Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Silverstone, 2021

Hamilton penalty “harsh” for move within FIA’s overtaking guidance – Allison

2021 British Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Mercedes’ chief technical officer, James Allison, has defended Lewis Hamilton’s overtaking move on Max Verstappen last weekend, saying it complied with the FIA’s overtaking guidance.

Hamilton was issued a 10-second time penalty and two penalty points on his super license after colliding with Verstappen on lap one of the British Grand Prix. Verstappen crashed out of the race, suffering an impact of more than 50G with the barrier at Copse. The race was red-flagged and stewards deliberated on who was to blame for the accident until shortly after the restart.

During the red flag period, team principal Toto Wolff was heard contacting F1 race director Michael Masi saying that he had sent him an email with information Mercedes thought was important to the stewards’ investigation into the incident.

Allison revealed more of what Mercedes wanted to draw attention to in a video issued by the team. “We were concerned after the incident and prior to the restart to make sure that the stewards had read and were following the FIA’s internal guidance to stewards on the rights and wrongs of overtaking because as far as we are concerned, the manoeuvre that took place, the manoeuvre that Lewis did was absolutely in line with the FIA’s overtaking guide,” he said.

“If you are on the inside of the corner, overtaking on the inside of the corner, then the guidance requires that you are substantially alongside. It is not required that you are ahead, it requires that you are substantially alongside as you arrive at the corner.”

“Lewis definitely was substantially alongside – he had his front axle well beyond the midpoint of Verstappen’s car,” Allison added.

The FIA’s guidance also stipulates that any car making such a manoeuvre should be on a line whereby they would be safely able to get around a corner, without a collision, Allison explained.

“What that means is not that you have to emerge in the lead, what it means is that you do not have to cede your position, you do not have to back off and the other car has a duty to avoid hitting you,” he continued. “So, if you follow the notes that are provided to the FIA stewards and you look frame by frame at what happened with Lewis, he was substantially alongside, he absolutely would have made the corner and indeed, did make the corner and therefore there was no need for him to cede any ground.”

Allison has previously praised Hamilton’s driving as exceptionally clean, saying before the start of last season he has an “utterly unblemished record” in terms of incidents. He disagreed with the stewards’ decision to penalise him on Sunday.

“I did feel that it was harsh to get the penalty. I realise not everyone agrees with that, but I still believe that to be the case and I certainly think that whether Copse is a fast corner or a slow corner makes no difference.

“This is about what are the rules to do with overtaking and I didn’t see that Lewis did anything wrong with respect to those rules. Indeed, later in the race, Lewis made two further overtakes at Copse using exactly the same guidance and there wasn’t a contact in either of those cases.”

“I personally feel it was a harsh decision,” he emphasised. “In the end, for our outcome, it didn’t make any difference but I can understand people who maybe don’t understand there is no obligation on you to hit the apex of the corner, that you don’t have to have your whole car in front of the other car, I can understand that if you are seeing it from that perspective you might think that the car coming from behind has some sort of obligation to make sure that no crashes take place, but if you look at the stewarding document then I think that Lewis did nothing wrong.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

Author information

Hazel Southwell
Hazel is a motorsport and automotive journalist with a particular interest in hybrid systems, electrification, batteries and new fuel technologies....

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

146 comments on “Hamilton penalty “harsh” for move within FIA’s overtaking guidance – Allison”

  1. Who cares James!? To many worshipers of the holy cow to make the difference.

    1. Still though, nice to see a well-reasoned, clearly explained argument that utilizes the rules, as opposed to Horner’s rabble-rousing screed that Lewis is an idiot who tried to kill Max.

    2. Better “worshipers of the holy cow” than “Mercedes – WW2 nazi war machine producer”… if you want to be nasty about it.

      1. Just when you thought things couldn’t sink any lower…..

        1. Don’t stir $hlt if you can’t handle the stink.

          1. Lol.. perhaps you should read this.


          2. @f1-plossl Yes, same $hlt as Mercedes.

          3. Lol Necro’d

    3. Jeroen Bons
      25th July 2021, 15:31

      Allison: “I think that Lewis did nothing wrong.” – “the other car has a duty to avoid hitting you,” Aahhh.. well ‘the “other” car’ in this case was car nr.33 In that case Allison thinks that Max Verstappen did something wrong. If that is the case, what could Verstappen have done to avoid hitting Hamilton? Or more precisely..’to avoid Hamilton hitting him’? Should car 33 have done the same as car 16 (Leclerc) or as car 5 (Norris)? Which would have come to stop defending his position and giving up his leading position in the race. Be my guest Ham, I just take second.

