Aston Martin will not attempt to overturn Fernando Alonso’s penalty for his driving prior to George Russell’s crash in last weekend’s Australian Grand Prix.
However they strongly defended their driver over a move the stewards said was “at very least ‘potentially dangerous’.”Team principal Mike Krack said “in motorsport everyone is relieved that George was okay and walked away after his accident” which occured at turn six. The stewards found Alonso, who was running ahead of Russell at the time, slowed over 100 metres earlier for the corner than he had at any previous point.
Krack said the team “fully support Fernando” but will not seek to overturn his penalty as they do not have new evidence to present for the stewards to review.
“He is the most experienced driver in Formula 1,” said Krack. “He has competed in more grands prix than anyone else and has more than 20 years of experience. He is a multiple world champion in multiple categories.
Krack compared Alonso’s defensive driving last weekend to his performance in Brazil last year, where he beat Sergio Perez to claim the final place on the podium.
“Fernando is a phenomenal racer and he was using every tool in his toolbox to finish ahead of George – just like we saw in Brazil last year with Sergio,” said Krack. Echoing Alonso’s words in a social media post on Sunday, Krack called Alonso’s driving “the art of motorsport at the highest level.”
“He would never put anyone in harm’s way,” Krack added.
The stewards handed Alonso a drive-through penalty which was converted post-race into a 20-second time penalty and dropped him from sixth place to eighth in the final classification.
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
Red Andy (@red-andy)
26th March 2024, 18:50
Shows the limitations of the Right of Review system. If the stewards have availed themselves of all relevant evidence, but simply come to a plainly wrong conclusion – as in this case – there is nothing a wronged competitor can do about it.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th March 2024, 18:54
Yes, this is one of the first things that need to be changed in f1.
grat
26th March 2024, 19:00
Sorry, but either Alonso is a world-class driver who tried to scare Russell into dropping out of passing range via erratic driving, or he made a mistake that even an F2 driver would be embarrassed about, on the LAST lap. If he made that mistake during practice, or qualifying, maybe– but after some 140+ laps around Albert Park, he gets it that wrong?
No. I do not buy it.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
26th March 2024, 21:20
I really don’t think ‘erratic’ is appropriate terminology here. Slowing on entry to a corner with a long straight with the driver in DRS range behind is not unpredictable. I’d argue it’s entirely expected.
It’s not a mistake, it’s a valid, deliberate tactic to prevent a faster car applying the throttle early in the corner. This has been the case for decades. Had Alonso slowed mid corner, there is a valid argument for a penalty – slowing on entry is accepted as the driver behind can see it happen and react. Russell gambled he’d be able to follow closely and got it wrong. The main failing here is that the circuit is poorly designed in this section.
earthling (@34rthl1ng)
26th March 2024, 21:44
Yes of course it is all totally ridiculous. This is defense at his best and if GR was not such a useless driver nothing untoward would had happened.
There is only the inured h4t3 for FA of the loathsome Herbert who has no business stewarding a children tic-tac-toe match to say nothing of a F1 race, and the chorus of the -still very many- FA h4ters, an endemic Brit disease. And the sheepish followers of any eejit in authority.
After DRS we only needed the Herbert rulebook (you can only defend in an exactly predictable way even if you are followed by the most incompetent imaginable driver, but this rule only applies if you were born in Oviedo) to totally give up on any defensive racing.
PlosslF1
26th March 2024, 22:31
I am curious to why you loathe Herbert so much…. He doesn’t owe you money or something does he? :)
MichaelN
26th March 2024, 23:25
This is Alonso’s defense, and a point that various former drivers have made. But that’s not what the stewards found. The stewards found that “[Alonso] also braked very slightly at a point that he did not usually brake (..) and he downshifted at a point he never usually downshifted. He then upshifted again, and accelerated to the corner before lifting again to make the corner.” The last part makes the ‘slow entry, fast exit’ claim inapplicable.
Ockham’s razor suggests that, rather than Alonso suddenly developing a mysterious throttle problem, or forgetting where to brake 58 laps into the race, he simply tried to trip Russell up, but messed his scheme up by slowing too early, got back on the throttle, all of which resulted in a confused Russell who went off and crashed.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
27th March 2024, 6:33
The purpose of the manoeuvre is to confuse Russell. It’s a conscious choice to make Russell have to second guess his entry speed. There’s nothing sinister about it.
Let’s break the corner down – They arrive at the corner with Russell half a second behind. Alonso lifts off the power 100m earlier, downshifts. He’s then further into the corner than he would be normally for that speed, so speeds up. He’s still hovering around the minimum entry speed for the corner. The acceleration is largely irrelevant – he’s not slowed down to a walking pace, this is clearly evidenced by the fact that Russell doesn’t hit him despite being only half a second behind. We cannot tell drivers what minimum speed they should take into a corner; it’s for the driver behind to consider their own car’s limits.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
27th March 2024, 16:24
Looking at the trace its clear he slows down before corner entry and then again in to the corner before pulling a tad earlier, on the gas and pulling away at greater acceleration than normal.
