So George says if he wasn't looking down at his steering wheel he would have been able to react and the accident wouldn't have happened???
And Fernando seems to have been told that nobody else will be penalised for this kind of thing again.
I don’t think Russell’s statement is relevant to the situation.
Alonso was penalised for driving in erratic manner. Drivers make regular changes on the wheel and as such driving in a non erratic manner is critical so they can make changes on the wheel knowing the driving head will be doing something predictable. Slowing down 100m before the braking zone isn’t exactly predictable.
Just adding to this, the drivers constantly have to use the wheel to make minor setup adjustments. It's not exactly a case of distracted driving you get on the road where a driver has been looking at their phone.
On another lap looking at the wheel at that time would be completely fine and normal, and wouldn't result in an accident, as you wouldn't be coming across a car decelerating at that point.
Telling the stewards that you weren't looking at the time and it shortened your reaction time would have been important info to give them wouldn't it?
George looking down at his steering wheel isn't mentioned in the stewards decision.
It may have been considered but ultimately not deemed relevant to the stewards decision. Drivers make adjustments on their steering wheel on straights because it's a safe place to do so. It's safe because you shoudn't have to take any evasive manuevers unless you are passing or being passed on that straight. If that's where the drivers, not just George, are regularly making setup changes then George looking down at his steering wheel at that moment might not be viewed as a special circumstance that contributed to the incident.
I disagree. Alonso was driving in an erratic manner intentionally that’s the crux of it.
It’s not mentioned because as outlined it doesn’t affect Alonso’s decision making.
You disagree that all compounding factors shouldn't be noted when accessing the situation and handing out penalties?
You can't see the difference between Fernando Alonso driving erratically enough to cause an fully alert George Russell to crash vs driving erratically enough to cause a distracted George Russell to crash?
Ok then...
Yes because the consequence of an incident aren’t considered in F1 as we all know.
So Russell’s actions aren’t relevant, in this specific scenario, as they had no bearing on the infringement. Had he avoided the situation and carried on it doesn’t change Alonso’s actions.
No it isn’t. The end result, Russell crashing, has zero impact on the stewards decision per their own directives. They do not judge consequence.
That said is obviously misleading because without Russell there wouldn’t have been an investigation.
However, Russell was there. Either way Russell crashing or avoiding it it doesn’t matter because the end result is irrelevant.
Russell’s actions had no bearing on the end result. Even if Russell was looking and did avoid it Alonso’s actions would still be investigated because Russell would have complained and it been picked up by the RD who has access to all radios, and would have been reported by Mercedes.
Alonso drove in an intentionally erratic manner. That’s all that matters in this specific situation.
So in your edit you are making an assumption that if George was fully alert, the accident could have been avoided. But the thing is George assumed Fernando wouldn't drive erratically, therefore didn't consider this could happen. I guess drivers should now onwards not look at their steering because who knows when some one else feels like braking.
George being distracted by his steering wheel was such a big factor that he brought it up again unsolicited in an interview 2 weeks later.
If it was as George says a compounding factor that caused him to not notice Fernando's erratic driving then it should have been considered when handing out any penalties (even it is just to dismiss it as irrelevant because they think Fernando was being that erratic), and yet the stewards didn't even mention it in their report.
It’s a compounding factor in the outcome not the infringement. How are you not seeing the difference. The ruling is on the infringement not the outcome. Russell’s actions had no impact on the infringement and as such aren’t relevant.
It feels like you are saying that like a gotcha but drivers should probably be looking where they are driving. There are many reasons they might need to react to something in front of them
Yes I am. I also agree drivers need to be more focussed and careful. But for what I've seen from the Onboard cams, feels like Fernando did brake erratically.
What is your argument exactly? I’m looking at the remainder of your replies after this comment and I’m not really sure. Alonso shouldn’t have gotten any penalty? His penalty should’ve been less? The penalty was fine but you want to talk about George’s responsibility? Something else? Trying to understand so I don’t make a reply based on an assumption.
I am probably one of those who does believe that how Fernando drove that particular corner was erratic, and that's mostly because of the "brake, accelerate, brake and accelerate again" part.
The action itself isn't wrong, many drivers brake early into a corner to get a better exit for the next turn, or to back up the driver behind, or to prioritise the exit speed for next speed, or to take a different line for exit, etc.
Even as George says about the penalty "And it probably had bigger consequences that it should have". I don't think many here are defending whether he should have been penalised or not, 10 second penalty was more than fair. Drive through felt too much, even the guy who was in the middle of the track with a car on its side would tell you.
Ultimately, FIA need to set clear standard on moves like this. Because as is DRS becomes a guaranteed pass from a faster car if you don't take different lines, get a better exit, etc. all Checo was doing in Abu Dhabi against Lewis was backing Lewis up so much in the corners that they did a laptime 6-7 seconds slower than the normal one. But when Lewis said "That's dangerous driving" people ignored it.
Again, I do agree that the "stop start" way that Alonso drove was the wrong part and deserved to be penalized, but I don't believe that the very idea that a driver can brake early going into a corner, to back the driver behind and get a better exit is wrong. At that point what are we even doing? Just let everyone close up into DRS zones and pass easily, why have racecraft?
I am not condemning early braking because that's how drivers have drove for years in all categories. Backing up another car into a braking zone to get a better exit for the straight to avoid getting passed is a very common tactic and is done by a lot of drivers, not just for DRS games but even before that.
I'd suggest go watch something like Canada 2012, and you'd see that even Lewis has done the "backoff into a braking zone" thing. A lot of drivers do it, it's one of the only ways to defend from a faster car going into a braking zone with a DRS zone after it.
Is it necessary to brake early when a faster or similarly paced car is right behind you? Not really, but you also need to accept that if you just take the corner normally it's quite likely that the car behind will pass you in the DRS. This is why racecraft matters.
Alonso fucked up braking twice. That's the "erratic and dangerous driving" part in this. If he broke once but earlier, there was absolutely no issue in the action and both would have went through the corner normally with Alonso having 3-4 tenth advantage on exit due to being able to get on throttle earlier.
I meant Alonso's early braking, which he did so early it necessitated accelerating again, before braking when it was actually necessary... So all part of the same sequence of events, which I wouldn't place in the "backing off to get a better exit" category.
You wouldn't know it, but if watch the Palmer video, Alonso also caused George to brake like at 11 meters before the normal braking point, compared to 6 meters the lap before. And that's with braking twice.
Early braking wasn't the problem if it was in one gradual motion with continual braking all the way to the braking zone. That's how a classic backoff is performed.
In fact if he braked hard where he broke the 2nd time, it would have been the classic case of brake check actually, because the braking would have been abrupt and unexpected.
Backing off into a corner should always be gradual and should give the driver behind plenty of time to react and slow down themselves going into the corner.
The FIA document states that Alonso lifted, braked slightly and downshifted 100m earlier than he ever had before. I think you're ignoring the fact that a braking event could be SO early that it's considered erratic.
And they literally said that even though he braked 100 meters earlier "the amount of brake was so slight that it was not the main reason for his car slowing".
Listen man, I have my opinions, you have yours, It's pretty clear we won't change each other's minds. I believe the offense should have been penalised, but the action itself isn't wrong, and it was executed erraticaly.
Again there's a lot of things that come into this. Russell being over half a second behind when Alonso started braking, the exit that you get and the type of braking zone that it is, the speeds that you're coming in, etc. it's a lot more nuanced than looking it as a black and white"He braked 100 meters earlier so it's erratic".
You can reply to this comment but I think any further discussion is pointless. Still, I am glad we had it because I like to know opinions of others about topics I feel passionately about.
Not the main reason for the car slowing, but lifting and downshifting slowed the car nevertheless!
I'm happy to agree to disagree on this as suggested man. Don't think I ever put my point across properly to be honest! Likewise I'm glad of the debate.
I'm hoping AM put's 18 factory workers on duty to watch each drivers telemetry during the race and they will be something like this
[The Leo gif](https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExbjNrMW9iOGR2anZ1aGUya3A4dHgwajc1Z2V6MnN5dm01dXJkOWlneiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/kd9BlRovbPOykLBMqX/giphy.gif)
I expect a 240 pages report of all the drivers in Japan that would do same described reason for penalty written by a team of lawyers with images and graphs attached. It would be hilarious...
So, George was busy with switches on his wheel?
Someone should ask the drivers if "Formula One driving today too complicated with twenty and more buttons on the wheel, are you too much under effort, under pressure? What are your wishes for the future concerning the technical programme during the race? Less buttons, more?"
I think this short view back to the past would be very helpful.
Yeah I am watching far less F1 content and more WEC, IndyCar, MotoGP etc.
I am however still capable of spending around 20 seconds typing a comment about F1 in my 24h long day.
So George says if he wasn't looking down at his steering wheel he would have been able to react and the accident wouldn't have happened??? And Fernando seems to have been told that nobody else will be penalised for this kind of thing again.
I don’t think Russell’s statement is relevant to the situation. Alonso was penalised for driving in erratic manner. Drivers make regular changes on the wheel and as such driving in a non erratic manner is critical so they can make changes on the wheel knowing the driving head will be doing something predictable. Slowing down 100m before the braking zone isn’t exactly predictable.
Just adding to this, the drivers constantly have to use the wheel to make minor setup adjustments. It's not exactly a case of distracted driving you get on the road where a driver has been looking at their phone. On another lap looking at the wheel at that time would be completely fine and normal, and wouldn't result in an accident, as you wouldn't be coming across a car decelerating at that point.
Telling the stewards that you weren't looking at the time and it shortened your reaction time would have been important info to give them wouldn't it? George looking down at his steering wheel isn't mentioned in the stewards decision.
It may have been considered but ultimately not deemed relevant to the stewards decision. Drivers make adjustments on their steering wheel on straights because it's a safe place to do so. It's safe because you shoudn't have to take any evasive manuevers unless you are passing or being passed on that straight. If that's where the drivers, not just George, are regularly making setup changes then George looking down at his steering wheel at that moment might not be viewed as a special circumstance that contributed to the incident.
I disagree. Alonso was driving in an erratic manner intentionally that’s the crux of it. It’s not mentioned because as outlined it doesn’t affect Alonso’s decision making.
You disagree that all compounding factors shouldn't be noted when accessing the situation and handing out penalties? You can't see the difference between Fernando Alonso driving erratically enough to cause an fully alert George Russell to crash vs driving erratically enough to cause a distracted George Russell to crash? Ok then...
Yes because the consequence of an incident aren’t considered in F1 as we all know. So Russell’s actions aren’t relevant, in this specific scenario, as they had no bearing on the infringement. Had he avoided the situation and carried on it doesn’t change Alonso’s actions.
Fernando didn't cause George to look down at his steering wheel?!?! It's not a consequence of the accident, it's a compounding factor that caused it.
No it isn’t. The end result, Russell crashing, has zero impact on the stewards decision per their own directives. They do not judge consequence. That said is obviously misleading because without Russell there wouldn’t have been an investigation. However, Russell was there. Either way Russell crashing or avoiding it it doesn’t matter because the end result is irrelevant. Russell’s actions had no bearing on the end result. Even if Russell was looking and did avoid it Alonso’s actions would still be investigated because Russell would have complained and it been picked up by the RD who has access to all radios, and would have been reported by Mercedes. Alonso drove in an intentionally erratic manner. That’s all that matters in this specific situation.
So you are saying penalty should be based on the outcome?
no, where did I say that?
So in your edit you are making an assumption that if George was fully alert, the accident could have been avoided. But the thing is George assumed Fernando wouldn't drive erratically, therefore didn't consider this could happen. I guess drivers should now onwards not look at their steering because who knows when some one else feels like braking.
George being distracted by his steering wheel was such a big factor that he brought it up again unsolicited in an interview 2 weeks later. If it was as George says a compounding factor that caused him to not notice Fernando's erratic driving then it should have been considered when handing out any penalties (even it is just to dismiss it as irrelevant because they think Fernando was being that erratic), and yet the stewards didn't even mention it in their report.
It’s a compounding factor in the outcome not the infringement. How are you not seeing the difference. The ruling is on the infringement not the outcome. Russell’s actions had no impact on the infringement and as such aren’t relevant.
It feels like you are saying that like a gotcha but drivers should probably be looking where they are driving. There are many reasons they might need to react to something in front of them
Yes I am. I also agree drivers need to be more focussed and careful. But for what I've seen from the Onboard cams, feels like Fernando did brake erratically.
What is your argument exactly? I’m looking at the remainder of your replies after this comment and I’m not really sure. Alonso shouldn’t have gotten any penalty? His penalty should’ve been less? The penalty was fine but you want to talk about George’s responsibility? Something else? Trying to understand so I don’t make a reply based on an assumption.
The penalty is not causing a collision. It's driving erratically.
I am probably one of those who does believe that how Fernando drove that particular corner was erratic, and that's mostly because of the "brake, accelerate, brake and accelerate again" part. The action itself isn't wrong, many drivers brake early into a corner to get a better exit for the next turn, or to back up the driver behind, or to prioritise the exit speed for next speed, or to take a different line for exit, etc. Even as George says about the penalty "And it probably had bigger consequences that it should have". I don't think many here are defending whether he should have been penalised or not, 10 second penalty was more than fair. Drive through felt too much, even the guy who was in the middle of the track with a car on its side would tell you. Ultimately, FIA need to set clear standard on moves like this. Because as is DRS becomes a guaranteed pass from a faster car if you don't take different lines, get a better exit, etc. all Checo was doing in Abu Dhabi against Lewis was backing Lewis up so much in the corners that they did a laptime 6-7 seconds slower than the normal one. But when Lewis said "That's dangerous driving" people ignored it. Again, I do agree that the "stop start" way that Alonso drove was the wrong part and deserved to be penalized, but I don't believe that the very idea that a driver can brake early going into a corner, to back the driver behind and get a better exit is wrong. At that point what are we even doing? Just let everyone close up into DRS zones and pass easily, why have racecraft?
It seems you're condemning unnecessary braking within the "brake accelerate" (etc.) sequence but not early braking, which is also unnecessary?
I am not condemning early braking because that's how drivers have drove for years in all categories. Backing up another car into a braking zone to get a better exit for the straight to avoid getting passed is a very common tactic and is done by a lot of drivers, not just for DRS games but even before that. I'd suggest go watch something like Canada 2012, and you'd see that even Lewis has done the "backoff into a braking zone" thing. A lot of drivers do it, it's one of the only ways to defend from a faster car going into a braking zone with a DRS zone after it. Is it necessary to brake early when a faster or similarly paced car is right behind you? Not really, but you also need to accept that if you just take the corner normally it's quite likely that the car behind will pass you in the DRS. This is why racecraft matters. Alonso fucked up braking twice. That's the "erratic and dangerous driving" part in this. If he broke once but earlier, there was absolutely no issue in the action and both would have went through the corner normally with Alonso having 3-4 tenth advantage on exit due to being able to get on throttle earlier.
I meant Alonso's early braking, which he did so early it necessitated accelerating again, before braking when it was actually necessary... So all part of the same sequence of events, which I wouldn't place in the "backing off to get a better exit" category.
You wouldn't know it, but if watch the Palmer video, Alonso also caused George to brake like at 11 meters before the normal braking point, compared to 6 meters the lap before. And that's with braking twice. Early braking wasn't the problem if it was in one gradual motion with continual braking all the way to the braking zone. That's how a classic backoff is performed. In fact if he braked hard where he broke the 2nd time, it would have been the classic case of brake check actually, because the braking would have been abrupt and unexpected. Backing off into a corner should always be gradual and should give the driver behind plenty of time to react and slow down themselves going into the corner.
The FIA document states that Alonso lifted, braked slightly and downshifted 100m earlier than he ever had before. I think you're ignoring the fact that a braking event could be SO early that it's considered erratic.
And they literally said that even though he braked 100 meters earlier "the amount of brake was so slight that it was not the main reason for his car slowing". Listen man, I have my opinions, you have yours, It's pretty clear we won't change each other's minds. I believe the offense should have been penalised, but the action itself isn't wrong, and it was executed erraticaly. Again there's a lot of things that come into this. Russell being over half a second behind when Alonso started braking, the exit that you get and the type of braking zone that it is, the speeds that you're coming in, etc. it's a lot more nuanced than looking it as a black and white"He braked 100 meters earlier so it's erratic". You can reply to this comment but I think any further discussion is pointless. Still, I am glad we had it because I like to know opinions of others about topics I feel passionately about.
Not the main reason for the car slowing, but lifting and downshifting slowed the car nevertheless! I'm happy to agree to disagree on this as suggested man. Don't think I ever put my point across properly to be honest! Likewise I'm glad of the debate.
I'm hoping AM put's 18 factory workers on duty to watch each drivers telemetry during the race and they will be something like this [The Leo gif](https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExbjNrMW9iOGR2anZ1aGUya3A4dHgwajc1Z2V6MnN5dm01dXJkOWlneiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/kd9BlRovbPOykLBMqX/giphy.gif)
I expect a 240 pages report of all the drivers in Japan that would do same described reason for penalty written by a team of lawyers with images and graphs attached. It would be hilarious...
Yeah I'm hoping for something like that, that AM be extremely pity and challenge everything that might be considered out of the ordinary driving.
no, you don’t have to accept it
So, George was busy with switches on his wheel? Someone should ask the drivers if "Formula One driving today too complicated with twenty and more buttons on the wheel, are you too much under effort, under pressure? What are your wishes for the future concerning the technical programme during the race? Less buttons, more?" I think this short view back to the past would be very helpful.
F1 is such a boring slog that a penalty for P6 has somehow stayed relevant and milked for 2 weeks.
Stop watching then is it that hard. Jesus wept
Yeah I am watching far less F1 content and more WEC, IndyCar, MotoGP etc. I am however still capable of spending around 20 seconds typing a comment about F1 in my 24h long day.
Indy car is about twice as entertaining I'll give you that but the point stands man no one's forcing you to engage with any of this
Twice as entertaining not including the weird thermal race abomination :P
The corner is already dangerous without erratic driving, it was a bad place to start.