Official 2024 Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Poll: Official 2024 Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Total Members Polled: 129
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
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...
It's a fact.
Bo_apex said:
TheDeuce said:
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...
It's a fact.
It's still wrong imo, your opinion is of course your own.
TheDeuce said:
Bo_apex said:
TheDeuce said:
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...
It's a fact.
It's still wrong imo, your opinion is of course your own.
F1 is becoming Disney.
Bluequay said:
The regulation has to cover a wide range of potential misdemeanours. Not all of them will require another car in close proximity. In this particular case though it does, as just slowing early and unexpectedly for a corner is not "potentially dangerous" unless there is someone very close behind you.
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.
The 'offence' doesn't rely on intent or a car to be close by, because the driver isn't in a position to tell if there is another car close by. That's why there's a general prohibition on it.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.
Bo_apex said:
TheDeuce said:
Bo_apex said:
TheDeuce said:
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...
It's a fact.
It's still wrong imo, your opinion is of course your own.
F1 is becoming Disney.
Forester1965 said:
Bluequay said:
The regulation has to cover a wide range of potential misdemeanours. Not all of them will require another car in close proximity. In this particular case though it does, as just slowing early and unexpectedly for a corner is not "potentially dangerous" unless there is someone very close behind you.
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.
The 'offence' doesn't rely on intent or a car to be close by, because the driver isn't in a position to tell if there is another car close by. That's why there's a general prohibition on it.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.
At no time is applied strictly to speed and erratic driving with no qualifications, but is qualified for potentially dangerous with the necessity of it to affect other drivers or persons. If there are no other drivers or persons who could be affected by the action then it cannot be dangerous, hence the requirement for proximity.
TheDeuce said:
Bo_apex said:
TheDeuce said:
Bo_apex said:
TheDeuce said:
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...
It's a fact.
It's still wrong imo, your opinion is of course your own.
F1 is becoming Disney.
Just let them race, physically and strategically.
If you want to eliminate all danger SIM is your answer. But they'll all be trying to catch Max there too
Bluequay said:
You are wrongly interpreting the regulation and I suspect you know it. "Potentially" is being used to widen the definition of dangerous from directly dangerous, eg ramming to things that could develop into something dangerous.
At no time is applied strictly to speed and erratic driving with no qualifications, but is qualified for potentially dangerous with the necessity of it to affect other drivers or persons. If there are no other drivers or persons who could be affected by the action then it cannot be dangerous, hence the requirement for proximity.
The purpose of the regulation is to prevent drivers driving poorly and causing an accident. There's no point putting a caveat on it that they can drive how they want when no cars are around but not when cars are around, because they don't know when there is or isn't one there. That's why we have regular penalties for impeding, and that's even when the team are actively helping try avoid it.At no time is applied strictly to speed and erratic driving with no qualifications, but is qualified for potentially dangerous with the necessity of it to affect other drivers or persons. If there are no other drivers or persons who could be affected by the action then it cannot be dangerous, hence the requirement for proximity.
Forester1965 said:
The purpose of the regulation is to prevent drivers driving poorly and causing an accident. There's no point putting a caveat on it that they can drive how they want when no cars are around but not when cars are around, because they don't know when there is or isn't one there. That's why we have regular penalties for impeding, and that's even when the team are actively helping try avoid it.
Pretty much every driver on the grid has been done for impeding in qualifying at some point. It’s blooming difficult to drive an F1 car slowly and safely, even with a race engineer watching the tracking screens. If Fernando had braked a little early for the corner and gone in a little more slowly than usual, then that’s fair racing. But he braked on the straight, accelerated and upchanged again before braking properly for the corner. It’s in the same category as weaving on the straight, fine when you’re on your own but not when there’s another car in close proximity. If the stewards had not penalised it, then it would have been open season for the drivers to all drive like dicks on the last lap.
Forester1965 said:
Bluequay said:
You are wrongly interpreting the regulation and I suspect you know it. "Potentially" is being used to widen the definition of dangerous from directly dangerous, eg ramming to things that could develop into something dangerous.
At no time is applied strictly to speed and erratic driving with no qualifications, but is qualified for potentially dangerous with the necessity of it to affect other drivers or persons. If there are no other drivers or persons who could be affected by the action then it cannot be dangerous, hence the requirement for proximity.
The purpose of the regulation is to prevent drivers driving poorly and causing an accident. There's no point putting a caveat on it that they can drive how they want when no cars are around but not when cars are around, because they don't know when there is or isn't one there. That's why we have regular penalties for impeding, and that's even when the team are actively helping try avoid it.At no time is applied strictly to speed and erratic driving with no qualifications, but is qualified for potentially dangerous with the necessity of it to affect other drivers or persons. If there are no other drivers or persons who could be affected by the action then it cannot be dangerous, hence the requirement for proximity.
Bo_apex said:
Would it still be "wrong" if Ham had done the same while trying to keep Rus behind ?
F1 is becoming Disney.
It’s been Disney for a while, just as it benefitted Max you didn’t care.F1 is becoming Disney.
The issue is if you allow people to move around/do unpredictable stuff it ruins racing as you have no idea what to expect. How do you pass someone on the straight if someone can weave as much as they want, forcing the driver behind to have to slam on the brakes for example? Same with corners, if someone is trying to get into position and the person in front can brake check then it makes passing impossible.
NRS said:
Bo_apex said:
Would it still be "wrong" if Ham had done the same while trying to keep Rus behind ?
F1 is becoming Disney.
It’s been Disney for a while, just as it benefitted Max you didn’t care.F1 is becoming Disney.
The issue is if you allow people to move around/do unpredictable stuff it ruins racing as you have no idea what to expect. How do you pass someone on the straight if someone can weave as much as they want, forcing the driver behind to have to slam on the brakes for example? Same with corners, if someone is trying to get into position and the person in front can brake check then it makes passing impossible.
FIA needs to clarify "necessary" threshold.
and introduce rear brake lights
If he had just braked early I'm guessing there would have been no penalty. But he braked early and then got back onto the throttle to drive to the corner and braked again.
IIRC he said he made a mistake and misjudged and braked way to early. Hence a mistake that was potentially dangerous. Hence the penalty.
IIRC he said he made a mistake and misjudged and braked way to early. Hence a mistake that was potentially dangerous. Hence the penalty.
Bluequay said:
They do drive how they want when there are no cars around and they don't get penalised for it. Watch any practice or qualifying session, it's a free for all outside of minimum lap times, unless you do something that affects another driver.
And we've completed the circle. My original point on this was the precedent set by the stewards in Australia may have unintended consequences.It’s crazy that when it’s comes to Alonso, people will argue the toss that he’s right, it’s someone else’s fault. Regarding the incident with GR, it is clear as day that he lifted and then went back on the throttle. GR was 0.5 secs behind, how was he meant to guess that FA would do something different to what he’d been doing lap after lap until then?
Folk are pussy footing around using the word “brake tested” - that’s exactly what he did. It’s a heinous thing for a driver in motorsport to do never mind in F1 so folk are skirting around the issue.
That the stewards considered the incident and penalised him, that’s enough for me. They had all of the data and decided that he had [insert any word that you want to use other than brake testing] GR and handed down the penalty points and classification drop.
Yes Alonso is embarrassed as are his fans but that’s exactly what he did and there’s no hiding - it’s all there in the telemetry.
Folk are pussy footing around using the word “brake tested” - that’s exactly what he did. It’s a heinous thing for a driver in motorsport to do never mind in F1 so folk are skirting around the issue.
That the stewards considered the incident and penalised him, that’s enough for me. They had all of the data and decided that he had [insert any word that you want to use other than brake testing] GR and handed down the penalty points and classification drop.
Yes Alonso is embarrassed as are his fans but that’s exactly what he did and there’s no hiding - it’s all there in the telemetry.
540TORQUES said:
Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin Aramco Formula One® Team driver and Double FIA Formula 1 World Champion, said: “Promoting driving standards across motorsport is vitally important. I’ve been in my fair share of on-track battles throughout my 23-years of racing in multiple categories of motorsports. Each battle requires an understanding and respect between fiercely competitive racers. We need consistency in how drivers attack and defend on the race track, as well as how the rules are interpreted during all competitions. I want to promote clean driving for the current racing generation, and the upcoming racers who are learning their craft and wanting to have professional careers in the future. Everyone has a responsibility to enjoy racing but do it fairly. The FIA's new Drivers' Standards Guideline will be crucial.”
The new for 2025 driving standards document from the FIA for all drivers from grassroots up.
https://www.fia.com/news/fia-drivers-committee-del...
Release less than one month old, and you get Alonso doing the oposite of what he wrote.
No surprises there, same old Failonso. The new for 2025 driving standards document from the FIA for all drivers from grassroots up.
https://www.fia.com/news/fia-drivers-committee-del...
Release less than one month old, and you get Alonso doing the oposite of what he wrote.
Edited by 540TORQUES on Wednesday 27th March 08:33
Forester1965 said:
That's where the steward's decision gets interesting.
They make a point of saying they took no account of Russell's accident. Which means they judged Alonso's driving in isolation.
From the next race on you're going to have teams poring over real-time telemetry data looking for other drivers driving erratically/slowly, irrespective of involvement with another car.
You are not.They make a point of saying they took no account of Russell's accident. Which means they judged Alonso's driving in isolation.
From the next race on you're going to have teams poring over real-time telemetry data looking for other drivers driving erratically/slowly, irrespective of involvement with another car.
Every decent driver knows what Alonso did was absurd and dangerous, i expect another occurrence will be very rare.
It's a similar issue to Max when he brake tested Lewis, bleeding obvious its a s
tty move by someone driving like a moron.https://youtu.be/Z8v9eY3r1p4?si=nwQw-pBiPwp4Vc-a
Can't preview link as it's an F1 video. Jolyon Palmer on Alonso/Russell.
'Alonso operates in grey areas'
Can't preview link as it's an F1 video. Jolyon Palmer on Alonso/Russell.
'Alonso operates in grey areas'
TheDeuce said:
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.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff