US GP Austin

[hondafan37]

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1044429354145988

[Born Racer]

From watching it again, I wonder if Verstappen was actually innocent in the sense that he locked up and went off. Despite the fact that I think he does take full advantage of this 'right to the corner' concept, this time he definitely locked up and therefore at the point at which he locked up, he could no longer give Norris any more room. It does beg the question whether if you lock up, you have protected the right to your corner because you no longer had the opportunity to give the other driver more space.

Likewise, though, if Norris no longer had space because of that and he had to take to the run off, does that mean he no longer has a right to overtake because Verstappen has covered himself by locking up? There's a lot of Devil's Advocate here, but Verstappen has made life very easy for himself with this level of robustness.

Wonderful discussion above regarding the stewards' verdict - I will just say that they are trying to latch on to a few key points of driving ethics such as claiming a corner and coming up short because it's far more complex than that and drivers like Verstappen are absolutely exploiting the rule book.

[AndrewCherry]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

It does beg the question whether if you lock up, you have protected the right to your corner because you no longer had the opportunity to give the other driver more space.

In my experience as a very low-level racer, I'd say that as soon as you lock up you've lost the right to claim/defend that corner (unless you can get it back under control again in time to make the corner safely and within racing limits). So if you lock up and go wide, no - that corner is no longer yours by right.


Reading that stewards decision it does seem very shallow as an analysis - Lando should be punished for going off, but we'll reduce it because he didn't have a choice? If someone didn't have a choice you either don't punish them or you say "tough" and leave the punishment as is. The half punishment makes it a lot stranger, you've muddied the waters about intent. The other aspect also implies that only Lando gained an advantage by going off, but we know that's not how this is always interpreted - you can be considered to gain an advantage by keeping a place you would otherwise have lost.


As any driver knows, if you're taking a tighter line into a corner (e.g. because there's someone outside you) you'll have to brake earlier than you usually would, you're going to have to turn harder and therefore scrub off more speed to do so. If you're braking later than the person on the outside and therefore getting to the apex first (assuming that they're on what would be considered the "regular" racing line) then one of two things has happened: they've braked earlier than they needed to (and you could compare this with previous lap telemetry presumably if he's close to the racing line) or you've braked too late to make the corner (and again, you should be able to compare this - if you're not braking before the usual racing line braking point, you're too late). I'm surprised that this isn't a fairly obvious case from brake telemetry and steering inputs, the only thing that seems like a question mark is whether Max braked too late intentionally or not. I'd personally like to see his brake and steering inputs - when did he roll off the brake, and was the steering input consistent with trying to take a tighter line? If not, he should be carrying the can.

[Mike Harte]

I don't know if mentioned earlier in this thread, but McLaren have instigated a review of the Stewards' findings. This will take place later this afternoon in Mexico via video with the US GP Stewards, and this would indicate that McLaren have "new" evidence, as that is all that can be considered, that was not available at the time of the original Stewards' decision.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I wonder if Verstappen was actually innocent in the sense that he locked up and went off.

I'm convinced that he didn't. He braked perfectly, and squeezed Norris off track intentionally.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by AndrewCherry

In my experience as a very low-level racer, I'd say that as soon as you lock up you've lost the right to claim/defend that corner (unless you can get it back under control again in time to make the corner safely and within racing limits). So if you lock up and go wide, no - that corner is no longer yours by right.

I have never raced for real except indoor karts, so I'm no expert. But I disagree with the concept of "owning a corner". As I wrote earlier, I think that cars side by side have the right to remain on track. An overtake isn't complete until one of the drivers is sufficiently in front of the other.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I don't know if mentioned earlier in this thread, but McLaren have instigated a review of the Stewards' findings. This will take place later this afternoon in Mexico via video with the US GP Stewards, and this would indicate that McLaren have "new" evidence, as that is all that can be considered, that was not available at the time of the original Stewards' decision.

so fully admit that at this point i might be so backwards/entrenched on this that im forcing things to fit my narrative...

but out of two cars going for a corner, how can the one with DRS enabled be considered as anything other than the attacking driver?

no idea what the stewards will do but regardless, im very curious what their new evidence is, im assuming its telemetry based, and hopefully that will let me open my eyes to what everyone else clearly sees?

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This will take place later this afternoon in Mexico via video with the US GP Stewards, and this would indicate that McLaren have "new" evidence, as that is all that can be considered, that was not available at the time of the original Stewards' decision.

Are you referring to this, >Mike? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bhmfAp4jKU

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

Are you referring to this, >Mike? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bhmfAp4jKU

Yes, but that YT is merely speculating about what McLaren are going to be bringing to the Stewards. Whatever, Gérard, we should know in a couple of hours after the initial video call with the Stewards; if there is a second one scheduled, it will mean that the appeal has not been dismissed, and that the Stewards are going to reconsider the incident in light of evidence that wasn't available at the time they made their original decision.

[Gerard C]

OK I see, thank you Mike. I dunno what they'll bring as new evidence but I find that Max has been pushy.