Max Verstappen, Lewis Hamilton, Interlagos, 2021

Verstappen avoids penalty over Hamilton incident as stewards deny request for review

2021 Qatar Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Max Verstappen will not face a penalty over the incident between him and Lewis Hamilton on lap 48 of the Sao Paulo Grand Prix.

Mercedes requested the stewards review the incident between the two drivers when the pair ran wide at the Descida do Lago corner while fighting for the lead. Their request was denied by the stewards.

Mercedes supplied forward-facing onboard video from Verstappen’s car and 360-degree footage from his car showing the incident. The stewards accepted the evidence was both new, having not been available to the stewards at the time of their decision, and relevant.

However they did not agree the video evidence was significant, and therefore rejected Mercedes’ request for a review. They noted this decision was “not an affirmation or review of the stewards determination made during the race”.

The stewards believe the material they had at the time was sufficient to support their decision not to investigate the incident. “The stewards often must make a decision quickly and on a limited set of information. At the time of the decision, the stewards felt they had sufficient information to make a decision, which subsequently broadly aligned with the immediate post‐race comments of both drivers involved.

“Had they felt that the forward‐facing camera video from car 33 was crucial in order to take a decision, they would simply have placed the incident under investigation – to be investigated after the race – and rendered a decision after this video was available. They saw no need to do so.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Before the verdict was issued Mercedes’ team principal Toto Wolff said “we don’t expect to gain anything, to be honest, from the right of review.”

“It’s more about the principle and the philosophy because if it stays that way, that means overtaking from the outside is pretty much not possible anymore because the inside controls the corner completely.

“Now, that is anyway the case. But as it was before, when a car is next to you, you need to leave a car width, that’s not the case. So we just want to take it to the end, have a judgement on that and then adapt if necessary for the last few races.

“You can see some of the drivers have actually expressed that same opinion. So that’s why we are making the stewards have another look on it.”

However Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said Mercedes’ petition “feels a little bit spurious” and predicted the video footage Mercedes supplied would not be considered significant enough to trigger an investigation of the incident.

“There’s been enough camera angles for the stewards to make their decisions. I think we’ve seen numerous incidents, both in the sprint race and during the grand prix – indeed, on the first lap of the grand prix, with Valtteri [Bottas] taking almost an identical line. So I would be surprised, I’d be disappointed if it were to go to another hearing, but it’s just frustrating it’s taken this long.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 Qatar Grand Prix

Browse all 2021 Qatar Grand Prix 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.

223 comments on “Verstappen avoids penalty over Hamilton incident as stewards deny request for review”

  1. to be expected.

    no idea why this took so long.

    1. PaddockInsider
      19th November 2021, 12:29

      One Steward has been swapped. Could have caused the delay

      1. One Steward has been swapped.

        A steward has been changed for this weekend however the stewards that looked at the right to review & who would have reviewed the case had it gone that far would have been the same set of stewards from Brazil.

    2. Probably took this long to get the back handers sorted…

    3. Let me elaborate based on some comments below:
      1) whilst I disagree with the initial stewards decision in Brazil (not to investigate), and would have expected a penalty had they investigated it, it would be wrong to reopen a case just because some further video becomes available showing the same what we could have seen earlier (not the exact video, but the manoeuvres from the drivers);
      2) I do expect a directive from the Race Director on these kind of moves (braking to late to make a corner, only to block a competitor);
      3) and why all the drama that we will now have mayhem? The stewards refused to review an incident which did not result in contact; even the most inconsistent FIA steward will act different when they do actually touch.

      1. On point 3) So, until HAM is ahead in points, and looking to win, VER will always be able to do this, bc. HAM cannot afford to wait for them to decide against him, because he’d lose the WDC, while VER can just continue on like this. Yeah, no, that is definitely worse than the bla from various parties about oh noes we cannot punish someone after the fact.

        1. then you skipped 2) :P

    4. The right decision. Bring on the weekend, Let’s race!

    5. Exactly…It would take less than 1 hour to decide if there is significant new evidence.

      1. They need time to drink all that champagne and eat the cake that they bought with the money from the fines.

  2. Oh dear. This won’t end well, it’s now legal to run a car off the track thats overtaking on the outside off a corner.

    1. No, it isn’t. It just means that there wasn’t significant enough evidence to prove that was his intent.

      1. Of course it was intent though, even you with your Max hat on can see this. Completely blinkered.

        1. Of course, but it’s not ok to penalize the driver unless he gave out something to make it sure, like opening the steering wheel. He masked it pretty well.

          1. Ask McLaren and Norris about that @cobray

        2. @john-h My Max hat? Must have missed that purchase. All those black-outs are starting to take their toll…

          1. Sorry, I overstepped the mark there @hahostolze but come on, even Max himself has not said he lost control of the car or made a misjudgement, only ‘hard racing’. Let’s be honest here, he knew what he was doing. Maybe I would do the same if I were him, but it doesn’t mean I should expect no penalty for it. Come on now, it’s so obvious he knew what he was doing I can’t believe it’s even a debate.

          2. @john-h I just don’t see why Max knowing what he was doing, as in, hard racing, has to automatically mean intent to run LH off the road. I just wouldn’t be coming to the conclusion that that was his plan all along. As I see it we had two racers changing places three times into the corner and obviously that took them both deep into it. If Max only then found out he was a bit helpless at that point, yes through deep braking, that he had to take the line he did, as he was on the very edge of grip, why can’t it be just as simple as that? Doesn’t this sort of thing happen all the time, especially with late brakers who many times don’t pull their move off as they saw a gap, took their chance, hoped for grip, only to find they had maxed themselves out on that?

            I think the debate about the stewards decision is fair game, but given that they obviously didn’t see some malicious attempt of Max ‘gunning for’ LH, but rather saw Max hard racing against LH, I don’t see the connection to this automatically meaning Max meant all along to run LH off. As Keith opined yesterday, he believes Max’s intent all along was to stay ahead of LH. I agree with that. I don’t think Max thinks it is ideal to have to go that wide and to run an opponent wide as well, but this was the consequence of the two of them racing so hard into that corner. I don’t believe for a second Max wants to win by taking someone out intentionally. But race hard? Yeah we can always count on Max for that. And LH.

            As well, I get the impression from Max saying he was happy the stewards let them keep racing, that he would have understood a penalty, but at the same time he would have argued with the stewards that it wasn’t malicious. Sometimes a late braker doesn’t pull off his move, doesn’t make contact, and it is not even noted.

          3. Hi @robbie. Read through your comment and I understand your point, let’s then assume it wasn’t intentional and he made a mistake with picking his braking point. How is this different to what Bottas did in Hungary, when he knew there were cars around him but made a misjudgement? Of course the penalty for Bottas was justified in that case because he should have had better control of the car, just as Max should have had better control of his car especially with another car on his outside.

            So even assuming Max didn’t do this intentionally (which anyone that has watched F1 for years can see pretty clearly tbh), he’s still gained an unfair advantage in keeping the position by not staying on track forcing a car off wide, regardless of intent or not.

          4. @john-h Yeah for sure hard to argue that and it is a fair point to say that even an unintentional understeer situation for example could still be blamed on the driver for not ensuring no understeer. We do know that LH has claimed understeer on several occasions of running Nico wide and I always claimed he was saying that like he had no control over his own car’s pace or when to brake. Like he was just an innocent bystander to his own understeer. The fact is he went in hot and hoped for the best. Same with Max I think. And many others. I don’t think Max made a mistake with his braking point. I think he just went back and forth with the lead into that corner with LH and let it play out on the edge of grip hoping it would hold. As he said though he was so close on grip that if he had tried to steer left he would have spun. Sure in hindsight he could have braked a bit earlier and he wouldn’t have had the understeer, but that’s irrelevant to the millisecond decisions Max had to make as it was happening.

