Famous F1 journalist Mark Hughes answers Christian Horner’s recent comments on the Lewis Hamilton/Max Verstappen collision, and it’s a joy to read!
After Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton’s British Grand Prix collisions, reactions are coming from all sides.
Red Bull and its team principal Christian Horner refuse to let the whole thing go, and are now even threatening to demand a review of Lewis Hamilton’s (undeserved, Ed.) penalty.
Horner has recently written an article detailing all the ways in which Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes are at fault regarding the incident and its aftermath.
We offered our rebuttal on most of Horner’s points, and now F1 journalist Mark Hughes eloquently does the same thing.
“I get that Christian Horner’s angry,” Hughes wrote in his The Race column.
“He’s got a big damage bill in a cost cap season when he’s desperately trying to win his team’s its first Formula 1 championship in eight years.
“He’s also probably that sort of angry people get when they are relieved that something bad – like his driver getting injured – could have happened but didn’t quite.
“But his recent comments regarding the Lewis Hamilton/Max Verstappen accident of last weekend may also have about them a propaganda element, a continuation of the public war of words to deflect pressure onto his rivals.
“Because logically he cannot have it both ways. He can’t be proud of the way his driver gives no quarter wheel-to-wheel but simultaneously criticise the rival for the same attitude.”
He also responds to Horner’s comments that Lewis was pressured into making a mistake because he “has met his match” in Max Verstappen.
“When Christian says ‘Lewis has met his match’ in Max – has he? It’s not a status you lay claim to and then are entitled to keep unchallenged.
If you like SilverArrows.Net, consider supporting us by buying us a coffee!
“That was sometimes a flaw in Ayrton Senna’s thinking. Verstappen himself has not claimed any entitlement, but Horner seems to be implying it.
“Verstappen’s style of racing is totally legitimate and admirable. But if another driver wishes to be deliberately belligerent in response to an assumption of no-quarter given, that’s legitimate too.
“Not that Hamilton’s move last Sunday could even be termed that; it was a hard no-compromise move but “belligerent” is something like Nico Rosberg, Spa 2014, refusing to back off even after the corner was already lost.
Hughes then goes on to give his perspective on the Copse collision and Horner’s threat that Red Bull might ask for a harsher penalty for Lewis.
“In the Silverstone instance the corner hadn’t even been won or lost yet. Sometimes those two fully legitimate attitudes in wheel-to-wheel battle result in contact. It’s racing.
“Sure, Max was just going to disappear in the lead if Lewis didn’t get in front by Copse, as Horner maintains.
“Sure, that was one important reason why Hamilton was so desperate to get in front. Again, that’s racing. The fastest driver doesn’t get right of way because they’re the fastest.
“The idea of taking this incident any further because Hamilton didn’t enter that corner as fast again in the race or because he missed the apex is faintly ridiculous. He was trying for an aggressive pass, the other guy didn’t back down, they touched.
“Even the 10-second penalty was unjust, let alone any further sanction,” concluded Hughes.