  2. Unsurprisingly, agree 100%. It was a racing incident but Verstappen was the one who cut into the corner, knowing Hamilton was there. Which really places the blame more on him. That, of course, depends on precisely these regulations about overtaking. My view: Red Bull were calling to send him to the back or a DSQ. FIA stewards thought it was more or less a racing incident but compromised on 10 seconds to pacify Red Bull. If so, bad move. Ceding to histrionic pressure never works, as Red Bull have shown by now threatening litigation. Just apply your own regulations and common sense, consistently and forget the ill-thought out demands for penalties to fit consequences. Or it won’t be just Red Bull contesting every result in the courts. I mean, seriously? If Formula 1 goes that way, it’ll be the end.

    1. @david-br
      You have a view, but most of your comment is based on a theory with no evidence that a disqualification was on the table and that the stewards were unduly pressured by one team. I think that whole idea of Red Bull somehow having a direct line to the stewards during the race – but Mercedes not having a similar ability – is pretty fanciful. That’s the premise most of your comment is based on, and I really don’t think that is likely at all. But that’s just my view.

      1. Not at all, I’m just basing my comment on the demand to black flag Hamilton (for a deliberate crash or ‘professional foul’) on what I heard said by journalists about the radio comments and angry pit lane comments being made at the time of the incident. We know Wolff and Horner both expressed their views directly to the stewards, right? I’m surmising from the Red Bull ‘data’ on Hamilton not making the corner that they still believe it was deliberate. That’s only a guess, obviously. But it would seem to be central to the allegation that either LH was reckless or deliberately took Max out.

        1. @david-br
          Yes they did both express their view and I don’t agree with either of Mercedes-AMG’s or Red Bull’s view on the issue. I don’t think the stewards would have bought into either of their views too, knowing they both have an agenda in this case.
          The point is that your ‘theory’ hinges upon the stewards being pressured by Red Bull’s view, but not similarly pressured by Mercedes. That is the part that I find unlikely and one that doesn’t have evidence to back it up.

    2. RandomMallard (@)
      21st July 2021, 17:15


      Ceding to histrionic pressure never works

      Rear wings, tyre pressures, pitstops etc. I’m not trying to criticise Mercedes, but RB are not the only team to do this. I agree that it reflects badly on the sport, and shows just how much team-to-team bureaucracy is involved in modern F1.

      1. @randommallard That’s true and the politics of Formula 1 isn’t rosy clean for anyone. However, I’m talking specifically about the hot-headed accusations of ‘professional foul’ by LH, which were a real low. Nobody credible in Formula 1 remotely believes Hamilton collided on purpose.

        1. RandomMallard (@)
          21st July 2021, 17:26

          @david-br I agree. It was a racing incident between two drivers locked in a battle, both of whom made miscalculations and neither of whom wanted to concede. No one did anything deliberately. As much as I doubt they will, I am hoping RB and Max apologise for what we’re some pretty strong accusations.

          1. No they sound not. As long as Hamilton is not taking any blame for his part of the crash. Even worse he is fully blaming Verstappen for what happened and RB and Max sound make excuses and learn from what they did wrong. Well that is just wrong. So neither will take any responsibility for it and for sure it will happen again.

      2. What?! RedBull has spent the last 15 years vehemently protesting features on other’s cars. Where have you been?

    3. Rodric Ewulf
      22nd July 2021, 0:45

      It’s quite funny how sir Still-I-Whine fans come to new posts like tabula rasas, they never drop not even a single argument no matter how many times it was refuted. They just ignore the refutation and go to another post with everything reset, the same cheap talk without anyhting new. They seem to never learn, and they not even try to justify long enough their points of view after seeing opposing arguments. As soon as they can, they’ll move on pretending that had reached a undisputed enilghtment and then continue to wind up their “truths” like if the whole world should bend on Lewis’ disposal and everyone is trying to stab him on the back, paranoid stuff of the worst type.

      Graphical analysys: Lewis was found not in the apex’s direction through the corner without really completing the pass on Max, thus being held responsible for the collision. He was about half a car alongside, so not enough to have preference of the inside line. Why does Max need to back off if he’s still ahead? Not that Lewis couldn’t go slightly more close to the apex to avoid the collision either, as the normal procedure for proper racing. That’s the reason why the stewards came to the conclusion of applying the penalty. Here’s the document text with their statement.

