Official 2024 Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Poll: Official 2024 Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Total Members Polled: 129
Discussion
Adrian W said:
PlywoodPascal said:
I'm going to say it again:
Russell didn't crash into Alonso
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner.
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears well judged because Russell did not have to take avoiding action.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it will never make you rightRussell didn't crash into Alonso
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner.
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears well judged because Russell did not have to take avoiding action.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it.
Nigel_O said:
George was c 0.5 seconds behind Fred. At this distance, George knew that he had sufficient downforce to take the corner. Fred lifted earlier and harder than at any point in the race, meaning that George’s half second gap closed to half a car length and his downforce reduced, leading him to slide off into the wall.
Fred isn’t my favorite driver, but I doubt this is what he intended. He knew George was going to get a run on him after the corner, so lifted to get a better drive out of the corner and possibly to make George lift too.
Daft, but IMHO nowhere near as idiotic as Max’s move on Lewis.
Alonso probably didn't mean to have Russell crash from his actions I agree but the equivalent of a brake check (which lifting off really kind of is) in a fast corner like that is simply not done and it's good that the stewards smacked him with a decent penalty as it would have opened pandora's box if everyone else saw the precedent of that as something they could get away with. tbh I'd have DQ'd him for that personally as much as I do rate Alonso as a driver but he's always been quite happy to indulge in some less than salubrious antics. Fred isn’t my favorite driver, but I doubt this is what he intended. He knew George was going to get a run on him after the corner, so lifted to get a better drive out of the corner and possibly to make George lift too.
Daft, but IMHO nowhere near as idiotic as Max’s move on Lewis.
The way F1 currently is being managed means that about 90% of the post race discussions seems to be about whether the penalties applied were correct or not.
There is something really, really wrong about the current situation.
Too many potential infringements
Too many possible penalties
Too often, these myriad penalties are applied in a random and inconsistent manner
I don't really know what I am watching any more. Is it a motor race or a penalty scoring contest?
There is something really, really wrong about the current situation.
Too many potential infringements
Too many possible penalties
Too often, these myriad penalties are applied in a random and inconsistent manner
I don't really know what I am watching any more. Is it a motor race or a penalty scoring contest?
Nigel_O said:
Fred isn’t my favorite driver, but I doubt this is what he intended. He knew George was going to get a run on him after the corner, so lifted to get a better drive out of the corner and possibly to make George lift too.
I would agree he didn't intend to cause a crash, but he knows what he did and knows he overstepped the boundaries of acceptable racing.Every time I start to warm to Fernando he comes out with some s
t like this. I fail to see what the "wiley old fox" adds to the sport now, I wish he would just call it a day. He spent his years at Alpine (purposely) backing up the pack. He had a shot at a fairy-tale swansong last year but never quite made it to the top step of the podium, and the current Aston doesn't look like it will be challenging for wins any time soon, so we can expect more of the same from his Alpine years.
Eric Mc said:
The way F1 currently is being managed means that about 90% of the post race discussions seems to be about whether the penalties applied were correct or not.
There is something really, really wrong about the current situation.
Too many potential infringements
Too many possible penalties
Too often, these myriad penalties are applied in a random and inconsistent manner
I don't really know what I am watching any more. Is it a motor race or a penalty scoring contest?
You know, I always think "Charlie Whiting wouldn't have allowed this sThere is something really, really wrong about the current situation.
Too many potential infringements
Too many possible penalties
Too often, these myriad penalties are applied in a random and inconsistent manner
I don't really know what I am watching any more. Is it a motor race or a penalty scoring contest?
t"... There appears to be no stewards who have any sense of composure or authority.Zetec-S said:
I would agree he didn't intend to cause a crash, but he knows what he did and knows he overstepped the boundaries of acceptable racing.
Every time I start to warm to Fernando he comes out with some st like this.
How did he overstep the boundaries? By lifting and coasting? There was no brake check. The stewards confirmed that Alonso’s slowing didn’t come down braking. They said that while Alonso had “braked very slightly at a point he did not usually brake”, but the amount of braking he applied was “so slight, it was not the main reason for his car slowing”.Every time I start to warm to Fernando he comes out with some s
t like this. Alonso lifted a bit more than 100 meters earlier than usual, and he downshifted where he didn't on other laps, before upshifting and accelerating again before the corner. So he lifted off on the straight, before speeding up again, but the car only slowed as much as the aerodynamics slowed it. That's not a brake test, is it? It's lifting and coasting. Hardly overstepping a boundary. And Russel wasn't even that close to the back of him, he had time to react, he just messed it up.
