2021 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, July 16 - 18

[Jolle]

Final piece of evidence which conclusively shows HAM is at fault for initiating the contact.

https://youtube.com/shorts/xGgpdb2WhRE?feature=share

No powerful interest (Sky, Barretto / Buxton) to interfere this time to put this as a racing incident or even try to blame this on VER

Of course they race on a track where incidents happen, so I am not sure what they want to say with that.

What is the evidence? That they take different lines?

[Big Tea]

Final piece of evidence which conclusively shows HAM is at fault for initiating the contact.

https://youtube.com/shorts/xGgpdb2WhRE?feature=share

No powerful interest (Sky, Barretto / Buxton) to interfere this time to put this as a racing incident or even try to blame this on VER

Of course they race on a track where incidents happen, so I am not sure what they want to say with that.

What is the evidence? That they take different lines?

And of course one set is fully fuelled on first lap the other is not, plus closing speeds are different

[Just_a_fan]

.
@Kenshi_blind has a crystal ball. Didn't you know?

spare me the sarcasm / mockery . i do not have a crystal ball, fact of the matter is this is just theatre now from Redbull, the stewards said it was a racing incident and it's time to move on

When did Stewards say it's racing incident? They found Hamilton guilty and punished him. Drivers don't get punished in racing incidents.

The word "predominantly" means that blame is not exclusively on one driver - there is a share of blame. That's a definition of a racing incident.

[Ryar]

spare me the sarcasm / mockery . i do not have a crystal ball, fact of the matter is this is just theatre now from Redbull, the stewards said it was a racing incident and it's time to move on

When did Stewards say it's racing incident? They found Hamilton guilty and punished him. Drivers don't get punished in racing incidents.

The word "predominantly" means that blame is not exclusively on one driver - there is a share of blame. That's a definition of a racing incident.

The official statement from the stewards doesn't talk anything about "Racing Incident".

Offence - Breach of Article 2 d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... car_33.pdf

[Wouter]

When did Stewards say it's racing incident? They found Hamilton guilty and punished him. Drivers don't get punished in racing incidents.

The word "predominantly" means that blame is not exclusively on one driver - there is a share of blame. That's a definition of a racing incident.

The official statement from the stewards doesn't talk anything about "Racing Incident".

Offence - Breach of Article 2 d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... car_33.pdf

d) Causing a collision, repetition of serious
mistakes or the appearance of a lack of
control over the car (such as leaving the
track) will be reported to the Stewards and
may entail the imposition of penalties up to
and including the disqualification of any
driver concerned

[Just_a_fan]

When did Stewards say it's racing incident? They found Hamilton guilty and punished him. Drivers don't get punished in racing incidents.

The word "predominantly" means that blame is not exclusively on one driver - there is a share of blame. That's a definition of a racing incident.

The official statement from the stewards doesn't talk anything about "Racing Incident".

Offence - Breach of Article 2 d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... car_33.pdf

The sporting regulations don't mention "racing incident" either. It's a term used by the racing community, not by the rules governing the events. So presumably you won't be using the term "racing incident" anymore as it's not official.

[politburo]

The word "predominantly" means that blame is not exclusively on one driver - there is a share of blame. That's a definition of a racing incident.

The official statement from the stewards doesn't talk anything about "Racing Incident".

Offence - Breach of Article 2 d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... car_33.pdf

The sporting regulations don't mention "racing incident" either. It's a term used by the racing community, not by the rules governing the events. So presumably you won't be using the term "racing incident" anymore as it's not official.

I'm quite sure the English media have been using that term for quite some time to refer to situations where they think penalising a driver is too harsh, I figured that out by inference. A paraphrased example is the "Perez goes on the outside of Norris and gets squeezed on the corner exit, he should've known you can't expect to be given space there - that's just a racing incident". When it was Kimi Raikonnen's crash with Vettel at the end of Austrian GP though, they didn't call it a racing incident.

If the rationale is how you describe it (a community term), then the term will be valueless and vague since anything that happens in the race that is potentially penalisable will be a racing incident - regardless of the degree of wrongdoing.

[Ryar]

The word "predominantly" means that blame is not exclusively on one driver - there is a share of blame. That's a definition of a racing incident.

The official statement from the stewards doesn't talk anything about "Racing Incident".

Offence - Breach of Article 2 d) Chapter IV Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... car_33.pdf

The sporting regulations don't mention "racing incident" either. It's a term used by the racing community, not by the rules governing the events. So presumably you won't be using the term "racing incident" anymore as it's not official.

I am going to definitely use it, as appropriate.

[Just_a_fan]

If the rationale is how you describe it (a community term), then the term will be valueless and vague since anything that happens in the race that is potentially penalisable will be a racing incident - regardless of the degree of wrongdoing.

It's not in the regulations, ergo, it's not an official term. As all incidents are subjective to some degree, the outcomes will be subjective - that's why there is an appeals process, after all.

The term "racing incident" is used to describe something where there appears, in the view of the particular person, to be equal blame / no blame. It's the polite way of saying "sh1t happens".

[Just_a_fan]

The official statement from the stewards doesn't talk anything about "Racing Incident".



https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... car_33.pdf

The sporting regulations don't mention "racing incident" either. It's a term used by the racing community, not by the rules governing the events. So presumably you won't be using the term "racing incident" anymore as it's not official.

I am going to definitely use it, as appropriate.

When Max does something it's a racing incident, when Lewis does something it's a slam dunk DSQ and race ban. That sort of "appropriate"?

[politburo]

If the rationale is how you describe it (a community term), then the term will be valueless and vague since anything that happens in the race that is potentially penalisable will be a racing incident - regardless of the degree of wrongdoing.

It's not in the regulations, ergo, it's not an official term. As all incidents are subjective to some degree, the outcomes will be subjective - that's why there is an appeals process, after all.

The term "racing incident" is used to describe something where there appears, in the view of the particular person, to be equal blame / no blame. It's the polite way of saying "sh1t happens".

It's definitely not an official term. That is why they have rules focusing on good driving standards, rules which are fairly straightforward, but the penalty system and how these penalties are applied is murky. All violations, intentional or not have consequences somewhere, and thus there must be penalties imparted to balance those consequences, especially when one driver is predominantly to blame.

The scaling of penalties is the problem. A driver causing a collision and that collision resulting in a driver losing the race must not have the same punishment as pushing a driver off-track, blocking, ignoring blue flags or even crossing the white line at pit-entry. Raikonnen took Vettel out and deserved his drive-thru penalty for that despite the fact they were not fighting for points and Hamilton would have deserved the same (and that is not even the most serious penalty they can impose). One could argue all these offenses are racing incidents but at the same time, but that doesn't matter, they all examples of poor driving by at least one of the drivers in the incident and that is hard to make a case against.

[Ryar]

The sporting regulations don't mention "racing incident" either. It's a term used by the racing community, not by the rules governing the events. So presumably you won't be using the term "racing incident" anymore as it's not official.

I am going to definitely use it, as appropriate.

When Max does something it's a racing incident, when Lewis does something it's a slam dunk DSQ and race ban. That sort of "appropriate"?

I appreciate your imagination. But a "racing incident" has a far wider spread in terms of it's applicability. As far as the incident in British GP was concerned, officials didn't term it racing incident and let's keep it that way.

[Ryar]

Another interesting trajectory comparison of the incident, overlaying it with the move on Leclerc.

[toraabe]

If the rationale is how you describe it (a community term), then the term will be valueless and vague since anything that happens in the race that is potentially penalisable will be a racing incident - regardless of the degree of wrongdoing.

It's not in the regulations, ergo, it's not an official term. As all incidents are subjective to some degree, the outcomes will be subjective - that's why there is an appeals process, after all.

The term "racing incident" is used to describe something where there appears, in the view of the particular person, to be equal blame / no blame. It's the polite way of saying "sh1t happens".

Well do someone remember this? https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/90153/mo ... otest.html

[El Scorchio]

If the rationale is how you describe it (a community term), then the term will be valueless and vague since anything that happens in the race that is potentially penalisable will be a racing incident - regardless of the degree of wrongdoing.

It's not in the regulations, ergo, it's not an official term. As all incidents are subjective to some degree, the outcomes will be subjective - that's why there is an appeals process, after all.

The term "racing incident" is used to describe something where there appears, in the view of the particular person, to be equal blame / no blame. It's the polite way of saying "sh1t happens".

Well do someone remember this? https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/90153/mo ... otest.html

When you look at the comments from RBR after that, and after this, it could make their case somewhat flimsier.