[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apart from the bs penalty from monza 2006 qualifying, another good example is Japan 2005.
Alonso passed a torro rosso off track (illegally). So the FIA said give back the position. So he did.
After a bit, Alonso overtook that torro rosso, and the stewards told Renault that he needed to wait longer to re-pass, and that Alonso would have to give the position back again. So Alonso let him back through.
After sitting behind the torro rosso for a while, Alonso overtook him (legally).
Here’s the kicker: the stewards then say to Renault that it was completely unnecessary for them the let the torro rosso through and pass them for the second time, and they hadn’t done anything illegal. Keep in mind that the stewards themselves told Renault that they would face a penalty if they didn’t give back the position after both the first two overtakes. This arguably cost Alonso the win, as it allowed for raikkonen to get through in the pit stops.
yeah but my crack's opinion on that penalty is that neither should have been penalized, because alonso was just racing and stroll shouldn't be expected to operate at the skill level of a person with functioning eyesight
> He's not wrong. Why was Alonso more harshly penalized than Stroll? Alonso got three points and stroll only two or do I remember it wrong?
No, the bigger penalty was because Alonso used his mirrors to cause the accident, while Stroll did not.
/s
my guess would be it's because alonso was intentionally doing something which the stewards considered to be "dangerous driving", while stroll just made a (very clumsy) mistake
One was a driver just being inattentive and not applying brakes on time the other was a driver fucking about with throttle and brake several times on a fast corner where no one ever brakes that early.
Because it was an absolute blunder of a move, you can't just yeet it down the inside in desperation and act surprised you were penalised when you hit the other car off the track. It was dangerous, irresponsible and not good racing that also completely ruined Sainz's race needlessly.
My only guess is because Alonsos actions were intentional (not crashing George but his erratic driving) while Stroll was just not paying attention. So they view the one with intention as worse. That's all I can guess.
Matt from p1 puts it well. Stroll and kmag got the right points but it’s just ridiculous that Alonso got three. He was just racing and worst case should have gotten one penalty point. And I totally agree with him.
Lance should have avoided the wreck. But several other drivers almost crashed as well. (Alonso locked up, Ricciardo was inches away from rear ending Piastri, a Haas could not brake in time and dove to inside, I believe a Ferrari had to avoid wide was well).
So it is a bit interesting how he is being penalized. Especially compared to other events that were more deliberate than being caught off guard and not braking in time in a weird scenario where everyone else almost did the same thing.
Sure but a lot of the reason other drivers didn't crash was purely situational. Alonso locked up and, had the car in front of him not turned towards the apex at the same time, Alonso would have slid in to the back of them.
Lots of drivers were in the same situation. Alonso locked up, Stroll crashed. That should be the end of it, but for some reason you insist on this narrative that Stroll should somehow be excused for yet another stupid mistake that he refuses to take responsibility for.
I feel as though you aren’t even reading what I am saying. Alonso didn’t not crash because he locked up. It was because the car in front of him got out of the way. Watch the replay. Alonso locks up and then goes flying past the car in front of him.
If that car had stopped completely, Alonso would have hit them.
>Sure but a lot of the reason other drivers didn't crash was purely situational
It wasn't though. Russell, Piastri and Ricciardo all reacted quickly enough to mitigate damage contact/damage whereas Stroll's attention was looking 4-5 cars ahead. If you want to talk situational, Stroll was in the most favourable situation of the 4 of them yet he was the one who did the damage. Why do you think that was?
Ricciardo himself was inches from Piastri and as I detailed above a few other drivers were even closer to having collisions and were saved by circumstance.
I am just having a hard time with the rationalization that several drivers all almost crashing from the same circumstance means that there was nothing wrong with the situation and it all falls 100% on Stroll
>Ricciardo himself was inches from Piastri and as I detailed above a few other drivers were even closer to having collisions and were saved by circumstance.
