George Russell claimed his first Formula One sprint race win at the 2026 Chinese Grand Prix, maintaining his perfect start to the season after a closely fought contest that highlighted both Mercedes’ strengths and the evolving competitive order under the 2026 regulations.
This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
I think Lewis was also very kind in avoiding a collision when he saw the Max divebomb.
Colliding with someone in order to avoid being overtaken because you didn’t see the maneuver coming doesn’t make sense to me.
I think you have it backwards. Most divebomb collisions are precisely for the reason you stated. The onus is on the attacker to not cause a collision from a blindsided dive-bomb.
I think Lewis was also very kind in avoiding a collision when he saw the Max divebomb.
Colliding with someone in order to avoid being overtaken because you didn’t see the maneuver coming doesn’t make sense to me.
I think you have it backwards. Most divebomb collisions are precisely for the reason you stated. The onus is on the attacker to not cause a collision from a blindsided dive-bomb.
A driver shouldn't stupidly drive into another. Keep watching the mirrors.
Though the FIA doesn't help with the stupid headrests and raised sidewalls.
I think Lewis was also very kind in avoiding a collision when he saw the Max divebomb.
Colliding with someone in order to avoid being overtaken because you didn’t see the maneuver coming doesn’t make sense to me.
I think you have it backwards. Most divebomb collisions are precisely for the reason you stated. The onus is on the attacker to not cause a collision from a blindsided dive-bomb.
That's incorrect. There are rules dictating when an attacking car is entitled to space on the inside. If you fulfill those criteria and the defending car just turns in like you are not there, it's 100% on them. There's nothing in the rules about "divebombs", the rules talk about relative positioning at the apex, being in control of the car, making the corner etc. A perfectly executed divebomb can fulfill all those criteria, a poorly executed one usually doesn't.
But such nuance is usually lacking on social media, here everyone invents their own standard and your interpretations seem to be more inspired by road customs than racing rules.
Colliding with someone in order to avoid being overtaken because you didn’t see the maneuver coming doesn’t make sense to me.
I think you have it backwards. Most divebomb collisions are precisely for the reason you stated. The onus is on the attacker to not cause a collision from a blindsided dive-bomb.
That's incorrect. There are rules dictating when an attacking car is entitled to space on the inside. If you fulfill those criteria and the defending car just turns in like you are not there, it's 100% on them. There's nothing in the rules about "divebombs", the rules talk about relative positioning at the apex, being in control of the car, making the corner etc. A perfectly executed divebomb can fulfill all those criteria, a poorly executed one usually doesn't.
But such nuance is usually lacking on social media, here everyone invents their own standard and your interpretations seem to be more inspired by road customs than racing rules.
By definition a dive-bomber is NOT entitled to space. If he collides with the driver in front anywhere during the maneuver he is said to have caused a collision. Full stop.
By definition a dive-bomber is NOT entitled to space. If he collides with the driver in front anywhere during the maneuver he is said to have caused a collision. Full stop.
Says you... But not the regs, or guidelines. You can "full stop" all you want.
I think you have it backwards. Most divebomb collisions are precisely for the reason you stated. The onus is on the attacker to not cause a collision from a blindsided dive-bomb.
That's incorrect. There are rules dictating when an attacking car is entitled to space on the inside. If you fulfill those criteria and the defending car just turns in like you are not there, it's 100% on them. There's nothing in the rules about "divebombs", the rules talk about relative positioning at the apex, being in control of the car, making the corner etc. A perfectly executed divebomb can fulfill all those criteria, a poorly executed one usually doesn't.
But such nuance is usually lacking on social media, here everyone invents their own standard and your interpretations seem to be more inspired by road customs than racing rules.
By definition a dive-bomber is NOT entitled to space. If he collides with the driver in front anywhere during the maneuver he is said to have caused a collision. Full stop.
I'm reading it as the definition of a divebomb is a pass that you sneak in without having had your car in a position to be entitled to the space you took.
If you've got your car in a position that you fulfill what the regulations say you need to fulfill to be entitled to room- not a divebomb
"Diving in" is actually mentioned by the FIA driving guidelines, but only as a point of having the car not fully under control.
A. Overtaking on the INSIDE of a corner
To be entitled to be given room when overtaking on the INSIDE, the overtaking car must:
i) Have its front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE THE MIRROR of the other car PRIOR TO AND AT THE
APEX
ii) Be driven in a fully controlled manner particularly from entry to apex and not have “dived in”.
iii) In the Stewards’ estimation, have taken a reasonable racing line and been able to complete the
move whilst remaining within track limits.
If Lewis would have closed the door at that late moment (Max was already alongside prior to the corner, let alone apex), it would be totally on Lewis.
I'm reading it as the definition of a divebomb is a pass that you sneak in without having had your car in a position to be entitled to the space you took.
If you've got your car in a position that you fulfill what the regulations say you need to fulfill to be entitled to room- not a divebomb
Correcto!
Now if the others would allow me to educate them:
Here the narrator talks about use of mirrors. When a driver starts turning he is almost never looking in his mirrors. Note that Max divebombed from behind the racing bull. Lewis didn't see him until he already started turning in on the racing line.
Below is a good, safe dive bomb. kobayashi gets along side fully before turn in and Sainz is able to see him at that point.
Some Ricciardo ones. Getting it done in time before the other driver starts turning in and with space.
"Diving in" is actually mentioned by the FIA driving guidelines, but only as a point of having the car not fully under control.
A. Overtaking on the INSIDE of a corner
To be entitled to be given room when overtaking on the INSIDE, the overtaking car must:
i) Have its front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE THE MIRROR of the other car PRIOR TO AND AT THE
APEX ii) Be driven in a fully controlled manner particularly from entry to apex and not have “dived in”.
iii) In the Stewards’ estimation, have taken a reasonable racing line and been able to complete the
move whilst remaining within track limits.
If Lewis would have closed the door at that late moment (Max was already alongside prior to the corner, let alone apex), it would be totally on Lewis.
Your point is moot if you look at the parts in bold and if there was a collision.
Anyway. Enough of this topic.
It's the usual Max Divebomb. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't.
"Diving in" is actually mentioned by the FIA driving guidelines, but only as a point of having the car not fully under control.
A. Overtaking on the INSIDE of a corner
To be entitled to be given room when overtaking on the INSIDE, the overtaking car must:
i) Have its front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE THE MIRROR of the other car PRIOR TO AND AT THE
APEX ii) Be driven in a fully controlled manner particularly from entry to apex and not have “dived in”.
iii) In the Stewards’ estimation, have taken a reasonable racing line and been able to complete the
move whilst remaining within track limits.
If Lewis would have closed the door at that late moment (Max was already alongside prior to the corner, let alone apex), it would be totally on Lewis.
Your point is moot if you look at the parts in bold and if there was a collision.
Anyway. Enough of this topic.
It's the usual Max Divebomb. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't.
Call a spade a spade and just admit it was a pretty poor error from Hamilton.
@PZ Please can you stop spamming this thread with your controversial opinions? I already have you on my ignore list but still this whole thread is clogged with "PlatinumZealot, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post." and people falling for the rage bait and quoting your stuff. Everyone who's been here longer than a day knows that you love LH and will always argue his side but it's enough to read it once. Cheers.
@PZ Please can you stop spamming this thread with your controversial opinions? I already have you on my ignore list but still this whole thread is clogged with "PlatinumZealot, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post." and people falling for the rage bait and quoting your stuff. Everyone who's been here longer than a day knows that you love LH and will always argue his side but it's enough to read it once. Cheers.
PlatinumZealot is a certified troll. I am not sure why people bother engaging with them on anything non-technical. At least at some level you have to respect the bait. The forum keeps circulating between users so there's always new fish that falls for their bait.
I think the best course of engagement is to not engage but that's impossible as the bait is just too good.
"Diving in" is actually mentioned by the FIA driving guidelines, but only as a point of having the car not fully under control.
A. Overtaking on the INSIDE of a corner
To be entitled to be given room when overtaking on the INSIDE, the overtaking car must:
i) Have its front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE THE MIRROR of the other car PRIOR TO AND AT THE
APEX ii) Be driven in a fully controlled manner particularly from entry to apex and not have “dived in”.
iii) In the Stewards’ estimation, have taken a reasonable racing line and been able to complete the
move whilst remaining within track limits.
If Lewis would have closed the door at that late moment (Max was already alongside prior to the corner, let alone apex), it would be totally on Lewis.
Your point is moot if you look at the parts in bold and if there was a collision.
Anyway. Enough of this topic.
It's the usual Max Divebomb. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't.
Actually his point is pretty much valid. As long as the overtaker is capable of turning in the car and gets to the apex first, it's fine by the FIA.
