planetf1.com

I think there is a big difference between contact happening at a corner and the straight. Another reason why I think Hamilton will have accepted the blame will be because he did actually have a small lock up which won't have helped the impact he hit Albon with. I just don't think he was along side enough to be carrying that much speed into the corner to make it cleanly with that lock up. Even if Albon had gone wider, I think hamilton still will have touched him. Given he fully blamed himself fully, i think the penalty was certainly deserved. Albon could have been more aware, but I certainly blame Hamilton most here.

The lockup occurred as soon as Albon turned in.

Hamilton locked up because the door was closed. Hamilton was also on average about 0.7-0.8 a lap quicker than Albon when on equal tyres. Hamilton also had 15 lap fresher tyres. Probably easily another 0.7-0.8 in his tyres over Albon. He was easily 1.5 seconds quicker at that phase and Brazil is a short lap. He had a huge speed advantage so such an overtaking move is on with such a speed differential and most of that speed differential is in the corners and braking zones, not really the straights.

You say there is a big difference between contact at corners and contact on straights, but do not explain what the difference is?

Contact is contact. Damage is damage. Steering your car into the path of another car is steering your car into the path of another car. All of these can happen on straights and corners and should be avoided regardless of where on the ribbon of tarmac you are.

If you are on the outside of the track and are approaching an upcoming corner, if you want to sweep your car straight across so that you can kiss the apex and take the fastest path through the corner, then you better be damn sure that there is no one else's car that could possibly be in the way as you swerve your car across the track from one side to the other like that.

Most people blame Prost for Japan 1989, but Prost just did what Albon did, only Prost was aware of Senna trying to pass, and Albon was not aware of Hamilton trying to pass. Their cars did the same thing though.

This only really changes if the inside driver comes from way too far back and is doing a divebomb style move where they are very unlikely to be able to keep to an inside trajectory around the corner, and instead are actually flying towards the outside of the corner themselves and are heading towards the outside path of the car in front. Other than that, so long as it is a standard move and the overtaking driver is going to easily make the corner, they should be entitled to space at the apex and the outside driver does not have the right to just turn in on them.

Because you must turn to go round corners whereas you don't actually need to change your line on the straights. Albon could have given more room, but he still needed to turn. On the straight there is not at any point a real reason for doing the same thing as other wise you will go off the track.... I didn't explain because i thought it was more than obvious. I don't think Hamilton would take the blame so fast if he didn't think he was at fault. I think that was more Hamilton's fault than Albon's and the penalty was deserved.

Yeah, and you don't need to change line on the corners either. You are perfectly entitled to just follow the outside path around a corner, you aren't obliged to sweep fully across to the inside and should only do so when it is safe and clear to do so, (which in this example it wasn't).

Albon could have just hugged the left contour of the corner, there was plenty of space out there for him on the outside, he did not need to swing over to the right hand side like he did. Heck he could even have moved a little bit to the right as that would have put him in the middle of the track, that would have been fine too as Hamilton would not have hit him. What he shouldn't do is sweep completely over to the right when Hamilton has part of his car there.

That doesn't really matter with Hamilton getting a 5 second penalty.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Hamilton and Gasly didn't know it wouldn't matter at the time for the reason you state, as Hamilton had not been penalised yet.

The real reason as to why it didn't matter was that Hamilton had a slightly damaged car so we don't know how much that affected things and how well Gasly really did there to stay ahead of Hamilton on the final straight.

To be fair, Hamilton thought he'd be able to pip the Honda but Gasly had his engine turned up to full power AND was utilizing the overtake button for even more power which is what kept Lewis from overtaking him. Regardless, the penalty would've still resulted in the same penalty and finishing in the same position.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

My immediate thought after was that he should have tucked in for longer and that given the lack of DRS at the time he went alongside to early and spent too long there nullifying his advantage.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===

All of that is moot because Albon did not see Hamilton. There is no intent.

Prost 89 is a poor example too, because Prost turned early to intentionally hit Senna and if Senna wasn’t there Prost would have cut the corner such was the extent of how early he turned in.

Read earlier posts, this is covered.

Intent or no intent, you still committed a foul against your opponent that disrupted their race.

Most if not all of the unsafe releases there is no intent to do something wrong, (e.g. Kubica being released in front of Max in the last race), and it is often just an error (in terms of automatically just releasing your car the moment they are ready without looking into the pit lane to see if there is someone coming), but a foul has been committed against someone still so there needs to be a penalty for that, (Kubica got a 5 second penalty but no one is suggesting that Williams with a Mercedes engine, deliberately released Kubica in front of Max to hold him up slightly, it has just been regarded as an unintentional error by the team).

So whether there is intent or no intent just determines the severity of the punishment that applies, it does not determine whether or not any punishment at all should be given. Otherwise what is the incentive to be dlilgent if you can ruin someone elses race by being negligent and clumsy, and escape unpunished so long as you can prove that there was no cynical intent on your part?

Yes is agree, but I was replying to your 2nd paragraph in which you speculated Albon could have left room. You don’t leave room for something you are unaware of.

I am saying that Albon could have left room in the same way that Williams could have released Kubica safely.

If both Albon and Williams had been more aware of the circumstances unfolding around them, a different and more correct action could have been taken, that is my point.

So... Even though Lewis said it was his fault, it was Albon's.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Spot on. Apparently Lewis was just being polite, taking the blame. And the stewards were obviously biased.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

He didn't actually say it was his fault.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm. One of the first things he said to Barrichello literally was that it was completely his own fault.

“I massively apologise to Albon, I went for a move, the gap was there but obviously it closed at the end. Completely my fault… I took a lot of risks today, as you saw.”

Formula1.com

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

I misremembered his actual words and certainly retract my previous comment.

