Official 2024 Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Poll: Official 2024 Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Total Members Polled: 129
Discussion
Bluequay said:
Heed the advice of Mark Twain with regards to arguing with posters like this 
I suppose one might not expect the subject of the quote to which you refer to be aware of it. What a lovely, snide, way to insult someone. Disagree with someone on the interpretation of facts - fine.
Suggest they are mentally incapable - rude and unnecessary.
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.
PlywoodPascal said:
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.
Wills2 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.
paulguitar said:
don't think that's a certainty at all, and how is that relevant, anyway? Even if they did dominate, they have drivers who challenge each other, so the situation is completely different.
Given how the Australian GP went it’s not exactly a stretch. And your rose tints about the Mercedes dominated era remain. menguin said:
It's strange when potentially dangerous behaviour results in dangerous outcomes, almost as if the two might be linked 
It would be easy for someone to jump to an uninformed conclusion on that basis.Just because driver A did something 'potentially dangerous', and shortly afterwards driver B crashed, it doesn't necessarily follow that driver B crashed because driver A did something potentially dangerous.
In this case, both Russell and the stewards ascribed the crash to loss of downforce from being close to Alonso in the corner, not from Alonso doing anything dangerous at that exact point. There are a multitude of ways in which Alonso could have done what he did and Russell wouldn't crash, and an equal number of potential ways in which Alonso did nothing extraordinary and Russell would still crash in that exact way. The link between the two are circumstantial at best, which is why the stewards took no action over the crash itself. There was no direct cause and effect, only indirect.
Alonso did something stupid, but Russell dropped it when he shouldn't have.
Whenever I have gone racing, I don't hold back. Assertive, challenging, aggressive at times, whether attacking or defending. However, all competitors rely on each other not to drive like a dick, which means (potentially) dangerous or erratic manner. There is a lot of energy about in motorsport which needs to be dissipated in any accident. So I get why the stewards made their decision, as does Alonso and his team who are not appealing.
Would I have made the same decision? Don't know, as I have not pored through all the evidence or heard the drivers. I accept the unappealed finding of fact by the stewards as dispositive. Move on to Japan.
Would I have made the same decision? Don't know, as I have not pored through all the evidence or heard the drivers. I accept the unappealed finding of fact by the stewards as dispositive. Move on to Japan.
PlywoodPascal said:
I suppose one might not expect the subject of the quote to which you refer to be aware of it. What a lovely, snide, way to insult someone.
Disagree with someone on the interpretation of facts - fine.
Suggest they are mentally incapable - rude and unnecessary.
It’s funny you can only see these things when it’s you on the receiving end, not dishing it out Disagree with someone on the interpretation of facts - fine.
Suggest they are mentally incapable - rude and unnecessary.
And you’re wrong. The stewards and vastly experienced ex F1 drivers say the same thing. It was strange live and he’s bang to rights now the telemetry has been released.
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?
Not sure it's the volume of penalties, rather the inconsistency. Things like track limits. Either let them take the fastest route through every corner irrespective of lines at the track edge, or make them stay within the lines everywhere. Overtaking- don't do it off the track and don't make the pass only because you pushed the other car off the track. The obvious ones are usually obvious. If they're not obvious, let it go.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?
Inconsistency in F1 isn't new. Senna Japan '89 and '90 are obvious examples.
As for Alonso, he knew what he was doing but he chose the wrong place for that specific behaviour and executed it badly. I'm sure he wanted Russell to lose momentum heading onto that part of the track, I'm sure he didn't mean for him to crash.
540TORQUES said:
I hope those saying George was at fault and Fred did nothing wrong don't hold a race licence.
If you do, please post your event details so i can avoid them.
This. If you do, please post your event details so i can avoid them.
As anyone who has ever raced will likely understand, Alonso clearly and deliberately slowed down unexpectedly so as to impede Russell on entry in to the bend so that he could gain an advantage as he exited, with the aim being as it was the last lap, of ensuring that he couldn't be overtaken before the flag.
I seriously doubt that he intended Russell to crash but nonetheless that was the consequence of his deliberate and unexpected act. If Russell had been T-boned and killed or seriously injured, in many countries there would be a criminal investigation into this. Alonso could think himself quite lucky on this occasion.
The FIA these days has a duty of care to drivers and needs to be seen to act whenever something happens that puts drivers at risk, and this was clearly an example.
carlo996 said:
PlywoodPascal said:
I suppose one might not expect the subject of the quote to which you refer to be aware of it. What a lovely, snide, way to insult someone.
Disagree with someone on the interpretation of facts - fine.
Suggest they are mentally incapable - rude and unnecessary.
It’s funny you can only see these things when it’s you on the receiving end, not dishing it out Disagree with someone on the interpretation of facts - fine.
Suggest they are mentally incapable - rude and unnecessary.
And you’re wrong. The stewards and vastly experienced ex F1 drivers say the same thing. It was strange live and he’s bang to rights now the telemetry has been released.
disagree on interpretation of facts - fine.
disagree on facts - well this clearly calls the mental capability of one participant into question.
PlywoodPascal said:
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
It is the authority's decision that Alinso is at fault and therefore deserved a penalty that you have a problem with.
Your argument is utterly irrelevant.
Your view is of no importance whatsoever. Because authority point blank says, in writing, that you are wrong in your assertion.
Buy Krupp!
thegreenhell said:
menguin said:
It's strange when potentially dangerous behaviour results in dangerous outcomes, almost as if the two might be linked
It would be easy for someone to jump to an uninformed conclusion on that basis.Just because driver A did something 'potentially dangerous', and shortly afterwards driver B crashed, it doesn't necessarily follow that driver B crashed because driver A did something potentially dangerous.
In this case, both Russell and the stewards ascribed the crash to loss of downforce from being close to Alonso in the corner, not from Alonso doing anything dangerous at that exact point. There are a multitude of ways in which Alonso could have done what he did and Russell wouldn't crash, and an equal number of potential ways in which Alonso did nothing extraordinary and Russell would still crash in that exact way. The link between the two are circumstantial at best, which is why the stewards took no action over the crash itself. There was no direct cause and effect, only indirect.
Alonso did something stupid, but Russell dropped it when he shouldn't have.
PlywoodPascal said:
Bluequay said:
Heed the advice of Mark Twain with regards to arguing with posters like this
I suppose one might not expect the subject of the quote to which you refer to be aware of it. What a lovely, snide, way to insult someone. Disagree with someone on the interpretation of facts - fine.
Suggest they are mentally incapable - rude and unnecessary.
jm doc said:
This.
As anyone who has ever raced will likely understand, Alonso clearly and deliberately slowed down unexpectedly so as to impede Russell on entry in to the bend so that he could gain an advantage as he exited, with the aim being as it was the last lap, of ensuring that he couldn't be overtaken before the flag.
I seriously doubt that he intended Russell to crash but nonetheless that was the consequence of his deliberate and unexpected act. If Russell had been T-boned and killed or seriously injured, in many countries there would be a criminal investigation into this. Alonso could think himself quite lucky on this occasion.
The FIA these days has a duty of care to drivers and needs to be seen to act whenever something happens that puts drivers at risk, and this was clearly an example.
There is no denying the danger aspect of Alonso's tactics but George wasn't making a huge fuss over it, claiming he could've been killed.As anyone who has ever raced will likely understand, Alonso clearly and deliberately slowed down unexpectedly so as to impede Russell on entry in to the bend so that he could gain an advantage as he exited, with the aim being as it was the last lap, of ensuring that he couldn't be overtaken before the flag.
I seriously doubt that he intended Russell to crash but nonetheless that was the consequence of his deliberate and unexpected act. If Russell had been T-boned and killed or seriously injured, in many countries there would be a criminal investigation into this. Alonso could think himself quite lucky on this occasion.
The FIA these days has a duty of care to drivers and needs to be seen to act whenever something happens that puts drivers at risk, and this was clearly an example.
And are there examples of Alonso's tactics causing shunts?
entropy said:
jm doc said:
This.
As anyone who has ever raced will likely understand, Alonso clearly and deliberately slowed down unexpectedly so as to impede Russell on entry in to the bend so that he could gain an advantage as he exited, with the aim being as it was the last lap, of ensuring that he couldn't be overtaken before the flag.
I seriously doubt that he intended Russell to crash but nonetheless that was the consequence of his deliberate and unexpected act. If Russell had been T-boned and killed or seriously injured, in many countries there would be a criminal investigation into this. Alonso could think himself quite lucky on this occasion.
The FIA these days has a duty of care to drivers and needs to be seen to act whenever something happens that puts drivers at risk, and this was clearly an example.
There is no denying the danger aspect of Alonso's tactics but George wasn't making a huge fuss over it, claiming he could've been killed.As anyone who has ever raced will likely understand, Alonso clearly and deliberately slowed down unexpectedly so as to impede Russell on entry in to the bend so that he could gain an advantage as he exited, with the aim being as it was the last lap, of ensuring that he couldn't be overtaken before the flag.
I seriously doubt that he intended Russell to crash but nonetheless that was the consequence of his deliberate and unexpected act. If Russell had been T-boned and killed or seriously injured, in many countries there would be a criminal investigation into this. Alonso could think himself quite lucky on this occasion.
The FIA these days has a duty of care to drivers and needs to be seen to act whenever something happens that puts drivers at risk, and this was clearly an example.
And are there examples of Alonso's tactics causing shunts?
And are there examples of Alonso's tactics causing shunts?
Not sure the point of this comment in relation to what I posted, but yes there are, this one, which is the only point I was trying to make.
Others on here have strong opinions about Alonso, I think he's just old school F1 racer who liked to play dirty when he had to, similar to Schumacher but not at the same level. The sport has moved on in the same way as football has with all those meaty challenges now outlawed. It's the modern world.
Edited to add: for better or for worse.
Edited by jm doc on Tuesday 26th March 13:16
carlo996 said:
paulguitar said:
don't think that's a certainty at all, and how is that relevant, anyway? Even if they did dominate, they have drivers who challenge each other, so the situation is completely different.
Given how the Australian GP went it’s not exactly a stretch. And your rose tints about the Mercedes dominated era remain. The Mercedes era included three seasons with Hamilton and Rosberg racing each other, two seasons of Hamilton racing competitive Ferraris and one season of Hamilton racing Verstappen (who was awarded the WDC). Nothing involving 'rose tints', merely facts.
entropy said:
jm doc said:
This.
As anyone who has ever raced will likely understand, Alonso clearly and deliberately slowed down unexpectedly so as to impede Russell on entry in to the bend so that he could gain an advantage as he exited, with the aim being as it was the last lap, of ensuring that he couldn't be overtaken before the flag.
I seriously doubt that he intended Russell to crash but nonetheless that was the consequence of his deliberate and unexpected act. If Russell had been T-boned and killed or seriously injured, in many countries there would be a criminal investigation into this. Alonso could think himself quite lucky on this occasion.
The FIA these days has a duty of care to drivers and needs to be seen to act whenever something happens that puts drivers at risk, and this was clearly an example.
There is no denying the danger aspect of Alonso's tactics but George wasn't making a huge fuss over it, claiming he could've been killed.As anyone who has ever raced will likely understand, Alonso clearly and deliberately slowed down unexpectedly so as to impede Russell on entry in to the bend so that he could gain an advantage as he exited, with the aim being as it was the last lap, of ensuring that he couldn't be overtaken before the flag.
I seriously doubt that he intended Russell to crash but nonetheless that was the consequence of his deliberate and unexpected act. If Russell had been T-boned and killed or seriously injured, in many countries there would be a criminal investigation into this. Alonso could think himself quite lucky on this occasion.
The FIA these days has a duty of care to drivers and needs to be seen to act whenever something happens that puts drivers at risk, and this was clearly an example.
George: "RED FLAG! RED FLAG!! RED FLAG!!".......no "fuss" at all
entropy said:
And are there examples of Alonso's tactics causing shunts?
Coulthard 2003 is memorable...jm doc said:
If you listen to George's radio at the time of the accident he was absolutely concerned about being killed. He was on his side in a high speed corner and was shouting desperately red flag! red flag! That wasn't cos he wanted to get back to the pits in a hurry for a drink!
He was more concerned of being a sitting duck and being rammed into. Did he even say over the radio the stewards need to look at Alonso?George wasn't going full Horner post-race saying he could've been killed / ended up in hospital
paulguitar said:
It's one race, and therefore a significant stretch.
The Mercedes era included three seasons with Hamilton and Rosberg racing each other, two seasons of Hamilton racing competitive Ferraris and one season of Hamilton racing Verstappen (who was gifted the WDC). Nothing involving 'rose tints', merely facts.
FtfyThe Mercedes era included three seasons with Hamilton and Rosberg racing each other, two seasons of Hamilton racing competitive Ferraris and one season of Hamilton racing Verstappen (who was gifted the WDC). Nothing involving 'rose tints', merely facts.
entropy said:
jm doc said:
If you listen to George's radio at the time of the accident he was absolutely concerned about being killed. He was on his side in a high speed corner and was shouting desperately red flag! red flag! That wasn't cos he wanted to get back to the pits in a hurry for a drink!
He was more concerned of being a sitting duck and being rammed into. 
I don't know what point you are trying to make, Alonso created the situation, confirmed by the Stewards, and George clearly thought he might get killed and clearly could have been killed.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff