Jacques Villeneuve was already outspoken when he was active in Formula 1 – And since he has been a commentator for the French Canal+ channel during the Grand Prix, the Canadian has been even more outspoken.
This time, it is the stewards who are taking the criticism. According to him, they judged the consequences of the crash and not the incident itself.
If Jacques Villeneuve’s reflection deserves attention, the conclusion drawn by the 1997 Formula 1 world champion can also be applied to the Silverstone crash. The sporting authorities should not make a decision on a collision according to its consequences, and it is possible that they are influenced – even if only unconsciously – by shocking images. In this case, we are talking about the wheel of the Red Bull Honda on Lewis Hamilton’s helmet.
“You can’t punish one of them for something they didn’t do on purpose… if the contact started long before the manoeuvre.
“They only gave him the penalty because the wheel of the Red Bull landed on Hamilton’s head. They said they wouldn’t judge on the basis of the result, but they did,” finished Jacques Villeneuve.
A point of view that was defended at Monza as well as at Silverstone. These two events could also have been classified as simple race incidents in the eyes of this Judge.
The Michael Schumacher documentary referred to here shows just how harsh the penalties that were “ awarded” for Verstappen style collisions in the past.
It also demonstrates how, in the heat of the incident, a driver can sincerely believe that he was not at fault.
Michael S. only accepted his responsibility after viewing the recording.
As for the contention that M. V.’s penalty was based on the consequences of the “ foul”, surely nothing could be fairer. If the cars touched lightly and both continued unaffected by the collision – it’s a collision if the touch however lightlly – then there is unlikely to be any penalty given.
However, had the penalty really reflected the consequences of the foul, it surely would have been far more harsh. The fact is if you drive like M.V. You are putting others at serious risk. Don’t use the car as weapon – the sport is dangerous enough and fraught with accidental “ racing incidents”.
“The fact is if you drive like M.V. You are putting others at serious risk. Don’t use the car as weapon” – Bwahahahahahahahaha. Like Silverstone 2021 or Austria 2020 eh…..
Are you saying that it’s all OK past and present or are agreeing in principle and citing what you consider equally reprehensible incidents to support my view? Or maybe just having a laugh?
“The fact is if you drive like M.V. You are putting others at serious risk. Don’t use the car as weapon”
Anyone who suggests Verstappen is using his car as a weapon clearly lacks sufficient knowledge of F1 to be taken seriously.
Your first post caused me to ask a couple of questions so that I could better understand your opinion of the sanctions handed down for collision under discussion and for those previous events to which you referred in your first response.
However, it seems that you prefer to insult the person posting than to articulate an opinion of your own.
If my opinions are unworthy of consideration, please give me an opportunity to learn from my betters – those who are capable of expressing an opinion rather than relying on ridicule.
BeeDee, While I don’t necessarily agree with your assertion that Max is using his car as a “weapon” (ie, there is malicious intent on his part to hurt or cause physical damage to other drivers), I wouldn’t expect much else in content on this site from cavallinorampantef1 – he is less than charming
I do think I understand the intention of your point however… maybe if “weapon” was substituted with “tool”….?
Or maybe you both need to take off your british tinted goggles?
It’s ridiculous just to focus on Verstappen and blatantly disregard Silverstone 2021, and all the other incidents where Hamilton uses his left front tyre as a ”weapon”
Agreed; took it is G.
Although my comments were in response to an article which covered the Italian GP incident and the penalty handed down, I made the point that all and any similar incidents are equally reprehensible.
I believe that Mr Horner’s reaction gives a clue as to where the fault lay for this particular incident.