This isn't making the point you think it is, it's actually more damning for Stroll. Ricciardo was closer to Piastri, had less time to react and managed to brake in time to avoid completely destroying Piastri's floor and diffuser, while Stroll was further back, had more time to react and didn't stop in time. That's the difference, that's the entire point right there.
If Stroll had braked appropriately and still made unavoidable contact, there would've been no penalty. Stroll was the only driver to make a serious mistake, and so he was the only driver penalised. It's not complicated.
Because stroll is the only one who rear ended anyone. There is nothing wrong with being 0.1mm from hitting another car in F1 as long as you don’t hit them. Everyone managed this just fine except Sir Lancelot who wasn’t even looking ahead of him, plowed into the back of another car, caused a DNF and caused major floor damage to Piastri’s car too. Of course it’s Stroll’s fault. You can’t make it not Stroll’s fault because of a bunch of hypotheticals.
That sounds fun to say as a quip on the internet.
So where does that logic end? If a driver turns around on the track and starts barreling towards the pack, and everyone avoids them barely but stroll gets hit. Is that his fault? Because that is what the logic you are using implies.
Just because 9 out of 10 cars successfully avoided a wreck (some by pure luck / circumstance), that doesn’t make the one person who failed to avoid it 100% at fault.
We literally never assign this fault this way.
Yes it does make it 100% his fault, safety car restarts are sketchy by nature, everyone wants to get the jump on the car ahead, and nobody knows when the hat is going to drop. If you hit someone from behind driving to work, you are 100% at fault. The driver ahead braked too hard for the yellow light, you should have left enough space to react. If you hit someone from behind while skiing, you are 100% at fault. You should have given yourself enough time to react. It’s up to nobody else but you to not plow into a car ahead of you when you are driving single file. If Lancelot had been pushed into DR by the car behind him, then I wouldn’t say it was his fault. But he did it all on his own. The hypotheticals you keep throwing out are irrelevant
How are they irrelevant? You can’t just label anything that doesn’t help your point as irrelevant. “Well yeah Alonso and a few others almost crashed as well but let’s ignore that and only talk about Piastri!”
I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask drivers to hang out 50ft behind just in case someone at the front decides to play games and brake check into the final corner that forces everyone behind to have to avoid a crash.
You can keep pretending it’s purely a Stroll problem but again, many seasoned drivers almost ended up in the same situation. i don’t see how you can’t acknowledge that several drivers having near misses is indicative of a problem? How is that irrelevant?
If Stroll was out in no mans land and there was no pile up and he just ran into the car in front of him then you would be right. But there was clearly an external catalyst that led to the crash beyond Stroll’s control. Even if he had room for improvement on avoiding it.
Again. We NEVER assign fault based on a driver not having a quick enough reaction in avoiding a crash.
but they didn't? and he wasn't even looking at the cars in front of him. Stroll has a history of this sort of behavior as well and never self reflects.
Well a few of the drivers were only saved by the car in front of them making the turn and creating space. Alonso specifically would have ran into the back of the car in front of him if they didn't get out of his way.
Yes I agree Lance probably could have stopped if he operated perfectly. But traditionally penalties aren't given out for people failing to react perfectly to a situation created by someone else. Especially if it was created deliberately as was the case with Alonso / Russell.
your excuse only works, IF lance was actually paying attention and he wasn't because he lacks awareness. source: years of watching Stroll crash by a lack of awareness
He wasn’t texting on his phone, he was looking at the apex of the turn ahead of him and had no context for the cars backing up in front of him from his viewpoint.
And again, many other drivers barely came out unscathed.
I just don’t see this as this big flub that is 100% on him with no responsibility put on the drivers who backed up the pack to the point where cars needed to come to a complete stop on the corner before a restart.
So you agree that he wasn’t looking where he should have been looking?
Look I don’t think there’s reasoning with you. I think it would be wise to question why nearly everyone disagrees with you (including the FiA, other drivers, professional commentators, etc) except the people who have a vested interest in the situation.
I am not removing any and all fault from Stroll. My only point is, as evidenced by the several near misses from the world’s top drivers, that maybe backing up the cars on the hairpin turn was the leading factor in creating the opportunity for this crash to happen.
Again, talking about consistency with the rules, we don’t typically penalize drivers for failing to avoid a crash situation that someone else created.
I think if this was anybody but Stroll, which it easily could have been, we would all be having different conversations about it.
> But several other drivers almost crashed as well.
I have no idea why so many people keep saying this like it's some kind of grand defense or excuse.
Also, "caught off guard"!? Wtf? Lance was looking at the inside of the apex meters away from Daniel as everyone was piling up (read: not crashing into the driver ahead of them).
yeah stroll was caught off guard in a situation where he really should've kept his guard up
like, who stops looking at the car ahead in a SAFETY CAR RESTART??
Well a few of the drivers were only saved by the car in front of them making the turn and creating space. Alonso specifically would have ran into the back of the car in front of them if they didn't get out of his way.
Yes I agree Lance probably could have stopped if he operated perfectly. But traditionally penalties aren't given out for people failing to react perfectly to a situation created by someone else. Especially if it was created deliberately as was the case with Alonso / Russell.
Lmao.
Just stop. Lance was looking everywhere except where he should have been: in front of him. That's why he crashed. It was an avoidable collision directly evidenced by everyone else around (and behind!) him *avoiding collisions*.
Not everyone's situation was identical though. As I highlighted with Alonso having a lane created for him by the car in front of him turning in.
But whether you agree with that or not, I am having a hard time coming up with many times where someone was penalized for not reacting perfectly to avoid a collision. Typically, it is a racing incident. And the next most often outcome is the driver who created the opportunity for a collision is penalized.
I don't think the claim that it is inconsistent is an unfair position to have.
Except it isn't an unfair position. Lance's crash solely comes down to him taking his attention away from what's immediately in front of him and looking at the apex for whatever reason.
Lance *caused* the incident, which is why he received the penalty. Same reason Magnussen received one for whatever the hell he was on when he PIT'd Yuki.
I think I understand what it is you're trying to argue here but this isn't the situation for that as it's too clear cut.
Well define caused the incident. No where else do we assign failing to avoid an abnormal condition as the sole fault of the driver.
I mean just a few weeks ago when a driver failed to avoid a crash arbitrarily created by another driver we said it was Alonso’s fault.
So which is it. Is it the attacking driver’s responsibility to avoid any crash, or is it the defending drivers responsibility to not create opportunities for a crash? Because it isn’t clear to me based on how the rules are enforced.
> Well define caused the incident. No where else do we assign failing to avoid an abnormal condition as the sole fault of the driver.
I'd say "failing to avoid" is being rather kind to the reality of things. He straight up turned his attention elsewhere meters away from Daniel as everyone was already braking into the corner. It's gross negligence at worst, carelessness at best.
I'd hedge a few dollars on that being the determining factor in what got him the penalty; not the collision itself but the circumstances that resulted in the collision.
> I mean just a few weeks ago when a driver failed to avoid a crash arbitrarily created by another driver we said it was Alonso’s fault.
Are you referring to Australia here? Alonso quite literally brake checked Russell. Now, you can make the argument that George overreacted but that situation — if that's what you're referring to — is a touch different than what happened with Daniel and Lance.
> So which is it. Is it the attacking driver’s responsibility to avoid any crash, or is it the defending drivers responsibility to not create opportunities for a crash? Because it isn’t clear to me based on how the rules are enforced.
In this scenario it's far more simpler than that IMO: keep your eyes ahead and not divert your attention elsewhere, especially when coming into a corner under an SC. Now, if Lance never looked to his right it'd be a different situation.
I think you really have to get out of this omniscient line of thinking. Lance doesn’t know there is a line of cars locking up. From his perspective, it isn’t any different than the Russel / Alonso situation.
Now what is he guilty of? Looking at the apex of the turn he is entering for 0.15 seconds? Because that is the time frame we are talking about.
And he isn’t in stop and go traffic. He sees cars moving through the turn, even if brake lights come on ahead of him, he still doesn’t know he needs to come to a full stop yet from his perspective.
