The Official Formula One Thread!

[dba]

Originally Posted by 77T

His data and telemetry caught him out. That story was an attempt to cover what I believe he wanted to do - send the message to RUS. But an abrupt reduction in speed 100m before the braking zone was at very least potentially dangerous.

When a driver tries to pull the wool over your eyes, but his fingerprints are all over the data, one actually DOES know what is going on...

The message was received, ALO is not leaving, and he has accepted the penalty graciously...

I think AM should at least appeal. Not that much to lose is there?

[77T]

What would be the grounds for an Appeal?

There is no new evidence and the process followed the ISC. AM could ask for a reduced penalty (like 10 seconds) rather than the drive-through which was converted to 20 seconds.

The cost is €6000, non refundable, plus the lawyering costs to get in front of the ICA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[The Joker]

Very definition of a brake test IMO, in a twisty part of the track Russell had to take evasive action and ended up in the wall.

ALO just got himself taken off the shortlist of the vacant Merc seat.

[The Joker]

AM won't appeal, think only 2 points lost by the team as Stroll got bumped up.

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

His data and telemetry caught him out. That story was an attempt to cover what I believe he wanted to do - send the message to RUS. But an abrupt reduction in speed 100m before the braking zone was at very least potentially dangerous.

I don't want to argue about what the stewards think "potentially" means. However, in my opinion, the use of this word means that the previous "factually" dangerous is replaced by "we think". And this is not necessarily a good thing, since it can lead to many dubious judgments in the future, because in this case, it is not the facts, but the loudly screaming pilots will determine "what is considered dangerous".

The message was received, ALO is not leaving, and he has accepted the penalty graciously...

For now. But what will happen when his contract will be over?

[77T]

When reading the decision more carefully you should see that Article 33.4 is the governing rule.

The language wasn't the Stewards choice - they quoted the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Speedbird-1]

Can't help imagining the ensuing brouhaha, if the 'naughty', brake tester, had been Sir Lewis Hamilton.

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by Speedbird-1

Can't help imagining the ensuing brouhaha, if the 'naughty', brake tester, had been Sir Lewis Hamilton.

Or Max

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

When reading the decision more carefully you should see that Article 33.4 is the governing rule.

Honestly, I agree with this rule 100%. This rule is undoubtedly important. This rule should look like this, because the point is that cases can be investigated on a case-by-case alalysis, since it is not possible to list all possible dangerous move in advance. This means, my problem is not with the wording of the rule at all, but with its applicability in this case.

Let's look at this case from a different perspective: would this case have been investigated even IF there had been no accident? In my opinion, the answer is "no".

Do the pilots need to be aware of tips and tricks in the final rounds? Obviously, especially if someone want to beat ALO.

Could RUS have seen ALO's red light flash multiple times? Yes. So would he has considered that ALO might slow down? Yes.

Was there enough distance to step on the brakes a very little? Yes.

And finally, was RUS really in such danger that he only had enough chance to avoid a collision to jerk the steering wheel aggressively, leading to this accident? No. He could have easily slowed down a little bit, so the fact that he ended up in such a situation is 100% his fault.

As the stewards and ALO found, nobody expected such conditions to exist, neither he nor RUS. It follows from this that it was not his driving that was dangerous, but the circumstances that were unfortunate.

In my opinion the unlawfulness of an act cannot be based on the fact that it had an unexpected and unforeseeable consequence. I think, this is what cannot be blamed on someone who makes a move that in 99% of the cases does not violate the rules.

In short, I'm afraid that F1 will become more and more boring if the drivers don't race anymore. If this was an offense of this magnitude, deserving of such a penalty, it means that in 2021 every top driver should have been disqualified from the race for their dangerous driving... and frankly, regardless of who won, I think we'd all much see a season like that, rather than one so "safety-seeking". But probably it is my humble opinion only

[INC]

Originally Posted by Speedbird-1

Can't help imagining the ensuing brouhaha, if the 'naughty', brake tester, had been Sir Lewis Hamilton.

Originally Posted by SDGT3

Or Max

Let's remember the 2021 race in Saudi Arabia...

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by INC

Let's remember the 2021 race in Saudi Arabia...

Or Canada 2008

[77T]

Hypothetically...
Agree that if RUS hadn't crashed then the maneuver would not have been noted.

We must remember the goal is safe & fair racing. So when RUS did crash, one is drawn to the maneuver.

We can't decide hypotheticals at races - only facts. Some facts come with consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Speedbird-1]

"We must remember the goal is safe & fair racing."

Brake testing, during a race, isn't noted?

[77T]

Sure - if it's visually obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jatco]

Loss of control mentioned re: Rus...and crashing out..

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by 77T

Hypothetically...
Agree that if RUS hadn't crashed then the maneuver would not have been noted.

We must remember the goal is safe & fair racing. So when RUS did crash, one is drawn to the maneuver.