      “The stewards reviewed video and telemetry evidence,” the stewards said. “Cars 33 [Verstappen] and 44 [Hamilton] entered Turn 9 with Car 33 in the lead and Car 44 slightly behind and on the inside.
      Car 44 was on a line that did not reach the apex of the corner, with room available to the inside.
      When Car 33 turned into the corner, Car 44 did not avoid contact and the left front of Car 44 contacted the right rear of Car 33. Car 44 is judged predominantly at fault.”

      Now if you want to contest that, feel free to point another articles on the sporting regulations that could come to a contradiction on the rules or a range for interpretation. If not, accept the stewards ruling. If you refuse to do so and keep up with this empty reasoning protest all you’ll do is spreading around delusional stuff of sore loser fans, crying for a lost cause.

      1. Rodric Ewulf
        I’m happy to engage in a civil conversation but as soon as someone starts with infantile remarks like ‘sir Still-I-Whine fans’, I immediately stop reading.

        Just so you know if you expect a reply in future.

      2. Still I whine? Lol i like it.

        What about the “Derranged Army? “

    4. I think many see Hamilton winning like that the end of the sport, or something close. I’m not one of them but do find it disturbing that you can get a huge point swing in the championship by punting your opponent at high speed, which sets a dangerous precedent that will encourage similar incidents moving forward. Bear in mind that is far from the first time Hamilton has won after a controversial stewarding decision ala mexico 2016, Germany 2018, Canada 2019, to a lesser extent Bahrain this year. Also the same people calling this a racing incident wanted leclerc black flagged for far less dangerous driving at Monza 2019.

      Also an incident like this has implications for engine penalties later in the season and the cost cap, I think red bull have a right to be irate. I think poorer teams with similar incidents will have even more pressure on them to seek some form of litigation/restitution etc. If your driver causes an incident you should have to compensate the other team. Ofc there would have to be strict limits on this because otherwise the pressure on stewards would become insane and drivers may be instructed to be very sheepish etc.

      1. @realnigelmansell

        far from the first time Hamilton has won after a controversial stewarding decision

        Hamilton got a penalty this time, so I don’t see how he won, especially as the only realistic alternative was no penalty (racing incident). As for

        If your driver causes an incident you should have to compensate the other team. Ofc there would have to be strict limits on this because otherwise the pressure on stewards would become insane and drivers may be instructed to be very sheepish etc.

        Well, precisely! That’s why the idea should be a non-starter. I can’t think of anything more impractical frankly. Imagine Williams having to pay Mercedes for the damage to Bottas’s car from the Russell collision, teams with less resources would be quickly bankrupt. I guess they could take out insurance?! It would be litigation and counter-ligation all season. Stewarding decisions would become major economic decisions. It sounds an absolute nightmare and completely unfeasible. As for Red Bull’s financial losses, maybe they should advise Verstappen not to contest every corner to the absolute limit? Leave a bigger safety margin for his own benefit. Simpler all round. Plus he might pick up more points.

        1. ‘Not moving out of the way for lewis is dangerous driving’ noone outside england believes this. The realistic, correct alternative was a dsq. That was a huge, dangerous mistake

          Also I don’t remember the fia penalizing either driver for the bottas/Russell incident, so neither would be to blame. I’m not saying in every incident where a driver is penalized the full costs should be given to the team at fault, just that it’s a new problem that will probably need to be addressed in some way.

          1. @realnigelmansell

            noone outside england believes this

            Except 90+% of the comments of F1 fans in Brazil I read who thought Hamilton did nothing wrong. I think you’re confusing Holland and its virtual extensions with the rest of the world. All anecdotal of course.
            In the Bottas/Russell case, Wolff blamed Russell for trying to pass (as futile) if not for the actual incident. The point is, though, that he emphasized the big cost to Mercedes. Now imagine that Mercedes could try getting recompense for that damage from Williams. Those stewarding decisions would come under far more pressure.

    5. You do realize Toto was 1st to go to the stewards room (there is no record what he was saying there) after both Red Bull and Mercedes called Masi and we all heard that?

      1. Why did you skip saying that Toto was instructed to present his evidence to the stewards my Massi?

        1. So let me start from the beginning. Toto Wolff was born January 12, 1972…
          Get a life, Masi was saying that to be polite and he has 0 input about penalties.

