Official 2024 Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Poll: Official 2024 Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Total Members Polled: 129
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
I understand your point and I broadly agree - although it was the outcome for GR that put FA's driving under the spotlight - had GR not crashed I'm not convinced a penalty would have come of this
You're right, it wouldn't have been noted without a crash before last week, though the stewards explicitly said the crash had no bearing on guilt or punishment. However now the stewards have said they didn't take the accident into account, they looked solely at Alonso's driving. This means if someone submits a driver has done similar, even if toddling around all by themselves, the stewards either have to follow the precedent or explain why they won't penalise on that occasion.That's the problem you have when you bend double trying to avoid saying Alonso was a naughty boy.
Forester1965 said:
Bo_apex said:
Agree they cannot be prevented. But Ham got rattled at the previous corners.
The Copse punt was highly accurate and highly effective. Do you believe it was a mistake ?
Yes and no. It looked impulsive and I suspect he wanted to put Verstappen in the position of either back off or we're going to crash. It wasn't the first or last time he tried into that corner, though. If I remember correctly Leclerc was rather more for letting him through. The Copse punt was highly accurate and highly effective. Do you believe it was a mistake ?
Hamilton deserved his penalty.
I suspect Lewis knew there was a good chance what did happen, could happen. I can understand the phycological reasons for (literally) not giving a spare inch to Max, but nonetheless it was his decision to play that game with Max and it went wrong, he deserved the penalty. As has Max deserved it when he has driven so defensively and it's 'gone wrong'. I don't blame either for driving that hard that season, I also don't blame the stewards for calling it when the s
t hits the fan.Forester1965 said:
TheDeuce said:
I understand your point and I broadly agree - although it was the outcome for GR that put FA's driving under the spotlight - had GR not crashed I'm not convinced a penalty would have come of this
You're right, it wouldn't have been noted without a crash before last week, though the stewards explicitly said the crash had no bearing on guilt or punishment. However now the stewards have said they didn't take the accident into account, they looked solely at Alonso's driving. This means if someone submits a driver has done similar, even if toddling around all by themselves, the stewards either have to follow the precedent or explain why they won't penalise on that occasion.That's the problem you have when you bend double trying to avoid saying Alonso was a naughty boy.
Forester1965 said:
TheDeuce said:
I understand your point and I broadly agree - although it was the outcome for GR that put FA's driving under the spotlight - had GR not crashed I'm not convinced a penalty would have come of this
You're right, it wouldn't have been noted without a crash before last week, though the stewards explicitly said the crash had no bearing on guilt or punishment. However now the stewards have said they didn't take the accident into account, they looked solely at Alonso's driving. This means if someone submits a driver has done similar, even if toddling around all by themselves, the stewards either have to follow the precedent or explain why they won't penalise on that occasion.That's the problem you have when you bend double trying to avoid saying Alonso was a naughty boy.
Bluequay said:
Forester1965 said:
TheDeuce said:
I understand your point and I broadly agree - although it was the outcome for GR that put FA's driving under the spotlight - had GR not crashed I'm not convinced a penalty would have come of this
You're right, it wouldn't have been noted without a crash before last week, though the stewards explicitly said the crash had no bearing on guilt or punishment. However now the stewards have said they didn't take the accident into account, they looked solely at Alonso's driving. This means if someone submits a driver has done similar, even if toddling around all by themselves, the stewards either have to follow the precedent or explain why they won't penalise on that occasion.That's the problem you have when you bend double trying to avoid saying Alonso was a naughty boy.
I suppose he is free to drive like that on his own time on an empty section of track, it would be a bit weird though!
Bluequay said:
They didn't take the accident into account they will have taken the proximity of another driver into account though. He does it on an empty track fine, he does it with somebody 0.5 seconds behind it's not fine.
They explicitly don't take it into account (my bold below).Stewards Decision said:
In considering the matter the stewards focused solely on the wording of the regulation which states “At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.” (Art 33.4).
Specifically, in this case, the stewards have not considered the consequences of the crash...
..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...
...in the opinion of the stewards by doing these things, he drove in a manner that was at very least “potentially dangerous” given the very high speed nature of that point of the track.
Specifically, in this case, the stewards have not considered the consequences of the crash...
..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...
...in the opinion of the stewards by doing these things, he drove in a manner that was at very least “potentially dangerous” given the very high speed nature of that point of the track.
HardtopManual said:
paulguitar said:
carlo996 said:
Nah. It just fits your narrative.
What are you disagreeing with, specifically? TheDeuce said:
shirt said:
TheDeuce said:
Of course GR is capable of controlling a car
Not always. Imola 21, high speed pass gone wrong, blamed the other driver with lots of theatrics to boot. I agree that if he hadn't binned it then this would have gone unpunished. Overall I agree with how the stewards handled it, and also that it should have been an auto red flag. I don't think Alonso deliberately endangered anyone, albeit that is as much opinion as anyone elses.
Forester1965 said:
Bluequay said:
They didn't take the accident into account they will have taken the proximity of another driver into account though. He does it on an empty track fine, he does it with somebody 0.5 seconds behind it's not fine.
They explicitly don't take it into account (my bold below).Stewards Decision said:
In considering the matter the stewards focused solely on the wording of the regulation which states “At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.” (Art 33.4).
Specifically, in this case, the stewards have not considered the consequences of the crash...
..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...
...in the opinion of the stewards by doing these things, he drove in a manner that was at very least “potentially dangerous” given the very high speed nature of that point of the track.