We can't decide hypotheticals at races - only facts. Some facts come with consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Agree with your assessment Paul. If RUS just straight lines the corner, he's on the radio complaining, but no damage was done. The crash however puts closer scrutiny on the incident.

The difference in speed at the apex was only 200 KPH v 216 KPH but I saw the traces for 4 laps, the one in question and the 3 before. The lift from throttle was abrupt and even with the braking not being an issue on slowing the car according to the stewards, these cars carry so much DF that a simple lift can slow a car down enough. I don't consider it brake checking in it's purest sense and will stick by my previous assessment of being a bit naughty

Can I give credit to Martin Brundle? Without any telemetry he was able to see with the naked eye that Alonso slowed down in that corner, even though it was only 16 kph. Perhaps George should ask Martin for some pointers on how to assess that earlier.

[dba]

My wife called me from work this morning telling me Sainz had been DQ'd.
First thing I did was come here and see if Paul G (77T) had the info. Then she sent me a screen shot of what she'd read to me.

Somebody has a sense of humor.

[Andad]

Don't forget about one pair of gloves?

[prnceofpersia23]

Originally Posted by dba

My wife called me from work this morning telling me Sainz had been DQ'd.
First thing I did was come here and see if Paul G (77T) had the info. Then she sent me a screen shot of what she'd read to me.

Somebody has a sense of humor.

Signed, The Steworts

[77T]

And the Tifosi roar!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jatco]

Originally Posted by 77T

And the Tifosi roar!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Funny....!

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

We can't decide hypotheticals at races - only facts. Some facts come with consequences.

We had a very old cartoon, in which there was a saying:

"Never lower the fever as long as the patient is not hypothermic yet."

If we make the safety as the primary objective, then we have to concider to ban F1. This is the only way with which we can be sure, there can not be an incident. The second option is to ban the fight for the positions, the overtakings. Honestly, I can understand this goal, but it will lead to boring races, as all the cool guys will left the series, if it will look like a safety driving on a safety track.

Anyhow, of course I have not got so many information as the stewards had, so I can have an opinion only. But based on this video:



19 sec: When RUS lost control, ALO speed was the very same as it was in the previous lap.

32-37 sec: ALO did not slowed down in a short period of time. There was NO huge brake test.

37 sec: RUS was A WAY TOO FAR from ALO, when something happened WITH HIM.

36-37: RUS got scared to death by the curb, which has nothing to do with ALO, as he was very far at that point. Morover, they both went the same speed as the previous lap. This means, and can be proven, that there was no speed difference when that move was made, which led to the accident! RUS simply jerked the steering wheel to the left -> and this was the exact opposite of how he last took this turn. And exactly this move was the one, which would be not just a completely unnecessary, but a particularly bad, VERY LAME move from even a novice driver! This in itself proves, that ALO had nothing to do with this, since the distance between the cars clearly did NOT decrease at that point, and was very far ahaed which in itself makes it clear, that RUS move was completly unnecessary since RUS was not in a dangerous situation. Morover, such a huge left turn can NOT be treated as a trial to make an evasive move, it was a simply a fear from the kerb, which can be clearly seen from the video.

So my opinion in short: RUS acted as an amateur road driver, get frightened from the kerb, jerked the wheel to the left, and after this he dared to blame ALO for his rookie fault.

But that does not matter at all. My problem is, that ALO did not complained, which means, he's lost his interest in this series. It seems, that he's got enough, and so if the stewards will ruin his races, because he is too old for this new rules, then not only he, but all the interesting pilots will race in other series, in which they will let them:

RACE.

[77T]

Dang...why didn't we think of this?
Brilliant!!!
Let's just wait until Monday morning to assess all penalties after watching YouTube?...

Please don't take it personally - safe and fair driving is what I meant in context, of course. Over analyzing can miss the forest for the trees.

There is nothing safe about racing. Parts fail, tires fail, cars hit in places we never imagined.

But we can control behaviors that are potentially dangerous to make it clear where the line is drawn for the drivers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jatco]

See post 6105...

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

But we can control behaviors that are potentially dangerous to make it clear where the line is drawn for the drivers.

To achieve this goal, I think MB should fire the potentially dangerous frightened chicken and replace him with a cool big boy racer like ALO

[dba]

Originally Posted by Andad

Don't forget about one pair of gloves?

As my daughter, son in law and I were watching, we saw Carlos go over to his team and we saw the gloves go into that crowd. I told the kids that, that was a bad move as he's going to need those when he gets weighed. I did notice that someone from the team gave him a new pair prior to him stepping on the scale.

[SDGT3]

Damon Hill argues that penalizing drivers for doing "anything unexpected," as Fernando Alonso was penalized for in Australia, goes against the essence of racing.

Alonso finished sixth at the Australian Grand Prix but received a 20-second penalty afterward for driving deemed "potentially dangerous." Hill's perspective suggests that such penalties detract from the unpredictability and excitement inherent in racing.

“George got surprised, it looked to me that he was very surprised to find the closing speed to Fernando to be so great,”

“Or he just got too close, he was pushing too hard and got understeer because he was under his rear gearbox.”

“I do think this is where we get into the difficult area of what is racing and what is dastardly tricks.”

“I think you have to assume that the FIA want to stop people doing things that are potentially dangerous, but then it is dangerous! Motor racing is dangerous.”

“You have to be careful when you’re going for a move on someone, if you’re closing on them you’ve got to be prepared for them to do things that are gamesmanship.”

“I just think this has to be part of the sport, being wary of an individual because they’ve got form or they’re clever or whatever.”

“I just think the idea that you’ve got to stop people from doing anything unexpected, that’s not really racing.”

VIA: [PLANET F1: https://www.planetf1.com/news/damon-...racing-debate]

[piratfisk]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

Damon Hill argues that penalizing drivers for doing "anything unexpected," as Fernando Alonso was penalized for in Australia, goes against the essence of racing.

Alonso finished sixth at the Australian Grand Prix but received a 20-second penalty afterward for driving deemed "potentially dangerous." Hill's perspective suggests that such penalties detract from the unpredictability and excitement inherent in racing.

“George got surprised, it looked to me that he was very surprised to find the closing speed to Fernando to be so great,”

“Or he just got too close, he was pushing too hard and got understeer because he was under his rear gearbox.”

“I do think this is where we get into the difficult area of what is racing and what is dastardly tricks.”

“I think you have to assume that the FIA want to stop people doing things that are potentially dangerous, but then it is dangerous! Motor racing is dangerous.”

“You have to be careful when you’re going for a move on someone, if you’re closing on them you’ve got to be prepared for them to do things that are gamesmanship.”

“I just think this has to be part of the sport, being wary of an individual because they’ve got form or they’re clever or whatever.”

“I just think the idea that you’ve got to stop people from doing anything unexpected, that’s not really racing.”

VIA: [PLANET F1: https://www.planetf1.com/news/damon-...racing-debate]

This is a sound argument, I think. We (fans) have lamented for the past few years of how boring the sport has become (yet continue to watch, which is a separate issue). If ALO does something that is inherently exciting (anti-boring) & is consequently penalized for it, what is his motivation to make that move again? Regardless of if we (fans) deem the move exciting or not, the long-game in F1 of pit strategies & weighing whether or not to serve a penalty after the race or in the pits is worse, has made the sport less about out-and-out racing & more about "chess." Was ALO's move a little sketchy? Sure. Was it unsportsmanlike? No. Did RUS seem to get caught out by not "expecting the unexpected?" Absolutely.

[77T]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

Damon Hill argues that penalizing drivers for doing "anything unexpected," as Fernando Alonso was penalized for in Australia, goes against the essence of racing.

Alonso finished sixth at the Australian Grand Prix but received a 20-second penalty afterward for driving deemed "potentially dangerous." Hill's perspective suggests that such penalties detract from the unpredictability and excitement inherent in racing.

“George got surprised, it looked to me that he was very surprised to find the closing speed to Fernando to be so great,”

“Or he just got too close, he was pushing too hard and got understeer because he was under his rear gearbox.”

“I do think this is where we get into the difficult area of what is racing and what is dastardly tricks.”

“I think you have to assume that the FIA want to stop people doing things that are potentially dangerous, but then it is dangerous! Motor racing is dangerous.”

“You have to be careful when you’re going for a move on someone, if you’re closing on them you’ve got to be prepared for them to do things that are gamesmanship.”

“I just think this has to be part of the sport, being wary of an individual because they’ve got form or they’re clever or whatever.”

“I just think the idea that you’ve got to stop people from doing anything unexpected, that’s not really racing.”

VIA: [PLANET F1: https://www.planetf1.com/news/damon-...racing-debate]

I think that link is broken. Here's another I found to the Damon Hill commentary: https://www.planetf1.com/news/damon-...-racing-debate

I ascribe to the saying, Age and Treachery will trump Youth and Exuberance. It's strategy up until someone crosses the line.

Perhaps a little like the 1st Amendment - freedom of speech until it is potentially dangerous. Can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater as a hoax.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by 77T

I think that link is broken. Here's another I found to the Damon Hill commentary: https://www.planetf1.com/news/damon-...-racing-debate

I ascribe to the saying, Age and Treachery will trump Youth and Exuberance. It's strategy up until someone crosses the line.

Perhaps a little like the 1st Amendment - freedom of speech until it is potentially dangerous. Can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater as a hoax.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

We hold Alonso to a higher standard. But if the actions came from Alonso's teammate, Lance Stroll, or perhaps Nicholas Latifi, Mazpin, Logan Sergeant we're not exactly sure and perhaps the penalty is not applied.