For instance, when I want more stability on the rear tire of my bike, I up shift so the RPMs drop and the power output is less, giving a type of response for the tires. If I need the rear to slip more, I can down shift.
How Alonso chooses to shift and why he does is his way to negotiate the corner, and if you look at the trace, hes clearly slow in fast out. Thats all that matters.
The Stewards are intentionally saving face for Russell to make him look like a victim instead of a klutz, which he is, when it comes to last lap dashes.
matt90
27th March 2024, 0:20
He didn’t slow on entry to a corner. He slowed and then sped up and then slowed again for the actual corner. That’s incredibly erratic and effectively constitutes a brake check.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
27th March 2024, 6:37
Where did he slow then?
There’s a theoretical argument for a brake check that simply isn’t reflected in this scenario. A brake check on a straight or braking at the usual point and progressing through the mid corner much slower than usual. But if a driver lifts off on entry on the racing line, it’s their prerogative to take the corner at the speed they see fit. It’s incumbent on the driver behind to make their own choices.
grat
27th March 2024, 16:36
If all he had done was slow down unexpectedly, I doubt he would have gotten the penalty.
It was the slowing down, the downshifting, the tapping of the brake, hitting the accelerator, upshifting and then braking again.
This is all well-documented in the telemetry that’s been published.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
27th March 2024, 21:25
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone contesting the telemetry, that’s not what’s contentious here.
The order of the events is a statement without context. It needs to be quantified by severity of the inputs. Are you suggesting any driver that applies acceleration after initially braking should receive a driver through for erratic driving? Would it have been safer to not accelerate again?
grat
27th March 2024, 22:54
Yes, but what about the last braking event?
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
28th March 2024, 6:41
What about it?
The first braking event did not contribute to a significant speed chance by the stewards own admission. The second can hardly be seen as erratic, it’s a car braking in a braking zone – what’s concerning, or punishable by the severest penalty we have, about that?
MadMax (@madmax)
28th March 2024, 8:07
The first braking was from about 275 to a bit more than 200. You guys defending erratic driving is laughable
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
28th March 2024, 9:05
MadMax, you’re allowed to slow approaching a corner. Russell sees all of this unfold. It’s not on a straight, it’s not crawling at the apex. It’s a valid defensive move. It’s not erratic to come out of the power, especially with the red harvesting light.
From the data I saw the difference was 37kph – I’m not sure where you’re figures are from. Russell is half a second behind and is never closer than a full car length behind. Russell’s misjudged a valid defence.
AlanD
26th March 2024, 19:00
There was a time not so long ago in F1 when drivers could still fumble a gear change, something the driver behind would leap upon as an opportunity to make a pass. I keep thinking that if Alonso had made a mistake and slowed dramatically unintentionally, the Merc and Russell would still have had the same problem. It seems harsh to penalise Alonso for something that can only be inferred from telemetry, and I don’t think it is good for the sport as a whle if we now have yet another area for the stewards to consider and penalise.
Mayrton
27th March 2024, 8:57
And then there is the inconsistency. Sending a direct competitor for the championship into the barriers in copse is 10sec penalty allowing you to still win the race. Not making contact but allegedly using brake tactics is 20sec penalty? Shows pretty clear there is some serious and worrying bias going on in this sport.
MadMax (@madmax)
28th March 2024, 8:09
It was the competitor who wanted to crash several times in the first half of lap 1 already. In copse he got the contact he was looking for. It was hardly a situation to penalize at all.
sbewers (@sbewers)
26th March 2024, 20:22
They don’t need to. Ben Sulayem will do it for them.
Jere (@jerejj)
26th March 2024, 20:36
They should/should’ve because the questionably lost points could prove crucial in the WCC battle at the season’s end.
PlosslF1
26th March 2024, 21:46
“He would never put anyone in harm’s way,” Krack added.
Tell that to Piquet Jnr ;)
Alex
26th March 2024, 21:49
George should have seen the red light flashing from Fernando’s car indicating ERS harvesting, i.e. his car is slowing down, and acted accordingly. Instead, he continued full throttle to close the gap (which proves there was no brake check as he did not need to brake early to avoid a collision), got into dirty air, and spun out. Fernando did what the greats do, crafty, hard but fair racing to defend his position. That he got a penalty, never mind a 20-second one, is beyond ridiculous.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
27th March 2024, 0:42
He probably did, however one would reasonably assume that the deceleration would continue progressively such that he would make the corner at a conceivably reasonable speed (even if this were slower than usual) and not decelerate so much that he would need to accelerate again before the corner. It is obvious that he slowed so much and so early that he probably would have come to a halt before the corner** had he continued to slow at the same rate.
George would of course try to close the gap as much as possible even if he could see the flashing light, but how would he be reasonably expected to know, or even broadly anticipate such a manoeuvrer?
**And you can of course question my ‘assumption’ though I would save you the trouble as I cannot prove this, however the normal braking distances and corner speeds are well known, so the facts as we know them certainly point in this direction.
I am unsure this is being treated as a brake check per se, so proof of this or otherwise is not entirely relevant, though the failue of a following car to slow down is not proof of the actions of the car in front.
I have absolute respect for what Fernando ‘can do’, but even the greats can get it wrong. Simply stating that it is fair racing does not make it so.
Alex
27th March 2024, 4:16
The fact that George did not react to Alonso’s move at all and yet no collision happened is simply proof that whatever move Alonso made didn’t cause a collision.
If you look at the onboard telemetry, his speed peaks at 273kph before he lifts for about one second, his speed is reduced to 245kph, he briefly gets on the throttle again for less than one second and then brakes again and takes the turn normally.
We can both have different opinions on the fairness of the move, but we can probably agree he did it to slow Russell down and protect his position.
The bigger question to me is whether what he did should be allowed. He never got off the racing line, didn’t weave… he reduced his speed in a way that didn’t necessitate a reaction by the car following behind in order to avoid contact, but ultimately created turbulent air that George wasn’t able to handle. To me, that’s hard but fair defensive racing, but of course it’s all subjective interpretation.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
27th March 2024, 7:39
But who is saying he did?
Undoubtedly. But….
I do not agree with this statement at all. That said I do not believe there is necesarrily anything wrong with driving an a manner that requires the following car to react to avoid contact. For example, had Alonso slowed measurably, but in a controlled manner up to the apex. Not Lifting, braking, downshifting, accelerating, upshifting, braking decelerating, downshifting. Alonso himself stated to the stewards that he had made a mistake which in itself undermines any suggestion of perfectly executed defensive driving (Not that you stated this explicitly, though I do not think it is unreasonbable to suggest it was at least ‘somewhat’ inferred).
Indeed. However your original comment read more like a statement of fact than opinion. Particularly your assertion that any penalty was “Beyond Ridiculous”.
Honestly, I just don’t see how you believe that Russell could have driven in a manner that showed any intent at all to try to catch and pass Alonso, without putting himself in a position where this particular piece of ‘defensive driving’ would not result in a dangerous situation. And consequently we either petition for defensive maneuvers to be less erratic, or we simply accept that drivers do not push hard to try to pass. I would significantly prefer the former.
Alex
27th March 2024, 16:25
My original comment that the penalty is beyond ridiculous is, of course, my opinion, not a fact. It can’t be since we are dealing with a race situation that needs to be interpreted.
It seems to me that we simply have differing opinions as to what punishable erratic/dangerous driving is. To me, staying on the racing line while lifting for one second, in a way that doesn’t require the following driver to take any sort of evasive action whatsoever, should not be punishable. At the end of the day, what Alonso’s so-called “dangerous driving” did was create turbulent air for the car behind and, as the officials said: “Should Alonso be responsible for dirty air, that ultimately caused the incident? – no.”
In fact, the steward’s report states the reason for the penalty is that Fernando drove in a manner that was at very least “potentially dangerous”. So not dangerous in and of itself, but apparently it had the “potential” of being dangerous, without really explaining what that means.
The way Art. 33.4 is written “At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a
manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person” is extremely vague and can be used to penalize virtually any defensive movement.
With a penalty like this one allowed to stand, we will likely get into situations in the future where anything that means a driver moving or behaving in a way that is not regular, certain, or expected (the very definition of erratic) is potentially dangerous and a penalty should be assessed. We now have precedent.
I don’t believe that severely hampering the art of defensive driving, especially in an era where some tracks benefit from 4 DRS zones, is the direction F1 should move towards, and likely why you see so many F1 fans clamoring against this penalty.
grapmg
27th March 2024, 8:58
Jolyon Palmer analysed this one and not only with the data of Alonso but also compared the data of Russell with his previous lap. Palmer is spot on Alonso was in a grey area and new what he was doing but Russell kept his foot down and is not without blame.
Wellbalanced
27th March 2024, 10:58
Totally agree. JP’s analysis is always excellent.
This analysis also made reference to Alonso’s radio, and throttle trace, in the straight after Russell had gone off – the throttle not being fully applied at points, due to what Alonso asserted was a problem with a stiff throttle. Given the penalty received, however, he clearly did not have a problem, but was immediately trying to account for what he knew would be looked at by the stewards. Naughty Fernando.
K (@sugoi)
26th March 2024, 22:48
It’s a win-win for Aston: they avoid doing the paperwork and Stroll gathers a win over Alonso.
Constructors points (and prize) don’t seem to matter.
Wellbalanced
27th March 2024, 11:00
Very droll!
dan
27th March 2024, 12:09
Where was checo Perez penalty in Abu Dhabi 21 the man basically lapped 6 seconds slower than his previous lap and in all likelyhood it won Max the title as Ham may have been able to come out infront of vestappen when SC came out. Ham driving that day was sensational he had to basically keep his car intact why Perez was doing anything he could to make Ham lose