Formula 1 stewards are not known for using stylistic flourishes when describing their decisions, which made document 54 of the 2024 Australian Grand Prix unusual.
They wrote a series of rhetorical questions to explain their decision to hand a post-race drive-through penalty to Fernando Alonso.Whether or not you agreed with the call (which has proved divisive here), all sides of the debate should appreciate the stewards taking the time to explain their reasoning. It’s certainly preferable to the days when, following hours of deliberation, their decisions were announced in single-sentence statements with no accompanying explanation.
The decision was likely to provoke controversy whether it came down on Alonso’s side or that of the driver who crashed in his wake on the penultimate lap, George Russell. It appears the stewards realised that and took the time to detail why they had sanctioned a driver who had seemingly done nothing more than lift his throttle, and issued a drive-through penalty rather than the more common and less severe five- or 10-second varieties.
Alonso was given a 20-second post-race penalty for decelerating suddenly in front of Russell as they approached turn six. The pair made no contact, but the stewards called Alonso’s abrupt reduction in speed an “extraordinary” piece of driving which “was at very least ‘potentially dangerous’.”
Alonso expanded his criticism of the decision in a post shared across his social media feeds. Several of his points had been addressed by the stewards in their 557-word decision two hours earlier.
No crash, no investigation?
As far as Alonso is concerned, the stewards wouldn’t have bothered to look into his approach to the corner had Russell not crashed. The Mercedes driver lost control in Alonso’s wake as he arrived at the bend suddenly much closer to the Aston Martin than he anticipated.
Russell ran wide onto the gravel, then hit a barrier. Had the corner been bordered with asphalt, as many in F1 are, he may have been able to avoid crashing. “I believe that without gravel on that corner, on any other corner in the world we will never be even investigated,” Alonso wrote.
The stewards, whose inquiry was prompted by a report from race director Niels Wittich, denied the crash was a factor. Their report stated they “have not considered the consequences of the crash” and that their focus was on “the situation that occurred prior to the crash.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Telling drivers how to drive
He claimed he slowed down on his approach to the corner in order to improve his exit from it and defend his position from Russell. “Sacrificing entry speed to have good exits from corners is part of the art of motorsport,” he said.
This is no doubt true and we see it all the time. But the stewards said they were not challenging whether drivers have a right to perform defensive moves, or even use their car’s aerodynamic wake to disadvantage a rival.
“Should Alonso have the right to try a different approach to the corner? Yes,” they wrote. “Should Alonso be responsible for dirty air, that ultimately caused the incident? No.”
Intention
The heart of the matter, and the reason why this decision is so controversial, is the question of intention. Did Alonso cross the line between ‘legitimate defence’ and ‘dangerous manoeuvre’ in trying to prevent Russell from passing him?
Over the previous laps Russell had got progressively closer to passing Alonso in the DRS zones. The first detection point lay at the exit of turn six, and Alonso knew if Russell passed through it too close to him it would be almost impossible to defend his position.
“At no point do we want to do anything wrong at these speeds,” Alonso wrote. Even his strongest critics should accept that while he might have wanted to delay Russell, he was not trying to cause a crash.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
But when Alonso said he backed off approaching turn six to improve his exit from the corner, the stewards said it was “extraordinary” how early and how much he had slowed down by:
Note that the stewards did not say Alonso braked 100 metres before the corner but 100 metres “earlier than he ever had”. This is an enormous amount: At Bahrain’s turn one this year drivers hit the brakes just before the 100 metre board to decelerate from over 300kph to 65kph.
While Alonso did not brake anything like as hard as that, the fact he began slowing so soon is extremely unusual. Indeed, he slowed down so much he had to speed up again: “He then upshifted again, and accelerated to the corner before lifting again to make the corner.”
It begged the obvious question why, given Alonso’s experience, if he only intended to slow down enough to improve his line for the corner, did he misjudge it so badly? Alonso’s explanation, according to the stewards, was that “while his plan was to slow earlier, he got it slightly wrong and had to take extra steps to get back up to speed.”
The stewards did not challenge that explanation in their decision, but did insert a carefully-worded sub-clause, noting he “[chose] to do something, with whatever intent, that was extraordinary.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Regarding Schumacher the stewards ruled there was “no justifiable reason for the driver to have braked with such undue, excessive and unusual pressure at this part of the circuit, and are therefore left with no alternatives but to conclude that the driver deliberately stopped his car on the circuit.”
While on that occasion the stewards ascribed a motive to Schumacher’s driving, they did not do the same regarding Alonso. But from their words it is clear that, in their view, if Alonso was only trying to improve his line through the corner, he did it very badly, so much so that it created a dangerous situation.
The decision raises other questions: Should drivers be allowed to slow in this way to disadvantage a rival? Should drivers who are trying to make a pass be prepared for cars ahead to slow in this way?
None of that was addressed by the stewards, as it seems Alonso did not make the case this is what he was trying to do: “The stewards considered that they do not have sufficient information to determine whether Alonso’s manoeuvre was intended to cause Russell problems, or whether as he stated to the stewards that he simply was trying to get a better exit.”
The end of the matter?
On two occasions last year Aston Martin managed to change the results of a race in their favour by raising a complaint with the stewards. But on this occasion it seems they don’t intend to take the matter any further.Team principal Mike Krack said it was “surprising” Alonso received a penalty “but we have to accept the decision.”
But the stewards have set a notable precedent which may prove to be relevant at other races where the DRS zones are so powerful drivers will look for ways to prevent rivals benefiting from them. This may not be the last we see of this kind of controversy as drivers explore the limits of legal defensive moves.
Become a RaceFans Supporter
RaceFans is run thanks in part to the generous support of its readers. By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the same in whichever currency you use) you can help cover the costs of creating, hosting and developing RaceFans today and in the future.
Become a RaceFans Supporter today and browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Australian Grand Prix
- Alonso calls Australian GP penalty a ‘one-off I’ve had too many of’
- Red Bull saw warning sign of Australian GP brake problem on Saturday – Verstappen
- Failing to punish Alonso would have “opened a can of worms” – Russell
- Leclerc sure “many team principals” are pursuing Sainz for 2025 seat
- “Don’t put me under pressure” – The best unheard team radio from Melbourne
kenjiro
25th March 2024, 13:26
what is more pathetic when you make a bad decision is to try to justify it even more badly – this is what FIA Stewards are exactly doing as there is 0% probability this episode would have been analyzed if it wasn’t a crash so this just further shows the level of this badly built up vendetta, inconsistency and etc.
TylerS
27th March 2024, 13:37
Possibly, but sometimes a driver’s actions will be judged differently based on whether they affect another driver. For instance, let’s say a driver is coming out of the pits after a tire change, with no driver in front or behind them for ten seconds. They’re basically alone on their portion of the track. That driver is free to weave heavily on the track in an attempt to warm up the tires quicker if they choose, because it won’t affect another driver. But if there’s another driver half a second behind them trying to pass, weaving is not allowed even if the driver is only doing it for tire warming and not defense.
If Russell had been five seconds behind when Alonso did this sudden-early-brake maneuver, then as you say he would not have been penalized. It would have been erratic, yes, but it would have posed no danger to another driver. But when a driver’s erratic driving DOES pose a danger to another driver, as this did, then they’ve opened themselves up for a penalty.
MichaelN
25th March 2024, 13:56
Drivers at Alonso’s level do not flub this to the extent that they essentially double the distance at which they start braking, and, which makes this a slam dunk penalty, do not then upshift again before the proper braking point.
Alonso gambled and lost, it happens.
It hopefully also prompts a look at DRS detection points and zones. Penalties are a deterrent, but so long as these antics have a potential reward the incentive is still there to play games.
DaveW (@dmw)
25th March 2024, 14:22
Recall Verstappen and Hamilton at KSA n 2021. That could have ended with a car over the fence. Leaving aside whether Verstappen was wrong the DRS detection layout made that a rational move for him. You end up with a velodrome pursuit cycling dynamic.
Jere (@jerejj)
25th March 2024, 17:00
Most detection points are okay & nothing wrong with any zone locations themselves in this regard either.
Presently, only Jeddah’s already-once-shifted detection point for the S/F straight would be better to relocate earlier on the back stretch.
greasemonkey
25th March 2024, 23:15
F1 has become a joke.
Alonso style, including this, embodies the essence of race craft.
If you want distilled pace only, iRacing esque, F1, fine….have DRS and rules that suppress age old race craft. Which is what I guess F1, and apparently a lot of the fans here, wants.