    6. @david-br According to the racing guidelines it was up to Verstappen to leave Hamilton space through that corner. So it was a foul from Verstappen for hitting Hamilton. I guess you can call that a racing incident since he was out of the race already, but it’s just mind boggling how they can make this a penalty for Hamilton.

      1. @f1osaurus
        It’s probably been said thousands of time on the site already, and is even referenced in the steward’s decision, but Verstappen left Hamilton space. End of story.

      2. @f1osaurus

        Max left enough space. He is not obligated to miss the corner because there is a car on the inside who refusing to turn in.

      3. The ultimate defense of Hamilton/Mercedes feature this article. It fails, with distortions of reality typical of fake news era. But it’s enough to manipulate their blinded worshipers who just repeat what they said. I don’t call in behalf of some childish Max fans who pretend Horner is a unbiased commentator (he just isn’t, that’s obvious) then I make my own research instead of going for what others dictate.

        Mercedes’ trackside engineering director Andrew Shovlin made clear reference to these guidelines being in a document when he explained why Mercedes felt Hamilton’s penalty was not justified.

        However, there can be little doubt that at the maximum point Hamilton got alongside Verstappen on the run to Copse – which was his front wing being level with the Red Bull’s front wheels – that must surely be viewed as significant.
        But equally, having such a ‘significant overlap’ does not give the driver carte blanche to do what he wants in the corner ahead.
        The guidelines suggest that the driver still needs to ‘make the corner cleanly’, something which the stewards felt that Hamilton did not do.
        By running slightly away from the apex, and carrying too much speed that washed him out in to the path Verstappen was taking, it was felt that Hamilton had missed an opportunity to avoid the crash.
        The argument about hugging the apex was further enhanced later in the race when Hamilton tucked in much nearer to the inside kerb when he pulled off his race-winning move past Charles Leclerc.

        The omitted part by Mercedes, Hamilton and their cult is that the precedent in favour of the driver in the inside line who just have half of the car ahead only works if making the turn clean. Unless Verstappen also was found offending the regulations, it won’t apply. Lewis could have made more to avoid the collision (following a closer trajectory to the apex) as could Max (even though he gave plenty of space before the turn) but if the guy on the inside line rugged the curve he should be held responsible if the outcome is a collision, unless the other driver understeered and drove into him. This guideline is not overrun by the more simple rule of: not completing the overtake then don’t feel entitled of the racing line. The stewards took some minutes to decide that because of those nuances, but still penalty against the erratic car 44 is the right decision.

  3. @david-br

    It was a racing incident but Verstappen was the one who cut into the corner, knowing Hamilton was there. Which really places the blame more on him.

    Copse isn’t taken from the inside, it’s taken from the outside. I don’t agree when you say Verstappen cut the corner, he seems to have done so when you look at it from Hamilton’s onboard camera, he just held up to the normal racing line which he didn’t have to concede because Hamilton didn’t execute the move, he was still alongside him.

    I think it’s Hamilton who put a wheel in the middle of the corner which he didn’t have to given the fact that he will end up hitting Verstappen’s car who happened to be on the racing line.

    1. @tifoso1989

      Copse isn’t taken from the inside, it’s taken from the outside.

      Well except when it isn’t, as Hamilton has also successfully shown.

      1. And that time hé was on the inside at the appex of the corner. Which hé didn’t make with the move on Verstappen. Hé was Just to far of the appex as explained by the stewards. So hé is for sure to blame. Maybe not fully, but more then Verstappen Who left room.

      2. @david-br

        Lewis took the corner very slowly when he was on the inside of Leclerc. That’s what you have to do on the inside line, to make the corner and what Lewis didn’t do when on the inside of Max.

        The only reason why Lewis overtook Leclerc was due to Leclerc going in too hot and leaving the track.

    2. I think you’ll find Copse can be taken any way you want to depending on a number of variables including speed. Yes, outside may be he racing line, but if you want to go slower, you can take the inside line if that suits your circumstances.

      The concept that Red Bull are espousing whereby you can only overtake at certain prescribed corners pretty silly. We’d have missed out on so many exciting overtakes from talented drivers such as Alonso, Danny Ric and Max himself if you have to take every corner on the racing line.

    3. @tifoso1989

      You can’t just “take the normal racing line” if someone is already there. Both drivers have a responsibility towards each other to avoid hitting one another.

      In this case, it’s fairly clear that Lewis had a bit of understeer, as often happens on the first lap of a race with a full tank of fuel and tyres which are not fully up to temperature. However, even with that and colliding with another car he made the corner without leaving the track.

