Whats the difference

[Just_a_fan]

Pretty much this:
Difference is Massa left no space inside, Max did. And in Silvertone Lewis missed the apex.

At Silverstone they hadn't even arrived at the apex before the contact. He missed it because it was still well ahead of him. You can see it in the picture. It's on that red and white kerbing ahead of him.

It's ok having a view but at least make it consistent with the observable facts.

Observable fact, missed apex:

That is after the contact. To say that Hamilton's trajectory wouldn't be altered by the contact is disingenuous.

[izzy]

Hamiltons line is barely affected by the contact, he misses the apex, because he carries too much speed and understeers away from the corner. I guess I could have said Lewis was going to miss the apex, sure.

I'm not sure if you are aware or not, but any car in the position will lose a lot of downforce because of the outwash from the other car will disturb the flow over its aero surfaces.

And in spite of the contact and loss of aero downforce he still made the corner!

Not to mention the car does not instantaneously go back to full downforce/settle after driving through dirty air, or after contact!

This is it. It was the biggest fail by the stewards not to understand that Max's side wake caused a lot of Lewis' understeer. Also coming off the throttle and braking causes understeer and Max turning in forced that as well. And anyway the contact was about 35m before the apex, Max had no particular right to that space.

This is why nearly all the pundits called it a racing incident.

[TimW]

The amount of risk taken should be a factor. If an action has a serious risk of killing someone, definitely there should be a harsher punishment than some low speed low risk incident.

As it says on the ticket: motorsport is dangerous.

Any move that is undertaken at significant speed - say moving at the last moment as someone tries to overtake you - has the risk of a serious outcome because it will be happening at high speed. Except where a team principal cries "let them race!" in defence of such an action, of course. Then it's just "hard racing" and entirely fair.

That's the thing with this "if it's riskier then it should be punished harder" approach - what is "riskier"? Who gets to decide "riskier"? And what constitutes a "bad outcome"? A high g-loading? Injury? Death?

If we are to take outcomes in to consideration for the penalties given, we'll see drivers behaving like footballers and pretending to be hurt just to get a harsher penalty for another driver. Imagine that.

Of you read my post, and that of Aesop making the same point, it should be not about the actual consequences, but the potential consequences. So a high risk manoeuvre with no damage should be punished harsher than a low risk action that leads to a freak accident. And there is definitely difference in risk between different actions.

[Just_a_fan]

The amount of risk taken should be a factor. If an action has a serious risk of killing someone, definitely there should be a harsher punishment than some low speed low risk incident.

As it says on the ticket: motorsport is dangerous.

Any move that is undertaken at significant speed - say moving at the last moment as someone tries to overtake you - has the risk of a serious outcome because it will be happening at high speed. Except where a team principal cries "let them race!" in defence of such an action, of course. Then it's just "hard racing" and entirely fair.

That's the thing with this "if it's riskier then it should be punished harder" approach - what is "riskier"? Who gets to decide "riskier"? And what constitutes a "bad outcome"? A high g-loading? Injury? Death?

If we are to take outcomes in to consideration for the penalties given, we'll see drivers behaving like footballers and pretending to be hurt just to get a harsher penalty for another driver. Imagine that.

Of you read my post, and that of Aesop making the same point, it should be not about the actual consequences, but the potential consequences. So a high risk manoeuvre with no damage should be punished harsher than a low risk action that leads to a freak accident. And there is definitely difference in risk between different actions.

So moving across as someone is trying to overtake in to the braking zone at 300km/h should be harshly punished even if nothing comes of it? It has the potential for the mother of all crashes, after all.

S'funny, but that has been given a green light for the last few years ever since a certain young chap starting doing it at every opportunity.

[AeroDynamic]

If we penalised based on potential consequences, certain drivers would quit F1 after throwing their toys out the pram and blame the sport for being unable to race.. unless, the rules don't apply to them.

[TimW]

If we penalised based on potential consequences, certain drivers would quit F1 after throwing their toys out the pram and blame the sport for being unable to race.. unless, the rules don't apply to them.

Moving under breaking had a penalty, doesn't it? (Although it is not consistently applied, but what has been consistent lately?)

[PlatinumZealot]

Samilar incidents. Both guys on the outside cut in too early and tripped over themselves when they had miles of track to make the corner.
Two differences . Massa was further ahead into the braking zone than Max was. Lewis yielded more in Silverstone.

[Stu]

As it says on the ticket: motorsport is dangerous.

Any move that is undertaken at significant speed - say moving at the last moment as someone tries to overtake you - has the risk of a serious outcome because it will be happening at high speed. Except where a team principal cries "let them race!" in defence of such an action, of course. Then it's just "hard racing" and entirely fair.

That's the thing with this "if it's riskier then it should be punished harder" approach - what is "riskier"? Who gets to decide "riskier"? And what constitutes a "bad outcome"? A high g-loading? Injury? Death?

If we are to take outcomes in to consideration for the penalties given, we'll see drivers behaving like footballers and pretending to be hurt just to get a harsher penalty for another driver. Imagine that.

Of you read my post, and that of Aesop making the same point, it should be not about the actual consequences, but the potential consequences. So a high risk manoeuvre with no damage should be punished harsher than a low risk action that leads to a freak accident. And there is definitely difference in risk between different actions.

So moving across as someone is trying to overtake in to the braking zone at 300km/h should be harshly punished even if nothing comes of it? It has the potential for the mother of all crashes, after all.

S'funny, but that has been given a green light for the last few years ever since a certain young chap starting doing it at every opportunity.

You had to bring Lance Stroll into it, didn’t you…

[izzy]

If we penalised based on potential consequences, certain drivers would quit F1 after throwing their toys out the pram and blame the sport for being unable to race.. unless, the rules don't apply to them.

lol, but seriously a lot of the issue is that behaviour doesn't get punished, as long as the other guy jumps out of the way. So then when there is contact, it's more easily seen as the other guy's fault or 50/50. Max has learned he's allowed to brake too late to make the apex as long as Lewis goes off the track to avoid him.

[Just_a_fan]

If we penalised based on potential consequences, certain drivers would quit F1 after throwing their toys out the pram and blame the sport for being unable to race.. unless, the rules don't apply to them.

lol, but seriously a lot of the issue is that behaviour doesn't get punished, as long as the other guy jumps out of the way. So then when there is contact, it's more easily seen as the other guy's fault or 50/50. Max has learned he's allowed to brake too late to make the apex as long as Lewis goes off the track to avoid him.

Indeed so. What needs to happen is a Lewis (or a Lando, a Charles, etc.) to just take the corner as normal when Max does one of his "I pass or we crash" moves. Max then has to be punished for dive bombing and then, maybe, thinks twice about doing it again. But who wants to deliberately stay in the way and get hit? And that's why Max has gotten away with it - no one wants to take the hit.

[NathanOlder]

If we penalised based on potential consequences, certain drivers would quit F1 after throwing their toys out the pram and blame the sport for being unable to race.. unless, the rules don't apply to them.

lol, but seriously a lot of the issue is that behaviour doesn't get punished, as long as the other guy jumps out of the way. So then when there is contact, it's more easily seen as the other guy's fault or 50/50. Max has learned he's allowed to brake too late to make the apex as long as Lewis goes off the track to avoid him.

Indeed so. What needs to happen is a Lewis (or a Lando, a Charles, etc.) to just take the corner as normal when Max does one of his "I pass or we crash" moves. Max then has to be punished for dive bombing and then, maybe, thinks twice about doing it again. But who wants to deliberately stay in the way and get hit? And that's why Max has gotten away with it - no one wants to take the hit.

Exactly, so it needed to be nipped in the bud way before we got here, but the FIA let it happen like the bunch of fools they are.

[PlatinumZealot]

Pretty much this:
Difference is Massa left no space inside, Max did. And in Silvertone Lewis missed the apex.

Difference is Massa left no space inside, Max did. And in Silvertone Lewis missed the apex.

Well the 2 photos I posted show that both times at the point of contact, there was space on the inside and neither of the incidents had even reached the apex.

There is no space for 1 car on the inside of Massa's line, Verstappen clearly does leave space (disclaimer: red lines may not be 100% accurate, so dont nitpick on it, the difference if obvious and clear):



2011 is probably a racing incident or small penalty for Massa. Hamilton makes a move that does not really fit in that corner, having to slow his car more due to a bad corner attack angle, Massa cuts his opponent off and does not leave enough space, possibly due to not seeing him properly or assuming the other guy will back out due to having that bad angle.
2021 is clearly mostly the fault of Hamilton. Verstappen is somewhat enthousiastically taking the outside line, but leaves more than enough space for his opponent. Hamilton takes too much speed into the corner and cannot hold the inside line, hitting his opponent on the back wheel.

1) The red lines you put there are not consistent. To show where the car is pointing, all you had to do is draw a straight line down the center of the nose of the car. Then...

2) Use the steering lock and speed of the car to estimate a curve to show the path of the cars.

In both cases, Lewis is not on the apex. In Silverstone he actually had more steering angle towards the Apex.

So your conclusion for 2021 is not logical.

[izzy]

If we penalised based on potential consequences, certain drivers would quit F1 after throwing their toys out the pram and blame the sport for being unable to race.. unless, the rules don't apply to them.

lol, but seriously a lot of the issue is that behaviour doesn't get punished, as long as the other guy jumps out of the way. So then when there is contact, it's more easily seen as the other guy's fault or 50/50. Max has learned he's allowed to brake too late to make the apex as long as Lewis goes off the track to avoid him.

Indeed so. What needs to happen is a Lewis (or a Lando, a Charles, etc.) to just take the corner as normal when Max does one of his "I pass or we crash" moves. Max then has to be punished for dive bombing and then, maybe, thinks twice about doing it again. But who wants to deliberately stay in the way and get hit? And that's why Max has gotten away with it - no one wants to take the hit.

Yes and sweet Valtteri wasn't exactly the ideal teammate for this was he? Perhaps George as you say...

I blame the stewards, I think they should've all been thrown out along with Masi. There could have been natural justice with Silverstone being the downside of how Max goes racing, but no just because it wasn't on an apex didn't mean Max couldn't turn in whenever he liked apparently. And then by Jeddah he seemed to feel entitled to do pretty much anything. And where was the 2-corners rule from Spa 2008? Oh they forgot

[AeroDynamic]

so based on that red line, Max was going into the wall without help?

[Just_a_fan]

so based on that red line, Max was going into the wall without help?

Yep, straight line to Whittlebury Golf Course quarter of a mile away behind those trees.