I prefer Alonso, who echos Foyt/etc (even in chosen #).
André
25th March 2024, 23:53
I think we should not neglect safety. “Essence of race craft” should not mean creating unnecessary danger through manoeuvres like that, which increase the speed differential between the two cars. Alonso obviously tried to be smart by jamming Russell into the corner, to create a bigger concertina effect where he would have had a much better launch out of the corner. Fact is that Russell crashed as a consequence, and the data allegedly proves that Alonso drove abnormally at that moment. You could argue whether or not the severity of the penalty was adequate, but it is clear by now that Alonso crossed the line.
greasemonkey
26th March 2024, 1:07
I assert that that driving is not in fact abnormal. If F1, due to whatever reasons, decides that that has to be abnormal, I’ll remove F1 from from racing viewing itinerary.
I do what Alonso did. I have it done to me all the time too. I’ve taught it. It is basic race craft. It is part of what makes racing racing, and not just simultaneous hot lapping and/or car management.
greasemonkey
26th March 2024, 1:16
Has Russell complained yet (honestly, I don’t know)? My guess would be that he has not complained. Anyone in this for the racing would probably say that is craft, up until it is too sudden and becomes a brake check. And my read on Russell is that he loves racing, and race craft, and feels like he just got caught out. But I don’t know….maybe he is blaming Alonso?
MurasamaRA300 (@murasamara300)
26th March 2024, 11:57
I’ve long removed F1 from my racing viewing. It hasn’t been the same since Barrichello braked on that finish line in Austria.
Luckily, the “hype” part of F1 is still great! :)
So I’m just here to read the comments these days.
Race day … I walk the dog.
Personally I really can’t see how it can be Alonso’s fault (being 3-4 car lengths ahead) that Russell wasn’t quite paying attention and missed his own braking point. But such is the “new normal”.
MichaelN
26th March 2024, 10:21
If he had pulled it off, yes. If he could have made Russell back off just as he was able to throttle out of the corner, then it’d have been a great move that might have saved his position from a DRS attack.
But he didn’t nail it, and in failing to execute the move, he created a dangerous situation. It seems fair to penalise him. I don’t think anyone is calling for him to be banned or something like that, but if drivers want to play at the edge they’d better do so correctly. Like overtaking through Raidillon. Possible, but they’d better not mess it up.
Dave
26th March 2024, 16:58
Alonso is the smartest driver on the grid. He would not have made that move if he thought there was a chance George would crash into him and take them both out of the race.
He overestimated George’s driving ability. I find it interesting, that George himself admitted It was his fault after the race. I also found it interesting the Toto didn’t come out and condemn Alonso or make a big deal out of it. It’s racing!
SteveP
26th March 2024, 18:13
True, Toto should probably have thrown accusations of attempted murder around like a certain ladies man in a leading team.
The Dolphins
25th March 2024, 14:00
I’ve watched Alonso race since his first lap in F1, I have no doubt in my mind that gravel being in that corner was part of his calculation in slowing down there. I also don’t believe Alonso’s intent was for such a crash; he can be a “dirty” driver at times but I see 0 malice toward a driver (even Lewis) from Alonso with the intent to harm. I do believe, strongly, that Fernando’s intention was to disturb the air and catch George off guard in an effort to get him to run wide and lose a lot of time in the gravel trap.
Had George not crashed, had he just ran wide into the gravel trap trap, I would still expect the same investigation and outcome — I have little tolerance for drivers trying to impede others: pushing off track, abnormal braking/deceleration, parking their car at Rascasse, etc. so I applaud the stewards in this instance.
BasCB (@bascb)
25th March 2024, 15:12
Yeah, it’s pretty clear to me that he was trying to make it impossible for Russel to follow him close enough to get the jump on him after the corner, not cause anything like the crash it did cause in the end.
But by doing so he did take the risk of this happening and it could have ended badly. That is exactly why we have stewards looking at driving behaviour.
Wes
25th March 2024, 15:31
Exactly, it doesn’t really matter what Alonso’s intentions were because at this speed harm can easily occur. Any kind of messing around like this has the potential for crashes. So it’s not much better, he’s still risking a wreck for the car close behind. I’ve never seen drivers like Hamilton or Sainz do anything this intentional towards another driver. I thought Alonso had cleaned up some since his early career, he’s driven completely clean since coming back to Aston…until now.
