2025 Austrian Grand Prix - Spielberg, June 27 - 29

[dialtone]

then try to use better words, because 'always' doesn't fit there.

It will never not be funny to see Max fans complain about other drivers getting off easy… 2 races ago the champion, in a fit of rage, drove with purpose in another car in a move that alone would have warranted a dq and was given 10s post race and then only 3 points because 4 would have been another ban.

The most unreasonable fans in motorsport.

[organic]

then try to use better words, because 'always' doesn't fit there.

It will never not be funny to see Max fans complain about other drivers getting off easy… 2 races ago the champion, in a fit of rage, drove with purpose in another car in a move that alone would have warranted a dq and was given 10s post race and then only 3 points because 4 would have been another ban.

The most unreasonable fans in motorsport.

When have 4 penalty points been given out and why does the incident specifically warrant 4?

[Shrieker]

Thanks Franco, for robbing from us a battle on the closing laps


**mod edited**

[Laserguru]

For the 1st pit stop Piastri was offered the choice of a 1.5 sec gap or 4 sec and he got 6.5 sec. Was it deliberate as reaction to his deemed “unacceptable” overtaking attempt at Norris and intended to manage the battle or was it a poorly executed strategy from his side of the garage? With this 6.5 sec gap best case he would have been on the tail of Norris at the finish line.

[dialtone]

then try to use better words, because 'always' doesn't fit there.

It will never not be funny to see Max fans complain about other drivers getting off easy… 2 races ago the champion, in a fit of rage, drove with purpose in another car in a move that alone would have warranted a dq and was given 10s post race and then only 3 points because 4 would have been another ban.

The most unreasonable fans in motorsport.

When have 4 penalty points been given out and why does the incident specifically warrant 4?

Thank you for the question.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... lean_0.pdf

This is the F1 Guidelines for Penalties and Points document released to the public after the Verstappen incident.

In this document you can clearly read: "Causing a collision with apparent deliberate or reckless intent" is a 10s stop and go, with 4 penalty points. So the Stewards decided after watching Max check 4+ times the position of George Russell, that the crash wasn't intentional nor reckless, while every single commentator, ex driver, current driver interviewed (or via some awkward form of an apology) admitted that it was 100% intentional.

[Ben1980]

For the 1st pit stop Piastri was offered the choice of a 1.5 sec gap or 4 sec and he got 6.5 sec. Was it deliberate as reaction to his deemed “unacceptable” overtaking attempt at Norris and intended to manage the battle or was it a poorly executed strategy from his side of the garage? With this 6.5 sec gap best case he would have been on the tail of Norris at the finish line.

Think it was the aim, and probably the correct aim. But Lando was quick on the hards and Oscar probably slower than anticipated.

But going for an offset was the right call, I think anyway.

[SharkY]

For the 1st pit stop Piastri was offered the choice of a 1.5 sec gap or 4 sec and he got 6.5 sec. Was it deliberate as reaction to his deemed “unacceptable” overtaking attempt at Norris and intended to manage the battle or was it a poorly executed strategy from his side of the garage? With this 6.5 sec gap best case he would have been on the tail of Norris at the finish line.

Oscar's inlap + outlap combination was 1,3s slower than Lando's. That contributed greatly to this difference. Also, Oscar's pace dropped a bit right before pitting, while Lando picked up the pace, when Oscar pitted.
Most likely just wrong estimation and it's impossible to say if this 1,5s was even feasible, when it could have been much more.

[Waz]

For the 1st pit stop Piastri was offered the choice of a 1.5 sec gap or 4 sec and he got 6.5 sec. Was it deliberate as reaction to his deemed “unacceptable” overtaking attempt at Norris and intended to manage the battle or was it a poorly executed strategy from his side of the garage? With this 6.5 sec gap best case he would have been on the tail of Norris at the finish line.