      Max, however, was looking to leave the absolute bare minimum space on the inside. He is entitled to do so, but it’s always going to be a big gamble on the first lap of a race with a full tank of fuel and tyres which are not fully up to temperature. The tiniest mistake from the other car, or a mechanical issue, or even a gust of wind, could mean a collision.

      This is not to place blame on Max, but it does highlight a lack of maturity on his part. He took a gamble he didn’t need to, a gamble which would not be very rewarding even if it paid off, and lost. Even if the reason he lost it was entirely the fault of someone else, it was still a gamble he didn’t need to take in the position he was in.

      1. @drmouse Are you having a laugh?

        “Max, however, was looking to leave the absolute bare minimum space on the inside.”
        You can’t possibly have typed that with a straight face.

        It is exactly the opposite, in that LH was the one gambling, knowing he could not lose another race, at Silverstone no less, with their upgrades, and with Max showing him up during the Sprint. With all that room on the inside, he went in too hot to make use of that room, and knowing he had a full tank and tires not fully up to temperature, he gambled like it was his only chance all day, but of course understeered into Max, Max having set the tone the day before.

        But ok sure, perhaps Max has now learned, racing LH is a gamble. Especially once you’ve put him in a desperate spot.

        1. @robbie

          Noe, I’m not having a laugh, completely straight face.

          Yes, Lewis was taking a gamble. However, in a car which doesn’t seem to be as quick as the Red Bull, if he wants to challenge for the WDC he has to take some risks, to push harder. He will not win by playing it safe, he will have to find every possible advantage he can.

          Max, on the other hand, doesn’t have to. He would still have had a significant lead if he had finished second, but still had a great chance of winning even if he’d “given” Lewis the corner. The analysis of his trajectory showed that Verstappen was heading to leave just precisely one car’s width at the apex, which is taking a risk. If the other car makes the tiniest mistake, having a little understeer, or any of the myriad things which could push them wide in the corner, they will hit you. We’ve seen it all the time, including from Max himself.

          So yes, Max took a risk. Not because it was Lewis, just because of how he placed himself. He’s perfectly entitled to do so, and Lewis does bear more responsibility for the accident, but Max did take a big risk that he did not need to. Had he given Lewis more space, he would probably still have been back in first within a couple of laps. He gambled for very little gain if he won, massive down side if he lost. Now, no matter who’s fault it is, his lead has been cut to only 8 points.

          1. @drmouse Easy to say in hindsight, but that’s just not reality. It is not what they are paid to do. We have seen all season RBR and Max not underestimating LH and Mercedes, just as I have also not assumed anything just because Max had a 33 point lead. I think you well know that with so many points to be had no leader just decides even before the summer break, that those points are going to stick and are something to take to the bank. RBR and Max were already well aware that anything could happen, and a dnf via any other issue and a win for LH would have put them right back in it.

            I would suggest that Max probably thought that by leaving the amount of space he did, and given that he and LH have been able to race each other up until then, he was not ‘gambling’ any more than it is simply a gamble to race a fairly close car in F1 in a WDC and WCC fight. The normal kind of gamble that comes at the start of every F1 race. To ask Max to suddenly settle for seconds, or assume he can just take LH up the road, less than half way through the season, knowing they’re fighting the dynasty of the hybrid era, is to ask Max to not act like a WDC level driver, nor the driver of the ilk of WDCs past, including LH. This is against LH and Mercedes I remind you, who can manage, with a 60 point lead with 4 races to go, to still claim to not be underestimating the competition.

            No Max and RBR have no choice, including before Silverstone, to act like Mercedes and LH are about to find something and turn up the heat for the second half of the season. Whether or not that may happen given RBR’s strength and the concept that Mercedes may have done their last upgrade and it may or may not have been enough, is irrelevant. The second Max and RBR assume anything, is the second they are done.

            Their job is to stamp their authority on it and put their feet to Mercedes’ throats, for that is exactly what Mercedes have been doing for seven years and are still trying to do. Of course I agree that there may come a time when Max can settle for second for the sake of not handing anything to Mercedes, but that time is far from now. And was even with a 33 point lead. As I say they already well knew the math of a 25-0 swing to LH by any means…blown tire…what have you.

          2. @robbie

            I disagree. Many racers have spoken in the past about having to change your approach when you are leading the championship, about the risks of continuing balls-out racing when protecting a significant lead.

