[Official] Australian Grand Prix 2024: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 3 of 24

[Kingair]

Lygon Street would have been buzzing last night!

Good to see a Ferrari 1 and 2, shame Oscar didn't make the podium.

[GingerPixel]

George panicked and binned it. Fernando's response on instagram is very sensible.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by E.B

Interesting to note Albert Park is now officially faster in average speed terms than Spa. In qualifying Max's time was an average speed of just over 250kph.... Spa's record is just under 250. I think only Monza and Jeddah have a faster average speed than Albert Park.

I believe that Silverstone is also around the 250kph mark; it's always been considered one of the fastest circuits for F1 cars.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I believe that Silverstone is also around the 250kph mark; it's always been considered one of the fastest circuits for F1 cars.

Fastest race lap on the current layout is with Verstappen at 240kph; qualifying with Hamilton at 252kph.

[Sodemo]

I think Alonso can feel a bit hard done by there with the penalty. Ive watched the onboard with Russell, he just got too close and lost downforce in the middle of the corner.

He won't have been the first driver to slow down deliberately on the apex of a corner, were people blind to Perez's antics during Abu Dhabi 2021? He was just blocking and weaving all over the place, true none of that resulted in a crash, but is that the requirement for a penalty to be imposed?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

George panicked and binned it. Fernando's response on instagram is very sensible.

Alonso may be peeved at receiving the penalty, but it's very telling that the team have accepted the penalty and are not appealing against it.

When you have another car tucked in behind you - 0.5 secs at the point that he first braked 100 metres early than would be reasonably expected based on all his previous laps, then a jab on the accelerator before braking again and downshifting - it has to be considered erratic and potentially dangerous.

And having viewed all the data available from both teams, that is what the Stewards decided happened. I'm sure that the team would have appealed if they felt that they had a reasonable case to argue, but I would think that they didn't and so the haven't.

[chillibowl]

Probably just waiting for Ben to make a phone call!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

George panicked and binned it. Fernando's response on instagram is very sensible.

I had to look at his Instagram to see what was said. It all seems pretty logical. Drivers should be able to change how they drive and each lap should not be identical to others, in other situations there might not have been an investigation, etc. But its all a bit of "If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike." as he leaves out the pertinent points about what actually happened in Australia!

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think Alonso can feel a bit hard done by there with the penalty. Ive watched the onboard with Russell, he just got too close and lost downforce in the middle of the corner.

You have to wonder how Russel all of a sudden gained on Alonso?

Originally Posted by Sodemo

He won't have been the first driver to slow down deliberately on the apex of a corner, were people blind to Perez's antics during Abu Dhabi 2021? He was just blocking and weaving all over the place, true none of that resulted in a crash, but is that the requirement for a penalty to be imposed?

As I mentioned earlier, there is a fine line between legitimate defending and "gamesmanship" and dangerous driving.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Alonso may be peeved at receiving the penalty, but it's very telling that the team have accepted the penalty and are not appealing against it.

When you have another car tucked in behind you - 0.5 secs at the point that he first braked 100 metres early than would be reasonably expected based on all his previous laps, then a jab on the accelerator before braking again and downshifting - it has to be considered erratic and potentially dangerous.

And having viewed all the data available from both teams, that is what the Stewards decided happened. I'm sure that the team would have appealed if they felt that they had a reasonable case to argue, but I would think that they didn't and so the haven't.

Agree with all of this. Alonso and fans may not be happy, but he was likely playing games (which is fair), but it ended up being a bit too much and it caught Russell and him out.

My opinion is that he wanted to break Russell's rhythm and cause him to slow and sacrifice corner exit speed. And that yes, I believe Alonso when he says was trying to get a better exit on the corner, because (after slowing on entry) he would have been needing to push on exit to build back an increased gap on a slowing Russell! I don't think Alonso intended for it to cause Russell to crash out. I also don't think Russell did anything wrong.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Probably just waiting for Ben to make a phone call!

Good one!

Richard

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by steve_r

That was very impressive indeed by Sainz. Have Ferrari made a terrible mistake with their driver choice for next year?

Yes.

[TrapezeArtist]

If it's right that Alonso braked 100yd earlier than normal, that is massive. At Monza (for example) they brake about 100yd before the first chicane from top speed. On that corner in Oz, maybe the normal braking point was somewhere around 50yd. I am disappointed in him as that sort of behaviour is not in line with being the "elder statesman" of F1.

[Skam85]

George is becoming a proven crash merchant. Alonso didn't need to do anything and he was always a chance to crash on his own chasing Fernando regardless.

That being said, I'm struggling to see how Alonso's 'tactics' are any different to Hamilton doing the same thing, but way more obvious, in Abu Dhabi 2016? Or Checo in AD21? Or Kmag last week?

For mine, they've penalised the outcome, not the action. Which sets a dangerous precedence.

[Greem]

The published stewards' report makes it very clear that they were penalising the action and *not* the outcome.

[Skam85]

I did see that, but similar previous, unpenalised incidents suggests otherwise.

I guess we'll only find out if this is the new normal moving forward.

If a driver loses talent and downforce chasing down a car in front, and it is investigated and penalised then the stewards will give themselves a busy weekend.

I miss Masi.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Skam85

For mine, they've penalised the outcome, not the action. Which sets a dangerous precedence.

They’ve clearly penalised the outcome while at the same time denying it. And penalised something that happens all of the time anyway.

[chavez]

Usually parking it on the apex is done in slow(er) corners than what we saw on the weekend.

Perhaps that influenced the stewards decision.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

They’ve clearly penalised the outcome while at the same time denying it. And penalised something that happens all of the time anyway.

I agree the outcome factored in even if they don't admit it. I don't think all examples of this type of behavior should be treated as equally "offensive" with the implication that all should be equally punished.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I agree the outcome factored in even if they don't admit it. I don't think all examples of this type of behavior should be treated as equally "offensive" with the implication that all should be equally punished.

Richard

Reading the report - I wouldn't agree with the thought that the outcome was factored in. I think the fact that a car was following was factored in, but not as far as the outcome.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chavez

Usually parking it on the apex is done in slow(er) corners than what we saw on the weekend.

Perhaps that influenced the stewards decision.

It was not the apex, but what happened before the corner:

'Alonso explained 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. Nonetheless, this manoeuvre created a considerable and unusual closing speed between the cars.'

[Akrapovic]

I personally believe the outcome was penalised rather than the actions. If George hadn't crashed and had just overslowed and held it, I don't think it'd have even been looked at tbh.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I personally believe the outcome was penalised rather than the actions. If George hadn't crashed and had just overslowed and held it, I don't think it'd have even been looked at tbh.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I personally believe the outcome was penalised rather than the actions. If George hadn't crashed and had just overslowed and held it, I don't think it'd have even been looked at tbh.

Exactly, as otherwise they'd be looking at every car at every corner and every bit in between for the whole weekend!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I personally believe the outcome was penalised rather than the actions. If George hadn't crashed and had just overslowed and held it, I don't think it'd have even been looked at tbh.

I know this is really labouring the point - but I think the reason it was looked at was the outcome, but the penalty itself was for the action(s) prior.

It's a vital difference I feel, and is a two part process:
The referral is because of the outcome.
The decision / penalty is because of the action.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Exactly, as otherwise they'd be looking at every car at every corner and every bit in between for the whole weekend!

You need to separate the reason for having to make the decision, and the decision being made.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I know this is really labouring the point - but I think the reason it was looked at was the outcome, but the penalty itself was for the action(s) prior.

This is what I was trying to say.

Richard

[chillibowl]

thinking out loud, but Alonso is perceived to be a very clever driver, great track knowledge, and very tactical in his thinking...which can be a double edged sword in situations like this because his race craft is such that it can make it look like he was doing this for a benefit?

rather, should the driver involved also factor into the review process, as well as reason and/or outcome?