SteveP
25th March 2024, 16:24
Pretty much exactly the explanation, to my wife, of what I think he tried to do.
He tried for a particular effect on the following car, and got slightly more effect than he expected, but at those speeds “slightly more effect” can be the difference between beaching in the gravel and bouncing off the barrier and into the middle of the track.
Either way, he knew what he was doing, he tried to put Russell out of contention with a risky situation.
Luckily, the bounce back onto the track wasn’t followed by a close running Stroll, who might have ended two F1 careers in one go.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
25th March 2024, 16:39
there are people who ascribe malice through mind reading, and there are people who understand its the responsibility of the driver behind to make sure they overtake/not run in to the back of the guy in front. And in deed, it appears Russell was not even close to hitting the back of Alonso, so Alonso was not that close when he let off the gas.
What Alonso was doing was attempting to cover the overtake by coming out of the chicane as fast as possible, not necessarily the fastest way through, but to cover the overtake attempt (defending). This is why Alonso was not doing this every lap, and maybe why he chose that time, on the last lap, was because he could have been very low on deployment.
At the end of the day Russell misjudged Alonso’s car, and lost control of his car by his own accord, This is not any different than when Russell lost control of his car trying to get a better angle at Singapore. This is something Russell has proven he does, lose control when he really pushes for the over take (red mist).
Alonso’s trace (break/gas/speed) is evident of someone attempting to defend from an overtake. Nothing more. Alonso even slowed down half way, before hitting his breaks before corner entry to give Russell a small amount of time to react to his slow in fast out maneuver. Russell is responsible for running off the course and crashing, and the Stewards are just face saving for Russell.
SteveP
25th March 2024, 17:47
Other than an attempt to make Russell go wide, I don’t there was any “malice” in what Alonso was doing.
Do I think he attempted to make Russell crash? – No.
Do I think he underestimated the effect of what he did? – Yes.
If I generate a situation where you trip, fall and sprain your wrist rather than just stagger a little, does that make me less guilty if I only intended the stagger?
The act was still deliberate. Alonso needed Russell to be in the dirty air on the corner entry, the trace of his telemetry probably shows him speed up at or about the perfect time to not be in the line of fire for Russells gravel excursion start.
That was his only concern, and I think he was probably genuinely surprised that the excursion took Russell all the way to the barrier with enough speed to bounce back.
He was punished for driving that would be listed as erratic if it was Stroll in the car, is Alonso any different?
BTW. “Breaks” are what happen to dropped glasses, “Brakes” slow things down, as do engines on a downshift.
anon
26th March 2024, 12:52
@pcxmac the thing is, if it were supposed to have been about “attempting to cover the overtake by coming out of the chicane as fast as possible”, why was Alonso initially claiming that he was having problems with his throttle and therefore that it was a technical issue, rather than a deliberate act on his part?
Is there not something contradictory about Alonso originally offering a defence that relied on him arguing that his slower than normal entry speed into that corner was due to a technical issue and wasn’t a deliberate act, and then switching his position to rule out a technical issue and is now claiming that it was an intentional act (even if he is now claiming that he simply “got it wrong”)?
faulty (@faulty)
25th March 2024, 14:18
I hope this leads to a -much needed- redesign of how DRS is implemented.
Having 2, 3 or 4 passing zones becomes arbitrary and problematic when one fundamental part of the sport is the ability of the participants to decide when to attack and defend.
Wes
25th March 2024, 15:37
Seriously, it’s becoming less racing and more how to follow the zones properly. At this point I think it would be better to ditch DRS altogether (the trains get bad too).
Jere (@jerejj)
25th March 2024, 17:01
I don’t see how the general implementation is the issue here.
DaveW (@dmw)
25th March 2024, 14:19
The fact he had to accelerate again before the corner is all you need to know. At best sloppy driving.
I have to give some sympathy to his claim that he was only investigated because Russell crashed. Maybe Russell just got frit and binned it like in Imola with Bottas and in Singapore. But as they say in torts class you take your victim as you find him even if Russell is an “eggshell plaintiff.”
T
25th March 2024, 15:38
the problem with being a high caliber driver lauded for thinking well ahead of your opponents and fellow drivers is that an excuse such as this is baffling to say the least.
58 laps deep into a grand pix, on spent hards is where he chose to try something new?
and it has nothing to do with the charging Mercedes behind?
come on!
I’m fine with the move, it’s an old school move, psych the driver behind and kill their momentum
The likes of Lewis would have caught it. Even Perez taught a masterclass at AD2021
it’s risky and very dangerous because you leave your car to the behest of your opponent’s reaction time and closing speed especially in the era of bad wake
just own up to it you sly dog you
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
25th March 2024, 16:46
he didn’t he broke half way, then again, before picking up out of the corner. The Stewards saw him breaking twice as dangerous driving. But by being at a lower speed before breaking for the corner itself, its gives Alonso a much more stable car in to the corner. Because the rate of change is smaller, given his run around the first part of the chicane, and when he guns out of it.
This is the Stewards seeing something that COULD be considered dangerous, but is not actually being considered for the benefit it provides by having slower initial corner entry speed.
praxis (@praxis)
25th March 2024, 14:25
This topic has generated a lot of comments and discussions on this site. Certainly something that’ll still be debated over.
But happy to see detailed explanation from the stewards. Clarifications and transparency are always good for the sport.
Mr B
25th March 2024, 16:00
The number of comments it has generated has been quite remarkable, clearly something that many have an opinion on.
Whatever decision the stewards make they are going to be challenged by those that disagree.
I agree with you, nice to see a transparent and detailed explanation from the stewards for their decision.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
25th March 2024, 18:34
It is good, although in this case it reads as though they started from the position that they wanted to give Alonso a penalty and then constructed some reasoning to go along with it. Obviously the ideal approach is to draw conclusions based on the evidence, rather than the other way around.
FlyingLap (@flyinglapp)
25th March 2024, 14:35
Were the positions reversed, with Russell slowing unusually while defending from Alonso, causing him to crash or run into the gravel, Fernando would scream that the stewards penalize Russell.
Wes
25th March 2024, 15:36
Absolutely 100%, Alonso seems to have cleaned up some since his early career but this looks like a remnant from those years. Unfortunate because I was really beginning to root for him for once. I started watching in 2007 and his lack of sportsmanship towards his own teammate that season showed how dirty he’ll go. He’s not as bad as Schumi was, but he’s still worse than the majority of the grid imo.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
25th March 2024, 18:54
If the positions were reversed, Alonso wouldn’t have made that sort of error in the first place.
matt90
26th March 2024, 0:40
In his defence for this very incident he’s claiming he accidentally slowed down so much before the corner that he had to accelerate again before braking. It feels like a weird time to be lauding his competence.
Pete
26th March 2024, 10:46
Absolutely – the press coverage of it would be extremely different though!
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
25th March 2024, 15:19
3 license point indicates how serious an incident the stewards felt it was.
J765
25th March 2024, 15:42
I understand why Alonso is annoyed. He’s been doing that kind of dirty moves for 20 years and never had a problem – once they even les him keep a win when his team – with his knowledge – deliberately crashed his teammate.
sam
25th March 2024, 15:46
You can call him many things, sportsman is not one of them.
JJ (@jjfrazz)
25th March 2024, 15:46
This is the most idiotic “ruling” I have ever read in 50 plus years of watching Formula One! It is the driver behind who is responsible, not the one in front. Russell made a huge mistake! End of argument. If this is the way they are going to rule in future then they need to take “racing” out of the name! Why on Earth does it matter that F1gamers think it was a dirty move on Alonso’s part? Because in the video games you can do nasty things if you chose to? If this were a “rule” over the past 70 years there would be no Formula One today! At this rate there won’t be one soon! #Disappointed
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
25th March 2024, 16:26
The incident went to review quickly because the ALO v RUS battle was the only thing worth watching so I’m guessing the race director and stewards had that on their screen and not the broadcast coverage that was showing celebrities and drivers that weren’t racing in the pits.
DaveW (@dmw)
26th March 2024, 1:39
When did they start captioning whatever celebrity they were slow-zooming on as the partner of some driver? This is so annoying. I really don’t care who some driver is dating.
asz
25th March 2024, 17:02
The quote is “have not considered the consequences of the crash”. The crash itself must have been a factor. Otherwise the decision would imply that the stewards monitor, throughout the whole race, every single corner entry of every single driver who is closely chased, and therefore would have spotted the mischief even if Russell had been able to handle the situation.
The Dolphins
26th March 2024, 2:49
Certainly not, nor the race director, they typically can hardly keep up with the incidents to review during the course of the session. This is why each team has staff monitoring their main competitors (on the track, off the track, in the pits) and are quick to call out to the race director any incident they spot. So had this incident not resulted in a crash, or even a runoff, Russel’s race engineer would have spotted a difference in his corner speed and would have been alerted by whoever was watching Alonso’s onboard about this usual approach. Mercedes would then petition the race director to look at the incident.
Jere (@jerejj)
25th March 2024, 17:06
FIA had put themselves in a difficult situation for the future by setting a new precedent for defensive driving because, for consistency’s sake, moving on, they should be willing to act the same way every single time someone drives differently on a given lap to how they’d drive otherwise or on any other lap in that given race, especially if someone is close behind regardless of whether he goes off or stays on track.
However, DRS isn’t really to blame in this particular case because the zones definitely aren’t powerful per se in Melbourne, not even the one on the longest full-throttle section, other than for Red Bull Racing & Sainz when taking the race lead because of magnifying circumstances.
Jere (@jerejj)
25th March 2024, 17:19
‘have put’
Kotrba
25th March 2024, 17:14
The most important take from this event, for me, is the fact that all Alonso has done was deliberate, not because as he claimed initially he was nursing a car issue and couldn´t take into account what his actions would mean for the following car (on the contrary he often boasts of his ability to have a great overview of the situation behind him/overal).
I have watched a couple of Alonso´s laps prior to the incident and heard nothing. He only reported “problems with throttle” once he realised Russell crashed. And started to fake it until the chequered flag. He immediately realised he was potentially in trouble and started to craft a story. These actions indicate a great intent on Alonso´s side.
I like to think that stewards saw through it and decided to penalise him predominantly for this reason alone.
Nevertheless, I certainly remeber times when Alonso used to apply this tactics in slow corners. Particularly, the hairpin in Canada springs to mind, where he slowed down during the turning to not allow driver behind to accelerate earlier than him. But it is one thing to do it in slow corners in relatively slower speeds where the driver behind has better chances and options to react than in corner like during this race.
mooa42
26th March 2024, 6:50
I think the other bit that gets missed on that particular corner is that the drivers come out of bright sunshine into the mottled shade of the trees that cover the corner. While George’s eyes can probably adjust quicker then Fernando’s, following a black car into a dark corner makes it a lot harder to perceive distance and notice Alonso’s car decelerate. It would have been easier for George to notice if Alonso did brake, rather than decelerate.
Does anyone know what distance drivers normally brake for that corner?
Nick T.
25th March 2024, 17:15
Now, it’s not even on the edge or over the edge, but an “extraordinary maneuver?” which implies it was way over the line. If non-British drivers know what’s good for them, they’ll stay out of Lando’s, Lewis’ and George’s way, because they’ll get no respite from F1 media.
PlosslF1
25th March 2024, 18:26
Normally you would brake, go down 2 gears and turn.
He throttled off, dabbed the brakes, went down a gear, throttled up, went up gear, braked, went down 2 gears and turned…. I would classify that as an ‘extraordinary manoeuvre’
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
25th March 2024, 18:17
First DRS and now all this hogwash. This is the end of defensive driving. If you do not have the faster car consider yourself blueflagged even if you are on the same lap
In 55 years of watching F1 this is in the top 3 of totally surreal stewarding decisions
And of course it would not have happened if the inured enemy of FA who is after his guts since 2007 was not stewarding in Melbourne. Instant Karma is after you, Mr John Paul Herbert. And I won’t shed a tear for you.
Coventry Climax
25th March 2024, 18:18
Whether right or wrong is not what I care about at all, but:
Apparently the quote from stewards is:
“Telemetry shows that Alonso lifted slightly more than 100m earlier than he ever had going into that corner during the race. He also braked very slightly at a point that he did not usually brake (although the amount of brake was so slight that it was not the main reason for his car slowing) and he downshifted at a point he never usually downshifted.”
And RF conclude this:
Note that the stewards did not say Alonso braked 100 metres before the corner but 100 metres “earlier than he ever had”.
This is an enormous amount: At Bahrain’s turn one this year drivers hit the brakes just before the 100 metre board to decelerate from over 300kph to 65kph.
So that conclusion is downright, plain, dead wrong:
The stewards quote never says where he braked at all, and certainly not that he braked a 100m earlier than ‘ever before’. They said he lifted a 100 m earlier, braked at a point where he did not usually brake and downshifted at a point where he did not usually downshift.
Therefor, the thing about ‘enormous amount’ is based on false conclusions.
Again: I dont’care whether it’s right or wrong, but someone tell me: Where in the rules can I find it’s a transgression to brake and/or downshift at a point where drivers don’t usually do this? And where is the penalty for it described?
Again, whether right or wrong, but: It’s ridiculous to penalise people for things that are not explicitly worded as transgressions of the rules, in the rules. If that’s an omission in the rulebook, than by all means, repair it for next season, but dealing with it this way is big farce that stinks of something else, nearly spelled the same.
Mooa42
26th March 2024, 20:16
I don’t believe this is correct, it would be nigh on impossible to list every possible scenario that could potentially occur. Laws and rules usually have broad statements that are open to interpretation and open to be argued. Dangerous driving, bad sportsmanship, black flag, bringing the sport into disrepute etc
notagrumpyfan
25th March 2024, 18:21
Assuming this penalty was deserved, I hope the ‘art of defending’ doesn’t get stymied and lost by overzealous stewarding.
With DRS there is already an unfair advantage for the attacking driver, and a good defender in a slightly slower car should have some options left to defend his/her position.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
25th March 2024, 19:48
Agree drs shouldn’t be there and theres should be options to defend, however I think you could just say “defend his position” when you’re talking about f1, there hasn’t been a female driver in 30 years and there won’t be anytime soon, so the use of “her” is wasted unless you’re talking about a minor formula.
Coventry Climax
25th March 2024, 18:24
Will we now have a revision and a post season punishment for Piastri ‘causing’ Ricciardo to crash in Zandvoort ’23?
Just lovely. What a farce. It’s not even becoming just a show now, it’s becoming a freak surprise show.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
25th March 2024, 19:49
Yes, it’s a joke tbh, they keep saying they don’t take consequences into account (although they should) and then they do stuff like this where it’s blatantly obvious they wouldn’t investigate this stuff without a big incident.
SteveP
25th March 2024, 21:24
Just suppose that the tactics from Alonso didn’t trigger a crash.
How much of the remaining race time do you think Russell would have spent radioing about a “brake test”?
and then the stewards check telemetry and find a collection of data that looks awfully like a brake test incident…
Be honest folks, in the data it looks more like a brake test incident than half of the stuff people claim is a brake test.
So, Alonso gets a penalty for that and everyone argues about what a whinger Russell is, and the comments all take the same slant as the current comments.
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
25th March 2024, 21:51
To brake test someone you have to brake first
SteveP
26th March 2024, 7:10
Yeah, he did that. It’s in the public telemetry, along with the lift downshift, pause upshift, then normal cornering sequence a little later.
I believe he intended the slowdown and disruption of Russell, whether he intended the level of effect is a different debate
MadMax (@madmax)
26th March 2024, 21:05
You may want to educate yourself with the publicly available data
Grapmg
25th March 2024, 18:32
Why is all the focus only on Alonso’s data I would like to see Russell data as well. Did he approach the corner with the same brake point and speed as normal or did he have to brake and slow down suddenly because off Alonso slowing down. As far as I can see he approached the corner as normal and over steered because of the loss of downforce. Anyone with data from Russels car compared with the laps before?
Situs (@situs)
25th March 2024, 18:42
+1
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
26th March 2024, 8:50
Oh, no, it might reveal how useless GR is. If anybody does not know yet. A barely competent driver could have managed FA lifting early
Neil (@neilosjames)
25th March 2024, 18:53
It sounds like he drove the corner the way I did last time I went from playing Gran Turismo to the F1 game.
“Lift, brake… oops, no, too early, it’s an F1 car and the brakes are better… bit of throttle on… where’s the corner… ah there it is, brake, turn…”
Doing that accidentally might be plausible had it been Alessio Deledda or someone like that, but not Fernando Alonso.
Tommy C (@tommy-c)
25th March 2024, 18:57
Max slowed at an extraordinary speed right in front of Sainz. Sainz didn’t crash. Just saying…
SteveP
25th March 2024, 19:10
Sainz had DRS, was lining up to pass and then did, with greater ease than he expected.
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
25th March 2024, 22:05
FA made a masterclass defence last year at Brazil. Of course he was trying to be unpredictable and changing the braking points all the time. Best driving of the season. Well I used to think. Now with the Herbert doctrine it was all wrong and he should have been penalized instead. Same thing at Impala with Schuey 2005. Used to be a textbook defense. Now it was all illegal. Give the win back to Schuey. And the 2005 title while we are at it
And my personal favorite, Brazil 2007. Subida dos boxes, first lap, FA lifted ever so slightly (no brake test, mind you) and the useless driver behind panicked, went to pasture and lost 8 positions (and a WDC, that went to Kimi). Well, penalize FA and take the title from Kimi. Whatever.
Next season F1 will change format. It will be a series of drag races. The fastest car wins, period. No driver skills needed or put to any use. Thanks, Mr John Paul Herbert.
PlosslF1
25th March 2024, 22:40
He lost 4 places after the lock up made up 2 positions before having a box full of neutrals for 30 seconds and dropped to 18th, he made it back up to 8th at the finish.
After the race BMW and Williams were investigated for using ‘cool fuel’ and should of been DSQ’d but an appeal heard on 16th November concluded that the 10 degrees below ambient temperature fuel couldn’t be upheld because of doubts raised regarding the cars fuel temp and the true ambient temperature at the time. If it was upheld Lewis would of been WDC.
There, fixed it for ya
PlosslF1
25th March 2024, 22:50
My bad, finished 7th… doh
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
26th March 2024, 8:36
The lock is a different story
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
26th March 2024, 8:54
And I fail to see the relevance of fuel temp in a debate about early lifting or brake testing
PlosslF1
26th March 2024, 9:51
I was just pointing out that he didn’t lose 8 places and the WDC because of it, then thought I’d point out why he did :)
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
25th March 2024, 22:08
Impala—>Imola, 🤯corrector
SteveP
26th March 2024, 7:17
I refer to it as auto b o l o x and with enough training so does the iPhone :)
matt90
26th March 2024, 0:44
Lifting off the throttle 100m earlier than any time before is quite extraordinary in itself. Doing so and then accelerating again on a straight before braking for a corner is a brake test, whether intentional or not. Seems incredibly clear cut.
Mariano (@mariano)
26th March 2024, 4:27
Again, Johnny Herbert who hates Alonso was one of the stewards and the most influential of all of them. Just take a look at the background of the other 3 stewards 2 of whom have never raced a car in their life. That says it all.
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
26th March 2024, 9:04
In Herbert’s New F1 Rulebook you cannot lift-and-coast. If you run out of fuel or your brakes overheat, too bad for you.
Well, at least if you are from Oviedo, otherwise the rule does not apply.
JPH, you were quite forgettable as a F1 driver and you are an absolute disgrace as a steward. Get lost now
Wellbalanced
26th March 2024, 8:50
Something I hadn’t originally picked up on, and something that I think is very telling: immediately after the crash Alonso gets on the radio and reports problems with the throttle, claiming to be unable to go full throttle.
Now why would he do that? Nothing I have heard says he had a throttle issue, and yet he just so happens to report such a problem immediately after the crash.
MadMax (@madmax)
26th March 2024, 21:00
He knows pretty well what he has done. And he got a well deserved penalty for this stupidity.
Denis (@denis1304)
26th March 2024, 9:16
I want to know if FA was faster on the part of the track after the turn 6 then he was in previous laps, as it was his intention.
PlosslF1
26th March 2024, 9:59
I would hazard a guess and say no, he scrubbed so much speed off that I doubt he managed to gain it back. I think he’s plan was to make Russell brake heavy and lose speed and momentum through the corner but made a pigs ear of it.
MurasamaRA300 (@murasamara300)
26th March 2024, 10:25
It’s now completely clear that Ericsson really did hit Grosjean in Baku in 2018.
SteveP
26th March 2024, 18:22
News flash, when you start catching up with the real world, you’re going to have fun with a virus in 2020.
MurasamaRA300 (@murasamara300)
27th March 2024, 7:16
The real world…?
Oh no, we can’t have that!
But I do have a strawberry field up for sale, for sure! :)