            For sure it is fair to say well Max wasn’t in control then if he had understeer, but I just think it happens so often, it’s actually one of the cruxes of racing, no? How much grip at what speed? Being on the edge of traction? I just think Max is only guilty of trying his hardest, and yes that meant understeer, and yes that took himself and LH wide, and I think the stewards simply decided that they both survived it and in this mega dual for the Championship let’s not punish one of these two particular players at this particular point for that kind of hard racing. Perhaps they even had it in mind that an LH pass on Max was inevitable at some point anyway. They immediately called it a let them race moment. This particular one. That doesn’t mean they have thrown away the rule book whatsoever.

          5. The difference with the Hamilton ‘understeer’ moments @robbie is that he then stays on the track. What I don’t particularly like is if Hamilton says that it’s understeer, when it’s clearly not, however this was kind of the case at Silverstone and Hamilton got the penalty.

            Just for reference and to try and remove any unintentional bias, I was supportive of Max when he pushed Leclerc wide at Austria precisely because he was taking the racing line and stayed on track. I really don’t think this is the same, because he ran so wide and off the circuit, this makes it actually more like Bottas and the bowling ball if anything.

            Let’s agree to disagree, but always enjoyable to discuss!

          6. @john-h Yeah no worries and I am enjoying it too. Of course I get that Max didn’t stay on the track. Perhaps if this had happened earlier in the season Max would have had to cede the position to LH. If he had done anything different he would likely have been doing that anyway, but obviously he just wasn’t ready yet to cede the position. Thank goodness for us or what would have had to talk about all week;) I just think Max doesn’t make a habit of running that wide and he usually squeezes the likes of LH out just as LH has done numerous times, on the track, and that’s not a criticism, it is a racing thing. At some point you get to own the real estate and force the other guy’s hand. In this case yeah they both went off but that still doesn’t mean to me Max wanted it that way. I really don’t think he wants to be a bowling ball. He’s been there done that in his earlier years until he learned his hard lessen and corrected his behaviour (for the most part) post Monaco 2018;)

      2. Intent doesn’t matter. Drivers have been penalized for screwing up their braking points in the past.
        Anyway the telemetry did show it was intentional. Even Max loosely admitted it without revealing too much.

        The key thing why it wasn’t reviewed is because the stewards would make themselves look like bigger fools!

      3. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        19th November 2021, 13:50

        @hahostolze sorry man but the move is indefensible – it’s not even up for debate. What’s worse is that this sport where lives are at stake has no governance.

    2. No. It means the FIA rejected the request for review. So they’ve not even reviewed it.

    3. Their request (for review) was denied by the stewards.

      a big difference from what you are claiming.

    4. I don’t hope so. I guess in retrospective everyone (probably even Redbull or Verstappens die-hards) agrees that it was wrong not to investigate the incident.
      But a decision that for legal reasons can’t be revised. No new relevant proves have appeared so they’re not allowed to reopen the investigation. The onboard does only show what we already knew: Verstappen carried way to much speed into the corner and didn’t even intend to make it.
      So we shouldn’t take it as a precedent for any future decision regarding dive-bombing and pushing someone off track.

    5. @emu55 It’s been more or less legal to run someone on the outside off the road for quite some time now. The difference is that now drivers are free to ignore track limits while doing so. What a mess…

  3. What a great track to decide this at. The WDC is going to end in a massive crash now

    1. Max now has the green light to crash he’s way to the WDC…

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        19th November 2021, 13:09

        Funny how it works out though eh? If it wasn’t for cars crashing into him, he’d probably have the title all but wrapped up now….

        1. I didn’t realise someone crashed into at Monza….

        2. Well, I think you’re right, overall luck wise he lost like 45 points in comparison to hamilton, so atm having 59 points would be, although not mathematically enough, almost.

  4. Wow!

    And now up coming are 3 middle eastern tracks with lots of tarmac run-offs!! Expect drivers across the grid to keep crowding out their pursuers and running off track themselves.

    1. This decision will now set a dangerous precedent. We may end up seeing a lot of aggressive defending in the races to come…and if not executed correctly, we may end up seeing a lot of drivers being shunted out of races.
      The stewarding this year has been sub-par to say the least. Not just the decisions per se but the way they have gone about handling investigations and violations etc has been abysmal. There doesn’t seem to exist any rigid stand or view on what can/cannot happen during the race weekend.
      Hurts to say this but I feel sorry for the late and great Charlie Whiting !!!

