Welcome to GPFans

CHOOSE YOUR COUNTRY

  • NL
  • GB
  • GB
Download
×
GPFans Global app
Download the app!
Everything F1 in one place!
Red Bull address 'allegations of concern' and Albon re-enactment after Hamilton petition rejected

Red Bull address 'allegations of concern' and Albon re-enactment after Hamilton petition rejected

F1 News

2 comments

Red Bull address 'allegations of concern' and Albon re-enactment after Hamilton petition rejected

Red Bull address 'allegations of concern' and Albon re-enactment after Hamilton petition rejected
Ian Parkes & Ewan Gale

Just when you thought the British Grand Prix incident between F1 title contenders Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen could not be any more dramatic, Red Bull's petition to review was thrown out in incredible circumstances.

In any case of a team wishing to lodge a petition to review an incident, new or relevant evidence must be provided that was not available at the time of the decision being made.

What came from the stewards' decision document was remarkable, with concealed allegations, a test re-enactment and a considerable amount of GPS simulation data all brought to the table.

Ahead of the Hungarian GP, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner explained why the team lodged the petition to review, why it believed it had new evidence, and why they re-enacted Hamilton's line into Copse, while he also addressed the allegations that irked Mercedes.

Why Red Bull logded a petition to review the incident

It is no secret that since the coming together between Hamilton and Verstappen and the subsequent administering of a 10-second penalty, Red Bull sought more.

There was dissatisfaction the penalty was not enough to halt Hamilton's race-winning charge, given Verstappen was in hospital due to the crash, with Dr Helmut Marko even calling for a race ban to be given to the Mercedes driver.

Addressing exactly why the team lodged the petition, Horner provided an insight into the evidence the team believed was new and could have led to the possibility of an additional penalty.

"There is a right to review which we utilised because we felt, having looked at the data of the accident and the severity of the accident, there was data that wasn't available at the time of the stewards making the decision," said Horner.

"We presented that data to the stewards, they gave us a fair hearing where we talked through that data, the positioning of the cars, the speed of the cars and the fact Lewis would have had to have braked 23 metres earlier to have even made the corner.

"We looked in great detail at the GPS data, the speed of the cars, the relative lines and different points of the grand prix and the overtake at the same corner with Charles [Leclerc] at the end of the race - what would have happened if Lewis had approached it in the same way.

"Taking all that data into account, we felt this was relevant and new evidence with the simulations we had made. We felt it was enough.

"It was our entitlement as a competitor, and this is a sport where all the marginal gains count so absolutely, and it is our duty as a team competing for this championship to leave no stone unturned.

"We felt it warranted a fair review. It wasn't the response we were hoping for but we accept it and now we close the chapter and move on."

Horner addresses the Albon re-enactment

Can you imagine if every debatable accident in F1 history led teams to re-enact specifics of each clash to gain data to wave in the faces of the FIA?

That is what Red Bull did with reserve driver Alex Albon just four days after the race at Silverstone, although Horner insisted the test that was run was not done purely for the gathering of data for its case against Hamilton.

"The test was pre-planned prior to the event because it was a promotional filming day with a two-year-old car so that obviously falls outside of the budget cap," said Horner.

"It is a way of keeping our reserve driver sharp and race-ready. That day had been planned for some time, it wasn't put on specifically for the re-enactment.

"What we did during the course of the test was to ask Alex to drive a similar line to back up the simulations we conducted within our simulation tools, including our driver simulator, to demonstrate the outcome of driving that line and the necessity of where your braking point would need to be.

"We couldn't achieve the speed Lewis did on that line but in terms of conditions, it was pretty similar and it was just a useful piece of data to re-affirm what we had seen in all of our simulations."

{read more}

Horner responds to the allegations detailed in stewards' review

In the stewards' report following the hearing, it was revealed that allegations within Red Bull's document were "noted with some concern", although the nature of such allegations has not been made public.

Mercedes followed with a statement claiming there had been "a concerted attempt by the senior management of Red Bull Racing to tarnish the good name and sporting integrity of Lewis Hamilton".

When asked about what the allegations could have related to, Horner said: "Within the submission, we spoke about the process of approaching the stewards during the course of an event.

"I think the FIA have obviously, subsequently, clarified the process for that now which we are fine with and pleased for that clarification. That was one of the main pertinent reasons.

"At no point did we question the objectivity of the FIA. We felt they were objective and the one point we did raise was the objectivity could be prejudiced if you are influenced by a competitor going to them with data prior to the decision being made and I think that, we were assured, had no influence on the decision making.

"With the clarifications that have come out now regarding approaching the stewards' office during the course of a grand prix, I think that clearly deals with it and we are more than comfortable with that.

"It is an unusual practice to do that. You have to think of the FIA like a jury and of course, you don't want that jury to be influenced one way or another before they make a decision.

"We were given the absolute assurance that wasn't the case and absolutely respect that from the FIA."

What could have happened to Hamilton?

In a parallel universe, the right to appeal could have been granted with a new investigation opened into whether Hamilton should have been punished more severely.

Describing the potential changes to the outcome, the Red Bull boss explained: "I think had it gone to a new hearing, having been deemed that Lewis was driving dangerously, a different suite of penalties would have been potentially applicable.

"It didn't go that far, it didn't go into the hearing so it is all now subjective.

"Our frustration was the size of the penalty compared to the outcome of the incident."

As Horner has stated, it is all now subjective and the matter is closed - until the next time as it is highly likely that with the title on the line, Hamilton and Verstappen will collide again at some point this year.

What do you think?
MarcD

Mercedes and FIA is full of... Manufacturing evidence and recreating incident is two different things. But just more show how mercedes make sport worst. They push for Changes mid seasons. And feel sorry for all F1 fans as toto wolf want full electric F1 :( and he say classic engines is for Flintstones and he will all for they never come back.

0 2

Comments (2)

You must be logged in to post comments.

Log in
 

Write a comment

Comments (2)

Gravatar
Amateur
MarcD
Gravatar
4
11
9
Jul 2021
First Poster
MarcD

Mercedes and FIA is full of... Manufacturing evidence and recreating incident is two different things. But just more show how mercedes make sport worst. They push for Changes mid seasons. And feel sorry for all F1 fans as toto wolf want full electric F1 :( and he say classic engines is for Flintstones and he will all for they never come back.

Gravatar
Amateur
Romeo
Gravatar
1
0
0
Aug 2021
Romeo

Let mercedes leave .. F1 will certainly survive without them

Ontdek het op Google Play