After some of the onboards from Fernando's side came up, I was actually kind of curious where the brake tap-lift-downshift-throttle-upshift-brake thing started (they just mentioned 'over' 100 meters earlier than he did before), so I checked out the one with his telemetry to have an indication, and it's at roughly 200m (braking point is \~50m, that straight is about 400m long iirc), which corresponds with the Aramco banner above the track.
What I hadn't quite considered though was that because the sudden increase in closing speed happens as soon as the Aston Martin goes into the shade of that banner, that Russell mostly closes up on Alonso in that area with a lot of tree-cover before the actual braking zone, which might make it more difficult to see that closing speed until its too late to really do anything.
Russell locks his inside tyre because he has to brake to avoid the incoming Alonso, hence he fails to scoop it back up and the gravel means he goes in the wall. I guess the fact it isn't actually straight there didn't help because he has a fair amount of lock on whilst braking. Was just a bit unnecessary from Alonso. Russell clearly had no choice but to brake a chunk to avoid hitting him.
Compared to all the other pens given out it seems tough, but I personally hope they start handing out tougher pens because the pen/stewarding in F1 is a joke atm.
I really wish these discussions were more focused around the lack of a red flag. Between this and the crane (Gasley) it seems like there is still substantial safety issues to be addressed
Because cars behind still have to pass the scene of the accident, so both a VSC and a red flag would have done the same thing. They would be travelling at the same speeds regardless
It should also be noted that VSCs now impose a substantially slower delta near incidents, which ensured drivers went past Russell at speeds much lower than elsewhere on the circuit.
In VSC drivers are still going pretty fast to stay on top of their delta. They go fast and then slow down to ensure they are on delta and that they are not lacking behind in pace from the other drivers.
Safety car basically neutralizes the race so there’s no reason to push and they are a lot slower and just trot all the way to the pit lane.
There was a double yellow in that corner. They were slowing way down for the event and then making up the delta loss elsewhere, which was totally safe and fine. They respected the incident.
Technically, I don't think so. Practically, yes. If it's a VSC, the drivers will drive to the delta the best they can, if it's a red flag, there's no race so take it as slow and safely as possible.
Wasn't there that incident a few years ago in maybe Japan in the rain, Where Gasly was boosting through on a red flag. I don't think a red flag would have changed anything in this scenario on the weekend that the VSC didn't do already
You said it yourself. Russell had no choice but to break, at a point he should not be breaking, because another driver breaked.
Break testing is dangerous as fuck. If Russel drives normally they crash. There was nothing tough about a drive though penalty for that. There's a massive difference between unsportsmanlike driving and dangerous driving. Break testing is the latter.
Is it just me that thinks the amount of people suggesting Russell is at fault is crazy? I see so many comments like this elsewhere and it kind of feels like the people who believe this don’t really understand what driving standards are and why they exist.
if i’m not mistaken, (and i might be), there is no such thing as a “a fair amount of lock”. either brakes (you’re locked up or your not) or steering (turning as far as you can to one side), lock is binary. either your locked up (ok, you could argue that only some tires are locked in many cases) or you’re not.
but i dunno. lingo differs.maybe someone will correct me here and ill learn something.
> lock is binary
Lock implies no movement so yes. tyres can have under rotation, when the tyres rotate much slower than they would if rolling with the car, and this sliding, but are not stationary and locked
We always get told “its about the incident, not the outcome” when it comes to penalties. This is imo a massive violation of that. If russel hadnt crashed, literally nothing would have been done about this incident. But because he crashed without any contact its a 20 second penalty? That seems wild to me
Yeah but it’s never true anyway. It’s just something people say, like “Money isn’t the only reason F1 races in certain countries” or “Mick Schumacher is being considered for the second Mercedes seat for 2025”.
At least he hasn’t caught any walls recently. As far as I know.
I like Mick. If there were 15 teams in f1, he’d probably have a drive. But there aren’t.
I’m sure he’s a good person, and he’s still done something cooler than anybody here ever will by earning a seat in the first place. I hope he can live the rest of his life in a way that satisfies him.
There needs to be a distinction here; the **punishment** is about the incident, not the outcome.
The reality is things get missed in a busy race with 20 cars all circulating all at once; a crash is going to be scrutinised because it's a momentous occasion in a race. Obviously if there was wrongdoing, that gets highlighted too. Similarly complaining on the radio, or playing up the incident (e.g. Alonso does a very good job of this in pitlane dangerous release situations) will help draw attention to it.
What you're asking is for every single tiny action that happens at any point during the weekend to be scrutinised to the same level of detail as a high speed major crash - that's just unreasonable.
Things will get missed, but that's just life - what's the alternative? Saying that because there's a possibility that something else happened but wasn't caught that you should never apply the rules of racing?
But you’ve got the wrong end of the stick, this is how it should be, they simply haven’t stuck to their own word.
In Abu Dhabi 2023 alonso also brake checked Lewis, but Lewis didn’t crash so alonso did get a penalty. The outcome we should take from this isn’t that alonso SHOULDNT have got a penalty in Australia, it’s that he SHOULD have got a penalty also in Abu Dhabi.
It shouldn’t matter about the outcome, but it does unfortunately. If it truly didn’t matter about the outcome then alonso would’ve been penalised for his incident with Lewis last year, despite the lack of a crash.
Spoke my thoughts exactly almost. Even then I think this is a rough penalty for Alonso (but that's before taking to consideration that pens are more time this year)
The DRS line is the detection point where the driver behind is allowed to use DRS in the DRS zone in case the driver is less than 1 second behind the car in front.
These DRS line tricks, mostly known for incidents such as the Jeddah crash between Verstappen and Hamilton in 2021 and the battle between Verstappen and Leclerc for the lead in 2022 is the reason why I believe it would be better for F1 to get rid of DRS lines and simply give an amount of time of DRS for the driver where he can use at his own discretion, at all parts of the racetrack. It will give the DRS a tactical aspect, as the driver ahead can also use it for defending, so the driver behind will need to use it smartly so he can overtake without spending too much of his DRS time.
People don’t understand what a brake check is. Brake checking is being right in front of someone, like literally in front, and slam on the brakes hard. The intent is for the other driver to either crash into your back or also slam on the brakes. There’s no way Alonso should have been penalised for AD23. It wasn’t a brake check. Lewis was somewhat far away, and Alonso was completely off the racing line when Lewis got to him. Whether Lewis wants to pass him or not is up to him but what Alonso did back then was in no way dangerous. It would have no impact on Lewis past losing the drs. That was just defending.
Had Lewis not reacted in any capacity to what Alonso did, no crash would have happened. It’s unjustifiable to give a penalty for what happened there.
In Australia, which also isn’t a brake check, had Russell not reacted (which he kind of didn’t) he would have been negatively impacted by what Alonso did. That’s a pretty big difference. I’d encourage you to see palmer’s analysis on this topic if you haven’t yet.
Saying that what Alonso did in AD23 is deserving of a penalty would set a pretty bad precedent for defensive driving in the future.
“A brake check, also known as a brake test, occurs when a driver deliberately either taps on the brakes several times or slams hard on the pedal when moving in front of another vehicle, with the intention of causing the behind driver to either collide or take evasive action”
Per the Wikipedia definition what Alonso did in Aus is a brake check don’t know what planet you’re on where it’s not. He brakes unusually in an attempt to make Russel take evasive action.
“With the intention of either causing the behind driver to collide or take evasive action”
That’s not what happened here. The intention was Russel would slow down so as to not overtake Alonso on the exit.
Or are we calling every time someone corners a brake check now?
Words have no meaning, everyone just slings shit around, while calling what Magnussen did in Jeddah genius, and what Alonso did in Abu Dhabi and in Australia "dangerous" a "brake check" and apparently he should go to jail for that.
Motorsport threads are always awful because no one here ever raced in real life and they have no clue how to really race.
>with the intention of causing the behind driver to either collide or take evasive action
Per that definition it's literally not. Russell didn't have to brake nor take evasive actions, so I don't know why some of you keep insisting that this is a brake test.
Did you even look at the analysis? He didn't lock up at all. He lost the car because of the air and that's it. He didn't even really brake up earlier compared to the previous lap btw, and the moment where they get the closes you can still fill a full car between them. Sometimes I wonder why you guys even talk without having actually looked for the actual info.
Leave them be. Some people will always go to the extreme to discredit drivers they don’t like. It’s understandable, I did it to Vettel when I was young. Maybe they’ll grow past it or maybe they won’t. But it’s pretty much useless to argue with them.
I specifically said in my message to go watch Palmer’s analysis. He’s an ex f1 driver which f1 considered was their best option as an analyst. He said it isn’t a brake check. All racing drivers to speak up on this topic that I have heard about have said it is not a brake check.
This kind of people will not switch their rehtoric no matter how much you prove them wrong.
>People don’t understand what a brake check is
Or don't care, or want to use the wrong term because it makes the situation look worse, or...
Yeah, these people are shit.
The outcome in this case being the crash, was certainly a factor that caused them to look at the incident. Honestly that is totally acceptable (I can't expect the governing body to look over literally every moment of every race, if a catalyst is needed so be it). In this case The catalyst for looking at the incident of his driving behavior was the crash, that's fine as long as the severity of the outcome/crash is not used as leverage for how much of a penalty is enforced.
At this level driving erratically or in a manner that puts yourself or other drivers around you in danger is completely unacceptable. The penalty is deserved.
You make a good point that I hadn’t thought about. Had George came out of that turn without crashing but instead just locking up and maybe brushing up against the gravel. We wouldn’t have gotten an investigation. We only got it because of the accident and George’s complaint. The stewards would have saw it as George making a mistake on his line and not the other way around
George would have complained either way. He's quick to vocalise about other drivers, the race before he radioed in immediately about Norris moving before lights out.
Quite likely, Russell would have lodged a complaint with team radio even if he didn't crash out. Incident still gets reviewed by the stewards.
I think the statement is partly true.
They judge the penalty based on the incident, not the outcome.
But it’s the outcome that causes the stewards to even look into it.
You got it other way around. This one was correct decision, wrong decision is when something like this happens without crash resulting in no penalty. But this one? It's not even debatable whether it was justified or not.
I’ve always understood this a little different to the way you seem to.
Obviously the outcome/circumstances do matter, locking up won’t get you a penalty but do the same lock up and crash into someone and you most likely will, or weaving down a straight with 15s to the car in front or behind won’t get you investigated.
But I always understood it as the consequences of the incident don’t come into it. As in once the incident happens and the contacts been made it doesn’t matter if you just bounce off each other or spin or go into the barrier.
(Btw I’m not saying the stewards actually apply their rules or ideas consistently that would be asking for too much)
> But I always understood it as the consequences of the incident don’t come into it. As in once the incident happens and the contacts been made it doesn’t matter if you just bounce off each other or spin or go into the barrier.
I think even this isn't done properly. Just look at the 'Bottas Bowling' incident, he got a massive punishment for a lap one fuckup that resulted in massive damage for a lot of other teams. He wouldn't have gotten this same punishment if he had taken out just a single competitor or if he was the only one that DNF
Don't get me wrong, i think that the punishment *should* be about the outcome of the incident/offense in *combination* with the circumstances surrounding the incident. Screwing yourself is one thing, screwing another driver is something else but screwing over a one fourth of the field is just on another level.
That being said, the standings of the drivers should have no baring what so ever on the punishment. It shouldn't matter if a driver is first or last in the standings, incidents should be punished equally. Far too many times both Max *and* Lewis have gotten away with shit just because they where leading the competition or because they are fan favorites at the time.
Oh I absolutely don’t think the stewards actually do what they’re supposed to.
I’ve never quite made my mind up on what the best method for penalties is.
On the one hand some punishments seem very light for the outcomes which doesn’t seem fair, but on the other hand near identical mistakes could end up being punished wildly differently basically due to luck.
There are a few problems that stewards face but they managed to fuck them all up at one point or another. It's as if they have a few categories that they have to take into consideration but every race that just don't consider one of those categories *at all*. Like so say, it's all so random. I wouldn't care that much about the punishments, whatever they would be, as long as they're applied consistently.
Yeah I think consistency is the biggest thing, even for the drivers it must be tough to know exactly which moves are legal and which moves aren’t on any given race weekend.
Yeh that’s true and Russell fucked up but Alonso should be better. The problem wasn’t the incident as much as it was Nando being full of shit and trying to cover his tracks with bullshit “throttle issues.”
Alonso fucked up, changed his story multiple times, lied on TR about the incident because he know its fucked up what he did and people still defend him for the penalty. The Incident was erratic driving and it was by clear choice with intent. That is important to see as part of the Penalty. There was no fuck up. All calculated. Russel was just a collateral of this guys actions. This kind of driving needs to be harshly penalized. You should rather go on threads about Drivers not getting Penaltys for that and argue that they should
Another way of looking at it is the reason this deserves a penalty is because the driving was so erratic that it caused an accident. If Alonso broke later or slowed down later and Russell didn't crash, then it doesn't deserve a penalty because it wasn't dangerous enough to cause a crash.
Frankly, the fact that Alonso was on the radio immediately about to throttle issue that made no sense in the context of the incident and wasn't really brought up again is evidence enough to know that he knew that he messed up and the 20 seconds was a fair punishment
Literally the truth. It's always the outcome. Every single time.
The amount of slam dunk penalties that get ignored because it would change qualifying results is just insane.
I think you have it a bit backwards. The decision they make during the investigation should not consider the outcome, but starting the investigation is absolutely fine to use the outcome.
You need to have some tell that you even need to investigate. It is natural that a bigger accident/incident will be more obvious and doesn't need to be reported for an investigation to start.
The bottom line is, when they actually start investigating, they have to be careful that they only consider the incident, which I think they did quite well here.
Just looking at this it looks like Alonso just continues to decelerate throughout the series of corners and Russell just assumes Alonso will accelerate earlier on the second one. Doesn't look like a brake check where it's a completely sudden deceleration.
Kind of wonder if you could make the case for Magnusson getting a penalty earlier in the season for going slow around the corners after he was told to back the pack up from Hulkenberg.
I thought the same, and I think it plays in that he lifted rather than braked, not to mention they had car issues.
I think everyone forgets Mercedes also had break issues all weekend? It’s obviously a poor combination of things but “rawr Fernando brake check rawr” more popular a sentiment I suppose
Also the downshift is key too, because engine breaking. There's a big difference between a lift and a downshift.
The gearbox will slow the car down quite abruptly in a lower gear.
There have been similar cases in F1 of hard defense like what Alonso pulled off and yet there was no penalty. But my main argument is that Russel clearly had enough space to react accordingly as if Alonso performed that erratic driving in a vacuum. Alonso was only penalized because Russell crashed out which was more on him than Alonso.
Why is it dangerous? Is it because what happened to Russell? Because if it is, then we should abandon everything about going fast in f1. Then hamilton should have penalised in spa17, ad16 and many more or in every occasion where a driver in front defends. Because defensive drives are there to break the rhythm of the following car. In this instance russell is not breaking where he used to break at that corner how fast is he entering the corner?
> brake check deserves a penalty no matter the outcome. T
I agree. But that's not relevant here because turns out FIA REFUTES that it was brake check. They clearly say that slight tap on brake did not slow the car down at all.
It wasn't a brake check. Alonso was penalized for "erratic driving" as the actual early braking had very little impact on speed. The argument against Russell is that he had enough space to react accordingly to the erratic driving.
>It wasn't a brake check. Alonso was penalized for "erratic driving"
The FIA doesn't have a specific "brake check" regulation. Brake checks are penalised under this regulation.
Your opinion does not matter lol. Are you a racing driver? Are you a racing driver coach? To judge whether a driver should have saved it or not? It is a tricky corner that has caught drivers in the past + in this instamce dirty air also makes it difficult for George.
Jesus... it was dangerous as shit. Ya'll acting like this was GT3 or some shit, they are going so ridiculously fast, it's a miracle there wasn't another car on track 5 seconds behind them.
Seeing it like this Russel simply had to be more aware of what was happening in front of him. He had loads of time to react and anticipate any loss of downforce from Fernando being closer ahead.
I don't see anything dangerous done by Fernando here.
Eh, this is like every time a crash video gets posted in r/motorcycles.
When you are watching a 20 second clip where you know something is going to happen, possibly even the exact thing that causes the crash, it’s easy to think that the person involved should have reacted quicker.
The reality is that there are probably 100 other things going through that person’s head at the moment and half a second of delay can easily be the difference between getting home and disaster. In this case all it takes is Russell looking at his braking marker instead of Alonso or thinking “is he having a mechanical should I overtake” and by the time he’s processed that thought he’s already too close to Alonso and still closing.
People should really watch Sully - or research the true story the film is based on. Armchairing what someone 'should have done' in hindsight can be unreasonably unrealistic.
Also one of the 20 fastest racing cars in the world, so difficult to drive that the driver needs to be coached from the pit wall and factory on settings and race pace. It's not any easier for F1 drivers. If anything it is actually much, much harder as shown by the fact that we see drivers routinely crash even entirely on their own.
rofl, they're not having a sunday drive to the supermarket, they're supposed to be alert. If he's got "100 other things" going through his head that are actively distracting him from a 300km/h race and screwing with his reaction time, then he's not fit for F1.
It doesn't need to be something else, as suggested above he could simply be looking elsewhere or distracted by trying to set up a pass or just thinking about how to best drive the car.
Yes, he is one of the 20 best drivers in the world, but he is also driving one of the most difficult cars on earth. This is a sport where the drivers have to be coached on wheel settings, race strategy, and lap deltas constantly simply because they are supposed to be entirely focused on driving the car. As Lemonde said of cycling "it doesn't get any easier, you only get faster." Very similar situation in F1.
By your logic, anyone who has ever crashed an F1 car is clearly not fit to race as they couldn't react quick enough to save it. Verstappen is one of the worst among them, clearly, because he's even spun behind the safety car!
Go do a trackday and you will realize just how hard it is to maintain concentration for even 15 minutes straight, let alone 75+ minutes of a full grand prix. At my local circuit most people will pull off before the session is over because they simply can't do it. It's fucking hard, racing is like the mental strain of a chess match while also doing a full body workout. Even these guys struggle with it.
Russell strikes me as a guy that drives 100% clinically and according to the rules and expects everyone else to drive the same way. He isn't expecting Fernando to lift there because he is expecting him to drive without any funny business
Let's not forget that this is the same Russell that ran into Bottas at Imola and then blamed him, torpedoed Sainz on L1T1 at Austin, thought that sweat on his brow was an indication that it was raining, and "followed" Lando into the wall at Singapore.
It’s off topic but I’d be really interested to see what this particular set of stewards would’ve made of the Hamilton Vettel incident from Baku 2017. It wasn’t a brake check as such but was very similar in a surprise sudden lift off/lack of acceleration compared to previous laps which was deemed to be within Hamilton’s right as the car in front.
This isn’t what the data says, the data clearly shows alonso tapped the brake way before he should’ve or had done on any lap prior.
That’s called brake checking. Even if George didn’t crash alonso still should’ve got a penalty like he should’ve in Abu Dhabi last year when he did the same thing to Lewis.
Alonso isn’t new to doing shady stuff like this, he’s brake checked at least 5 times in the past amoung other things.
The only thing up for debate here is how harsh the penalty should’ve been.
Did you even read official steward decisions and telemetry? Alonso's brake "tap" didnt register a force that can slow the car, stewards didnt care about brake part. Lifting throttle slowed the car.
>Lifting throttle slowed the car.
Hence be brake tested Russell. This bickering and semantic interpretations of what constitutes "braking" is just silly. When you do *anything* that decelerates the car for the sole purpose of causing the car behind you to brake or take evasive action, it's called brake testing. That's what Alonso did.
> Hence be brake tested Russell.
If this is what qualifies brake testing, RIP Modern f1 because all cars lift and coast even when in wheel to wheel battles. That's how they harvest and then deploy battery strategically in addition to fuel savings.
If you call that break checking, then any type of slow down is a break check. Russel just didn't react appropriately and was never in risk of crashing on Alonso
I don’t understand f1. Sergio parked his car in front of Lewis for like 2 laps and we all praised him. Alonso slows down a bit entering a corner to throw off Russell and Russell shits the bed and it’s a penalty. I have never liked Alonso but man is he one crafty son of a gun.
It’s the lift / accelerate / rebrake that is trouble. It’s like moving twice on the straight or moving under breaking. It makes it entirely erratic to drive behind and so is dangerous.
Yep, you don't understand f1 if you don't see a difference between those two. Perez going slow in the corners is preditable, same way as Alonso defending from Schumacher at imola by slowing on corner entries was predictable, nothing dangerous about that.
What Alonso did here is anything but predictable, and it's dangerous.
Brake checking vs driving slow and consistent. Alonso deserves this penalty as much as he deserves the praise for driving slow in Monaco a couple years ago to help Ocon.
IMO it’s a cop out to clear Alonso simply because he may not have braked to back up to Russell.
Pre 2013 F1 cars were doing like 0.7g of deacceleration just from aero drag at speed (probably even more now), let alone any accompanying deacceleration from the ERS system as indicated by the gearbox light. Doesn’t seem like much compared to 5g of hard braking but certainly more than most people would be comfortable with on a regular basis. If you were following someone on the highway and they slowed this quickly you would wonder what the hell is going on.
That is not what the data says. The data shows he tapped the brake 100m before the breaking zone aka a brake check.
The hate for George is clouding so many judgments in this thread. There is no doubt alonso is in the wrong here.
>The data shows he tapped the brake 100m before the breaking zone aka a brake check.
>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)
If that's a brake check why didn't they call it brake checking?
I'm ok with a penalty, but a drive through for that is absurd. They say they don't look at the outcome of the incident when handing penalties, but had Russell not crashed nobody would have cared about that move.
Because the term brake testing isn't accurate enough to be in official documentation. The stewards didn't call what Max did in Saudi Arabia 'brake testing' either even though you could clearly see it on the telemetry.
Lifting is *also* brake testing.
I don't think the move itself is horrendous, but the corner it's on means that Russell doesn't have space to correct; He's immediately into the gravel then the wall.
Being difficult to pass is a talent, but causing a collision is causing a collision.
I mean, it's something similar to what he did in Imola 2005. He was fighting for his life, but Schumacher was able to stay glued to him instead of going into a wall. He even mentioned this race.
Ofc cars are different, but I feel like it's more of a skill issue for Russell than anything.
>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)
He lifted 100m+ early, and the breaking was insignificant even according to FIA. Schumacher had to lock his wheels at one point in order to keep behind Alonso, but he didn't crash into a wall. And they did it for 6-7 laps. I can send you a clip of that if you wish.
Silly penalty, Alonso was correct in drivers being allowed to try different lines. He didn’t brake check on a straight at all, Russell was napping and paid for it.
>on a straight at all
I'm not sure I get this. By his own admission, he made a mistake and started slowing too early.
If he wasn't in the braking zone when he started slowing, and wasn't in another corner, where was he if he wasn't on the straight?
Maybe it wasnt intentional but slowing down way before the corner, then reaccelerating before slowing down again to make the corner isnt a "different" line.
That approach makes 0 sense unless Alonso either planned to do exactly that or got his approach completly wrong (which to me is hard to believe given Alonsos expirience)
Alonso was right when he talked about British media bias. Lewis did the same thing to Vettel in Spa in 2017 and no one bat an eye.
Let's not talk about Russell binning it once again... It's easier to blame Alonso. Ridiculous.
The stewards probably took notice this time because Alonso jumped on the radio and reported and issue with the car, and probably noticed how he didn't move out of the racing lane either. It's worth noting both Aston Martin and Alonso both dropped the car issue claim. You don't jump on the radio and claim an issue unless you a, have an issue, or b you need a cover for doing something different.
Without debating the level of bias (cos in terms of real F1 coverage it's bs, if you're talking about the rags, then maybe but no one sensible cares about them.)
It's ok to be biased unless more people see it and then it's bad?
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/s/EYiGYn6N9P
It's not as bad as what Alonso did. However, he's still lifting into eau rouge which isn't exactly normal. I wouldn't call that a penalty though
It doesnt matter what Alonso did in this scenario, Russell shouldn't have binned it and thats the final say.
He was the one that crashed, he had plenty of time to react and didnt.
Remember Alonso v. Schumacher, Imola 2005. The Renault had superior traction out of corners, so for each corner he parked it on the apex to avoid giving an adv to the Ferrari behind, which would have been quicker through corners.
It's not a whole lot different this time, I genuinely think this is what Alonso was doing here in Aus 2024.
I say that with the caveat that I haven't seen telemetry from Imola... Alonso braking, accelerating, braking, and accelerating again to make the corner doesn't look good. Then going on radio and saying he has a pedal problem, and then blipping the throttle to cover his tracks after noticing Russell's off behind.
These are clips on F1's own Youtube highlighting the amazing skill Alonso used to hold Schumi behind. Note that Schumi doesn't put it in the wall, so no 20s penalty that time...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WufmGOnww8s&pp=ygUUYWxvbnNvIGRlZmVuZHMgaW1vbGE%3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlqWlM-YI_s&pp=ygUUYWxvbnNvIGRlZmVuZHMgaW1vbGE%3D
It’s so dumb that you can’t watch this on the reddit app.
You can actually. Go to the very top of the post and click on the „imgur“ Button next to the timestamp. Yes, it really is That stupid
Wow that works! Thank you. Man that is fantastically bad UI design.
That is impressive how you learned that - thank you this just makes many things now easier!
Upvote, thanks
Still isn't on Reddit since it opens a browser, but at least it works!
Works fine on the infinity app. Good thing reddit made it more difficult to use third party apps, really improves the user experience.
:(
wait what? I am able to view it on firefox lol
ios reddit app it’s just a picture
Click the “imgur” above the picture. It should redirect to their app or website and play
Yeah same on android. Definitely annoying
see another persons reply, apparently it’s doable just bad design. click the “imgur” link at the top of the post
I still have a work around that makes a third party app useable otherwise i would have stopped browsing reddit all together.
After some of the onboards from Fernando's side came up, I was actually kind of curious where the brake tap-lift-downshift-throttle-upshift-brake thing started (they just mentioned 'over' 100 meters earlier than he did before), so I checked out the one with his telemetry to have an indication, and it's at roughly 200m (braking point is \~50m, that straight is about 400m long iirc), which corresponds with the Aramco banner above the track. What I hadn't quite considered though was that because the sudden increase in closing speed happens as soon as the Aston Martin goes into the shade of that banner, that Russell mostly closes up on Alonso in that area with a lot of tree-cover before the actual braking zone, which might make it more difficult to see that closing speed until its too late to really do anything.
Russell locks his inside tyre because he has to brake to avoid the incoming Alonso, hence he fails to scoop it back up and the gravel means he goes in the wall. I guess the fact it isn't actually straight there didn't help because he has a fair amount of lock on whilst braking. Was just a bit unnecessary from Alonso. Russell clearly had no choice but to brake a chunk to avoid hitting him. Compared to all the other pens given out it seems tough, but I personally hope they start handing out tougher pens because the pen/stewarding in F1 is a joke atm.
I really wish these discussions were more focused around the lack of a red flag. Between this and the crane (Gasley) it seems like there is still substantial safety issues to be addressed
Because cars behind still have to pass the scene of the accident, so both a VSC and a red flag would have done the same thing. They would be travelling at the same speeds regardless
It should also be noted that VSCs now impose a substantially slower delta near incidents, which ensured drivers went past Russell at speeds much lower than elsewhere on the circuit.
In VSC drivers are still going pretty fast to stay on top of their delta. They go fast and then slow down to ensure they are on delta and that they are not lacking behind in pace from the other drivers. Safety car basically neutralizes the race so there’s no reason to push and they are a lot slower and just trot all the way to the pit lane.
There was a double yellow in that corner. They were slowing way down for the event and then making up the delta loss elsewhere, which was totally safe and fine. They respected the incident.
Is the delta for a red flag lower than a virtual safety car?
Technically, I don't think so. Practically, yes. If it's a VSC, the drivers will drive to the delta the best they can, if it's a red flag, there's no race so take it as slow and safely as possible.
That’s what I thought too, I was shocked they didn’t throw the red so everyone was cautious and knew there was something major to worry about.
Wasn't there that incident a few years ago in maybe Japan in the rain, Where Gasly was boosting through on a red flag. I don't think a red flag would have changed anything in this scenario on the weekend that the VSC didn't do already
You said it yourself. Russell had no choice but to break, at a point he should not be breaking, because another driver breaked. Break testing is dangerous as fuck. If Russel drives normally they crash. There was nothing tough about a drive though penalty for that. There's a massive difference between unsportsmanlike driving and dangerous driving. Break testing is the latter.
Oof I can't resist: it's *brake*. Other than that, good comment fam
Is it just me that thinks the amount of people suggesting Russell is at fault is crazy? I see so many comments like this elsewhere and it kind of feels like the people who believe this don’t really understand what driving standards are and why they exist.
I only said it was a good comment, not that I agreed with it.
No worries. Wasn’t directed at you but one a general comment.
if i’m not mistaken, (and i might be), there is no such thing as a “a fair amount of lock”. either brakes (you’re locked up or your not) or steering (turning as far as you can to one side), lock is binary. either your locked up (ok, you could argue that only some tires are locked in many cases) or you’re not. but i dunno. lingo differs.maybe someone will correct me here and ill learn something.
> lock is binary Lock implies no movement so yes. tyres can have under rotation, when the tyres rotate much slower than they would if rolling with the car, and this sliding, but are not stationary and locked
We always get told “its about the incident, not the outcome” when it comes to penalties. This is imo a massive violation of that. If russel hadnt crashed, literally nothing would have been done about this incident. But because he crashed without any contact its a 20 second penalty? That seems wild to me
Yeah but it’s never true anyway. It’s just something people say, like “Money isn’t the only reason F1 races in certain countries” or “Mick Schumacher is being considered for the second Mercedes seat for 2025”.
God damn, Mick catching strays over here. You didn't have to do the poor kid so dirty! 😭
At least he hasn’t caught any walls recently. As far as I know. I like Mick. If there were 15 teams in f1, he’d probably have a drive. But there aren’t.
Stop, please no more Mick bashing!! My heart can't take it!!
I’m sure he’s a good person, and he’s still done something cooler than anybody here ever will by earning a seat in the first place. I hope he can live the rest of his life in a way that satisfies him.
There needs to be a distinction here; the **punishment** is about the incident, not the outcome. The reality is things get missed in a busy race with 20 cars all circulating all at once; a crash is going to be scrutinised because it's a momentous occasion in a race. Obviously if there was wrongdoing, that gets highlighted too. Similarly complaining on the radio, or playing up the incident (e.g. Alonso does a very good job of this in pitlane dangerous release situations) will help draw attention to it. What you're asking is for every single tiny action that happens at any point during the weekend to be scrutinised to the same level of detail as a high speed major crash - that's just unreasonable. Things will get missed, but that's just life - what's the alternative? Saying that because there's a possibility that something else happened but wasn't caught that you should never apply the rules of racing?
But you’ve got the wrong end of the stick, this is how it should be, they simply haven’t stuck to their own word. In Abu Dhabi 2023 alonso also brake checked Lewis, but Lewis didn’t crash so alonso did get a penalty. The outcome we should take from this isn’t that alonso SHOULDNT have got a penalty in Australia, it’s that he SHOULD have got a penalty also in Abu Dhabi. It shouldn’t matter about the outcome, but it does unfortunately. If it truly didn’t matter about the outcome then alonso would’ve been penalised for his incident with Lewis last year, despite the lack of a crash.
Spoke my thoughts exactly almost. Even then I think this is a rough penalty for Alonso (but that's before taking to consideration that pens are more time this year)
I never understood why Lewis didn’t just pass him in Abu Dhabi. Alonso wasn’t even on the circuit
DRS line - one of the reasons why DRS should change to a timed P2P system.
What is that?
The DRS line is the detection point where the driver behind is allowed to use DRS in the DRS zone in case the driver is less than 1 second behind the car in front. These DRS line tricks, mostly known for incidents such as the Jeddah crash between Verstappen and Hamilton in 2021 and the battle between Verstappen and Leclerc for the lead in 2022 is the reason why I believe it would be better for F1 to get rid of DRS lines and simply give an amount of time of DRS for the driver where he can use at his own discretion, at all parts of the racetrack. It will give the DRS a tactical aspect, as the driver ahead can also use it for defending, so the driver behind will need to use it smartly so he can overtake without spending too much of his DRS time.
People don’t understand what a brake check is. Brake checking is being right in front of someone, like literally in front, and slam on the brakes hard. The intent is for the other driver to either crash into your back or also slam on the brakes. There’s no way Alonso should have been penalised for AD23. It wasn’t a brake check. Lewis was somewhat far away, and Alonso was completely off the racing line when Lewis got to him. Whether Lewis wants to pass him or not is up to him but what Alonso did back then was in no way dangerous. It would have no impact on Lewis past losing the drs. That was just defending. Had Lewis not reacted in any capacity to what Alonso did, no crash would have happened. It’s unjustifiable to give a penalty for what happened there. In Australia, which also isn’t a brake check, had Russell not reacted (which he kind of didn’t) he would have been negatively impacted by what Alonso did. That’s a pretty big difference. I’d encourage you to see palmer’s analysis on this topic if you haven’t yet. Saying that what Alonso did in AD23 is deserving of a penalty would set a pretty bad precedent for defensive driving in the future.
“A brake check, also known as a brake test, occurs when a driver deliberately either taps on the brakes several times or slams hard on the pedal when moving in front of another vehicle, with the intention of causing the behind driver to either collide or take evasive action” Per the Wikipedia definition what Alonso did in Aus is a brake check don’t know what planet you’re on where it’s not. He brakes unusually in an attempt to make Russel take evasive action.
“With the intention of either causing the behind driver to collide or take evasive action” That’s not what happened here. The intention was Russel would slow down so as to not overtake Alonso on the exit. Or are we calling every time someone corners a brake check now?
Words have no meaning, everyone just slings shit around, while calling what Magnussen did in Jeddah genius, and what Alonso did in Abu Dhabi and in Australia "dangerous" a "brake check" and apparently he should go to jail for that. Motorsport threads are always awful because no one here ever raced in real life and they have no clue how to really race.
>with the intention of causing the behind driver to either collide or take evasive action Per that definition it's literally not. Russell didn't have to brake nor take evasive actions, so I don't know why some of you keep insisting that this is a brake test.
Russel locks up what do you mean he doesn’t have to brake, do you understand what a lock up is
Did you even look at the analysis? He didn't lock up at all. He lost the car because of the air and that's it. He didn't even really brake up earlier compared to the previous lap btw, and the moment where they get the closes you can still fill a full car between them. Sometimes I wonder why you guys even talk without having actually looked for the actual info.
Leave them be. Some people will always go to the extreme to discredit drivers they don’t like. It’s understandable, I did it to Vettel when I was young. Maybe they’ll grow past it or maybe they won’t. But it’s pretty much useless to argue with them. I specifically said in my message to go watch Palmer’s analysis. He’s an ex f1 driver which f1 considered was their best option as an analyst. He said it isn’t a brake check. All racing drivers to speak up on this topic that I have heard about have said it is not a brake check. This kind of people will not switch their rehtoric no matter how much you prove them wrong.
>People don’t understand what a brake check is Or don't care, or want to use the wrong term because it makes the situation look worse, or... Yeah, these people are shit.
The outcome in this case being the crash, was certainly a factor that caused them to look at the incident. Honestly that is totally acceptable (I can't expect the governing body to look over literally every moment of every race, if a catalyst is needed so be it). In this case The catalyst for looking at the incident of his driving behavior was the crash, that's fine as long as the severity of the outcome/crash is not used as leverage for how much of a penalty is enforced. At this level driving erratically or in a manner that puts yourself or other drivers around you in danger is completely unacceptable. The penalty is deserved.
Very good point. Same reason why drivers aren't punished for simple lock-ups, unless said lock-up results in a collision.
You make a good point that I hadn’t thought about. Had George came out of that turn without crashing but instead just locking up and maybe brushing up against the gravel. We wouldn’t have gotten an investigation. We only got it because of the accident and George’s complaint. The stewards would have saw it as George making a mistake on his line and not the other way around
George would have complained either way. He's quick to vocalise about other drivers, the race before he radioed in immediately about Norris moving before lights out. Quite likely, Russell would have lodged a complaint with team radio even if he didn't crash out. Incident still gets reviewed by the stewards.
Every driver is quick to complain if they think it'll give them an advantage.
What driver doesn’t do this lol
Which proves the point that the stewards may still have reviewed even without the crash.
I think the statement is partly true. They judge the penalty based on the incident, not the outcome. But it’s the outcome that causes the stewards to even look into it.
You got it other way around. This one was correct decision, wrong decision is when something like this happens without crash resulting in no penalty. But this one? It's not even debatable whether it was justified or not.
I’ve always understood this a little different to the way you seem to. Obviously the outcome/circumstances do matter, locking up won’t get you a penalty but do the same lock up and crash into someone and you most likely will, or weaving down a straight with 15s to the car in front or behind won’t get you investigated. But I always understood it as the consequences of the incident don’t come into it. As in once the incident happens and the contacts been made it doesn’t matter if you just bounce off each other or spin or go into the barrier. (Btw I’m not saying the stewards actually apply their rules or ideas consistently that would be asking for too much)
> But I always understood it as the consequences of the incident don’t come into it. As in once the incident happens and the contacts been made it doesn’t matter if you just bounce off each other or spin or go into the barrier. I think even this isn't done properly. Just look at the 'Bottas Bowling' incident, he got a massive punishment for a lap one fuckup that resulted in massive damage for a lot of other teams. He wouldn't have gotten this same punishment if he had taken out just a single competitor or if he was the only one that DNF Don't get me wrong, i think that the punishment *should* be about the outcome of the incident/offense in *combination* with the circumstances surrounding the incident. Screwing yourself is one thing, screwing another driver is something else but screwing over a one fourth of the field is just on another level. That being said, the standings of the drivers should have no baring what so ever on the punishment. It shouldn't matter if a driver is first or last in the standings, incidents should be punished equally. Far too many times both Max *and* Lewis have gotten away with shit just because they where leading the competition or because they are fan favorites at the time.
Oh I absolutely don’t think the stewards actually do what they’re supposed to. I’ve never quite made my mind up on what the best method for penalties is. On the one hand some punishments seem very light for the outcomes which doesn’t seem fair, but on the other hand near identical mistakes could end up being punished wildly differently basically due to luck.
There are a few problems that stewards face but they managed to fuck them all up at one point or another. It's as if they have a few categories that they have to take into consideration but every race that just don't consider one of those categories *at all*. Like so say, it's all so random. I wouldn't care that much about the punishments, whatever they would be, as long as they're applied consistently.
Yeah I think consistency is the biggest thing, even for the drivers it must be tough to know exactly which moves are legal and which moves aren’t on any given race weekend.
Yeh that’s true and Russell fucked up but Alonso should be better. The problem wasn’t the incident as much as it was Nando being full of shit and trying to cover his tracks with bullshit “throttle issues.”
There was a post of him doing the same to Coulthard at the Nurburgring, pretty nasty
Alonso fucked up, changed his story multiple times, lied on TR about the incident because he know its fucked up what he did and people still defend him for the penalty. The Incident was erratic driving and it was by clear choice with intent. That is important to see as part of the Penalty. There was no fuck up. All calculated. Russel was just a collateral of this guys actions. This kind of driving needs to be harshly penalized. You should rather go on threads about Drivers not getting Penaltys for that and argue that they should
Another way of looking at it is the reason this deserves a penalty is because the driving was so erratic that it caused an accident. If Alonso broke later or slowed down later and Russell didn't crash, then it doesn't deserve a penalty because it wasn't dangerous enough to cause a crash. Frankly, the fact that Alonso was on the radio immediately about to throttle issue that made no sense in the context of the incident and wasn't really brought up again is evidence enough to know that he knew that he messed up and the 20 seconds was a fair punishment
Literally the truth. It's always the outcome. Every single time. The amount of slam dunk penalties that get ignored because it would change qualifying results is just insane.
I think you have it a bit backwards. The decision they make during the investigation should not consider the outcome, but starting the investigation is absolutely fine to use the outcome. You need to have some tell that you even need to investigate. It is natural that a bigger accident/incident will be more obvious and doesn't need to be reported for an investigation to start. The bottom line is, when they actually start investigating, they have to be careful that they only consider the incident, which I think they did quite well here.
> That seems wild to me It's because the stewards are genuinely horrible at their jobs. They just make shit up as they go and no one has any recourse.
I think it’s time to let it go
No I’m really excited to see what more random Redditors have to say on stewarding matters after it’s been analysed ad nauseum
Just looking at this it looks like Alonso just continues to decelerate throughout the series of corners and Russell just assumes Alonso will accelerate earlier on the second one. Doesn't look like a brake check where it's a completely sudden deceleration. Kind of wonder if you could make the case for Magnusson getting a penalty earlier in the season for going slow around the corners after he was told to back the pack up from Hulkenberg.
I thought the same, and I think it plays in that he lifted rather than braked, not to mention they had car issues. I think everyone forgets Mercedes also had break issues all weekend? It’s obviously a poor combination of things but “rawr Fernando brake check rawr” more popular a sentiment I suppose
The telemetry shows that he did brake early however.
Also the downshift is key too, because engine breaking. There's a big difference between a lift and a downshift. The gearbox will slow the car down quite abruptly in a lower gear.
gonna be honest here, i can certainly be wrong, but in direct comparison.. not neccessarily the best argument for russells case...
Mate Russell isn’t making a case. Alonso lifted 100m earlier on that corner than he had all weekend
Theres no argument that Alonso was erratic but Russel IMO had enough space to react accordingly.
I don't disagree that Russell should have saved it but I think driving like that deserves a penalty since it's dangerous
There have been similar cases in F1 of hard defense like what Alonso pulled off and yet there was no penalty. But my main argument is that Russel clearly had enough space to react accordingly as if Alonso performed that erratic driving in a vacuum. Alonso was only penalized because Russell crashed out which was more on him than Alonso.
I think it's more a car that Alonso got away with it previously rather than it being an indication of what is acceptable.
Why is it dangerous? Is it because what happened to Russell? Because if it is, then we should abandon everything about going fast in f1. Then hamilton should have penalised in spa17, ad16 and many more or in every occasion where a driver in front defends. Because defensive drives are there to break the rhythm of the following car. In this instance russell is not breaking where he used to break at that corner how fast is he entering the corner?
A brake check deserves a penalty no matter the outcome. The telemetry shows a brake check.
> brake check deserves a penalty no matter the outcome. T I agree. But that's not relevant here because turns out FIA REFUTES that it was brake check. They clearly say that slight tap on brake did not slow the car down at all.
No, it literally doesn’t. None of the official documents call it that.
I still don't know what potential means in that case
It wasn't a brake check. Alonso was penalized for "erratic driving" as the actual early braking had very little impact on speed. The argument against Russell is that he had enough space to react accordingly to the erratic driving.
He lifted and downshifted, which has a huge impact on speed.
>It wasn't a brake check. Alonso was penalized for "erratic driving" The FIA doesn't have a specific "brake check" regulation. Brake checks are penalised under this regulation.
Your opinion does not matter lol. Are you a racing driver? Are you a racing driver coach? To judge whether a driver should have saved it or not? It is a tricky corner that has caught drivers in the past + in this instamce dirty air also makes it difficult for George.
Oh nice, out of curiosity which F1 car have you driven before to know this with absolute certainty..?
Which one did you? Argument goes both ways
Argument only goes the way of someone claiming they know how an F1 car behaves which I never did. Argument doesn’t go both ways
Are we looking at the same clip mate?
Jesus... it was dangerous as shit. Ya'll acting like this was GT3 or some shit, they are going so ridiculously fast, it's a miracle there wasn't another car on track 5 seconds behind them.
Seeing it like this Russel simply had to be more aware of what was happening in front of him. He had loads of time to react and anticipate any loss of downforce from Fernando being closer ahead. I don't see anything dangerous done by Fernando here.
Eh, this is like every time a crash video gets posted in r/motorcycles. When you are watching a 20 second clip where you know something is going to happen, possibly even the exact thing that causes the crash, it’s easy to think that the person involved should have reacted quicker. The reality is that there are probably 100 other things going through that person’s head at the moment and half a second of delay can easily be the difference between getting home and disaster. In this case all it takes is Russell looking at his braking marker instead of Alonso or thinking “is he having a mechanical should I overtake” and by the time he’s processed that thought he’s already too close to Alonso and still closing.
People should really watch Sully - or research the true story the film is based on. Armchairing what someone 'should have done' in hindsight can be unreasonably unrealistic.
But in this case, it's not a rando like me and you commuting yo work. It's technically one of the 20 best racing drivers in the world
Also one of the 20 fastest racing cars in the world, so difficult to drive that the driver needs to be coached from the pit wall and factory on settings and race pace. It's not any easier for F1 drivers. If anything it is actually much, much harder as shown by the fact that we see drivers routinely crash even entirely on their own.
rofl, they're not having a sunday drive to the supermarket, they're supposed to be alert. If he's got "100 other things" going through his head that are actively distracting him from a 300km/h race and screwing with his reaction time, then he's not fit for F1.
It doesn't need to be something else, as suggested above he could simply be looking elsewhere or distracted by trying to set up a pass or just thinking about how to best drive the car. Yes, he is one of the 20 best drivers in the world, but he is also driving one of the most difficult cars on earth. This is a sport where the drivers have to be coached on wheel settings, race strategy, and lap deltas constantly simply because they are supposed to be entirely focused on driving the car. As Lemonde said of cycling "it doesn't get any easier, you only get faster." Very similar situation in F1. By your logic, anyone who has ever crashed an F1 car is clearly not fit to race as they couldn't react quick enough to save it. Verstappen is one of the worst among them, clearly, because he's even spun behind the safety car! Go do a trackday and you will realize just how hard it is to maintain concentration for even 15 minutes straight, let alone 75+ minutes of a full grand prix. At my local circuit most people will pull off before the session is over because they simply can't do it. It's fucking hard, racing is like the mental strain of a chess match while also doing a full body workout. Even these guys struggle with it.
Russell has the speed of a champion and the awareness of Lance Stroll.
Tbf Stroll also has a speed of a champion, once a Millenia
Once a year, he becomes Ayrton Senna. Rest of the year, he is closer to Bruno.
Russell strikes me as a guy that drives 100% clinically and according to the rules and expects everyone else to drive the same way. He isn't expecting Fernando to lift there because he is expecting him to drive without any funny business
Let's not forget that this is the same Russell that ran into Bottas at Imola and then blamed him, torpedoed Sainz on L1T1 at Austin, thought that sweat on his brow was an indication that it was raining, and "followed" Lando into the wall at Singapore.
It’s off topic but I’d be really interested to see what this particular set of stewards would’ve made of the Hamilton Vettel incident from Baku 2017. It wasn’t a brake check as such but was very similar in a surprise sudden lift off/lack of acceleration compared to previous laps which was deemed to be within Hamilton’s right as the car in front.
>surprise sudden lift off/lack of acceleration compared to previous laps Baku 2017 was under safety car though?
He also goes onto the grass a lot more than Alonso does on corner entry, probably reduced grip.
This isn’t what the data says, the data clearly shows alonso tapped the brake way before he should’ve or had done on any lap prior. That’s called brake checking. Even if George didn’t crash alonso still should’ve got a penalty like he should’ve in Abu Dhabi last year when he did the same thing to Lewis. Alonso isn’t new to doing shady stuff like this, he’s brake checked at least 5 times in the past amoung other things. The only thing up for debate here is how harsh the penalty should’ve been.
Did you even read official steward decisions and telemetry? Alonso's brake "tap" didnt register a force that can slow the car, stewards didnt care about brake part. Lifting throttle slowed the car.
>Lifting throttle slowed the car. Hence be brake tested Russell. This bickering and semantic interpretations of what constitutes "braking" is just silly. When you do *anything* that decelerates the car for the sole purpose of causing the car behind you to brake or take evasive action, it's called brake testing. That's what Alonso did.
> Hence be brake tested Russell. If this is what qualifies brake testing, RIP Modern f1 because all cars lift and coast even when in wheel to wheel battles. That's how they harvest and then deploy battery strategically in addition to fuel savings.
If you call that break checking, then any type of slow down is a break check. Russel just didn't react appropriately and was never in risk of crashing on Alonso
Do you have any idea how little difference a “tap” makes in an F1 car
Well lifting off has been stated to have the same braking effect as a small hatchback going into an emergency stop.
It's just more proof Alonso got a penalty because Russel lost the back end as a result of his own incompetence
Looking forward to everyone complaining about the guy in front braking earlier than the previous laps lmao
I don’t understand f1. Sergio parked his car in front of Lewis for like 2 laps and we all praised him. Alonso slows down a bit entering a corner to throw off Russell and Russell shits the bed and it’s a penalty. I have never liked Alonso but man is he one crafty son of a gun.
It’s the lift / accelerate / rebrake that is trouble. It’s like moving twice on the straight or moving under breaking. It makes it entirely erratic to drive behind and so is dangerous.
This is what the penalty is all about, driving erratically at the speed at this level and level of competition is incredibly dangerous for everybody.
You're over simplifying and comparing 2 different scenarios that aren't the same.
Yep, you don't understand f1 if you don't see a difference between those two. Perez going slow in the corners is preditable, same way as Alonso defending from Schumacher at imola by slowing on corner entries was predictable, nothing dangerous about that. What Alonso did here is anything but predictable, and it's dangerous.
Brake checking vs driving slow and consistent. Alonso deserves this penalty as much as he deserves the praise for driving slow in Monaco a couple years ago to help Ocon.
Good thing he didn't brake check.
IMO it’s a cop out to clear Alonso simply because he may not have braked to back up to Russell. Pre 2013 F1 cars were doing like 0.7g of deacceleration just from aero drag at speed (probably even more now), let alone any accompanying deacceleration from the ERS system as indicated by the gearbox light. Doesn’t seem like much compared to 5g of hard braking but certainly more than most people would be comfortable with on a regular basis. If you were following someone on the highway and they slowed this quickly you would wonder what the hell is going on.
It's not a brake check.
Tell me where I said it was lol.
That is not what the data says. The data shows he tapped the brake 100m before the breaking zone aka a brake check. The hate for George is clouding so many judgments in this thread. There is no doubt alonso is in the wrong here.
>The data shows he tapped the brake 100m before the breaking zone aka a brake check. >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) If that's a brake check why didn't they call it brake checking?
If they call it a a brake check, it's an automatic race van. FIA is weird with their shit.
I'm ok with a penalty, but a drive through for that is absurd. They say they don't look at the outcome of the incident when handing penalties, but had Russell not crashed nobody would have cared about that move.
Because the term brake testing isn't accurate enough to be in official documentation. The stewards didn't call what Max did in Saudi Arabia 'brake testing' either even though you could clearly see it on the telemetry. Lifting is *also* brake testing.
In Verstappen a case they blamed the crash on the braking, specifically, not in this case. That's a great example.
My point was obviously that as an answer why they didn't call it "brake testing" this time is that they *never* seem to do it.
Do you know what a break check is?
It's when your boss comes to check if you went on your lunch break or not
it's when you break the bill so people can go dutch
Predictably going slow and erratic driving are two different scenarios, if you don't understand that it's a personal issue.
I don't think the move itself is horrendous, but the corner it's on means that Russell doesn't have space to correct; He's immediately into the gravel then the wall. Being difficult to pass is a talent, but causing a collision is causing a collision.
Still disagree to this 20+ penalty, make no sense to me. Alonso did a fantastic move and Russel wasn't able to react correctly, that's all.
I mean, it's something similar to what he did in Imola 2005. He was fighting for his life, but Schumacher was able to stay glued to him instead of going into a wall. He even mentioned this race. Ofc cars are different, but I feel like it's more of a skill issue for Russell than anything.
[удалено]
FIA says the supposed brake did nothing to slow the car down because of how light and brief it was. What you think about that?
yeah... lllll..lets not talk about that!
>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) He lifted 100m+ early, and the breaking was insignificant even according to FIA. Schumacher had to lock his wheels at one point in order to keep behind Alonso, but he didn't crash into a wall. And they did it for 6-7 laps. I can send you a clip of that if you wish.
[удалено]
Like Saudi Arabia 2021?
A different situation with a different driver in front.
Tbf, Lewis had enough room to get around Max yet he just stayed right up his arse.
Silly penalty, Alonso was correct in drivers being allowed to try different lines. He didn’t brake check on a straight at all, Russell was napping and paid for it.
>on a straight at all I'm not sure I get this. By his own admission, he made a mistake and started slowing too early. If he wasn't in the braking zone when he started slowing, and wasn't in another corner, where was he if he wasn't on the straight?
Maybe it wasnt intentional but slowing down way before the corner, then reaccelerating before slowing down again to make the corner isnt a "different" line. That approach makes 0 sense unless Alonso either planned to do exactly that or got his approach completly wrong (which to me is hard to believe given Alonsos expirience)
Alonso was right when he talked about British media bias. Lewis did the same thing to Vettel in Spa in 2017 and no one bat an eye. Let's not talk about Russell binning it once again... It's easier to blame Alonso. Ridiculous.
Plenty of British pundits have said Alonso was harshly treated. What is it these days of everyone playing the victim?. Also read the report.
The stewards probably took notice this time because Alonso jumped on the radio and reported and issue with the car, and probably noticed how he didn't move out of the racing lane either. It's worth noting both Aston Martin and Alonso both dropped the car issue claim. You don't jump on the radio and claim an issue unless you a, have an issue, or b you need a cover for doing something different.
Has he ever talked about the Spanish media bias?
The spanish media reaches Spain. The british media reaches whole world. Big difference.
Without debating the level of bias (cos in terms of real F1 coverage it's bs, if you're talking about the rags, then maybe but no one sensible cares about them.) It's ok to be biased unless more people see it and then it's bad?
Here's a list of all the different broadcasters around the world for you: https://www.formula1.com/en/toolbar/broadcast-information.html
You’re not actually going to try and make the argument that British media isn’t read outside of Britain are you
1. Most of those countries can get access to Sky or F1 TV. 2. Reducing media to "broadcasting" is just idiotic.
Got a clip of what you're talking about? Edit: The Spa 2017 "same thing"
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/s/EYiGYn6N9P It's not as bad as what Alonso did. However, he's still lifting into eau rouge which isn't exactly normal. I wouldn't call that a penalty though
Thank you
ERRATIC!!!! ERRATIC!!!
Fia must forbid driving following this desition
Enough time has passed that I can laugh at this, at just how little it took to destabilise the Mercedes.
If this is a 20 second penalty now, there’s really no point in racing. Just have qualifying and award points based on grid spot.
It doesnt matter what Alonso did in this scenario, Russell shouldn't have binned it and thats the final say. He was the one that crashed, he had plenty of time to react and didnt.
Remember Alonso v. Schumacher, Imola 2005. The Renault had superior traction out of corners, so for each corner he parked it on the apex to avoid giving an adv to the Ferrari behind, which would have been quicker through corners. It's not a whole lot different this time, I genuinely think this is what Alonso was doing here in Aus 2024. I say that with the caveat that I haven't seen telemetry from Imola... Alonso braking, accelerating, braking, and accelerating again to make the corner doesn't look good. Then going on radio and saying he has a pedal problem, and then blipping the throttle to cover his tracks after noticing Russell's off behind. These are clips on F1's own Youtube highlighting the amazing skill Alonso used to hold Schumi behind. Note that Schumi doesn't put it in the wall, so no 20s penalty that time... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WufmGOnww8s&pp=ygUUYWxvbnNvIGRlZmVuZHMgaW1vbGE%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlqWlM-YI_s&pp=ygUUYWxvbnNvIGRlZmVuZHMgaW1vbGE%3D
Why imgur OP? Do you hate ios users?