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

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

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

I think the public answer would (and should) be "no". Privately I think what is reviewed, what is punished and how strong the punishment is likely has many un-official aspects.

For example if you have a driver who has recently had a few incidents that were questionable but not investigated or punished. I can imagine there may be a natural and maybe subconscious tendency to place that drivers under a microscope. That a further incident that might otherwise not trigger examination might be examined. Sort of a "they are due for punishment" type of thing. There might even be the reverse in that more experienced drivers might get a bit of extra "benefit of doubt" applied to them. I think it's only human nature. The stewards are not robots. I am not going to pretend I would do a better job.

Ideally... they would be robots and everything would be looked at with a very dispassionate and clear understanding as to when lines are crossed and with consistent, fair and proportional application of punishment.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Ideally... they would be robots and everything would be looked at with a very dispassionate and clear understanding as to when lines are crossed and with consistent, fair and proportional application of punishment.

Richard

Unfortunately, as we are now learning every day and probably to our cost, robots, like artificial intelligence, can very easily be "trained" in ways that suit the "trainer".

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Unfortunately, as we are now learning every day and probably to our cost, robots, like artificial intelligence, can very easily be "trained" in ways that suit the "trainer".

For sure. And I hope everyone here understand your point regarding "training" is the foundation for future behavior.

Note... I don't think fully automated systems (AI, whatever you want to call them) are anywhere close to replacing race stewards. I do think the use of AI "assistance" will/should happen. Such as my prior older posts elsewhere regarding alerting for suspected track limit violations.

Richard

[Skam85]

I'm very interested in the coming races to see what happens when a driver makes an error chasing a car in front.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by 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.

For me, this first point matches with my thoughts too. Whilst I can understand how Alonso's actions may have contributed to Russell's car being destablised; but Russell does have an issue of being involved in incidents due to over-reacting and crashing basically on his own.

I think we could look at Singapore last year, Imola 21' and Imola 20' (under safety car) as other examples. I wonder how many of the other 19 drivers would have crashed under the same circumstances?

[S griffin]

Russell wouldn't have crashed without Alonso doing what he did in front of him. So you can't say it's entirely down to Russell. That said I hope Alonso's penalty doesn't set a precedent where every time someone brakes early it will be investigated

[chillibowl]

i cant recall where i read this...i think it was an Alonso quote suggesting that had there been tarmac there instead of gravel, there would not have been any investigation.

will go through my history to find it but an interesting take i thought.

one of the things that stood out to me during this race was just how amazingly fast and nimble the cars looked so really hope they dont change the track because of this.

safety first of course but...

edit: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/68649182

But Alonso said he was "surprised" by the decision on social media afterwards: "A bit surprised by a penalty at the end of the race regarding how we should approach the corners or how we should drive the race cars. At no point do we want to do anything wrong at these speeds.

"I believe that without gravel on that corner, on any other corner in the world we will never be even investigated. In F1, with over 20 years of experience, with epic duels like Imola 2005/2006/Brazil 2023, changing racing lines, sacrificing entry speed to have good exits from corners is part of the art of motorsport.

[Mike Harte]

The Alonso/Russell incident now seems to cover many threads, but it needs repeating that the Stewards summing up of the incident is that they considered that Alonso's driving was potentially dangerous for whatever reason he did it.

I would also add to those that have said that Russell could and should have reacted quicker, that it must be born in mind that at the point when Alonso first braked, that Russell was just a half second behind him approaching the corner. The fact that in that short a distance, the Mercedes didn't clatter in to the back of the Aston Martin is a testament to how quick his reactions were.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i cant recall where i read this...i think it was an Alonso quote suggesting that had there been tarmac there instead of gravel, there would not have been any investigation.

He said that on his Instragram post about the incident. I think the implication is... following car would have gone off and not crashed if there had been tarmac (and maybe plenty of run off). I see two ways to look at that.

(1) With tarmac and no crash, then it is a "No harm no foul" situation because no physical damage, no need to stop the race and so on. Of which, that is frankly ludicrous because clearly it impacts the following cars "race" and benefits the leading car by increasing the gap.
(2) Things like this are more likely to be investigated if there is a resulting accident. With tarmac, no accident, probably no investigation. Of which I think many here (myself included) would somewhat agree with, but maybe not the conclusion he is looking for. Such as.. it shouldn't have been investigated?

I "think" (hope) Alonso might have been referring to my second viewpoint?

Text below from the stewards decision...

In considering the matter the stewards focused solely on the wording of the regulation which states “At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a The Stewards manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.” (Art 33.4) Specifically, in this case, the stewards have not considered the consequences of the crash.

I think there is VERY good reasons for why they called that out. The precedent that would be set if they had said the resulting consequences of the trigger was a factor would mean that if you were to do something like drive erratically but you DON'T create significant drama (accident, etc.) then it is OK. I think the stewards want to be clear that you can't drive erratically regardless of if it causes issues or not.

Do I think this sets a precedent that there will be more investigations and punishment for driver behavior? Probably not. If anything it might settle down some driver actions. I think if anything this sort of became a situation in which the stewards could use as an example of "beware drivers, if you play stupid games, you may win stupid prizes"

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I would also add to those that have said that Russell could and should have reacted quicker, that it must be born in mind that at the point when Alonso first braked, that Russell was just a half second behind him approaching the corner. The fact that in that short a distance, the Mercedes didn't clatter in to the back of the Aston Martin is a testament to how quick his reactions were.

Agree. I occasionally make this point every few years, but we examine situations like this after the fact and watch slow motion video and say to ourselves "Oh, I would have braked" or "I wouldn't have tried for that gap" or some other action that would have prevented things from going badly. But you watch these things in real time and often it happens in fractions of a second. Imagine following a driver closely lap after lap very closely and then they do something unexpectantly different. It will catch people out and that even assumes you have enough time to really react. Drivers are sometimes lucky and pull a save out of the hat, but they are not super human.

Richard

[PVDA]

Relive all the highlights of the 2024 Australian Grand Prix (Lego version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ9--VyTUJI

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

But Alonso said he was "surprised" by the decision on social media afterwards: "I believe that without gravel on that corner, on any other corner in the world we will never be even investigated. In F1, with over 20 years of experience, with epic duels like Imola 2005/2006/Brazil 2023, changing racing lines, sacrificing entry speed to have good exits from corners is part of the art of motorsport.

(My bold)

If he was braking 10m earlier to "sacrifice entry speed", I would agree with him. But he braked 100m earlier, went on the throttle, then braked again. He's being disingenuous.

[Sodemo]

I think if Alonso had braked 100M earlier then Russell would have flown past him or into him before the corner. Did Alonso lift the throttle or brake before the apex, quite possibly, but to me it didn't look like a brake test. I am no fan of Alonso either just fyi.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think if Alonso had braked 100M earlier then Russell would have flown past him or into him before the corner. Did Alonso lift the throttle or brake before the apex, quite possibly, but to me it didn't look like a brake test. I am no fan of Alonso either just fyi.

I can only suggest that you read the Stewards' report in full on the FIA website. They had all the data from both of the cars and they didn't agree with you, I'm afraid.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I can only suggest that you read the Stewards' report in full on the FIA website. They had all the data from both of the cars and they didn't agree with you, I'm afraid.

Whatever the reason for Alonso slowing, it didn't affect Russell's entry to the corner, having looked at the video he had completed his braking normally, made the apex and lost the car entry to mid-corner, at that point in time, for me thats a driver error on Russell's part.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Whatever the reason for Alonso slowing, it didn't affect Russell's entry to the corner, having looked at the video he had completed his braking normally, made the apex and lost the car entry to mid-corner, at that point in time, for me thats a driver error on Russell's part.

Do you understand the impact of aero based grip on cornering speed? Do you understand why F1 does not have cars nose to tail through higher speed corner in which without the required aero based grip that regular cornering speeds can't be maintained? Do you understand why a gap is required when following in specific situations?

It's not Russell's corner entry that is the problem. It is that he is too close to Alonso and looses enough aero grip from the front wing due to the level of dirty air that this causes him to go off. And he is closer to Alonso in the middle of the corner due to Alonso's erratic behavior/slowing (for whatever reasons) on his own corner entry.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Whatever the reason for Alonso slowing, it didn't affect Russell's entry to the corner, having looked at the video he had completed his braking normally, made the apex and lost the car entry to mid-corner, at that point in time, for me thats a driver error on Russell's part.

If that was really the case, that Alonso's erratic driving had no effect on what happened to Russell, the the team would have had a very good case to appeal the Stewards' decision. The very fact that they have accepted the penalty, the 20 seconds might have been acceptable but Alonso also lost two places because of it which may very well have a financial bearing at the end of the season.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Do you understand the impact of aero based grip on cornering speed? Do you understand why F1 does not have cars nose to tail through higher speed corner in which without the required aero based grip that regular cornering speeds can't be maintained? Do you understand why a gap is required when following in specific situations?

It's not Russell's corner entry that is the problem. It is that he is too close to Alonso and looses enough aero grip from the front wing due to the level of dirty air that this causes him to go off. And he is closer to Alonso in the middle of the corner due to Alonso's erratic behavior/slowing (for whatever reasons) on his own corner entry.

Richard

But once you are at the apex the car ahead would always be on the throttle, the shenanigans into the corner in my opinion is just gamesmanship and for me doesn’t fall under dangerous. If Alonso had braked 100% 200m earlier then yes I could see how that would be considered dangerous, but Russell had completed his braking and was into the corner. OK he was too close but I’m betting Russell was hoping to take advantage down the straight that followed but couldn’t hold the car in the dirty air.

I’m well aware that F1 cars rely on aero grip and what Alonso did was likely done to unsettle Russell, but for me at that point it’s just Russell who has lost it and he has failed to keep his car under control.

I suspect that if Russell had just had a big oversteer moment and then caught the car there would be no discussion and no penalty, but the fact he dropped the car in a big way, does that mean a penalty is more warranted? Is it the action or the outcome that is scrutinised? Or both?

If people are upset at Alonso I’d be far more outraged at the fact he has never shown any remorse or rescinded his “win” at Singapore 2008, which to me is a major blot on his character.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I suspect that if Russell had just had a big oversteer moment and then caught the car there would be no discussion and no penalty, but the fact he dropped the car in a big way, does that mean a penalty is more warranted? Is it the action or the outcome that is scrutinised? Or both?

If people are upset at Alonso I’d be far more outraged at the fact he has never shown any remorse or rescinded his “win” at Singapore 2008, which to me is a major blot on his character.

I think you could use all of your justifications and logic to explain why brake checking, weaving or any other non-allowed driver behavior should be allowed.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

But once you are at the apex the car ahead would always be on the throttle, the shenanigans into the corner in my opinion is just gamesmanship and for me doesn’t fall under dangerous. If Alonso had braked 100% 200m earlier then yes I could see how that would be considered dangerous, but Russell had completed his braking and was into the corner. OK he was too close but I’m betting Russell was hoping to take advantage down the straight that followed but couldn’t hold the car in the dirty air.

I may be missing your point, but all of this reads like techniques/ideas/concepts used for lower speed corners in cars that are not aero dependent.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think if Alonso had braked 100M earlier then Russell would have flown past him or into him before the corner. Did Alonso lift the throttle or brake before the apex, quite possibly, but to me it didn't look like a brake test. I am no fan of Alonso either just fyi.

Possibly you are overlooking the fact that Alonso admitted, and the data confirmed, that after his initial braking early - which again he admitted was his mistake - he went back on the accelerator. It is quite possible that Russell would have gone into the back of the Aston if Alonso hadn't hit the gas again and possibly his, Russells', reaction was super quick. We don't know, because the Stewards didn't mention it.

Surely all this is really academic; Alonso has admitted he cocked up his approach to the corner, and he was desperately trying to put off Russell so as to avoid the inevitable immediately after they hit the straight and the DRS.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Possibly you are overlooking the fact that Alonso admitted, and the data confirmed, that after his initial braking early - which again he admitted was his mistake - he went back on the accelerator. It is quite possible that Russell would have gone into the back of the Aston if Alonso hadn't hit the gas again and possibly his, Russells', reaction was super quick. We don't know, because the Stewards didn't mention it.

Surely all this is really academic; Alonso has admitted he cocked up his approach to the corner, and he was desperately trying to put off Russell so as to avoid the inevitable immediately after they hit the straight and the DRS.

Russell's telemetry does show that he did brake later and was carrying more speed into the corner than every lap of the GP.

With this in mind, I'm of the opinion that he was going off the track regardless of Alonso's action. For me, this is still mostlu on Russell.

[Richard C]

Sorry for multiple posts, but I replied quickly and I think I owe you a more complete reply.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

But once you are at the apex the car ahead would always be on the throttle, the shenanigans into the corner in my opinion is just gamesmanship and for me doesn’t fall under dangerous.

What might be considered dangerous behavior in a corner by you?

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If Alonso had braked 100% 200m earlier then yes I could see how that would be considered dangerous, but Russell had completed his braking and was into the corner.

I read this example of 200m early as more of a "brake check" scenario in which evasive action is required by the following car. But doesn't address the issue of it creating a dangerous problem in the middle of the corner.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

OK he was too close but I’m betting Russell was hoping to take advantage down the straight that followed but couldn’t hold the car in the dirty air.

Absolutely Russell was trying to reduce the gap. And if he could get a run on Alonso out of the corner then why not? Does the potential that a following car might be trying to pass you on corner exit allow for or justify dangerous behavior in or on entry into a corner by the leading car? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I’m well aware that F1 cars rely on aero grip and what Alonso did was likely done to unsettle Russell, but for me at that point it’s just Russell who has lost it and he has failed to keep his car under control.

To my point earlier. This is no different than saying "I brake checked and you lost control, that is on you" or "I swerved into as you were beside me and you lost control, that is on you". That is driving without rules.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I suspect that if Russell had just had a big oversteer moment and then caught the car there would be no discussion and no penalty, but the fact he dropped the car in a big way, does that mean a penalty is more warranted? Is it the action or the outcome that is scrutinised? Or both?

I think this is a valid question and one that has been made here and Alonso made the same point in his Instragram post. My view is that there is a wide range of things drivers do to drive offensively and defensively. For example, on the offensive side, you will get close to the leading driver to apply effectively "mental pressure" with the hopes this forces a mistake. On the defensive side, a leading driver can pick lines that are not particularly quick with respect to lap time, but take away passing opportunities. But there is also things like weaving, multiple moves in a corner, brake checking, etc. in which fit into the broader "offensive" or "defensive" driving categories, but are not considered to be "Ok".

So where is the line drawn? I think there is a line, it is fuzzy and it is probably crossed more often than we think. I don't think the stewards are equipped (both in technology and manpower) to monitor, review and adjudicate all of these that might happen in a race. BUT... occasionally something comes to their attention. It might be particularly egregious or blatant, but without lasting damage or might be less overt but with the result of car damage, an off or even an accident.

I think the stewards (and the regulations) strive to treat all behavior the same, but I think the level of attention any incident gets is driven by multiple factors. Such as how egregious was it, did it result in damage or an accident, etc. So unfortunately they are not able to really treat everything equal.

So to your point, is it the action or the outcome? The rules say it is the action only. My personal opinion is that both end up being a factor. BUT! They will clearly indicate that it was the action that is being punished. I made this point earlier that they can't hint or say that "If you do <insert offensive behavior here> and there is no accident, you are all good" as they don't want to set the precident.

I also said earlier I file it under the "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Basically drivers need to understand that if they are trying to be particularly clever in naughty ways, it may bite them. I also said earlier, I personally don't think Alonso was trying to crash out Russell. I do think he was trying to get Russell to sacrifice is speed and exit on that corner MORE than Alonso's slowing sacrificed his own speed and exit. That Alonso wanted to use his actions on corner entry to increase his gap on corner exit. When I say it like that, it sounds innocent and OK. Which is frankly how Alonso positioned this on Instragram. But the problem is that HOW Alonso was doing all of this was dangerous and erratic from the following car's perspective.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If people are upset at Alonso I’d be far more outraged at the fact he has never shown any remorse or rescinded his “win” at Singapore 2008, which to me is a major blot on his character.

I like Alonso. Nobody is perfect. The entire 2008 situation is a blot. I try to not be outraged about everything I can be outraged about. 2008 is in the past. But I am under no illusions that Alonso is not above playing serious on track games. Including crossing the line. And he is not alone in this.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Beau2

Russell's telemetry does show that he did brake later and was carrying more speed into the corner than every lap of the GP.

Not saying this isn't true, but can you point to a source for that information?

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Not saying this isn't true, but can you point to a source for that information?

Richard

It's certainly not in the Stewards' report which I would have thought they would have mentioned as it may well have been a contributing element. Oh, I should add that the Stewards also had all the data and telemetry fro Mercedes as well as from Aston Martin.


I should also add that the report states that the data shows that Alonso also braked harder on that occasion than he had on any other lap.