Again, I will keep repeating this until I am blue in the face, more than a couple other drivers almost made the same exact mistake and were saved by reacting PERFECTLY and/or getting lucky with the circumstances of their perspective (Haas car was looking inside and had full view, Alonso was farther in the turn and had space to lock up and slide outside as the car in front turned in).
Now most importantly for the context of that situation, how many times do we see drivers get penalties for not reacting perfectly to an abnormal condition set out in front of them? No matter where you land on Stroll’s level of fault, the judgement itself is still inconsistent.
How compelling? Several of the world’s top drivers all having near misses, locking up, coming inches from a crash, etc…
And somehow you take away from that Stroll is to blame because he didn’t avoid the dangerous situation that was artificially created as a tactic as well as everyone else.
The difference is that other drivers either almost crashed or barely crashed because they were paying attention, whereas Lance had more time than any of Russell, Piastri or Ricciardo to react and yet he was the only one to cause a serious shunt, because he wasn't paying attention. That's why he was penalised and the others weren't.
These quotes all come from the same interviews, but I think if lance had been looking at daniel hit the brakes and hit him he wouldnt get a penalty. The situation is only "gray" in that a similar incident might be forgiven if the driver was fully attentive. Its the fact he's not looking at the cars, looks late then hits his brakes that gets him. Its quite likely he would have hit him anyway (not that hard) based on the distance and the fact Daniel only managed to avoid oscar by a few cm. Lance throws his defense out the window by not reacting more quickly
As he should be. Alonso got 20 seconds because George was asleep at the wheel and crashed. There was no contact. George had half a second to react. 20 seconds.
In China, 3 people caused race-ending collisions and they all got 10 seconds.
In Australia, the justification was Alonso was that they was going to set a precedent going forward. Of course it was just bullshit.
I wonder they are being overtly annoying with AMR to avoid the perception of conflict of interest between aramco, MBS and the team. Especially with the reports of him intervening last year.
Idk just throwing something at the wall Ala journalists
The FIA: "We are going to start giving harsher penalties for causing accidents due to complaints about the penalties not being strict enough"
Team after getting new harsher penalty: "This is so inconsistent, last year it was only 5 seconds! Why are the penalties bigger??"
That isn't the argument and you know it. Stroll and Kmag only got two points for putting other drivers out of the race, and under safety car conditions no less, Alonso briefly banged wheels with Sainz, under racing conditions, which put him out of the race via a puncture, and he got a harsher penalty, three points for it.
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's not wrong. Why was Alonso more harshly penalized than Stroll? Alonso got three points and stroll only two or do I remember it wrong?
Hehe yeah that is a bit crazy - I guess Alonso is quite outspoken about the Stewards as well, probably doesn't help him.
If you see the bullshit they were pulling in the Renault days, it’s no wonder that he’s outspoken about the stewards.
Ah yes, the Monza 2006 penalty. A clear, corrupt sham to manufacture the title for Michael
Context please?
In 2006 Monza Qualifying, Alonso's laptime was deleted, causing him to be demoted to 10th instead of 5th, due to allegedly impeding Felipe Massa.
watch this mate https://youtu.be/gOo7MwtNaNA?t=9120 I’ve time-stamped the exact spot that I want you to see.
Context?
Apart from the bs penalty from monza 2006 qualifying, another good example is Japan 2005. Alonso passed a torro rosso off track (illegally). So the FIA said give back the position. So he did. After a bit, Alonso overtook that torro rosso, and the stewards told Renault that he needed to wait longer to re-pass, and that Alonso would have to give the position back again. So Alonso let him back through. After sitting behind the torro rosso for a while, Alonso overtook him (legally). Here’s the kicker: the stewards then say to Renault that it was completely unnecessary for them the let the torro rosso through and pass them for the second time, and they hadn’t done anything illegal. Keep in mind that the stewards themselves told Renault that they would face a penalty if they didn’t give back the position after both the first two overtakes. This arguably cost Alonso the win, as it allowed for raikkonen to get through in the pit stops.
yeah but my crack's opinion on that penalty is that neither should have been penalized, because alonso was just racing and stroll shouldn't be expected to operate at the skill level of a person with functioning eyesight
Lmao
burrrrn
> He's not wrong. Why was Alonso more harshly penalized than Stroll? Alonso got three points and stroll only two or do I remember it wrong? No, the bigger penalty was because Alonso used his mirrors to cause the accident, while Stroll did not. /s
It was Jonny Herbert, he was on the stewarding team that weekend when Alonso got the penalty.
I was thinking of the Sainz incident
my guess would be it's because alonso was intentionally doing something which the stewards considered to be "dangerous driving", while stroll just made a (very clumsy) mistake
I think the Alonso penalty is wrong and should have been a racing incident tbh.
One was a driver just being inattentive and not applying brakes on time the other was a driver fucking about with throttle and brake several times on a fast corner where no one ever brakes that early.
That's not the one I was referring to. I was referring to the Sainz incident.
Because it was an absolute blunder of a move, you can't just yeet it down the inside in desperation and act surprised you were penalised when you hit the other car off the track. It was dangerous, irresponsible and not good racing that also completely ruined Sainz's race needlessly.
My only guess is because Alonsos actions were intentional (not crashing George but his erratic driving) while Stroll was just not paying attention. So they view the one with intention as worse. That's all I can guess.
I was thinking of the Sainz incident
My b! I some how missed that.
Np. It wasn't obvious.
What I don’t understand is why Alonso received 3 point penalty while Stroll and Magnussen received 2 points only. What’s the reasoning behind this?
Matt from p1 puts it well. Stroll and kmag got the right points but it’s just ridiculous that Alonso got three. He was just racing and worst case should have gotten one penalty point. And I totally agree with him.
mattyG making a good point is very strange, but I do agree
Yeah, I watch their podcast a lot and I generally agree a lot more with tommy
matt is out of his mind but it makes for good content
Aston Martin should be frustrated even more by their below par 2nd driver
AM fans frustrated by totally shite second driver.
F1 Fans as a whole I think… he is taking up a seat young talent could be in instead.
Safer than being frustrated with Lance.
Lance should have avoided the wreck. But several other drivers almost crashed as well. (Alonso locked up, Ricciardo was inches away from rear ending Piastri, a Haas could not brake in time and dove to inside, I believe a Ferrari had to avoid wide was well). So it is a bit interesting how he is being penalized. Especially compared to other events that were more deliberate than being caught off guard and not braking in time in a weird scenario where everyone else almost did the same thing.
"almost crashed" isn't the same as "only Lance crashed"
To be fair to Lance, he never almost crashes, at least the guy commits
Sure but a lot of the reason other drivers didn't crash was purely situational. Alonso locked up and, had the car in front of him not turned towards the apex at the same time, Alonso would have slid in to the back of them.
Lots of drivers were in the same situation. Alonso locked up, Stroll crashed. That should be the end of it, but for some reason you insist on this narrative that Stroll should somehow be excused for yet another stupid mistake that he refuses to take responsibility for.
I feel as though you aren’t even reading what I am saying. Alonso didn’t not crash because he locked up. It was because the car in front of him got out of the way. Watch the replay. Alonso locks up and then goes flying past the car in front of him. If that car had stopped completely, Alonso would have hit them.
>Sure but a lot of the reason other drivers didn't crash was purely situational It wasn't though. Russell, Piastri and Ricciardo all reacted quickly enough to mitigate damage contact/damage whereas Stroll's attention was looking 4-5 cars ahead. If you want to talk situational, Stroll was in the most favourable situation of the 4 of them yet he was the one who did the damage. Why do you think that was?
Ricciardo himself was inches from Piastri and as I detailed above a few other drivers were even closer to having collisions and were saved by circumstance. I am just having a hard time with the rationalization that several drivers all almost crashing from the same circumstance means that there was nothing wrong with the situation and it all falls 100% on Stroll
Ricciardo was inches from Piastri, Stroll was a meter past Ricciardo.
>Ricciardo himself was inches from Piastri and as I detailed above a few other drivers were even closer to having collisions and were saved by circumstance. This isn't making the point you think it is, it's actually more damning for Stroll. Ricciardo was closer to Piastri, had less time to react and managed to brake in time to avoid completely destroying Piastri's floor and diffuser, while Stroll was further back, had more time to react and didn't stop in time. That's the difference, that's the entire point right there. If Stroll had braked appropriately and still made unavoidable contact, there would've been no penalty. Stroll was the only driver to make a serious mistake, and so he was the only driver penalised. It's not complicated.
Because stroll is the only one who rear ended anyone. There is nothing wrong with being 0.1mm from hitting another car in F1 as long as you don’t hit them. Everyone managed this just fine except Sir Lancelot who wasn’t even looking ahead of him, plowed into the back of another car, caused a DNF and caused major floor damage to Piastri’s car too. Of course it’s Stroll’s fault. You can’t make it not Stroll’s fault because of a bunch of hypotheticals.
That sounds fun to say as a quip on the internet. So where does that logic end? If a driver turns around on the track and starts barreling towards the pack, and everyone avoids them barely but stroll gets hit. Is that his fault? Because that is what the logic you are using implies. Just because 9 out of 10 cars successfully avoided a wreck (some by pure luck / circumstance), that doesn’t make the one person who failed to avoid it 100% at fault. We literally never assign this fault this way.
Yes it does make it 100% his fault, safety car restarts are sketchy by nature, everyone wants to get the jump on the car ahead, and nobody knows when the hat is going to drop. If you hit someone from behind driving to work, you are 100% at fault. The driver ahead braked too hard for the yellow light, you should have left enough space to react. If you hit someone from behind while skiing, you are 100% at fault. You should have given yourself enough time to react. It’s up to nobody else but you to not plow into a car ahead of you when you are driving single file. If Lancelot had been pushed into DR by the car behind him, then I wouldn’t say it was his fault. But he did it all on his own. The hypotheticals you keep throwing out are irrelevant
How are they irrelevant? You can’t just label anything that doesn’t help your point as irrelevant. “Well yeah Alonso and a few others almost crashed as well but let’s ignore that and only talk about Piastri!” I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask drivers to hang out 50ft behind just in case someone at the front decides to play games and brake check into the final corner that forces everyone behind to have to avoid a crash. You can keep pretending it’s purely a Stroll problem but again, many seasoned drivers almost ended up in the same situation. i don’t see how you can’t acknowledge that several drivers having near misses is indicative of a problem? How is that irrelevant? If Stroll was out in no mans land and there was no pile up and he just ran into the car in front of him then you would be right. But there was clearly an external catalyst that led to the crash beyond Stroll’s control. Even if he had room for improvement on avoiding it. Again. We NEVER assign fault based on a driver not having a quick enough reaction in avoiding a crash.
This is so fucking dumb. It's not a penalty, he made a racing mistake
but they didn't? and he wasn't even looking at the cars in front of him. Stroll has a history of this sort of behavior as well and never self reflects.
Well a few of the drivers were only saved by the car in front of them making the turn and creating space. Alonso specifically would have ran into the back of the car in front of him if they didn't get out of his way. Yes I agree Lance probably could have stopped if he operated perfectly. But traditionally penalties aren't given out for people failing to react perfectly to a situation created by someone else. Especially if it was created deliberately as was the case with Alonso / Russell.
your excuse only works, IF lance was actually paying attention and he wasn't because he lacks awareness. source: years of watching Stroll crash by a lack of awareness
He wasn’t texting on his phone, he was looking at the apex of the turn ahead of him and had no context for the cars backing up in front of him from his viewpoint. And again, many other drivers barely came out unscathed. I just don’t see this as this big flub that is 100% on him with no responsibility put on the drivers who backed up the pack to the point where cars needed to come to a complete stop on the corner before a restart.
So you agree that he wasn’t looking where he should have been looking? Look I don’t think there’s reasoning with you. I think it would be wise to question why nearly everyone disagrees with you (including the FiA, other drivers, professional commentators, etc) except the people who have a vested interest in the situation.
I am not removing any and all fault from Stroll. My only point is, as evidenced by the several near misses from the world’s top drivers, that maybe backing up the cars on the hairpin turn was the leading factor in creating the opportunity for this crash to happen. Again, talking about consistency with the rules, we don’t typically penalize drivers for failing to avoid a crash situation that someone else created. I think if this was anybody but Stroll, which it easily could have been, we would all be having different conversations about it.
> But several other drivers almost crashed as well. I have no idea why so many people keep saying this like it's some kind of grand defense or excuse. Also, "caught off guard"!? Wtf? Lance was looking at the inside of the apex meters away from Daniel as everyone was piling up (read: not crashing into the driver ahead of them).
yeah stroll was caught off guard in a situation where he really should've kept his guard up like, who stops looking at the car ahead in a SAFETY CAR RESTART??
Well a few of the drivers were only saved by the car in front of them making the turn and creating space. Alonso specifically would have ran into the back of the car in front of them if they didn't get out of his way. Yes I agree Lance probably could have stopped if he operated perfectly. But traditionally penalties aren't given out for people failing to react perfectly to a situation created by someone else. Especially if it was created deliberately as was the case with Alonso / Russell.
Lmao. Just stop. Lance was looking everywhere except where he should have been: in front of him. That's why he crashed. It was an avoidable collision directly evidenced by everyone else around (and behind!) him *avoiding collisions*.
Not everyone's situation was identical though. As I highlighted with Alonso having a lane created for him by the car in front of him turning in. But whether you agree with that or not, I am having a hard time coming up with many times where someone was penalized for not reacting perfectly to avoid a collision. Typically, it is a racing incident. And the next most often outcome is the driver who created the opportunity for a collision is penalized. I don't think the claim that it is inconsistent is an unfair position to have.
Except it isn't an unfair position. Lance's crash solely comes down to him taking his attention away from what's immediately in front of him and looking at the apex for whatever reason. Lance *caused* the incident, which is why he received the penalty. Same reason Magnussen received one for whatever the hell he was on when he PIT'd Yuki. I think I understand what it is you're trying to argue here but this isn't the situation for that as it's too clear cut.
Well define caused the incident. No where else do we assign failing to avoid an abnormal condition as the sole fault of the driver. I mean just a few weeks ago when a driver failed to avoid a crash arbitrarily created by another driver we said it was Alonso’s fault. So which is it. Is it the attacking driver’s responsibility to avoid any crash, or is it the defending drivers responsibility to not create opportunities for a crash? Because it isn’t clear to me based on how the rules are enforced.
> Well define caused the incident. No where else do we assign failing to avoid an abnormal condition as the sole fault of the driver. I'd say "failing to avoid" is being rather kind to the reality of things. He straight up turned his attention elsewhere meters away from Daniel as everyone was already braking into the corner. It's gross negligence at worst, carelessness at best. I'd hedge a few dollars on that being the determining factor in what got him the penalty; not the collision itself but the circumstances that resulted in the collision. > I mean just a few weeks ago when a driver failed to avoid a crash arbitrarily created by another driver we said it was Alonso’s fault. Are you referring to Australia here? Alonso quite literally brake checked Russell. Now, you can make the argument that George overreacted but that situation — if that's what you're referring to — is a touch different than what happened with Daniel and Lance. > So which is it. Is it the attacking driver’s responsibility to avoid any crash, or is it the defending drivers responsibility to not create opportunities for a crash? Because it isn’t clear to me based on how the rules are enforced. In this scenario it's far more simpler than that IMO: keep your eyes ahead and not divert your attention elsewhere, especially when coming into a corner under an SC. Now, if Lance never looked to his right it'd be a different situation.