Specifically, in this case, the stewards have not considered the consequences of the crash...
..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...
...in the opinion of the stewards by doing these things, he drove in a manner that was at very least “potentially dangerous” given the very high speed nature of that point of the track.
Bluequay said:
Nothing you have highlighted indicates they didn't take into account the proximity of another driver in their decision. In fact for the action to be potentially dangerous to another driver there would have to be one in reasonably close proximity surely!!
No. Notice the words of the regulation: "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.”. It doesn't have to be potentially dangerous only to other drivers, but also to any other person. That might be marshals, spectators, race or track personnel or even themselves.
Forester1965 said:
Bluequay said:
Nothing you have highlighted indicates they didn't take into account the proximity of another driver in their decision. In fact for the action to be potentially dangerous to another driver there would have to be one in reasonably close proximity surely!!
No. Notice the words of the regulation: "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.”. It doesn't have to be potentially dangerous only to other drivers, but also to any other person. That might be marshals, spectators, race or track personnel or even themselves.
shirt said:
I don't think Alonso deliberately endangered anyone, albeit that is as much opinion as anyone elses.
I can't think of any other driver knowingly given a win by having his team mate crash.I can't think of any other driver throwing his toys out the cot and blackmailing his team leader unless he deliberately knobbled his younger team mates car who was showing him up/ gave him preferential treatment to the detriment of his younger team mate.
Who then went to the FIA in a strop and ruined the whole team, biggest fine ever etc...
Thats before we get to his 'racecraft' or 'positioning' and late moves to stop himself being overtaken. He walks the line in a lot of races
Bluequay said:
Yes it does state that, but none of those apply to this particular action do they, this action was only potentially dangerous to a following driver. If there wasn't one it wouldn't be dangerous. This is really not as complicated as you seem to want to make it out to be.
I can't make you comprehend English, sorry.If the driving had to have a car in close proximity to fall foul of the regulations, the words 'At no time' and 'potentially' in them would be redundant.
Forester1965 said:
Bluequay said:
They didn't take the accident into account they will have taken the proximity of another driver into account though. He does it on an empty track fine, he does it with somebody 0.5 seconds behind it's not fine.
They explicitly don't take it into account (my bold below).Stewards Decision said:
In considering the matter the stewards focused solely on the wording of the regulation which states “At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.” (Art 33.4).
Specifically, in this case, the stewards have not considered the consequences of the crash...
..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...
...in the opinion of the stewards by doing these things, he drove in a manner that was at very least “potentially dangerous” given the very high speed nature of that point of the track.
Specifically, in this case, the stewards have not considered the consequences of the crash...
..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...
...in the opinion of the stewards by doing these things, he drove in a manner that was at very least “potentially dangerous” given the very high speed nature of that point of the track.
as is emerging above, any driver who makes changes to line, braking point or speed could now be considered to driving in a way that is "potentially" dangerous to another competitor. Even if another driver is not nearby, the very existence of the move itself is potentially dangerous because it wold have been dangerous were another driver nearby.
under this rule, using this logic, Hamilton limping over the line at Silverstone a few years back would have been penalised IMO.
Bluequay said:
Nothing you have highlighted indicates they didn't take into account the proximity of another driver in their decision. In fact for the action to be potentially dangerous to another driver there would have to be one in reasonably close proximity surely!!
a manoeuvre could be cosidered potentially dangerous in that it's fine, but would have been dangerous had another driver been close. since the first car is on the track with other cars, the potential for another car to be close was there and therefore the manoeuvre could be potentially dangerous.Forester1965 said:
Bluequay said:
Nothing you have highlighted indicates they didn't take into account the proximity of another driver in their decision. In fact for the action to be potentially dangerous to another driver there would have to be one in reasonably close proximity surely!!
No. Notice the words of the regulation: "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.”. It doesn't have to be potentially dangerous only to other drivers, but also to any other person. That might be marshals, spectators, race or track personnel or even themselves.
Forester1965 said:
No. Notice the words of the regulation: "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.”.
It doesn't have to be potentially dangerous only to other drivers, but also to any other person. That might be marshals, spectators, race or track personnel or even themselves.
The FIA also needs to clarify "necessary".It doesn't have to be potentially dangerous only to other drivers, but also to any other person. That might be marshals, spectators, race or track personnel or even themselves.
It was very necessary for Alonso to slow earlier in order to maximise his exit speed.
They are racing.
Bo_apex said:
Forester1965 said:
No. Notice the words of the regulation: "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.”.
It doesn't have to be potentially dangerous only to other drivers, but also to any other person. That might be marshals, spectators, race or track personnel or even themselves.
The FIA also needs to clarify "necessary".It doesn't have to be potentially dangerous only to other drivers, but also to any other person. That might be marshals, spectators, race or track personnel or even themselves.
It was very necessary for Alonso to slow earlier in order to maximise his exit speed.
They are racing.
Just the facts...
Forester1965 said:
Bluequay said:
Yes it does state that, but none of those apply to this particular action do they, this action was only potentially dangerous to a following driver. If there wasn't one it wouldn't be dangerous. This is really not as complicated as you seem to want to make it out to be.
I can't make you comprehend English, sorry.If the driving had to have a car in close proximity to fall foul of the regulations, the words 'At no time' and 'potentially' in them would be redundant.
Why can't you seem to understand that the classification of an action as potentially dangerous or not will depend on the exact circumstances of where it took place and the position of the other actors. The same action can be both dangerous and not dangerous depending on these circumstances.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff