Oscar Piastri and Max Verstappen had differing fortunes in Baku (Image: Getty)
Did Max Verstappen take Red Bull’s tagline “Red Bull gives you wings” a bit too seriously on lap 63? Well, the fabled Hamilton-Verstappen collision has sparked new controversies. The heat from Budapest has now reached Spa. It seems the tension from last week won’t subside any time soon. Thanks to the stewards the rivalry between the Dutchman and Lewis Hamilton has rekindled all over again. Recently FIA released their statements in the context of the incident between Hamilton and Red Bull No.1.
FIA’s statement says that Car 1 (Max Verstappen) and Car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) both overtook Car 23 (Alex Albon). However, Hamilton returned to the racing line while Verstappen approached the turn faster than on previous laps. Moreover, the statement mentioned that Verstappen locked up both front wheels on the approach to turn 1. This collision took the Dutchman mid-air. The situation could’ve ended in a horrible crash but luckily it didn’t. But this is not the problem; Lewis Hamilton is upset about a specific line and wants to know more about it. So what else did FIA write that the 7x champ disapproves?
Lewis Hamilton expresses his displeasure with the FIA’s choice of words in their statement
The race stewards’ decisions play a vital role in keeping the sport impartial and authentic. However, this recent statement according to many fans who are furious by this has pointed out the ‘partiality’ FIA shows for the Red Bull driver. The lines say: “The Stewards do not consider this to be a typical case of ‘changing direction under braking’ although it is our determination that the driver of Car 44 could have done more to avoid the collision.” Now the question the fans have raised after this is: Should only one driver (in this case Lewis Hamilton) do more?
Hamilton feels considerably upset. He took issue with the Budapest stewards’ interpretation of the incident. “I was really, really surprised by it,” said the Mercedes driver. He added: “I think already I was very relaxed about the situation and just saying ‘Look, it’s just a racing incident, let’s just move on’.” But one car was in control and the other wasn’t. “Obviously when all the wheels are locked, you’re not in control – and if you look at the replay at the end of the move I’m very, very far from the apex, so there’s a lot of room on the right-hand side,” the Brit added.
The 39-year-old concluded, “So I was very, very surprised by the stewards. I don’t know who typed it up but… that will be a question when I speak to them at some stage.” Hamilton’s displeasure seems justified as driver safety relies on both their actions and their surroundings. If the stewards advise Lewis to do more, they should advise Max the same way. The FIA’s message has sparked public outrage. To be honest, this was expected. Despite acknowledging the issue, the FIA chose to ‘advise’ the 7-time world champion.
FIA is receiving backlash for their tiny details on the Max Verstappen incident with Hamilton
The fans are furious (and this isn’t an exaggeration). How would you expect them to react to FIA’s word of advice? Someone said, “Such a shame from the FIA.” While another fan took a bitter stance, saying: “FIA: Let Max pass if he wants to. Simple Rule Lewis.. Give him the entire circuit space boy.” They imply (sarcastically) that from now on, the Mercedes No.1 should leave the circuit wide open for the Dutchman to pass.
Another upset supporter asked, “So you turn Right to go Left? Is that it?” This is a reference to the collision. Verstappen had moved to the right side towards Lewis but then said he wanted to turn left! A fourth resonated with similar sentiments, stating: “It’s not Lewis’ job to move out of the way and give up position to a reckless driver.” No cookie points for guessing whom they called ‘a reckless driver’. Meanwhile, a fan pointed out something interesting. They said: “If that had been Hamilton or Alonso they would definitely have had a time or grid penalty.” Overall, the fans don’t appreciate FIA’s choice of words.
