2017 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 14-16 July

[Phil]

So about the Hamilton / Grosjean incident...

I just watched QF again on the CH4 broadcast and from what I can tell, Hamilton was just about to go onto a hot-lap, whereas Grosjean already was. They met at the very end of the track, at the point where Hamilton was just about to go on full throttle.

I suppose when a driver would be on an slow lap (e.g. after a hot-lap and about to go into the pits) and impedes a driver who is on a hot-lap, it's a black/white offense. In the above case however, Hamilton wasn't on "the lap" yet, but he was just about to go "on it" at the point at which Grosjean caught up. From what I can gather; if Hamilton had slowed and went off-line, he would have compromised his own "hot-lap".

Now, this isn't a post to defend Hamilton etc. It's more about the question if this line of thinking could have been considered by the stewards when they looked at the incident? Is there a clear rule at what point a driver is deemed to be "on it" and doesn't have to yield? Does the part before the lap starts count as well?

In theory - what would happen if two drivers are "on it" and on a "hot lap" and meet on track? I.e. if a slower Sauber is on a hot lap and the Mercedes catches it mid lap? I guess that's just tough luck, isn't it?

[Moose]

So about the Hamilton / Grosjean incident...

I just watched QF again on the CH4 broadcast and from what I can tell, Hamilton was just about to go onto a hot-lap, whereas Grosjean already was. They met at the very end of the track, at the point where Hamilton was just about to go on full throttle.

I suppose when a driver would be on an slow lap (e.g. after a hot-lap and about to go into the pits) and impedes a driver who is on a hot-lap, it's a black/white offense. In the above case however, Hamilton wasn't on "the lap" yet, but he was just about to go "on it" at the point at which Grosjean caught up. From what I can gather; if Hamilton had slowed and went off-line, he would have compromised his own "hot-lap".

Now, this isn't a post to defend Hamilton etc. It's more about the question if this line of thinking could have been considered by the stewards when they looked at the incident? Is there a clear rule at what point a driver is deemed to be "on it" and doesn't have to yield? Does the part before the lap starts count as well?

In theory - what would happen if two drivers are "on it" and on a "hot lap" and meet on track? I.e. if a slower Sauber is on a hot lap and the Mercedes catches it mid lap? I guess that's just tough luck, isn't it?

It's very open to interpretation -

31.6 Any driver taking part in any practice session who, in the opinion of the stewards, stops unnecessarily on the circuit, or unnecessarily impedes another driver shall be subject to the penalties referred to in Article 31.5

I think it would be pretty easy to argue that since Hamilton was in the process of letting it rip for his fast lap, that the impeding was necessary, not unnecessary.

So long story short - yes, I do think the stewards will have thought about that in their application of this rule.

[ChrisDanger]

Pirelli released some information about Ferrari's failures last weekend.

Pirelli has concluded the investigation into Sebastian Vettel’s damaged P Zero Yellow soft tyre at Silverstone. A slow puncture and consequent driving on a flat tyre caused the final issue.

Kimi Raikkonen’s damaged tyre needs further analysis, with results expected in a few days.

Link to the full article.

[Treble]

I really find it amazing you know. The fact that people posting here know more about actual racing line and speed than the drivers themselves, including the one that has got pole four years running here or something like that. It really is amazing... the arrogance and delusion.

All it says really is about the posters on here.

I'll add I believe what Lewis was trying to say is Copse CAN be taken flat out, but perhaps it's not ideal to if you're chasing the fastest time out of those series of corners. Now why is that so hard to digest? When did Lewis tell anyone that the 'ideal' racing line was flat out?

But i agree with TAG the whinings really are petty. He's so worried what they thought of his pole time. Or racing line. Grow up?

Take it easy guys, noone is trying to diminish Hamilton. If you don't agree with the statement you can discuss it without accusing anybody of fanboism. Nobody here is diminishing your favourite driver...

LOL Is this an attempt at supposedly common sense intervention? It's a fail sorry. Your post is anything but. Who is my favorite driver? And I do wonder who is yours by the way? Also you'll see I didn't mention fanboyism.

Honestly I cannot even be bothered right now to address your poorly veiled response. The point of my post remains very clear, true and unbiased ie it is shocking that posters here claim to know more about how to drive a lap quickest and proper racing lines than formula one drivers, not least the one who has got pole several times here. Surprising I need to say that again.

The message is straight forward. If you are as unbiased as your post pretends to be, maybe you should have just kept quiet?

Oh and saying that the pole sitter for several years here is talking --- about corners here IS a rather petty and pathetic though useless way of trying to diminish him actually. I'm sure he's not reading this to find out or care. And I would say the same for any driver on the grid.

Maybe you missed the original post and just jumped straight in to give your own 'unbias'...

Being one of the best driver in the world doesn't mean always being right. One example? Niki Lauda. If you collect all Lauda' statements in these years you will laugh. I always think with my head. When i have a discussion i used to talk about facts. One example: after Baku race Vettel told his second move vs Ham was not intentional. I didn't believe that even if Vettel is a world champion. i find childish to believe in something only because my favourite driver told it.

[justmoi]

Lol whatever