Sorry if i seemed against what you said. I just thought that you maybe knew and were just continuing with the other comments

What's strange about this is there are no Hamilton fans saying otherwise so I'm not sure about the biased angle that's being suggested here in regards to the stewards?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Oh, they're incredibly biased. Along with the dinosaur that would only eat Alonso and no one else.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

It's already been covered but LH's apology means nothing as it was better to look the 'bigger man' and own up to a supposed wrong doing when the titles are already won and you don't really care about the points anyhow.

It worked too as I saw an article written last week criticising the Ferrari drivers for not being mature like LH and owning up to their mistakes in their own crash.

Also, look at Albon's interview after the race, he is not mad at LH, he is annoyed at himself because he knows that he cocked up.

Aha... So you are saying that Lewis is a media manipulating, race position & points throwing, liar???

And YOU are capable of reading Albon's mind. Hell, no wonder I so often find myself at odds with some of my fellow forumites...I just don't have the "inside" (driver's heads) information of others. I, apparently foolishly, believed Lewis when he voluntarily took the blame. I did not believe that Lewis not care about his face finishing position or points because he had already won the WDC. Didn't even know of Albon's inner anger at his failure and built because HE was apparently the guilty one, not the lying Lewis. Who knew???

I was willing to believe that a driver as great as Lewis Hamilton (YES, Blake said that... and meant it) would compete in every race for every reasonable point. I was willing to believe that the current Lewis Hamilton who has matured enough to admit an error simply admired to an...error.

Silly me.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Albon sounded incredibly frustrated at the time with Hamilton. And Hamilton seemed to instantly realise that he'd made a mistake and tried to allow him back through. I think Albon as well as Leclerc and a few others are some of the best on the grid at staying calm in interviews. I don't think you can confirm that he is basically blaming himself...

And Hamilton getting a penalty purely because he admitted it was his own fault would be ridiculous. If Albon was the one who messed up, it would have been a racing incident. Hamilton got a penalty and that to me indicates that he was at fault and not Albon surely...

Have you ever seen an incident where the stewards have not applied a penalty where you think one would have been appropriate?

I don't think the stewards are even close to consistent enough in their judgements to be used as any kind of evidence for this one way or the other.

I think the absence of a penalty is certainly no proof. It's more rare (although not unheard of) for the stewards to award a penalty when none was deserved.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

No, he was annoyed because he missed his first podium. He didn't do anything wrong. If he takes the inside line he pretty much concedes the position anyway because Lewis will take the outside and have a better run to the last corner. All he did was take the optimum racing line. I actually think it was smart of Albon for "ignoring" Lewis because it sort of shows that he's just not going to give way in future battles. Also under no circumstance Lewis would have made that move if the championship was still on the line.

So maybe Vettel was smart for 'ignoring' the presence of Leclerc when they hit too right?

This incident boils down to the simple fact that Albon moved his car laterally across into another car and it is not acceptable.

People said that what Kimi did to MV on lap 1 in Belgium 2019 was acceptable on lap 1, but would not be acceptable later in the race. Well Albon did exactly what Kimi did.

Dude you're letting your obvious dislike for Albon cloud your judgement.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

I think verstappen was a bit too oppertinistic going for that gap that race. Kimi nearly managed to get his wheels on the kerb before there was even contact. Kimi could have maybe gone a little wider, but I don't think either was really to blame more than the other. Kimi had already started turning towards that corner and had only a little more room to his left. But he will have had to be watching around him. verstappen carried so much speed into that corner compared to almost all other drivers (maybe to make up for his bad start) so could have come as a bit of a surprise. I don't think it is really comparable to the incident last race.

They are completely comparable, both incidents at their heart involve the inside driver easily making the corner while following the inside path, and the driver on the outside just turning their car fully over onto the apex kerbs without looking first.

That has nothing to do with the Albon-Hamilton incident, simply because the Vettel accident happened on a straight, where he could and should have made sure he had completed his overtake before cutting off Leclerc.
Albon defended into a corner, was ahead all the way into the corner up to the apex, and according to the rule Charlie Whiting explained long ago, he had the right to the corner. I can only assume that Hamilton also remembered this 'rule', and that this is why he instantly knew he was in trouble. It is also the reason why he would never haver tried that overtake in the same racing circumstances, had the championship depended on getting past Max, stillup the road ahead of Albon.

See above, it doesn't. You would have been correct had Hamilton been ahead at the apex, but even then it might have been judged to be a racing incident if it were clear Albon could not see Hamilton's attempt.

Wrong again; even though race starts are even more difficult where situational awareness is concerned, if you only look at Räikkönen and Verstappen, Räikkönen was ahead at the apex and therefore had the right to the corner.

The only thing in the whole discussion that we won't understand until the FIA ever gets round to explaining it to us with reference to the rules as published, is the explanation Charlie Whiting gave about such incidents as between Albon and Hamilton. But at least in this case, the stewards and Hamilton were consistent.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

There is no such thing as a 'right to the corner' in the rules. You can't just crash into people.

There are a lot of things not mentioned in the rules, like "racing line", "racing etiquette", etc. But still they exist and they do cover these in the briefings sometimes. This specific issue, the corner, has been one of the biggest things in the history of F1, who "has" the corner? So as Fiki said, this was cleared by Whiting a few years ago. If the driver behind has managed to sneak his car on the inside enough, then fair play, if not, they know when they have to concede as the space disappears. In fairness it is not the easiest thing when you have committed to a line into a corner, but they all have the same rules and they know them

Didn't Whiting define "alongside enough" as front wheels overlapping rear wheels?

He mentioned specifically what "alongside" is supposed to be, I just couldn't remember and wrote "alongside enough"! It wasn't meant to be misleading

Yeah, I wasn't accusing you of being misleading at all. Just expanding what you were saying.