Perez keeps eighth after penalty for “divebomb” on Albon

Formula 1

Posted on

| Written by

Sergio Perez has kept his eighth place finish in the Singapore Grand Prix despite being penalised for a late-race collision with Alexander Albon.

The Red Bull and the Williams were fighting for the final points paying position with four laps remaining in the race when Perez attempted to pass Albon on the inside of the tight turn 13, the slowest corner on the circuit.

Perez appeared to be several car lengths behind the Williams over the Anderson Bridge approaching the braking zone but attempted s pass up the inside. As they reached the apex, the pair collided, sending Albon into the barriers.

“I had no room,” Perez insisted over the radio after the accident. The clash dropped Albon down to 14th place. Perez took 10th position, then passed Liam Lawson for ninth before George Russell’s crash on the final lap promoted the Red Bull driver to eighth at the flag. Albon eventually finished 12th.

The incident was investigated by the stewards who determined the Red Bull driver was “predominantly to blame” for the clash. The stewards explained they felt Perez’s move “was an ‘optimistic’ late manoeuvre”, that he had been “diving in” and that “there was nothing that [Albon] could have done to avoid the collision”.

Perez was handed a five-second time penalty for the collision as well as a single penalty point on his superlicence, bringing his total to three. However, Perez retained his eighth position as Lawson finished 10 seconds behind him.

Albon said Perez’s lunge cost him a chance of finishing in the points. “I got divebombed by Checo into turn 13,” he said. “He T-boned me and I went straight on into the wall, had to reverse out and dropped to 13th and I finished 11th, so we should have scored points today and we didn’t.”

Albon and Perez were also investigated for an earlier incident where Albon was alleged to have passed Perez under the Virtual Safety Car. After Esteban Ocon retired from the race with a gearbox problem on lap 43, the Virtual Safety Car was deployed. Albon pitted from 11th place for medium tyres and emerged just ahead of Perez with the two crossing the Safety Car line at the end of the pit lane almost together.

Perez moved ahead but Albon passed the Red Bull on the run to turn four, stating his belief that he had been ahead at the line. However, the stewards took no further action for the incident as they noted that the timing system was “unable to determine that there was any difference in their respective times of arrival at [Safety Car Line Two].” Video footage from the incident was also “inconclusive”, leading both Red Bull and Williams to agree that no action should be taken over the incident.

Bringing the F1 news from the source

RaceFans strives to bring its readers news directly from the key players in Formula 1. We are able to do this thanks in part to the generous backing of our RaceFans Supporters.

By contributing 1 per month or 12 per year (or the equivalent in other currencies) you can help cover the costs involved in producing original journalism: Travelling, writing, creating, hosting, contacting and developing.

We have been proudly supported by our readers for over 10 years. If you enjoy our independent coverage, please consider becoming a RaceFans Supporter today. As a bonus, all our Supporters can also browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2023 Singapore Grand Prix

Browse all 2023 Singapore Grand Prix articles

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

31 comments on “Perez keeps eighth after penalty for “divebomb” on Albon”

  1. Just like Hamilton at Monza, the penalty is far too lenient, considering it totally ruined the other driver’s race. Should have been a drive-through or even a stop-go in both cases.

    It has recently been brought up that if Hamilton in Spa 2008 had happened now it would have been a five-second penalty but back then the lowest possible was 25 seconds, which made it look ridiculous (I do believe there should have been no penalty at all, however). But in 2023 it seems that the five-second penalties are being used too much and Hamilton and Perez really got away with one these last two races.

    1. and a dsq for a deliberate takeout of max in monza back 2021

      1. and a dsq for a deliberate takeout of max in monza back 2021

        Absolute and total reversal. Max was the one at fault. “MadMax” is totally applicable to what Max did.

        1. i meant dsq for max of course. i dont own orange armchairs to have such distorted views as to mean dsq for HAM. sry for the confusion…

      2. That black flag already should have been used in Silverstone when Lewis attacked Verstappen.
        A very despicable action .

        1. That black flag already should have been used in Silverstone when Lewis attacked Verstappen

          Hmm, that would be “attack” he did by having his front left wheel right where the late braking Max was chopping right while aiming for the centre point of the kerb on the inside of the corner?

          Max applies slightly less turn on the wheel, or the same amount a few tenths later, and there would be no collision.
          That was Max’s contribution, the element that the stewards noted and thus only attributed partial blame to Lewis.
          Under then extant rules they split the blame, under amendments demanded by RBR “for clarity” the blame would have been majority/total on Max.
          The rules were different then, so Lewis carried the can.

    2. Indeed, Alonso should have been given a drive through for crossing the pit lane line.

      1. While recently it has been “penalized” with a black and white flag only.
        Not that it would have made much of a difference today, anyway Fred finished last.

    3. Frog, I agree, time penalties rarely seem appropriate. I don’t understand why the drivethru penalty fell out of fashion, and I am sure that time penalties only came about originally to cater for the situation where the penalty came too late in the race for the driver to serve it. I remember one of the team bosses abusing that principal, telling his drivers not to come in for the drivethru or stopgo, take a time penalty instead, because as well as keeping track position, they could argue their case after the race and maybe get a time penalty rescinded, but once they’d served a drivethru, they couldn’t get that time back.

      1. AlanD, are you sure that you haven’t misremembered the details there?

        I presume you are talking about the regulations from the 1990s when you’re talking about adding time to the driver’s overall race time. Incidentally, it is worth noting that, back in the late 1990s, the sporting regulations referred to “a time penalty” only, and driving through the pits was simply the way that the “time penalty” was implemented back then.

        Additionally, whilst the regulations did give the stewards the option to add that time penalty onto the overall race time of the driver if the penalty was within the last 12 laps, it was at the discretion of the stewards to decide whether they would impose the penalty that way.

        The scenario you describe seems to have something missing, because the regulations at the time stated that, if a driver was given a “time penalty”, the driver had to serve that penalty within three laps of being given the penalty, otherwise the stewards would have the right to disqualify them from the race. It would be the stewards, not the team, that would get to decide whether or not the driver had to serve the penalty in the pit lane or after the race.

    4. @f1frog Depends on whether the incident is being penalized or the effect on the other driver’s race. In terms of the incidents, Hamilton v. Piastri (monza) and Perez v. Albon (Singapore) were completely different. Hamilton made a legitimate pass but didn’t allow Piastri enough room in completing the move, while Perez was going for a pass that was never on in the first place. For one of the clumsiest racers on the grid, Perez seems to get the lightest penalties for his own infractions and heaviest against opponents judged to have been responsible in collisions with him. Red Bull driver.

    5. I agree it was too lenient, but you don’t seem to mention silverstone 2021, don’t tell me 10 seconds was appropriate there, as he ruined verstappen’s race more than perez did here with albon.

      1. Verstappen ruined his race himself back then

        1. Toto, is that you?

          1. Christian?

  2. He shouldn’t have kept 8th, it was a move that was never going to work and it feels bad to see the ‘victim’ walk away with nothing while the ‘punished’ not only keeps the place but the points that come with it. Also worth pointing out this was not just a bad race for Red Bull but a very poor one for Perez.

    The five second penalty rule really needs examining as due the car disparity that can be race ending for Williams, AlphaTauri, even an Alpine but is nothing but a slight bother to a Red Bull, Mercedes or Ferrari. That doesn’t seem fair.

    1. This!
      A penalty should be dissuasive enough. If by playing foul you get an advantage which is greater than the penalty, everybody would benefit by playing foul all the time.

      1. And they are doing so. There are times when they make an illegal move while being 1+ seconds faster. Then they pull away by 10+ seconds and happily accept the 5 second penalty afterwards.

        I do not like time penalties and they should be rarely used. (usually in case of late race incidents only to swap back positions) An offence is either worthy of a drive-through or not worthy of a penalty at all. Let them collect those penalty points instead of 5 second penalties.

    2. @rocketpanda i think the easy solution is to take time out of the equation and have a finishing position drop. Say 1 to 3 places depending on the situation? Stops drivers/teams gaming the system.

      1. Exactly, it’s what I was thinking as well as a solution.

  3. Perez only hit 2-3 cars this race so 5 seconds seems fair ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  4. A five second penalty means nothing when you take another driver out of the race. Ridiculous.

    1. I said this as well in silverstone 2021, with the 10 sec back then, but people insist you don’t need to take consequences into account. Some even said verstappen was at fault, yet it was hamilton getting the penalty.

      1. Suffering Williams Fan
        18th September 2023, 20:23

        I think the rules are written such that consequences can’t be considered, so from the perspective of the rules, they were right. But it does seem like this needs to be reviewed. It seems likely Albon would have ended up eighth and ahead of Williams main competitors in this race, extending their points advantage. Instead, this is the sort of thing that might cost Williams millions come the end of the season, while Perez (and by extension Red Bull) suffered no consequences.

  5. Perez driving is always so uncouth. That move was no way on and he just drove like he was in the wacky races.

  6. According to the stewards, Pérez was supposedly only “predominantly to blame” but “there was nothing that [Albon] could have done to avoid the collision”. Makes sense… somehow.

    So it’s 10 seconds for track limits in Austria for Sainz and Hamilton, and 5 seconds for barging Albon out of the way, into the barriers, and out of the points for a Red Bull driver in Singapore. Also makes total sense.

    One shudders to think what kind of incident must occur for stewards to hand out a drive-through penalty… or even a stop and go. Maybe we’ll find out if Dan Ticktum ever makes it to an FP1 session.

    1. Make it make sense somehow right? Lol
      Another proof of rookie stewards for this GP. What a mess. This one makes you think they’re still to grasp the language correctly

    2. If you want a stop and go, you just need to enter the pit lane and pit when it’s not allowed. Alternatively, you can hit an opponent on purpose at 50 kph.

      1. Right, I think those are the only real stop and go penalties in the last couple of years. I recall Montoya got a (then novel) drive-through penalty for a first lap collision with Schumacher back in 2002 or so.

        These days they’d just ignore it because apparently lap 1 incidents are just ‘for the lulz’. And a meaningless five second time penalty if it happens later on in the race.

    3. He was only “predominantly to blame” as it was his South American temperament that also contributed to the collision, which he could not be blamed for. – statement made after the race by Hemlet Marko.

  7. In light of both of Perez’s crashes it is 100% clear that racing another car in @F1 no longer exists without DRS or a far faster car or by waving a blue flag (which is the second worst rule change in the history of the now non-sport), or by being forced to change tires (which is by far the worst rule change in the history of the non-sport)! What a croc! What’s next, one car on track at a time? Stop all this bullcrap! Let them race for Fangio’s sake!

Comments are closed.