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        19th November 2021, 13:15

        @webtel – I don’t think it sets a dangerous precedent. The opposite in fact. The stewards are wildly inconsistent so if you push a driver wide, you may get a harsh penalty or you may get completely let off. It’ll change from race to race so you take a risk by driving in that way. The decision not to punish Max doesn’t mean the stewards will view that the same way the next week. That’s a problem but it’s a problem with the stewards – not with the appeals process.

        The decision made today stops a dangerous precedent being set in my opinion – every single decision being appealed without significant new information. I want the stewarding to be sorted out so they make the correct decisions during the race but I don’t want us to have to wait a week after every race for various appeals to go through because that’s no good for the sport.

        1. That’s quite an impressive level of mental contortion.

          This was an opportunity to end the inconsistency you correctly highlight, but instead of that, this set of stewards have endorsed it.

          Of course, did anyone expect the original stewards to admit they were wrong?

          1. petebaldwin (@)
            19th November 2021, 14:43

            @dang – They haven’t endorsed anything. They specifically said the decision “not an affirmation or review of the stewards determination made during the race.”

            The decision was purely about whether to allow a review of a decision made during the race. In their view, there wasn’t any significant new evidence provided which is required as per the rules in order to have a review. if that rule wasn’t in place, every decision would be reviewed.

            I don’t see how a review would have ended any inconsistency. If they said it was a penalty, you’d have a bunch of teams asking to protest decisions where they were pushed off the track but the other driver wasn’t punished. It’s happened loads this year and changing one decision won’t fix the whole process which is all too often getting decisions wrong.

            The way to end inconsistency is to do a review of stewarding in general. Look at why the process isn’t working, whether the rules need to be tightened up to remove any grey areas and any other issues… It looked a penalty to me and basing it on the penalties given out in Austria, how was this not worse than that? It’s not like football where a referee has to make a decision on the spot – they’ve got a chance to look at it from multiple angles and make a decision. If they’re not applying the rules correctly, there are major problems and overturning a single decision isn’t going to fix that.

    2. Given that all three remaining tracks are unlikely to lend themselves to overtaking in corners – only DRS-assisted motorway passes down the straights – I doubt it will be much of an issue, if at all.

      1. Indeed @red-andy, although the run off at T1 in Qatar could get some use I guess.

  5. So they basicly decided that the new evidence is not significant?

    Let’s find out what Toto thinks of this

    1. No they took the easy way out, as predicted and sort of expected @anunaki, they said that since there was not investigation to appeal, there was no right of review either. Ie. because the stewards completely in Brazil dismissed it, now there shouldn’t be a way to challenge that (yeah, that’s pretty corrupt, but that’s the way we got to know the FIA I think).

      1. However they did not agree the video evidence was significant, and therefore rejected Mercedes’ request for a review.

      2. @bosyber no they did actually say the new evidence is not significant

        1. Yeah, it wasn’t significant because the previous stewards decided there was no need to investigate – and since this footage only enhances the view that Verstappen did it on purpose but that the Stewards wanted to allow that, then this doesn’t significantly change the judgement.

          So that’s a very cynical way to just put it like that: We all know what happened, and the other stewards decided not to look at whether it needed punishment, so we, stewards at this meeting are not going to look at it now, period.

          Yeah, in that light it certainly isn’t significant.

      3. They took the easy way out, I agree. As many have pointed before, the new evidence is indeed not significant, since even without the forward-facing video the Verstappen move was blatantly wrong and deserving of a penalty. Now the FIA has just completed tying itself in knots. Is F1 about to become the series with the dirtiest racing, while staying the most heavily policed one ?

    2. They avoided shooting themselves in the foot. That same foot that would be stuck in their mouths!

  6. Well, as least every driver now knows it 100% acceptable to force a driver off track, come nowhere near being able to make the corner and gain a lasting advantage doing so.

    Let the mayhem commence.

    1. I wonder how Bottas and Perez role will change now…mmmmm?

    2. Well it was about time for some recognition of the difficulty of an outside pass. Penalising in the past have led to some kind of illusion that it is completely normal to go outside expecting the one on the inside will leave space while in fact this car should be able to just hold the racing line and not leave a cars width. Not saying Max would have made that racing line in this specific case, but talking about the larger concept of overtaking around the outside.

  7. Good. Time to move on.

    1. Except we won’t move on @sjaakfoo because this kind of bully driving will now be allowed. Not making a decision will allow us _not_ to move on.

    2. Whoa, Max is all clean now. Time to move on.

  8. BLS (@brightlampshade)
    19th November 2021, 12:32

    Looking forward to watching demolition derby these next few races. I vote we give out a bonus point to the driver who can push a rival the furthest from the track.

    1. That sounds like a job for Superalonso, knight of the rules consistency !

    2. Extra bonus points if they crash and you dont!

    3. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      19th November 2021, 15:26

      The stewards over the next 3 races are going to be very confused. Ultimately, they have to note all the incidents but not investigate them. They would have to use this incident as a reference point to be fair to everyone.

      If I were a steward I’d go up to Masi and ask “should we investigate this? Sure, it’s clear he crashed into him but we should check with his team principal and see if his driver was trying to drive safely by crashing into the other driver or just racing in which case it’s perfectly ok. In either case, it doesn’t seem worthy of investigation based on the new Masi edition rulebook post Brazil 2021.”

      1. RandomMallard (@)
        19th November 2021, 16:54

        @freelittlebirds I still don’t know how or why people are bringing Masi into this. Masi has the power to note an incident, but has no power whatsoever to force it under investigation. The sporting regulations make it very clear that:

        After review it shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation.

        The reason I think Masi keeps being drawn into these discussions is he is the de facto spokesperson for the FIA at a race weekend. Most of the discussions he has about incidents are not his decisions, they’re the stewards’, but the stewards seem to want to keep a low profile.

        (And for the record Michael, I know we’ve had our differences this season, but I strongly disagree with this decision. Verstappen was definitely predominantly at fault, and probably completely at fault, for the incident, and should have been penalised (I would have said 5 seconds or 3 or 5 places this weekend). I agree with him that we all enjoy hard racing, but Brazil wasn’t hard racing, it was dangerous and it was desperate. However, I’m not surprised at this appeal failing simply because the requirements to earn an appeal are extremely difficult to reach in any scenario.)

  9. You mean the same FIA which changed the rules to suit RedBull, always let them change illegal parts the next race with no punishment and let them change parts which clearly aren’t fit for purpose each race aren’t going to be punished for breaking rules. Why am I not surprised. Empty championship if Max does win. Really wishing luck on Mercedes now.

    1. Ah yes, this is the incident that defines the season. Not Silverstone. This. Makes sense.

      1. How could we forget Silverstone @hahostolze? How many GS was it again, I can’t recall? At least Mercedes haven’t been petty enough to arrange a recreation in the simulator as new evidence.

        1. @john-h You don’t know that they haven’t ;-)

          But yes, let’s compare apples and bowling balls. They both roll, sort of. Verstappen was fairly or unfairly knocked out of the race in Silverstone and Hamilton still won despite a penalty. Here Verstappen pushed him off track, going off track himself, no penalty was given and Hamilton still won the race. Please tell me how those moments are remotely comparable in severity and consequence, and then tell me how the parties have to be similarly aggrieved. Because that’s just horseradish.

          1. Consequences should not be reasons to punish bad driving @hahostolze.
            Are you saying that a penalty should have been applied had Hamilton not avoided a crash?
            No, it’s not in Hamilton’s hands whether Max’s driving was acceptable or not, just as per Silverstone, Max could have in theory gone even wider and avoided a shunt. I’m not saying he should have by the way, and Hamilton was rightly penalised after an investigation.

          2. That is hilarious Hahostolze! You are seeing the consequences instead of the incidents themselves. Let’s go by this. If VER was to get a grid penalty for this race, MERC by theory would have secured the win in Qatar. Looking at the consequences of these decisions? Here you go, the consequence of opting out of this penalty.

          3. Let me also give you an analogy to help….

            A tackle from behind in football is a red card and a match ban. It doesn’t matter if the other player suffers a broken leg or not in terms of the severity of the penalty, it’s foul play and there is a set penalty for that. Does that make sense?

            Not sure how I can put it any clearer to be honest @hahostolze, sorry.

          4. @hahostolze The difference comes down to the car on the outside and their behavior…Max knew Lewis was there and turned in hoping he would clear – he did not, had Lewis made the apex it would have sat squarely 100% on Max as he sat in the barrier. In Brazil Lewis knew Max was there and bailed, Max failed to make the apex, failed to keep it on track, but the driver saw it was worse for them to try. Which from the wording of the stewards is why Max did catch blame in Silverstone.

            End of day we know if Bottas had pulled this same move on Max in Mexico on lap 1, you would likely have a very different view.

          5. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            19th November 2021, 15:41

            @hahostolze please explain to me how Lewis was at fault at Silverstone as Max could have made that corner and been ahead 99 out of 100 times had he not made a steering mistake or assumed that Lewis had given up on the corner.

            Lewis probably would have pushed Max out as they exited the corner but it never got to that point.

            Until the point they collided, Verstappen double moved on the way into the corner (as always), then he cut the corner as if there was no one there. Lewis was pointing towards the apex. Max realized that Lewis was racing him, made an adjustment, and it was not enough. Their wheels touched and Max got the worst of it which was fine as Max misjudged the situation.

            Simple as that. I’m not saying that Lewis would not have fouled Max coming out of the corner by making the car as wide as possible as everyone does but as the incident played out, Max made 2 mistakes, Lewis made none.

            Lewis was penalized because of the fact that Max’s race ended and Horner demanding a penalty but that’s just a sympathy penalty, not the correct decision…

            Max got what he deserved at Silverstone. He collided with another, he crashed out and he’s lucky he survived it. But it wasn’t Lewis’s fault. It’d be generous to consider that a racing incident as Max had messed up everything up until the collision.

            Sure, Lewis is a better driver and can avoid all collisions as he did in Brazil but you can’t ask a racer to always yield cause he’s much better than the other driver who’s trying to collide with you. That’s not racing – that’s babysitting.

          6. @john-h OK but do all tackles from behind get penalized? Do they all result in a red flag and a ban? Or are there degrees of bad behaviour? In terms of Max’s ‘bad driving’ in Brazil, I would say it was so minor an infraction, and understandable when we saw how both drivers were dicing for position going into the corner, that the stewards just decided that was better left at hard racing. I understand though that those who just think it was bad driving would then think it was penalty worthy. I think it was the on the very edge of traction kind of hard racing we want to see for the Championship, as LH seemed to think too.

      2. Didn’t someone get a penalty at Silverstone?

      3. Oh, July 18th at the Racing Incident Grand Prix? Yep, racing incident to this day and always a racing incident 10 years from now.

    2. hahahaha

    3. Did Hamilton got a Penalty to push Perez into Pit’lane in Turkey ?
      There wasnt any investigation either.

      No matter how you see it, he forced him off track.
      Ans Hamilton does it pretty often
      Massa, Maldonado Rosberg, Timo Glock ….
      A lot of them has been pushed off by him.
      So ?

      I donc call him hamilpush.

      But as long as people are supporting one team or one driver, the team and drivers are innocent and superheros and everyone else are cheaters and Fia corrupted wanting to make them loose.

      I’m sorry, but i doubt this kind of vision being very constructive and based on the facts

      Alonso saying is not completly wrong …
      Would have been the same if Verstappen was British and Hamilton From Neerlands ?

  10. The worst possible outcome. They should have reviewed the incident and then stated that no penalty was due, explaining why. This decision to remain in their huddle, saying nothing, just green lights drivers forcing others wide however they want if there’s tarmac run-off.

    Except it won’t be like that, will it? Inconsistency is a FIA mantra. Expect penalties to come for doing exactly the same as MV. When convenient for the right parties involved.

    1. Jay (@slightlycrusty)
      19th November 2021, 12:44

      @david-br Exactly, it won’t be like that. The stewards change every race and the rules change with them. Farcical.