            I understand that we are not sure half way into the season yet, and that Mercedes could make a comeback later. However, that’s even more reason not to lose their large advantage. If you look back, you will see many instances of a championship leader giving more space than needed, or even bailing out, rather than risking a collision. You will also see a fair lot of instances where a driver overtaking on the inside gets understeer.

            Max bet his house for the chance to win a mid-range car and lost. Even if that loss was completely down to the actions of another driver, he still lost, and he still has the same chances later on of a puncture/car failure/etc. It was the great, exciting wheel-to-wheel action and never-say-die spirit we fans all way to see on track, but it wasn’t a sensible decision for a championship leader in what appears to be superior machinery.

          3. @drmouse I agree that “Many racers have spoken in the past about having to change your approach when you are leading the championship, about the risks of continuing balls-out racing when protecting a significant lead.” It’s just that the start at Silverstone last weekend was not the time.

            Max didn’t bet ‘his’ house. The team went racing. They are in a battle to secure the Championship against the 7 year straight dominators, at ‘their’ track, with upgrades, and in pure pinnacle of racing form RBR and Max were there to try to stamp their authority on the season. It hasn’t been enough for them yet to win at a track at which they were expected to be strong. They need to keep proving they can win in Merc’s back yard too. But even at that you say “If you look back, you will see many instances of a championship leader giving more space than needed” and we only need see the ample space Max left for LH and it is obvious Max was trying to avoid a collision.

            I think you are using the perfection of hindsight to make your claim that “it wasn’t a sensible decision for a championship leader in what appears to be superior machinery.” As I’ve already said, there is no way RBR and Max were so sure of superior machinery at Silverstone that they could be as complacent as you would have them, and there is every bit the reality that they know 33 points with hundreds left to be had is nothing to take to the bank at this stage. They are racers racing. They did not sit there before the racing saying to themselves ‘oh oh what if Max races LH hard.’ That was never even a question. Maybe some day later in the season and Max has his 33 point lead back, sure, maybe then they say ‘not worth the risk’ but we/they are far from that point.

            Since you are using the luxury of hindsight, I’ll present another scenario. LH takes the space left him inside, doesn’t hit Max, and nothing is even mentioned of that corner’s action other than being a part of a super-exciting race start, because Max left him the required space and it was fair racing.

  4. Last time I say something about this hehe


    For me it looks like Max thought Lewis would take the outside at first. Gave him outside space. And then noticed he went for the inside. And gave him space again. All that in a couple of seconds going 300kph. Not much he could do better imo.

    1. ian dearing
      21st July 2021, 19:28

      Or as the majority would say, Ham threw Max a dummy, and Max fell for it. But then if you are stupid enough to close the inside off but still leave a gap wide enough for a bus to drive through, you deserve what you get.

      1. Lewis tried a dummy and lost control as a result is more correct.

        1. No evidence to suggest any loss of control. Analysts (Jolyon‘s in particular) proved that.

          Racing incident all day long.

          1. Jolyon palmer is a massive Lewis fan. Almost everyone who works for sky and BBC is. He’s their country’s driver, I get it, but don’t act like they’re unbiased

      2. A dummy for the dummy.

  5. Lol. I’ve reached the point now that I don’t really care. The same feeling you get when you walk away from a conversation with a Flat Earther.

    1. Flat earthers are also in minority ;)

  6. It really should’ve been chalked up as a racing incident as per Sainz/Grosj crash. I think the hysteria from the RB camp pressured the stewards into penalising LH

  7. Nick English
    21st July 2021, 16:57

    Challenge for Racefans to get a copy of this overtaking document for stewards!

    1. RandomMallard (@)
      21st July 2021, 17:18

      They do their very best not to release these documents publicly. The BBC apparently got their hands on a copy, but didn’t publish it and some people believe it may have actually been provided by Mercedes, simply because of how much the FIA tries to stop them getting into circulation.

      1. I have always thought that there had to exist more precise rules than the very few which are published about overtaking. Isn’t it pretty bizarre that a sport’s governing instance is trying so hard to hide the rules of engagement which dictate the most important track actions ? Do they consider in their best interests to stoke those ugly arguments between racing fans who have no means to know the rules of engagement ? Keeping crucial things secret is not a way to fast improvement.

  8. I 100% agree with Allison.

  9. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    21st July 2021, 17:20

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much defence of someone after being punished for doing something obviously wrong.

    1. not everyone agrees that Hamilton did something wrong though. that’s just your opinion (and the stewards’ but we can have a different opinion)