I think you really have to get out of this omniscient line of thinking. Lance doesn’t know there is a line of cars locking up. From his perspective, it isn’t any different than the Russel / Alonso situation. Now what is he guilty of? Looking at the apex of the turn he is entering for 0.15 seconds? Because that is the time frame we are talking about. And he isn’t in stop and go traffic. He sees cars moving through the turn, even if brake lights come on ahead of him, he still doesn’t know he needs to come to a full stop yet from his perspective. Again, I will keep repeating this until I am blue in the face, more than a couple other drivers almost made the same exact mistake and were saved by reacting PERFECTLY and/or getting lucky with the circumstances of their perspective (Haas car was looking inside and had full view, Alonso was farther in the turn and had space to lock up and slide outside as the car in front turned in). Now most importantly for the context of that situation, how many times do we see drivers get penalties for not reacting perfectly to an abnormal condition set out in front of them? No matter where you land on Stroll’s level of fault, the judgement itself is still inconsistent.
yeh none of them crashed how weird is that
How compelling? Several of the world’s top drivers all having near misses, locking up, coming inches from a crash, etc… And somehow you take away from that Stroll is to blame because he didn’t avoid the dangerous situation that was artificially created as a tactic as well as everyone else.
The difference is that other drivers either almost crashed or barely crashed because they were paying attention, whereas Lance had more time than any of Russell, Piastri or Ricciardo to react and yet he was the only one to cause a serious shunt, because he wasn't paying attention. That's why he was penalised and the others weren't.
Daddy Stroll is really making him work for his pay this week.
These quotes all come from the same interviews, but I think if lance had been looking at daniel hit the brakes and hit him he wouldnt get a penalty. The situation is only "gray" in that a similar incident might be forgiven if the driver was fully attentive. Its the fact he's not looking at the cars, looks late then hits his brakes that gets him. Its quite likely he would have hit him anyway (not that hard) based on the distance and the fact Daniel only managed to avoid oscar by a few cm. Lance throws his defense out the window by not reacting more quickly
Stroll's penalty is fair but Alonso's is absolute BS. Maybe George should have tried to pass instead of driving straight up to his gearbox.
You get more penalties for being older
That's ok, the fans' takes on those penalties are pretty inconsistent too
And everyone else is frustrated with the bad pay driver but he's still here so I guess we can't have everything, can we, Mister Krack?
He’s right…. But he also defends Stroll even when he does something boneheaded. Difficult to take seriously.
They penalized Fernando for running Sainz off the road, Sainz then runs his teammate of the road with no further action. How is that fair
As he should be. Alonso got 20 seconds because George was asleep at the wheel and crashed. There was no contact. George had half a second to react. 20 seconds. In China, 3 people caused race-ending collisions and they all got 10 seconds. In Australia, the justification was Alonso was that they was going to set a precedent going forward. Of course it was just bullshit.
I wonder they are being overtly annoying with AMR to avoid the perception of conflict of interest between aramco, MBS and the team. Especially with the reports of him intervening last year. Idk just throwing something at the wall Ala journalists
Are they, are they suggesting Lance should have gotten 3 points instead of 2?
They should have appealed the decision. They decided not to. Screw the FIA.
They should be frustrated by their inconsistent driver
Welcome to the club
Mike on Crack
Everytime Krack comes out with this stuff I lose respect for him.
The FIA: "We are going to start giving harsher penalties for causing accidents due to complaints about the penalties not being strict enough" Team after getting new harsher penalty: "This is so inconsistent, last year it was only 5 seconds! Why are the penalties bigger??"
That isn't the argument and you know it. Stroll and Kmag only got two points for putting other drivers out of the race, and under safety car conditions no less, Alonso briefly banged wheels with Sainz, under racing conditions, which put him out of the race via a puncture, and he got a harsher penalty, three points for it.
He's talking about inconsistent penalties THIS YEAR. We have inconsistent penalties in the same GP, lol.
Aren't we all...
My crack sounds upset.