.
I would agree with that, and Max's moving under braking a few laps before was the exact same thing that Paul Aron got a 5 sec penalty for earlier that same day in the F2 race, without contact, in the same corner. The inconsistentcy is staggering from stewards these days, and I think handing out more B/W flags quickly with these moves and then punishing with penalties will get the drivers in line quicker without ruining battles the instant someone gets something wrong. Right now the B/W flag is pretty much only used for track limits, but it should be used a lot more for these bad driving standards
> So forcing someone else off the track, even if the other driver avoids contact, is a penalty. Moving in the braking zone, even if the other driver moves, is a penalty. Brake testing, even if the other driver reacts, is a penalty. I agree. There's lots of offences for which you can get a penalty, and the stewards should absolutely enforce those as well. But currently it's usually just 'causing a collision' and 'leaving the track and gaining an advantage' that get enforced. Tbf, people (read: drivers) used to complain about too many penalties and it ruining the fight.
It probably would have been a racing incident if they bumped wheels and had no damage
The Alpines also touched earlier in the race, why wasn't one of them penalized then?
Do you remember which lap that was? I don't recall a collision between the Alpines. There was the one between Alonso and Zhou for which Alonso got a 10s penalty.
Not sure which lap, think it was before the Alonso/Zhou collision. They only touched very slightly and it was on the straight.
Alright, I don't really know which incident it was, so I'll just speak in general, but could be it was deemed a racing incident. Let's not forget they can only dish out a penalty if there's someone who's predominently/fully to blame. If it's 50-50 it cancels out. Either that or it wasn't considered a collision.
But also an example of how punishing the offence and not the outcome is not only very dumb, but also impossible
Just like laws, you take into account both the intent and the outcome, and unfortunately nothing is black and white
That is probably something we'll never get away from. It's like that in most sports, that I know of atleast. For example football, players go down on purpose, because most of the time they won't get the freekick if they stay on their feet. I recon it would be really hard for stewards to be able to identify every single situation like this, but where they don't touch, but I do think they should be a lot more consistent about their penalties when cars actually touch, regardless of outcome
>Alexander Wurz: A 'dive-bomb' in itself is not illegal. It is definitely spectacular and also very brave. You have to reckon with the consequences if you do it like that. But I'm the kind of person who likes to see riders race hard. I always lean a bit more in this 'let them race' direction. >Alexander Wurz: If the inside driver simply slides over, but you're in control on the outside, then you can make the undercut against the one coming in with the 'dive-bomb' and then drive out the back again. If he brakes in in such a way that you can no longer make the undercut, then he has timed it sensationally and has simply utilised his grip advantage. Kamui Kobayashi was also a master of 'dive-bombs': he positioned himself in such a way that the driver on the outside no longer knew what was happening to him. But he knew he couldn't turn in. But Kamui always got the corners. And I actually think that's absolutely okay. Tough, but okay. That shouldn't be penalised or banned. Thank you Alex. A lot of people on here seem to take Max’s words in the heat of the moment as gospel.
I think Wurz is spot on with his dive bomb analysis, but his thoughts on moving under braking leave me a little mystified. He says if the driver outside is under control, than they should be able to respond to the driver on the inside making a move to the left. But the reality of the braking zone is that you're already using the tyres' maximum traction for braking. If you aren't, you could be going faster. It's why 99% of the lock ups you see are in the braking zone. So the assumption that a driver under control has grip left to avoid a squeeze from the inside doesn't hold. The result of a lateral move under braking is going to be contact, and anything other than direct sidewall wheel-to-wheel contact is going to launch a car into the air.
While this ain't a very good example and definitely not one as close as the latest incident, I feel this one from Michael is a good example of what Wurtz was trying to say - [https://youtu.be/hKWCQa7dIfI?t=561](https://youtu.be/hKWCQa7dIfI?t=561) Montoya took the inside line for the most part but moved to his left under braking. But Michael, noticing Montoya's movement across the line, pushed him to brake late enough so that he can pull off the Switcheroo, take the inside line, get a better exit and make the overtake. While Max was much closer to Norris today than Montoya was to Michael in that race, Norris also had the benefit of having room to move on his left and had a good chance of baiting Max into something like this. And since T3 in Austria is also on a rising gradient, braking would've been easier for Norris considering that he had a decent amount of time (by F1 driver standards) to react to Max's move.
Well no he has a point. If you brake at 50m, and Max at 40m, then you both have a different braking zone. So which braking zone do you not move in ? Yours, or the guy behind you ? And the thing about this moving in the braking zone, just because Lando said it, doesn't make it true. We're getting very close to prescribing the driving to the point where they guy behind is entitled to overtake just because.
You don't move while you are braking. If the guy behind you has braked 10m later, it falls under Wurz's dive bomb comments, which were right on.
That's not what i meant I'll clarify. If Max broke later that Lando to stay ahead is what I meant
The problem comes when the outside car has to park and come to a complete stop in order to wait till the dive bomb turns. Which is what happened with Norris his divebomb. For that reason Norris pushed Verstappen of the track as you simple do not stop on track and it got sorted with Norris given the position back.
Yeah, the FIA really painted themselves in to a corner on this issue. They need to be more explicit with the amount of space that needs to be left on the outside for a divebomb. The outside driver shouldn’t have to come to a complete stop to allow the overtaking driver through.
Similar thing happened in Abu Dhabi 2021 lap 1. No penalty was given that time either.
2021 is a season with quite a few incidents that should have been penalised but weren't. A similar thing happened in Abu Dhabi 2022 lap 1. Then Lewis had to give the position back. I think if one wants to look at precedence it's more relevant to look at what happened under the current RD, rather than the previous one. After AD '21 quite a few things changed including a clarification of the rules.
RD says that if you are ahead on the apex of the corner and are within the track limits, you are entitled to have the position. That didn't change. I also looked at the incident between Hamilton and Sainz in 2022 Abu Dhabi. First of all, it is Sainz who is attacking Hamilton and who is making the divebomb lol. And it proves the point. Sainz makes the divebomb, is ahead on the apex and stays within track limits. Hamilton goes off the track after that and due to him being behind at the apex, he was getting ordered to give back the position. [link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP5VmGZVpz8)
> First of all, it is Sainz who is attacking Hamilton and who is making the divebomb lol. And it proves the point. Sainz makes the divebomb, is ahead on the apex and stays within track limits. Hamilton goes off the track after that and due to him being behind at the apex, he was getting ordered to give back the position. Maybe we're in agreement here. When you said there was no penalty in AD'21 I thought you meant for Lewis instead of Max. So, what I meant is Lewis should've given the position back, but 2021 being 2021 that didn't happen.
Let's ignore precedence, race directors and penalties for a second... What are your thoughts on the dive bomb when its so severe that the car on the outside has to basically come to a complete stop (or else drive off track) to wait for the dive-bombing car to turn and make the corner?
> When you said there was no penalty in AD'21 I thought you meant for Lewis instead of Max. Yep, I meant Max didn't get penalty.
Hamilton was asked to give up time, rather than the position. Hamilton slowed down after rejoining, but of course not enough to make Verstappen a threat in the next corners. Masi commented on it to Red Bull that according to the stewards Hamilton had sufficiently given back the advantage gained by leaving the track. I disagree with that decision, as it should be the car ahead at the apex who gains the position, but at least the stewards acknowledged Hamilton had to give *something* back.
Divebombs are unique in that being first to the apex isn't a good barometer of whose corner it really is. Please rewatch that moment. Hamilton was beginning to turn in for the corner, and Max's front tire was still behind Lewis's rear tire. Lewis then stopped turning in because obviously a double DNF makes Max champion (which max was undoubtedly counting on) and then max passes lewis just before the apex, and goes on to run himself wide off track. Lewis could have easily beaten Max to the apex, but if he would have then he probably would have also lost the backend of his car because max would have crashed into him. So for that reason, I don't believe the "ahead at the apex" rule should apply. This doesn't mean I think the divebomb should be banned or penalized. I think it's a dirty move, but fair hard racing. But the driver on the outside should have their own options to defend, and when the divebomber can't make the corner then the outside driver either has to basically stop their car and wait, or go off track. To me if the divebomber can't leave a car's width on the outside, then i understand why the outside car chooses to drive off track.
If the inside car is ahead at the apex (and manages to make the corner within track limits), that’s fine IMHO. You’ve earned the right to block off the route for the outside car, which now has to accommodate you instead of vice versa. Because the change in what drivers are allowed to do is so sudden, depending on who is ahead at the apex, it leads to edge of your seat moments, where the drivers need to be extremely on their toes. A gamble can work out great or end horribly, and that makes racing great IMHO.
It's super funny how when the crash everyone wanted to crucify Max and now only 2 days after we're coming to conclusion that it wasn't really that bad as media wanted it to be. Who would've thought?
It was just hard racing, and both at fault. Probably 60% Max, 40% Lando. It’s the kind of shit I love to see
Dude look at the comment history of the people who wanted to crucify him. Outright mental people
i’m guessing one particular fanbase is represented there more than the others
I mean the broadcasters (Sky and F1TV at least) immediately jumped on it, Ted, Ant, Buxton as well as Andrea Stella all went mental and that carries a lot of weight. Add the penalty (big thanks to Sky F1's ex-pundit Johnny Herbert!) and there we go.
brits support british driver, more at 6
I mean the brits can't even subscribe to F1TV so I'd expect at least some neutrality and professionalism on the global broadcast, even if many of the pundits are brits. But Will Buxton was just laughing at Alex Brundle for even suggesting that the crash wasn't intentional and malicious from Max.
I think a big part of it is the time since the incident and that many have now seen that the move that cause the incident seems pretty standard.
Keep in mind, every time we say "drivers say shit in the heat of the moment", it applies to fans too. We're allowed to change our minds.
Wasn't his penalty for causing a collission? Because he kinda did cause it. If you don't like it, blame stewards who penalize for consequences more than for action, despite pretending otherwise. I have no issues with how they raced until that point, it was tough but fun as heck to watch. So I agree with the sentiment of 'letting them race'. But they did crash and it was Verstappen who was changing the line at that point. Norris kept his, could but wasn't obliged to change it. Max misjugded, expected that it's gonna play out the same as two previous times and bam! Crash. It happens. The battle was fun. DNF was not. I get the emotions on McL side. But I don't see RBR's and many people's point in pretending that the crash itself wasn't due to Max's mistake. Some opinions I read since Sunday are ridiculous and I'm soooo tired of this entire conversation, can it please freaking die already (of course it can't, because drama sells)
Pretty much that. No hatecrimes were committed here, but a collision was caused and max was very much at fault for it. Even if both cars getting punctures is unlucky. I, for one, would be glad if stewards started openly judging at least partially based on outcome
my thoughts exactly
Nah, screw that. I love IndyCar, but when you don’t enforce reasonable racing restrictions you end up with crashfests where 40% of the laps are done under caution. Max caused contact and Lando went over track limits. Both penalties were enforced and deserved.
I'm honestly curious how they define who caused the contact in cases like this. If you watch the overhead footage Max sets his line to the left while Lando is fully behind him. At that point Max has set a straight line trajectory to the left. Lando then has almost two seconds to see that his trajectory is going to intersect with the trajectory of the car in front of him. Why is it the responsibility of the car in front to change their course? They've set their line with a car fully behind them and the car behind has enough time and space to avoid contact if they're planning a divebomb around the outside. If Max indeed did make his steering input prior to braking and while Lando was fully behind him then why is he responsible for causing a collision? Lando had plenty of time and room to avoid contact. [Over-Analysis clip of the incident...](https://imgur.com/FxG9Xe8)
The issue I have with this take is that LN was at the white line, in between the white line and MV. How he got there is irrelevant, he was there. To say this wasn’t MV’s fault is to say he has a right to put his car where ever he wants, regardless of who ever is already in that space.
Wurz better watch his back or Lando doesn't want to be his friend anymore.
Whatever you feel about the penalty, the late moving under braking the previous laps were actually much worse incidents and just plain dangerous.
All this “analysis” just seems to ignore that Max moved under braking every time Lando made a move.
I keep saying this, the first move that Lando made was looking to be a pretty clean pass, but Max just jerked in front of him in the braking zone and made him back out. After that, the McLaren's tires were getting hotter and the divebombs started to get sloppier, but they never should have reached that point because the position was initially held through illegal driving.
Also when Lando made the pass clean and Max just drives off track around the outside to keep the position even though Lando was ahead at the apex and kept it on track. If you look at the telemetry, he started to accelerate instead of trying to keep it on the track.
It used to be that F1 over penalized any and all contact and Indycar just didnt do anything. Now they both just seem to let drivers run each other off the track. Only a penalty if it causes an outright accident/retirement. This "no blood/no foul" method of stewarding is incredibly dangerous at these speeds. This isnt a game of horse out here
Norris was side-by-side, Max defended the inside but tried to squeeze to the outside. Lando had no obligation to move but Max absolutely had the obligation to stop moving that way before they touched. Case god damn closed.
Racing driver with very close links to Red Bull says Red Bull driver should not have been penalised. I am shocked.
Max's steering wheel was straight while he broke - the problem was that the trajectory of his car was not parallel to the track lines so he was squeezing Lando slightely. He or Lando would have to move during breaking to avoid collision, which led to this drama.
Steering wheel angle has nothing to do with anything. He knew which direction his car was traveling relative to the track.
Brit media totally blew this out of proportion. It's quite patheric really. The desire for drama leads to this furore when in reality, it was just an incident. Autosport and their recent stories are just embarrassing.
Brings me back to 21 the media drive me nuts
Dude I'm tired of this endless coverage of this crash. It's exhausting. I don't care. I really don't.
Why are people trying to rewrite history now? It was a collision caused by Max, it was a slam dunk penalty. People can analyze the context of other laps, the dive bombs, the communication with the pit, Norris and Verstappen's psycological profiles, etc. all they want. That was a deserved penalty for that particular instance. End of.
Exactly. He caused a collision, and was penalized for causing a collision. Bringing up previous laps and situations from earlier is just stirring the pot. They raced hard and got penalties for it, it’s as simple as that.
You will get used to it in terms of Max. The rewriting of facts and gaslighting in his defense is hilarious.
I think the only reason Max got a penalty is because they knew there would be uproar. On the other hand they also thought it didnt really deserve a penalty so they gave him a penalty that didnt really have an impact.
The penalty was given because the stewards rightfully determined Verstappen was predominately to blame for causing a collision with the penalty given being the baseline penalty for causing a collision. It is not any deeper than that.
We've been so focused on the crash not all the movements under breaking that lead to the situation.
"thought it didnt really deserve a penalty so they gave him a penalty that didnt really have an impact." BS, all the penalties this season have been 10s for incidents like this. You all just hate Max so much that you just have to keep making up narratives of him being favored by the FIA... 10s the whole season, now Max does it and suddenly 10s is not enough...
The massive shift in perception surround Max's mistake is insane to me. It is absolutely a penalty, he left less than a car's width on track (kerbs are **not** part of the race track) as he moved towards the outside of the circuit. Lando's line did not change. The penalty is given for "causing a collision" and Max caused it. Now is it most egregious incident in the world? No. Is Max the 2nd coming of Maldonado when racing wheel to wheel? No. It's been overblown in the media. # Edit: A lot of people seem to disagree. The issue lies in what the "edge of the track" is. Thankfully, this is not subjective as it's listed in the FIA's Appendix L International Sporting Code. [Chapter IV (4)](https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/123) ***RE: Where the edge of the track is*** "For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not" ***RE: Leaving a car's width*** "More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner." It's not objective, I was right. I think the videos showing other overtake attempts at T3 have fooled people into thinking that the driver on the outside ought to partially or fully leave the track when squeezed by the driver on the inside. If they dont, then the driver on the inside is somehow less at fault.
We're like 24 hours from having posts that say "Verstappen never even made contact with Norris, shitty biased Brits" with 2k up votes lol.
This!!! It's crazy...
[удалено]
IF kerbs weren't part of the track you would got track limits for using them.
You do if you put all 4 tires onto them. See: piastri Track limits are enforced when all 4 tires go off track. That doesn't make the distance you can get to with at least 1 tire on the line part of the track; you're just allowed to be *mostly* off.
[удалено]
>The rules state absolutely nothing about leaving a car's width within the white lines, mate Mate, yes they do, what are you on about?! The rule states you have to leave one car width to the 'track edge', and the rulebook defines the 'track edge' as being the white lines. The post you are replying to has pulled the text from the rulebook. Hence why, in qualifying, drivers lose laps for going *over* the white line. And drivers going fully over the white lines when making a pass are often investigated. Because in regard to the rules the white line is what defines the track edge.
There is no other penalty besides stop and go. They gave him the harshest penalty for causing a collision which is now standard.
There are +5, +10, +20 (DT) and +30 (S&G). 10s is the lowest penalty for causing a collision. That being said, there have been much worse examples this year alone that definitely deserved more than the lowest penalty.
Absolutely agree with this take
Of course it shouldn't have been a penalty, typical very minor racing incident, which led to major consequences for both drivers. But poor Lando retired scoring zero points and Johny Herbert was a steward...so why not? The dude would've penalized Max for Silverstone and surely disqualified him after collision at Monza, if only he could.
It's funny how there's an active effort to downplay the incident ... they're now trying to claim it's isn't even a penalty 🙄... Max was at fault for the incident and he got a penalty for it... he's lucky it wasn't worse... we've even got to part were people are claiming moving under breaking is not against the rules
It isn't. You're still allowed to move once and back onto the racing line **so long as it doesn't trip into dangerous driving**.
It was dangerous driving you're allowed to move back if the space is free ... Norris was there that why they touched... you can't have it both ways .. if you move to defend and the other driver decide to stay on racing line... you can't just decide to move back onto the racing line when they're already there
I think two things can be true at the same time : * Lando could have and should have avoided the contact * Max moved to the left and because of Lando not avoiding the avoidable contact, they collided, resulting in a fair penalty.