  11. The whole thing stinks of corruption and subterfuge, thought the days of calling the FIA Ferrari International Assistance were behind us, but no, its now Red Bull International Assistance…

    Remember folks, ‘New F1, New Champion, New TV Deals available now’

    1. everybody but you want Redbull to win, deal with it

      1. Not everyone wants Redbull to cheat.. or be helped to cheat.

        Not everyone wants another Shumacher crashing out his rival to win the championship.

        Remember the weekend started with the same stewards penalising Hamilton for that apparently 0.2mm infringement on his rear wing, after it was first ‘tested’ by that magician Verstappen for its regidity. They then keep the offending part so no one is able to further scrutinise the part or their decission. It makes you wonder doesn’t it. How fair is fair.

        0.2 mm less than the thickness of the human hair, could a person do that, physically manhandle that part, remember Verstappen before the world press, had 2 goes to get it right.

        1. Bit suspicious that the wing fails a test for the first time after Max is seen playing with it…

      2. “deal with it”

        “get over it”

        The fantastic debating culture of the 2020s @anunaki. What a world we live in now.

        1. It was a joke John

          1. Ah ok @anunaki, sorry I missed that! My sacarsm filter must be off today :)

      3. You mean by refusing to look at ALL the evidence, this is what you people want from the FIA?

        Well done you.

    2. Remember, just this year they changed the following mid-season:
      -Rear Wing change, this gave a benefit to Mercedes
      -Tire change from Silverstone onwards, this gave a benefit to Mercedes
      -Pit-stop changes, this gave a benefit to Mercedes.

      But sure, they’re totally corrupt for Red Bull this year, it’s pretty evident who they want to win.

      1. Well were find out for sure if Lewis does the same and gets a penalty… Come to think of it, its now open season for driving people of the track, lets wait and see..

        1. You can wait and see, I’m just gonna enjoy this title fight.

        2. Like Lewis to Perez in Mexico?

          1. My bad, it was in Turkey.

          2. @omarr-pepper Unless the car shunted off track picks up damage, and the inside car stays on track and is level/ahead (easy to do by braking late) then that seems to be the new normal. As set by MV versus Leclerc in 2019. What isn’t normal is driving several metres off track to block, effectively extending the width of the track where those acres of tarmac permit. But we’ll see soon enough I’m sure.

  12. You guys are overreacting. I dont believe everybody is going to use the max maneuver to blast their rivals off track from now on. This decision also doesnt mean, that max’s move was legal. It just says, that the onboard video is not significant enough to reopen (or in fact open) the/an investigation.

    1. Then you’re extremely naive. I wonder if McLaren will themselves open a review into previous penalties.

      This will cause chaos. F1 drivers always push the limits and we’ve officially just seen the end of overtaking in F1. Just weave, defend the inside line and force everyone off track. RIP actual racing :(

      1. McLaren had a right to do that, it expired a long time ago.

      2. If i am being naive, then you are extremely pessimistic. We will see whats going to happen and i hope you are wrong.

    2. Exactly. The Stewards don’t want to contradict themselves by reviewing the incident. The safest thing to do is to dismiss it. If they reviewed it, then it will be obvious that they erred. They want to leave open the option to be able to punish such moves when they wish.
      The next time someone does it there will be video evidence and they will punish immediately.

      1. The next time someone does it there will be video evidence and they will punish immediately.

        I don’t follow this logic. THIS time there was [sufficient] video evidence and they didn’t “punish it immediately”. Maybe drivers get a free one before they start penalizing, or more likely it just doesn’t apply to VER since we all know that’s just the way he drives.

  13. The stewards are comedians

  14. F1 is a farce.

    1. Barry Bens (@barryfromdownunder)
      19th November 2021, 12:38

      You misspelled your own name there bud

  15. Barry Bens (@barryfromdownunder)
    19th November 2021, 12:38

    I didn’t even have to be quiet and I could hear Toto Wolff and Lewis Hamilton cry all the way from the other side of the planet.

    Can’t imagine the seethign going on there now, which will naturally be done off as ‘we werent expecting much anyway’.

    1. ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)