Oscar's inlap + outlap combination was 1,3s slower than Lando's. That contributed greatly to this difference. Also, Oscar's pace dropped a bit right before pitting, while Lando picked up the pace, when Oscar pitted.
Most likely just wrong estimation and it's impossible to say if this 1,5s was even feasible, when it could have been much more.

The undercut seemed to be worth more than 1.5s on its own, so best case by pitting the lap after would have been more like 2.5s gap if stops were identical.

I'm sure someone will have a chart or done the maths on it properly.

[Mattchu]

I thought the first 20 or so laps were brilliant to watch, there were several intense sit up and take notice moments!

[chrisc90]

Bit of a dull race outside of the mclarens 1st stint where car and lando were racing.

Just shows how much Max brings to the weekends racing by being able to compete with the McLarens.

Otherwise it’s a mclaren whitewash of the field.

[Quantum]

I thought the first 20 or so laps were brilliant to watch, there were several intense sit up and take notice moments!

And a team that get's their drivers racing each other. Credit to Macca. Could easily have swept into a '22 and '23 style borefest.

[stephen]

Respect to Kimi for owning up to the mistake and apologizing right away. Max handled it with real maturity too.

[vorticism]

It will never not be funny to see Max fans complain about other drivers getting off easy… 2 races ago the champion, in a fit of rage, drove with purpose in another car in a move that alone would have warranted a dq and was given 10s post race and then only 3 points because 4 would have been another ban.

The most unreasonable fans in motorsport.

When have 4 penalty points been given out and why does the incident specifically warrant 4?

Thank you for the question.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... lean_0.pdf

This is the F1 Guidelines for Penalties and Points document released to the public after the Verstappen incident.

In this document you can clearly read: "Causing a collision with apparent deliberate or reckless intent" is a 10s stop and go, with 4 penalty points. So the Stewards decided after watching Max check 4+ times the position of George Russell, that the crash wasn't intentional nor reckless, while every single commentator, ex driver, current driver interviewed (or via some awkward form of an apology) admitted that it was 100% intentional.

"Collision" being rendered usefully vague there. I guess a collision could be anything from bumping tires and causing no loss of car control, to damaging bodywork, to shearing the car in half at the engine-monocoque interface. If a collision is bumping into another car without causing either car to leave the track, then Leclerc would also have befallen your FIA guidelines there, a few laps earlier in that race. "Causing a collision with no immediate and obvious sporting consequence" also yields a "reprimand/5s/10s or grid penalty and up to 3 penalty points."

Will you also castigate the stewards for not upholding that infraction by Leclerc? If Verstappen's action was truly reckless, there would have been shards of carbon fiber on the track. Yet, both George and Max continued on with the race. So you have to ask: what was the point of such a precise bump? Russell wasn't penalized for contacting Verstappen because of this year's famous steward guide rule about being ahead at the apex, so Max did some trolling in retaliation in order to make a statement about the guide. If you're ahead at the apex, you're allowed to contact the outside car, and/or run them off the track. As occurred a few times earlier in the season. Max didn't force George off ultimately, although he could have per the steward's guide, but that would have only provided more virtue signaling clickbait fuel for journalists. So, fairly well managed PR calculation there, considering it was parsed while driving between 100 and 200 mph.

[dialtone]

"Collision" being rendered usefully vague there. I guess a collision could be anything from bumping tires and causing no loss of car control, to damaging bodywork, to shearing the car in half at the engine-monocoque interface. If a collision is bumping into another car without…

LMAO the gaslighting. Get out of here…

[selvam_e2002]

Max probably heading to Mercedes and he will be driving along with Kimi. hence he may be have a soft corner with him.. This is my thought.

Russel => last time they did renew the contract very quickly before Hamilton. So this time there will be a big surprise for us. Russel may heading to AMR or RB(which I doubt)

Alonso with Honda is never going to work. If Russel 'in' then Alonso will go to Alpine reunion with his OLD TP Britore.