US GP Austin

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I liken Verstappen to a bully, he is just trying to bully other drivers off the track. Sadly, bullies only respond to force, so maybe it takes a driver to stand his ground and have a collision with the man in order to make a point?

is it tho?

revisiting the Austrian GP incident this year...a bit of a dive bomb by Norris but Max also moved under braking/forced Norris wide and created contact and as a result took the penalty for it.

did either driver learn anything from that?

Max still drives like a bully and Norris continues to leave himself hanging on the outside when he doesn't have to. i assume out of frustration because he would have taken Max on the next DRS straight.

i would argue that the best way to fight Max/bully in this situation would have been to use the brain a bit more?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

is it tho?

revisiting the Austrian GP incident this year...a bit of a dive bomb by Norris but Max also moved under braking/forced Norris wide and created contact and as a result took the penalty for it.

Max penalty was ineffective because the damaged caused to Landos car cost Lando more than the penalty did Max. Of course Max didn't learn anything from that - he extended his championship lead.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Your point about not making it to the apex first completely ignores the fact that whilst Max made it to the apex first, it's because he braked so late that he did. not make the corner. Anyone can make the apex before the opposing car if they brake, literally, so late they can no longer keep their car on the circuit.

even if you dismiss that one point, you still havent dismissed the other advantage Norris had in going for that corner, including also breaking late.

so i challenge the assertion that a 'higher standard' set of rules would have afforded Norris more room for that corner. imo he was too late to that corner.

certainly too late to use this as an example of improving the rules.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I also expect the rules to be re-written in a way that means that every time Max is forced into a wheel to wheel situation, it doesn't end up with the entire paddock and internet discussing the accident and/or penalty which has been applied to the inevitable incident that occurred.

with all due respect, changing rules of a sporting event in order to moderate how the internet reacts to things is totally an out there point to make imo. i recognize thats not your main point and may be more of a glib addition then a serious one...but surly that cannot be the metric for change?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

even if you dismiss that one point, you still havent dismissed the other advantage Norris had in going for that corner, including also breaking late.

so i challenge the assertion that a 'higher standard' set of rules would have afforded Norris more room for that corner. imo he was too late to that corner.

certainly too late to use this as an example of improving the rules.

I am not following you on advantages? Whether a car has an advantage or not has nothing to do with the rules on engagement? Max ran another car off the road, and he achieved in a 'legal' manner by driving in a way which meant he himself could not make the corner. That has nothing to do with who has an advantage, and everything to do with basic driving standards.

The rules should not allow you to defend your position by taking a line which means neither car can make the corner.

with all due respect, changing rules of a sporting event in order to moderate how the internet reacts to things is totally an out there point to make imo. i recognize thats not your main point and may be more of a glib addition then a serious one...but surly that cannot be the metric for change?

With all due respect, I think you missed my point. My point is that the rules are written in a way which allows drivers to drive deliberately dangerously and force cars off the track. That is, at the very least, controversial, and at worst, a completely unacceptable situation. My comment regarding it being the talking point was to illustrate the general dissatisfaction from inside and outside the paddock on the current rules of engagement. This would suggest that the rule is not fit for purpose.

And yes - if every time Max is forced to go wheel to wheel, we either have a crash, or a penalty applied in a manner which causes the main talking point to be the incident, then it is absolutely a metric for change as it proves the rule is not fit for purpose.

And regarding the standards - once again - if a French F4 driver drove another car off the circuit, they would be criticized and penalized. Yet here we are, discussing yet another Formula 1 Grand Prix, the supposedly highest standard of motor racing in the entire world, debating on if running cars off the road is acceptable, and who should or should not be penalized in a now semi-regular occurrence, because of the exact wording of a rule book, and the outcome from a steward who has not driven a race car in almost 3 decades.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Max penalty was ineffective because the damaged caused to Landos car cost Lando more than the penalty did Max. Of course Max didn't learn anything from that - he extended his championship lead.

This happens fairly regularly though. Take Silverstone 2021 as an example - Lewis' penalty was similarly ineffective. Of course, the logic from some fans then was that Max deserved to go out, even though the accident was caused by Lewis.


You can only punish the action, not the consequence. Don't forget at Austria both cars had punctures for a small amount of contact. Verstappen was rightly punished for the contact, but the consequence was out of his hands. It was pure bad luck that Norris had to retire.