Verstappen got 10 seconds for the brake test on Hamilton in Saudi a couple of years back. Now Alonso gets 20 when there wasn't even a brake test? If Russel didn't cock it up and kept it on the track I bet a penalty wouldn't be applied at all. The stewards should be applying penalties based on the nature of the infringements and not based on the outcome. Here, that's clearly not the case. Complete b
ks of a penalty.iandc said:
On the Planet Plywood Alonso should have been handed the race win for skillful racecraft!!!
errr, no, I think he messed up what he was trying to do.I just think that what he was trying to do is fine, indeed an integral part of racing.
and I don't consider what he did to be a brake check because he didn't brake much (just lift off early) (by the way, the cars indicate when they are in this state because the harvesting/flashing rainlight comes on).
and I think that given that Russell crashed only because he underestimated the reduction in grip caused by being close to another car, the crash can in no way be considered Alonso's fault.
Had Russell crashed INTO Alonso or tried to avoid him and crashing in the course of doing so, I would find different conclusion. the cause of the crash would have been Alonso's move.
But here the cause of the crash was Russell's incorrect accommodation of being close to another car, it was not the move of the other car that was the issue, it was how Russell dealt with it.
Adrian W said:
PlywoodPascal said:
I'm going to say it again:
Russell didn't crash into Alonso
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner.
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears well judged because Russell did not have to take avoiding action.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it will never make you rightRussell didn't crash into Alonso
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner.
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears well judged because Russell did not have to take avoiding action.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it.
Russell didn't crash into Alonso - true
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso true
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner. true
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears not to have been dangerous because Russell did not have to take avoiding action. logically consistent conclusion based on facts
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it. opinion
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it. true
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 26th March 10:59
Blib said:
PlywoodPascal said:
I'm going to say it again:
Russell didn't crash into Alonso
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner.
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears well judged because Russell did not have to take avoiding action.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it.
Why don't you explain thay to the race Stewards, who completely and demonstrably disagree with you? Russell didn't crash into Alonso
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner.
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears well judged because Russell did not have to take avoiding action.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it.
but anyway - appeals to authority, Blib - never useful in the search for an answer to anything. you know that!
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 26th March 11:00
PlywoodPascal said:
Adrian W said:
PlywoodPascal said:
I'm going to say it again:
Russell didn't crash into Alonso
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner.
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears well judged because Russell did not have to take avoiding action.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it will never make you rightRussell didn't crash into Alonso
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner.
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears well judged because Russell did not have to take avoiding action.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it.
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it.
Russell didn't crash into Alonso - true
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso true
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner. true
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears not to have been dangerous because Russell did not have to take avoiding action. logically consistent conclusion based on facts
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it. opinion
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it. true
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 26th March 10:59
Adrian W said:
Plot lost
You can post it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it a logical or well reasoned argument. Good arguments that come to opposite conclusions are useful and interesting. I would be satisfied to read an argument that's well founded that leads to a position I disagree with. it's illuminating.but you are adding nothing constructive here..
PlywoodPascal said:
and yet
Russell didn't crash into Alonso - true
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso true
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner. true
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears not to have been dangerous because Russell did not have to take avoiding action. logically consistent conclusion based on facts
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it. opinion
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it. true
Why do you think Russell didn't crash into Alonso? Could it have been due to taking avoiding action? Russell didn't crash into Alonso - true
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso true
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner. true
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears not to have been dangerous because Russell did not have to take avoiding action. logically consistent conclusion based on facts
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it. opinion
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it. true
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 26th March 10:59
What a driver thinks they have to do at the time, based on the data they have available is important to what happened, not what the data shows afterwards.
Russell saw Alonso lifting off on the straight where it is always planted, he is 0.5s away from him (which is 35 metres at 260kph) - he thought, wtf is happening here, and we are where we are.
menguin said:
Why do you think Russell didn't crash into Alonso? Could it have been due to taking avoiding action?
What a driver thinks they have to do at the time, based on the data they have available is important to what happened, not what the data shows afterwards.
Russell saw Alonso lifting off on the straight where it is always planted, he is 0.5s away from him (which is 35 metres at 260kph) - he thought, wtf is happening here, and we are where we are.
The stewards report didn't apportion any blame for the crash directly on Alonso.What a driver thinks they have to do at the time, based on the data they have available is important to what happened, not what the data shows afterwards.
Russell saw Alonso lifting off on the straight where it is always planted, he is 0.5s away from him (which is 35 metres at 260kph) - he thought, wtf is happening here, and we are where we are.
FIA stewards said:
Should Alonso have the right to try a different approach to the corner? – yes.
Should Alonso be responsible for dirty air, that ultimately caused the incident? – no.
The penalty was for lifting and then accelerating again on the straight before the corner, which they felt was unpredictable and therefore potentially dangerous. It's the same as if he was weaving on the straight.Should Alonso be responsible for dirty air, that ultimately caused the incident? – no.
What happened in the corner was Russell's problem to sort out, not Alonso's.
menguin said:
PlywoodPascal said:
and yet
Russell didn't crash into Alonso - true
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso true
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner. true
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears not to have been dangerous because Russell did not have to take avoiding action. logically consistent conclusion based on facts
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it. opinion
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it. true
Why do you think Russell didn't crash into Alonso? Could it have been due to taking avoiding action? Russell didn't crash into Alonso - true
Neither did Russell crash in the course of avoiding hitting Alonso true
Russell crashed because he tried to go too fast around a corner. true
Therefore Alonso's move of slowing early appears not to have been dangerous because Russell did not have to take avoiding action. logically consistent conclusion based on facts
Therefore there was nothing wrong with it. opinion
the driver can choose where to drive their car, when to slow it, how much to slow it. true
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 26th March 10:59
What a driver thinks they have to do at the time, based on the data they have available is important to what happened, not what the data shows afterwards.
Russell saw Alonso lifting off on the straight where it is always planted, he is 0.5s away from him (which is 35 metres at 260kph) - he thought, wtf is happening here, and we are where we are.
Eric Mc said:
The way F1 currently is being managed means that about 90% of the post race discussions seems to be about whether the penalties applied were correct or not.
There is something really, really wrong about the current situation.
Too many potential infringements
Too many possible penalties
Too often, these myriad penalties are applied in a random and inconsistent manner
I don't really know what I am watching any more. Is it a motor race or a penalty scoring contest?
It's a bit like one of those poorly scripted spy films, people get shot and left for dead, and twenty minutes later the plot twist is that they were wearing a bullet proof vest (or even applied a neural gel-pack FFS).There is something really, really wrong about the current situation.
Too many potential infringements
Too many possible penalties
Too often, these myriad penalties are applied in a random and inconsistent manner
I don't really know what I am watching any more. Is it a motor race or a penalty scoring contest?
thegreenhell said:
menguin said:
Why do you think Russell didn't crash into Alonso? Could it have been due to taking avoiding action?
What a driver thinks they have to do at the time, based on the data they have available is important to what happened, not what the data shows afterwards.
Russell saw Alonso lifting off on the straight where it is always planted, he is 0.5s away from him (which is 35 metres at 260kph) - he thought, wtf is happening here, and we are where we are.
The stewards report didn't apportion any blame for the crash directly on Alonso.What a driver thinks they have to do at the time, based on the data they have available is important to what happened, not what the data shows afterwards.
Russell saw Alonso lifting off on the straight where it is always planted, he is 0.5s away from him (which is 35 metres at 260kph) - he thought, wtf is happening here, and we are where we are.
FIA stewards said:
Should Alonso have the right to try a different approach to the corner? – yes.
Should Alonso be responsible for dirty air, that ultimately caused the incident? – no.
The penalty was for lifting and then accelerating again on the straight before the corner, which they felt was unpredictable and therefore potentially dangerous. It's the same as if he was weaving on the straight.Should Alonso be responsible for dirty air, that ultimately caused the incident? – no.
What happened in the corner was Russell's problem to sort out, not Alonso's.
RemarkLima said:
shirt said:
RemarkLima said:
You know, I always think "Charlie Whiting wouldn't have allowed this st"....
That’s rose tinted glasses for you. t"....Everything’s broadcast in ultra-HD, dozens of camera angles and on board footage/telemetary. Plus the entire internet can go back and replay incidents over and over, read the opinions of hundreds of “experts”, so they can argue about it with random strangers
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff