Sorry for multiple posts, but I replied quickly and I think I owe you a more complete reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo
But once you are at the apex the car ahead would always be on the throttle, the shenanigans into the corner in my opinion is just gamesmanship and for me doesn’t fall under dangerous.
|
What might be considered dangerous behavior in a corner by you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo
If Alonso had braked 100% 200m earlier then yes I could see how that would be considered dangerous, but Russell had completed his braking and was into the corner.
|
I read this example of 200m early as more of a "brake check" scenario in which evasive action is required by the following car. But doesn't address the issue of it creating a dangerous problem in the middle of the corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo
OK he was too close but I’m betting Russell was hoping to take advantage down the straight that followed but couldn’t hold the car in the dirty air.
|
Absolutely Russell was trying to reduce the gap. And if he could get a run on Alonso out of the corner then why not? Does the potential that a following car might be trying to pass you on corner exit allow for or justify dangerous behavior in or on entry into a corner by the leading car? Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo
I’m well aware that F1 cars rely on aero grip and what Alonso did was likely done to unsettle Russell, but for me at that point it’s just Russell who has lost it and he has failed to keep his car under control.
|
To my point earlier. This is no different than saying "I brake checked and you lost control, that is on you" or "I swerved into as you were beside me and you lost control, that is on you". That is driving without rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo
I suspect that if Russell had just had a big oversteer moment and then caught the car there would be no discussion and no penalty, but the fact he dropped the car in a big way, does that mean a penalty is more warranted? Is it the action or the outcome that is scrutinised? Or both?
|
I think this is a valid question and one that has been made here and Alonso made the same point in his Instragram post. My view is that there is a wide range of things drivers do to drive offensively and defensively. For example, on the offensive side, you will get close to the leading driver to apply effectively "mental pressure" with the hopes this forces a mistake. On the defensive side, a leading driver can pick lines that are not particularly quick with respect to lap time, but take away passing opportunities. But there is also things like weaving, multiple moves in a corner, brake checking, etc. in which fit into the broader "offensive" or "defensive" driving categories, but are not considered to be "Ok".
So where is the line drawn? I think there is a line, it is fuzzy and it is probably crossed more often than we think. I don't think the stewards are equipped (both in technology and manpower) to monitor, review and adjudicate all of these that might happen in a race. BUT... occasionally something comes to their attention. It might be particularly egregious or blatant, but without lasting damage or might be less overt but with the result of car damage, an off or even an accident.
I think the stewards (and the regulations) strive to treat all behavior the same, but I think the level of attention any incident gets is driven by multiple factors. Such as how egregious was it, did it result in damage or an accident, etc. So unfortunately they are not able to really treat everything equal.
So to your point, is it the action or the outcome? The rules say it is the action only. My personal opinion is that both end up being a factor. BUT! They will clearly indicate that it was the action that is being punished. I made this point earlier that they can't hint or say that "If you do <insert offensive behavior here> and there is no accident, you are all good" as they don't want to set the precident.
I also said earlier I file it under the "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Basically drivers need to understand that if they are trying to be particularly clever in naughty ways, it may bite them. I also said earlier, I personally don't think Alonso was trying to crash out Russell. I do think he was trying to get Russell to sacrifice is speed and exit on that corner MORE than Alonso's slowing sacrificed his own speed and exit. That Alonso wanted to use his actions on corner entry to increase his gap on corner exit. When I say it like that, it sounds innocent and OK. Which is frankly how Alonso positioned this on Instragram. But the problem is that HOW Alonso was doing all of this was dangerous and erratic from the following car's perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodemo
If people are upset at Alonso I’d be far more outraged at the fact he has never shown any remorse or rescinded his “win” at Singapore 2008, which to me is a major blot on his character.
|
I like Alonso. Nobody is perfect. The entire 2008 situation is a blot. I try to not be outraged about everything I can be outraged about. 2008 is in the past. But I am under no illusions that Alonso is not above playing serious on track games. Including crossing the line. And he is not alone in this.
Richard