Official: Hamilton and Verstappen summoned as Red Bull request review of Silverstone collision

2021 British Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull have formally requested the stewards review their decision in relation to the collision between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen on the first lap of the British Grand Prix.

The team submitted a petition for a review on Friday. The two drivers and representatives of their teams have been summoned to appear before the stewards via a video link at 4pm Central European Summer Time on Thursday, ahead of the Hungarian Grand Prix weekend.

Verstappen crashed out of the race after colliding with Hamilton at turn nine on the opening lap. Hamilton was able to continue, and though he was given a 10-second time penalty, went on to win the race and cut Verstappen’s lead in the championship to eight points.

The Mercedes driver was also given two penalty points on his licence.

Under Formula 1’s rules, the stewards will initially meet to consider whether a review should take place. For this to happen, Red Bull must present new and significant information which was not considered by the stewards at the time of their original decision.

“Everyone has their own opinion on the events of Silverstone and it was a very polarising incident,” said Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff in a statement shortly before the FIA confirmed Red Bull had exercised its right to request a review.

“However, the most important thing is that Max is okay. It’s never nice to see a car crashing, particularly at such high speeds and at a corner like that, so we’re glad he emerged from the accident unscathed.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

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

283 comments on “Official: Hamilton and Verstappen summoned as Red Bull request review of Silverstone collision”

  1. So Max looking twice at Lewis before turning in will definitely come to play.

    1. I hope they dont apply a penalty that affects the race outcome. This has shades of Spa 2008.
      Honestly, the racing is great this year, I dont care who wins as long as its on the track and goes down to the wire. Both are worthy champions. But it would be frustrating if the stewards, or reliability, or penalties had a deciding affect on the championship.

  2. Yes… yes… yes

    Best news I’ve heard in a long time…

    At last… the truth will prevail and we can put his to bed

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      27th July 2021, 16:24

      Are you insinuating that the stewards lied in some way by making Hamilton predominantly to blame?

    2. I will not be too surprised if even in 2023 Redbull later discover a crack in the steering wheel or wheel nut following the Hamilton – Verstappen accident of 2021.

      1. Sam Donaldson (ABC News)
        27th July 2021, 23:26

        Good one….

    3. @the-edge Yes, it will surely come out that this was a racing incident, and both drivers will be told to stay out of trouble. What a tempest in a teapot.

    4. Waste of time, and unlikely to succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  3. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
    27th July 2021, 14:38

    What are the odds that the Stewards will review the penalty decision and decide it was in fact too harsh…

    1. 50/50, Just like with racing incident

    2. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk
      Even if they do decide that the penalty was too harsh, there’s nothing they can do to change the outcome of that penalty.

      Red Bull only stands to benefit from this. Their goal is to give Hamilton a grid penalty.

      1. It was too harsh, two penalty points on his licence as well as the 10 second stop.

        1. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
          27th July 2021, 23:15

          Penalties were far more harsh a few years ago. Bottas got a drive through and 2 penalty points (effectively a 30 second penalty that you couldn’t do when you were pitting). And that was for braking a bit too late and forcing hamilton to spin and lose a few positions. That actually wasn’t as bad as what Hamilton did to verstappen, at least the outcome wasn’t.

          I don’t think the penalty for Hamilton was too harsh. I think that given Kimi got a 20 second penalty for hitting vettel the other race, Hamilton should really have got that or a drive through as it did look like a misjudgement to me with very bad consequences, and he didn’t suffer at all from the clash. when the driver at fault does suffer, they often don’t bother with penalties, despite saying they are not influenced by the outcome.

        2. You think a very amateur mistake that sent a competitor to the hospital only deserves two penalty points?

          1. @realnigelmansell has it not been made abundantly clear that the consequences have nothing to do with the penalty, or has something changed in the last few days?

      2. RB goal is to add preassure to drive within him self , leaving only Verstappen driving to his full potential.

        RB should have told Verstappen about the cost of replacing his crashed car so that he drove more circumspectly.
        Its verstappen taking unnecessary risks on the track forcing the other drivers to ‘watch out’ for him.

        Hopefully Mercedes will come with enough material evidence to support their position.

        1. ** RB goal is to add preassure so Hamilton drives within him self

        2. I agree with youe comment

    3. I doubt it will even get that far – the most likely scenario is the stewards will probably dismiss the case and say that Red Bull haven’t provided any evidence that materially changes the situation.

      1. anon I suspect the same.

      2. If it is the case they should make them bare all financial cost , and more, for frivolous claim, and cover that under the cost cap.

        1. Yes yes. Just like football when they add more games to an unsuccessful bid to overturn a red card. If they’re unsuccessful give Verstappen a grid penalty ;)

      3. Indeed Anon, @robbie, I would be highly surprised if there is any other outcome of this request to review the verdict. We have seen nor heard of any new information that Red Bull are bringing in.

        1. @bascb I wouldn’t have expected for us to be shown whatever additional info RBR has that they will bring to the fore on Thursday, and I expect that the outcome might just be that Horner will say they wanted clarity, based on what they will bring to the table, that the stewards also looked at the same info. They may just want further and more in-depth wording from the stewards than what was published.

          1. In the past we have had both Red Bull and Mercedes leak snippets of such stuff to “friendly” publications in Germany (or even RB owned ones) to put maximum pressure on the stewards (and their competitors) @robbie, just like if this had been about Ferrari we would have had some Italian “scoops” about any such information.

            As many others have mentioned, I don’t see much scope for “new” information since the stewards already have access to all telemetry directly. Or they would have to be able to somehow prove that while the information was there, it was ignored by the stewards, which is pretty unlikely to work.

      4. That is my expectation as well. Move on

      5. @anon
        many think the same, but i think they will just put some word of advice that is already out there, try to keep it clean… i have a feeling all this fuss and puff of smoke will come back to bite RBR in the end, as i feel Max is more prone to provocation… Similar to Bahrain, they will complain enough for some action/warning to be said, then it will hurt them more, and they will cry wolf… as they always do

    4. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk Hamilton to be given a 10 second headstart in Hungary to compensate

      1. I hope that Hamilton gets to take 10 seconds off his time in Hungary and comes in 9 seconds behind Verstappen. Therefore coming in 1 second ahead of Verstappen!

        1. Probably the one possibility to win apart from putting opponents in the wall.

      2. haha

        trying to imagine that
        other sequence of the red ligths, one for Lewis, one for the rest of the grid


      3. @keithedin kudos, made me spill my coffee :)

        More likely everyone will start from pit lane, where as ham will start from normal line… :) problem solved

    5. Zero. The stewards will decline to review the incident because Red Bull doesn’t have any compelling new evidence.

      Also, it would open up a Silverstone sized can of worms if they were to do so.

    6. That would indeed be hilarious.

  4. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    27th July 2021, 14:39

    I guess thinking of Grosjean a few years ago taking out ‘the championship leaders’ and being heavily punished for not just that but causing a huge accident… you could probably argue Hamilton should be punished too for the same thing? Personally I thought he got off incredibly lightly and luckily as the whole thing worked out excessively in his favour and has heavily penalized Red Bull & Verstappen but I’m uncomfortable with applying a retroactive penalty – it could set a pretty awkward precedent for the future.

    1. @rocketpanda – Masi already stated that the aftermath/result for the championship etc. is not supposed to be part of the Stewards thinking at all when considering a penalty.

      If anything, all other cases show that the ruling against Grosjean was badly considered at the time and should NOT have been that strict.

      1. Well, it was either say that they benched Grosjean for taking out the championship leaders, or say they benched him because he was an unstable driver prone to causing massive collisions.

        1. @grat
          it was more that Gro caused quite a few accidents, and the spa incident was just the tip of the iceberg. He took out way more than just wdc contenders… and his crashes were too many before this too. He was involved 1st lap crashes in 7 of the first 12 races! It was just waiting to happen regardless of who was involved (in terms of wdc)

          1. You’re wrong my friend. They explicitly stated that taking out the championship leaders was one of the reasons for the penalty.

          2. @Initially “one of the reasons for the penalty.” not the main or whole reason! just like the penalty ham got, “predominantly” and not “wholly”

            Gro had “7” first lap incidents of 12 races! That is pretty high rate!

            FIA stewards determined Grosjean had breached several of F1’s Sporting Regulations. You are stating one only to frame your agenda

          3. Hi
            Maybe it’s me but if RB ask the stewards to look again at the penalty given to Lewis and it is pointed out by Mercedes that Max looked twice and saw Lewis was there but still committed to the corner then RB may be in for a shock decision.
            It was no more than a racing incident between two world class drivers.
            Lewis has backed out of conflict with Max Verstappens aggressive driving on a number of occasions and Max expected him to back off this time.

    2. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      27th July 2021, 16:26

      The problem is there is no proof of where Max might of finished in order to change the penalty already given.

      1. … which is exactly why time penalties are not subject to appeal.

    3. Dave (@davewillisporter)
      27th July 2021, 17:57

      @rocketpanda The stewards judged Grosjean to be wholly to blame and had demonstrated dangerous driving consistent with previous incidents hence the ban.
      The difference here and the reason people keep saying Hamilton’s penalty was too lenient is they don’t fully understand the stewards decision which was Hamilton was “predominantly to blame” which means Max shared some of the blame as Hamilton was not “wholly” to blame!
      The 10 second time penalty reflects that judgement. It wasn’t lenient, it was appropriate given the circumstances of the contact and only the contact, not the result.

    4. @rocketpanda Grosjean was punished for dangerous driving, not for how the consequences of that incident affected the championship. That being said, this year is somewhat reminiscent of 2012, and that’s okay by me! What will happen next?

    5. @rocketpanda

      I guess thinking of Grosjean a few years ago taking out ‘the championship leaders’ and being heavily punished for not just that but causing a huge accident… you could probably argue Hamilton should be punished too for the same thing?

      Following the Grosjean crash, the teams and stewards discussed whether the consequences of a collision should have a bearing on the penalty, and decided they shouldn’t. This was referred to by Masi at Silverstone, and has been cited in some subsequent judgements, such as Williams’ petition for a review of various incidents at the 2018 Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

      1. Adam (@rocketpanda)
        28th July 2021, 12:21

        Did they! I’m surprised about that. I’m not sure a ‘one size fits all’ concept really works for punishment here, there’s a lot of shades of grey and nuance that goes on that should be taken into account. It certainly shouldn’t be the driving force behind the application of punishment but surely the victim/victim loss should be a consideration?

        I mean for instance a drive through penalty and loss of 20-odd seconds in the pits would destroy the race of an AlphaTauri, possibly a McLaren or a Ferrari too. But let’s be honest it’s a bump in the road to a Mercedes or a Red Bull, so is the punishment fair? It enormously damages one but is nothing but a blip to the other.

        How you’d actually enforce something like that I have no idea, but to me it suggests there’s got to be a better way than we’re doing it currently.

  5. Didn’t the stewards initially state Verstappen was partly at fault?

    1. @amam They said Hamilton was “predominantly” at fault…saying that implies that some blame lies with Verstappen.

      1. @geemac Which was very generous to the driver who decided to turn in on his rival after spotting him.

        1. I luv chicken
          27th July 2021, 15:08

          I know. Hamilton turning left, was a dastardly move. Agreed.

          1. Hamilton understeered wide and into Verstappen, reducing the space Verstappen had on the outside. Verstappen turned right and into Hamilton, reducing the space Hamilton had on the inside. They’re both at fault, and it should have been a racing incident and not “predominantly” anything. They both could have avoided it by slowing and taking different lines, and neither should have expected the other to yield.

          2. IfImnotverymuchmistaken
            27th July 2021, 15:21

            There was a video on F1 official page a few days ago, the HAM-ROS incident in 2016. In the video, i don’t recall verbatim, but HAM states something in the line of “we were heading into the same spot on the track, and one of us should have lifted, but we’re racing, we don’t do that”.
            I think same applies here. I agree that VER bearing all of the consequences, and HAM none does leave a sour taste, but it could’ve gone any other way, it was a racing incident, and luck would have it that HAM gets all the points, and VER all the damage. Next time might be different.

          3. Hamilton didn’t turn left– he may have under-steered, but his wheel kept the same angle of attack.

            Max, however, looked right, steered right, straightened for a moment, then steered HEAVILY right.

          4. @grat exactly, max hesitated seeing!!! ham, he did twitch! ham didnt, he kept full lock but understeered. if anything they should just take away the 2 points penalty in the light of new evidence by rbr! i hope they bring max’s onboard footage and data (throttle/steering inputs/braking etc)

        2. Ver turned right to round the corner leaving plenty of space for Ham. Ham understeered into the rear of the RB effectively forcing the RB to cross his path as the impact changed the attitude of the RB (rear wheel steering), Physics!

          1. Lewis did not understeer,,that is just a rumour,not a fact..when I watch the inboards,it doesn’t look like Lewis understeered.lewis had been missing the apex all weekend because it unsettled his car.. further more,it doesn’t change the fact max turned sharply into Lewis,when he should have been more cautious,because he knew Lewis was beside him…that’s why full blame is not on Lewis.

          2. Indeed, phycics show Hamilton never would have been able to make the corner with that speed.
            His path always would have crossed max in front.
            Only when he hold back after the incident he could successfully make the corner.
            That was the moment leclerc passed him.
            I guess that is the line of thought by RBR. And the fact all other passes Hamilton made there were at much lower speed.
            But it still is a driver error and I do not see much room for another penalty.
            But we will see.

          3. Will Jones - phd in physics
            27th July 2021, 16:31

            Erikje, which formula are you using again? If physics proves Hamilton couldn’t have made that corner, show us your workings! Unless you’re lying. Again.

          4. @blik Maybe you need to use both your eyes? See the Jolyon Palmer video where he looks at Verstappen’s steering inputs.

  6. Redbull should move on from this. It was clear that both drivers went too hot into copse and that the contact was typical racing incident which Hamilton was held “predominantly” to blame and penalised for. The penalty was consistent with recent “forcing driver off track” penalties. Move on

    1. Only thing I can really think of is that they would maybe give Lewis another penalty point on his license.

    2. I don’t understand comments like this. Red Bull has a legal right under the sporting regulation to apply for an appeal. They neither have to move on, nor do they have to agree with the decision. They’re doing the right thing by using the roads the regulation has given them to appeal a decision they disagree with.

      “they need to move on” no sooner than when their appeal is over and there’s no further avenues for them to pursue or when they get the result they want.

      1. GtisBetter (@)
        27th July 2021, 15:50

        Sure they have a legal avenue. Just as you can sue Starbucks because the coffee is so hot you burn your mouth. It’s opportunism and hypocrisy, nothing to do with a fair outcome. This is not why these legal avenues exist and will only make F1 worse when every team demand a lawyer present with every steward decision.

        Of course I and many others are very curious what kind of evidence they have gathered that was not know to the stewards at the time. It must be mind blowing. Like lewis telling his team he will drive into max on purpose.

        1. Yes, because lewis driving way too fast into copse and taking max out of the race (like he did to albon twice), then getting an easily surmountable penalty was a fair outcome

      2. Mr Dean Reynolds
        27th July 2021, 15:58

        Just read through some of your previous comments. You arent adverse to complaining when “legal rights under the sporting regulations” are followed.
        Glass houses and all that!

        1. He thinks the claim is not colorable. So he’s being consistent…

        2. Is that an answer to me?

          1. No. To Dean.

      3. Time penalties are not subject to appeal. Red Bull, in my opinion, got lucky with Hamilton being penalized, although it didn’t really change the outcome (which isn’t the point of the penalty anyway).

        The problem is, Red Bull has been effin’ hysterical about this since the crash, and they’re only making themselves look worse.

        If it turns out they have no new evidence on which to base an appeal that isn’t supposed to be possible, they’re really going to look like the biggest whingers in F1.

        1. @grat nah that particular crown easily goes to comments like yours.

          1. And with that comment, your case is set back to mudslinging.

          2. Uhh…. I haven’t had public histrionics over someone trying to kill my driver, I haven’t called for a one-race ban for what was obviously a racing incident, I haven’t threatened legal action, and I haven’t forced the FIA convene the stewards panel from two weeks ago to consider evidence that doesn’t exist.

            Christian Horner is, and always has been, the kid stomping his feet and threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue if he doesn’t get his way. He whined his way to the championships in the V8 era (See “Red Bull Renault reliability”), he’s whined the entire time that his team has been incapable of catching the Mercedes, and now that he’s got the fastest car, he’s STILL whining.

            I make a reasonable, measured point, and you accuse me of whinging. You’re projecting, please don’t do it towards me.

          3. And now you left. I guess it was “Enough is enough” for you…

      4. Sorry but there is no legal right to argue a penalty

      5. Agree, they have the right to try and I hope they do something but not optimist, cause appeals rarely work in f1 (and probably in the rest of the world too), regardless the outcome isn’t fair, to make it a debatably fair outcome you would need a stop and go in silverstone, hamilton would’ve probably come up into the points, 7th or so, still unfair to verstappen but when you consider he was partially to blame, and that there’s a risk involved in racing wheel to wheel that’s probably close to fair, not certainly a win though.

  7. Hamilton’s two penalty points like to be rescinded and RedBull forced to apologize.

    1. <blockquoteRedbull let it go and get on with the season please

    2. @david-beau

      i think they kept arguing about ham’s later moves which is silly to argue about as tyre conditions, fuel loads, track conditions etc all change… best thing would come out of this is that stewards take max’s onboard footage and his data at the point plotted to show max indeed saw ham and did throttle/steering adjustment initially but continued on the move therefore penalty is unjustified and points to be removed! and additional penalty to rbr team for sporting foul (unsportsmenship) by knowingly trying to alter the result of the race by doing a completely unnecessary pit stop to grab fastest lap point (he was unlikely to be awarded was certain at that point, and they actually forfeited real points!

      1. @mysticus Exactly – it’s hard to understand how that can possibly be considered as new evidence when it happened “in the future” compared to when the incident happened.

      2. I agree. Other drivers should understand that they need to get out of Lewis’s way, and that if they don’t lewis has every right to punt them into the wall. I hope max is banned for daring to finish ahead of lewis or pass him

  8. So when they review the footage and see Max turn in on Hamilton’s line whilst being able to make the corner and be in prime position for the next corner, will they in fact penalise him for the next race? He steers into Lewis as Lewis backs off the accelerator realising he can’t make the pass… Quite simply this should have been classed as a racing incident and if the shoe was on the other foot Horner would be having kittens about his driver being unfairly penalised.

  9. It’s on.

    1. I think they only do it to see how many comments it collects this time, and see what happens when repeatedly hitting a large deceased domesticated mammal.

    2. And soon it’s off!

    3. I wish that they could just settle this dispute like everyone else, with a dance off.

    4. @geemac

      You bet. I’m just hoping Netflix manages to squeeze themselves in to this ‘summoning’ . This is the kind of material they need to take Drive to survive to the next level.

      1. @todfod Netflix could turn the decision to do this into a whole episode, with the hearing taking up another full episode and the fallout taking 3 episodes to cover.

  10. Andy Johnson
    27th July 2021, 14:49

    Horner is looking increasingly desperate…Mercedes upgrades have spooked him! This was a 50/50 racing incident and Horner knows this but is trying to prove otherwise…Good luck with that as the footage shows Lewis did nothing wrong. I am embarrassed for Horner and the Red Bull team!!

  11. Red Bull seem determined to sour this championship for Verstappen. Come on, the team and he are still easily capable of winning without this kind of litigatory nonsense. It threatens to undermine the integrity of stewarding far more than Wolff (and Horner) speaking to the stewards during the race: they seem determined to set a precedent for retroactive penalities, based on eventual outcomes not the incident itself, and even with the threat of suing for costs. Dismal, dismal.

    1. Let’s wait for the facts. I’m curious what they’ll come up with. Apparently they have really relevant new information to present. If nothing else, it keeps people talking about it, and that’s the main goal for Liberty.

    2. @david-br That’s pretty rich after TW and LH have tried to stir things up against RBR in the boardroom and the media from the minute they saw that RBR’s testing pace indeed translated to the racetrack in race one. Need I remind you of their complaints of the floor change, the wing, the tire pressure, the pu upgrade, the too fast pit stops, and now trying to blame the victim for Silverstone. And you think RBR are trying to sour this Championship? Give me a break. Dismal? Yes that is what Mercs behaviour has been all season the minute they’re on their hind foot.

      1. @robbie None of the Mercedes protests implied committing a ‘professional foul’ and therefore implying that Verstappen was hospitalized with some kind of intent. I suggest some nuance rather than your increasingly blind Red Bull worship, which seems to exonerate every kind of bad behaviour. Verstappen was also partially to blame for the incident – according to the original steward verdict – so talk of a ‘victim’ is both misplaced and, really, given Verstappen’s racing style (which I like but believe can be self-defeating) kind of pathetic.

        1. @david-br uhm, yes they did. From false statements on tyre pressures to accussations of Honda fiddling with the engine between versions, everything Mercedes has suggested Red Bull have done this season was a professional foul. Not even remotely trying to find common ground on this incident, but to suggest that Red Bull are now stooping below Mercedes is truly cominical.

          1. @hahostolze Is it really necessary to play the victim? My original point was that even if Red Bull think they were wronged, making this championship increasingly contentious and acrimonious, with racing decisions decided off-track and days/weeks later, seems to me unnecessary and actually more liable to backfire. But I suppose the idea is that winning whatever way it takes is still winning. I’ve already explained why accusations relating to technical issues (team circumvention of regulations) and drivers (people) are essentially different. It should be obvious that accusing another driver of deliberately causing a high speed incident is far more serious.

          2. Loving your “neutrality”. I’m a big fan.

          3. @hahostolze funny: last year, and many times before redbul and others were doing much worse on complaining about mercedes… rim cooling holes, frics (which many had versions of it), oil burn, rear floor changes (this def came about due to one or two collisions where leading edge of the rear floor broke off and mercedes lost huge aero performance and some competitor(s) took notice), das system, not to forget engine modes…

        2. @david-br A statement from the FIA read: “The Stewards reviewed video and telemetry evidence. 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.”

          I know you like to play off this as though the stewards have also literally said… “Verstappen was also partially to blame for the incident – according to the original steward verdict” but that is just verbiage. But you needn’t put words in the stewards mouths. But at least you are consistent. You have the stewards claiming something they didn’t, and you have Horner claiming LH intended to take Max out and put him in the hospital, which he didn’t.

          “they seem determined to set a precedent for retroactive penalities, based on eventual outcomes not the incident itself,” can be said of TW and Mercedes with their TD requests just as much as what are you accusing RBR of, once you remove your hyperbole on the matter of course. RBR are merely exercising their right to a review, and we have yet to know it that will even be granted, and you have them “making this championship increasingly contentious and acrimonious, with racing decisions decided off-track and days/weeks later, seems to me unnecessary and actually more liable to backfire.” Really? By requesting a review?

          Sounds to me like you are the one far more exercised about this with your tabloid hyperbole. You should take up with F1 that in your opinion they should remove the right to request a review. The same right I have no doubt, given their behaviour so far this year, Mercedes would exercise had they at this point sat with a near 60 point deficit if it was Max that had hit LH in the same identical manner with the same identical result. And like LH and fans would just be sat there saying oh well I/he wasn’t penalized but I’m/he’s at fault too, so…oh well.

          1. Being accused of verbiage after that is quite funny. The verbiage has been from Red Bull from the outset, trying to eek some kind of advantage after Verstappen came off worse from a 50/50 dispute for track. I’ve no issue with Hamilton being penalized as ‘predominantly’ to blame, even if I disagree, but extending this one incident in this way seems to me a refusal to accept the basics of racing. Hence the endless analysis of a fairly commonplace incident, albeit with more dramatic consequences for one driver (who is fortunately OK).

            Whatever, we’ll see how this pans out. I’m fed up of the whole thing now. If every coming together between Hamilton and Verstappen for the rest of this season turns into this kind of dispute, I’ll be tuning out.

          2. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
            27th July 2021, 16:34

            So what can you bring to the party after the stewards found Hamilton predominantly guilty that would make it look like the stewards didn’t do their job properly?

          3. @david-br Put in Horner’s shoes I highly doubt you would be so magnanimous and just accept “the basics of racing.” Nor would TW in the same situation.

          4. @robbie Just to correct you fabrication that Horner didn’t accuse Hamilton of intending ‘to take Max out’, this is what he posted:

            I think Hamilton should’ve got a stop-go penalty. What he did was like a professional foul.

            You know what a professional foul is, right? Deliberately fouling (in this case, colliding with) a rival. Horner then doubled down on the fact that Verstappen ended up in hospital (albeit for routine checks) just to make sure we got the connection between ‘deliberate contact’ and ‘hospital’. That was obvious to everyone and was remarked as such by numerous media outlets. As for the stewards, yes, they chose ‘predominantly to blame’ over ‘wholly to blame,’ thus implying some fault was with the other driver. Kind of self-evident.

          5. @david-br And note he says ‘like’ a professional foul, not ‘was’ a professional foul, if you want to go the route of implying things such as from the stewards wording. Horner also said of LH ‘a driver of his calibre…’ showing him some respect in that way.

          6. Dave (@davewillisporter)
            27th July 2021, 18:21

            @robbie @david-br I’ll weigh in with some logic on the stewards statement. “Predominantly” doesn’t mean wholly or completely to blame. It means “mostly” to blame. So if Hamilton was judged to have been “predominantly” to blame then there is some blame left which has not been apportioned to Hamilton. Whether that blame is apportioned to Max or an allowance for 1st lap madness or something else is not clear as the stewards haven’t stated where they considered that left over blame lay!

            What Redbull are trying to do is prove wi