Max Verstappen was given a three place grid penalty for the Russia race after his crash with Lewis Hamilton last weekend. Opinions are divided, but Kees van de Grint is clearly in the camp that believes that no penalty should have been given.
In the new F1 podcast Slipstream van de Grint says he thinks last weekend's crash was a racing incident.
"If we have to describe the crash, I think it's a racing incident. What you can expect, what we predicted months ago. These two didn't give anything then. Max could have used the escape road, Hamilton could have left a bit more space. Neither wanted to. Each had their reason for that too."
Penalty Verstappen not justified
Because, says van de Grint, it is a racing incident. And there should be no penalty. For any driver whatsoever.
"To then say afterwards: Max gets that penalty, and Hamilton is a little bit guilty and doesn't get it. I don't want Hamilton to get a penalty. This is just a race incident, and done. Next race we'll be back at it in full force and these two will fight it out again. But this is biased. And then I wonder: isn't there a certain bias with certain stewards?"
In any case, the penalty itself will not change anymore, which means Verstappen will go a few spots backwards next weekend anyway. The question is whether it will remain at three spots, or whether the Dutchman will take his penalty for changing his engine in Russia.
Complete BS. Sir Lewis has been far more sporting than MV has been to date. He has accommodated MV’s dirty driving on numerous occasions. If MV can drive dirty, so can Sir L. I only hope max realizes that this is F1 and not some cheap American demolition derby.
If it was the other way around they would have penalised Max because he missed the turn one apex.
Mr. VeganWarrior your flat thinking is quite astonishing. I am very curious what is your opinion on the incident in the British Gran Prix this year, and do you think that Hamilton’s penalty then is fair comparing the risk involved in a crash with 300 km/h and over 55 g compared to a crash with 70 km/h and no g’s involved in Monza ? If this is not the definition of flawed decision then please explain to everyone your logic ! Thank you !
There had to be a penalty for Max.
How else does the whiner stay in the challenge with the superstar this season.
The off track bias towards him has been obvious.
Weird isn't it? Whenever I see a headline like this in my F1 RSS feed, I just KNOW it's going to be from GPBlog :D
Anything that can count against Hamilton gets posted here. All the other sites that post the opposing point of view, doesn't see the light of day here.
So selective and biased. It's enough to convince someone that Max is never wrong. Bet that never happens LOL :)
"The Board of Civil Aviation is currently investigating F1 star, Max Verstappen. At question is whether to levy a fine for Verstappen's flying without a valid pilot's license."
Yeah, unfairly penalised by being too lenient! Should be a race ban!!
3 place grid drop for a Red Bull or Mercedes is nothing.
Either 10 places back or back of the grid. Keep the maniac away from Lewis.
The phrase "RACING INCIDENT" has obviously lost its meaning. Every Tom Dick and Harry is using it without thinking. All other incidents aside, there is a guilty party here but people are refusing to see it because they have a moth and candle syndrome with the guilty party. I have never seen a car on top of another with its wheel just above a driver's head. ATTEMPTED MURDER.
" have never seen a car on top of another with its wheel just above a driver's head. ATTEMPTED MURDER"
Not seeing a car on top of other is fine.But attempted murder..How do you say that?There should be motive for attempt to murder.Let us assume that max had the motive to kill mr lewis[for championship aspirations] then y did he choose monza.Is Monza turn1 and 2 a auspicious place to attempt murder?or y wait till monza..Y not other tracks?
Thats right, I swear I saw Max holding a sawn off shotgun by his side as he walked past but realised too many cameras on him.
BTW luni, what was your take at Silverstone?
Well it wasn't attempted murder. Not even close.
Murder requires intent. Good luck proving that.
Max was an idiot to think that move was going to work out for him but he's not out to kill anyone. That's a ludicrous thing to suggest.
There have been cars on top of each other in the past.
They are all racing incidents if you think about it. They just fritter that term about when they don't want to apportion blame.
Lewis and Max's crash was a racing incident but Max caused it.
And, I've said it before, I'm not 100% convinced Max even intended to pass. Just go for it and have the crash. If it works out that he gets through by some great fortune, then hey, bonus.
Murder does not require intent Mr. Flat Argument. Moreover, the very reason that people become fans of F1 are because they are able to watch one of the most aggressive and most love one’s drivers in the history of the sport. However, I suppose you are far too young to have been able to watch them. Do it and build more self-esteem on the kerbstones, darling - only then you can flat out !
It the vast majority of cases, murder does require intent. It is only in very certain cases that this is not applicable. Educate yourself buddy. Death without intent is manslaughter.
The very definition of murder is "an intent to cause serious harm or injury(alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention".
I've been watching F1 since the mid 1970's. When did you start ?
My self esteem is just fine and none of my posts indicate otherwise.
FIA turning fans off, Hamilton has been treated more leniently by the stewards because Hamilton always calling FIA RACISM and no action has be taking.
I WONDER WHY HE STILL IN THE SPORT OVER RATING FOOL.
@olo please provide us evidence of you claims, as they are quite serious. We wait entently.......
The FIA to me looks more and more as a mafia in favour of Merc. Masi claimed Verstappen could have gotten out of the way, but Perez did get out of the way to avoid a collision with Leclerc and not go flying because of the kerb and got penalised. There was no win for RBR! ??
Dude he overtook another car, because he left the track. He needed to give the place back. Pérez got the penalty because Honer was doing some strange negotiations, while his driver was at risk of a penalty.
"because Honer was doing some strange negotiations"
But all the team principals talk to masi whenever there are incidents..so what type of conversations do you categorize as "strange negotiations"..Toto wolff too contacted masi in silverstone but then u dont call that "strange negotiation" rather its clarification.but if horner does it,then labelled strange negotiation.Lol.I would call Double standards if you say arguement is based on neutral opinion.If u said that being a hamilton cheer girl/RB hater..i absolutely agree whatever horner did was "strange negotiations"
@krish, you obviously did not read the statement Masi made. HONER, lied on television, and he did not contact race control. Masi initiated contact, only to told , Honer was have some strange negotiations...
" "No, that's incorrect. They didn't ask race control. I suggested to them that they may want to look at giving the position back, and they said they were looking at it themselves."
Strange race control being told that, not so ,really strange. That cost Pérez the podium.
Have you seen the slow mo vid, buddy? Perez is slightly ahead of CL at the entrance of the first curve and in a better position. It is only after CL tries to squeeze SP out that SP changes trajectory (past the first curve and _still ahead_ of CL (look at sec 17 of the video at https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/video.2021-italian-grand-prix-sergio-perez-jumps-over-corner-to-overtake-charles-leclerc-before-receiving-penalty.1710705097234627931.html) and it's only after the end of second 17 in the video that SP changes even more abruptly the trajectory (remember he's ahead even if for little, though I know it could be considered side by side) because CL didn't leave room. In fact you can see that the manoeuvre of sp is so sudden that he has to reduce speed and lose time all to avoid contact, which he of course successfully does. If CL had left room both could have made the curve inside but SP would still have been ahead. Look at how slow he re-enters the track. If anything one could argue that he didn't re enter safely, but even there the speed was not so slow that CL would have had to slam the brakes or change trajectory to avoid colliding. Horner had to argue because he was right :) as strange as it would seem! :D
Wow, its amazing how you take has never been the norm for another driver . You are justify a driver gaining a clear advantage by leaving the track.
Did Pérez gain an advantage by leaving the track ?
So we agreed the penalty was reasonable. For the infringement.
Didn't really understand the first part of your comment but i guess you're saying i justify gaining an advantage off track? Not unless it was clear that they would've gotten the advantage of allowed to stay inside the track by the "affected" competitor. Was Perez not given a 2x5s penalty by doing this to Leclerc in a previous race?. Re your question, I guess not colliding is a big advantage these days? :) Also sp didn't gain more than if he had been given the space, which he had the right to by being side by side and slightly ahead.
Popular on GPBlog
Kelly Piquet accidentally reveals gender of baby with Max Verstappen
Horner explains why Perez's race engineer was next to Verstappen on the Suzuka podium
Verstappen praised after feat "Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton couldn't match"
