George Russell believes it would have set a dangerous precedent not to penalise Fernando Alonso for slowing in front of him during the Australian Grand Prix.
The Aston Martin driver was given a post-race penalty after the stewards ruled he “created a considerable and unusual closing speed” between their cars by slowing early for turn six. The Mercedes driver was surprised by how quickly Alonso slowed and slid off the track into a barrier after suddenly gaining on his rival.“It was obviously a bit of a strange situation that happened last week,” Russell explained. “As I said at the time it totally caught by surprise.
“I was actually looking at the steering wheel, making a switch change in the straight, which we all do across the lap, and when I looked up I was in Fernando’s gearbox and it was sort of too late. And then next thing I know that I’m in the wall.”
The stewards revealed Alonso slowed over 100 metres earlier for the corner than he had done on any previous occasion and briefly touched his brake before accelerating again and braking a second time to take the corner.
Russell said allowing such driving would lead other drivers to copy the move and potentially cause more crashes, including in junior championships.
“If it were not to have been penalised, it would have really opened a can of worms for the rest of the season and in junior categories. Saying: Are you allowed to brake in a straight? Are you allowed to slow down, change gear, accelerate, do something semi-erratic?”
The stewards gave Alonso a post-race drive-through penalty, which dropped him two places to eighth in the final classification, and three penalty points on his licence.
Russell denied there are any hard feelings between the pair over the incident. “I don’t take anything personally what happened with Fernando and it probably had bigger consequences than it should have,” he said. “But as I said, if it went unpenalised, can you just brake in the middle of a straight? I don’t know.”
He revealed the pair had a chance encounter in the days after the race. “We actually saw each other back home, just coincidentally bumped into each other in a coffee shop.”
“But as I said, it’s nothing personal. When the helmet’s on, we’re all fighters and competing, when the helmet’s off, you have respect for one another. So of course there’s a lot of emotions in the moment but I think we both move forwards from this.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Australian Grand Prix
- Alonso calls Australian GP penalty a ‘one-off I’ve had too many of’
- Red Bull saw warning sign of Australian GP brake problem on Saturday – Verstappen
- Failing to punish Alonso would have “opened a can of worms” – Russell
- Leclerc sure “many team principals” are pursuing Sainz for 2025 seat
- “Don’t put me under pressure” – The best unheard team radio from Melbourne
Tristan
4th April 2024, 6:25
I still don’t get it, it’s fine to slow down the people behind you if it’s for the purpose of backing them into others, but not for your own tactical benefit? The whole slowing down thing has always been a can of worms to me ever since 2016.
Very few saw an issue then because excitement for the championship battle. But it’s never sat well with me and we’ve seen it multiple times since then. Alonso was just playing the game.
It’s a shame it took a car to be sitting in the middle of the track on its side for appropriate action to be taken but any such driving slowly could have ended in the same result.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
4th April 2024, 6:47
That’s not the distinction the stewards made. They even acknowledged in their decision Alonso had a right to do that.
The issue at stake is how much he slowed down by and how soon. Which is what Russell refers to here.
Tristan
4th April 2024, 7:32
Well that’s good to know and thanks for pointing it out. So it’s an undefined threshold? Makes more sense, but very up to the judgment of the stewards on the day I guess. Such is F1.
MacLeod (@macleod)
4th April 2024, 7:46
Stil as Russel himself said he was looking to his steering and when he looked up he was right near Alonso and went off. This is not Alonso fault but the Russell fault as he wasn’t paying attention.
The ‘potential’ could be dangerous is why i would say nonsense on this. If Russell didn’t lost control the stewards wouldn’t even investigate this.
Riccard
4th April 2024, 8:05
Drivers do change their steering in the middle of straights, though – all of them – partly because it’s a spot where you don’t expect other drivers to make sudden changes in speed.
notagrumpyfan
4th April 2024, 8:56
Approaching turn 3 is one of the three major braking points.
‘Effective braking’ in those turns is crucial to maximise the speed (advantage) in the following straight. Alonso is probably the most cunning defender in F1, and Russel could/should have known that Alonso would not pick the standard lines and braking points to keep ahead on the following straight(s).
I’m still on the fence though if this action in this situation should be penalised.
In this instance it appears Alonso went too far in his tactics. But at the same time I don’t want the sport to take away tools a defending drivers has to defend its position. F1 is already unfairly benefitting attackers (DRS).
BasCB (@bascb)
4th April 2024, 14:57
notagrumpyfan – Alonso started slowing over 100m BEFORE the place where they start braking. Sure, Russel should have expected Alonso the old fox to try some sort of trick, but this was just far too much, badly judged by Alonso (see having to speed up again) and rightly penalised as erratic driving.
Coventry Climax
4th April 2024, 16:59
So maybe it would make more sense for the FiA to come up with a rule that taking your eyes off the road is illegal, telemetry (like in road cars) to detect it, slow the car down automatically when detected, and introduce an aeroscreen with heads-up display, so drivers can make changes and keep their eyes on what’s happening around them?
Clearly the FiA is now incapable of determinig correctly who’s to blame, so automate it.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
4th April 2024, 8:13
Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn’t. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t though.
And regardless, whether Alonso’s penalty was deserved or not, it was assessed independent of Russell’s contribution. In theory, Russell could have intentionally rammed Alonso and be penalized for such, but this should not detract from the Steward’s assessment of Alonso’s driving.
Lorengzte (@lorengzte)
4th April 2024, 8:46
True. If you can’t change steering in straights, then when you change it?
Alex
4th April 2024, 17:21
The stewards deemed Alonso’s move ”potentially dangerous”, but then neglected to explain what was dangerous about it.
Alonso lifted about 100m early, his speed dropped from 273 to about 245 km/h for about one second, then accelerated again for less than a second before braking and taking the turn normally. This “sudden” deceleration did not require any evasive action on the part of Russell to avoid a collision, as evidenced by the fact that Russell took no such action yet the pair never collided.
The fact is that Alonso’s one-second lift created dirty air for Russell that he was unable to deal with. And in the words of the stewards “Should Alonso be responsible for dirty air, that ultimately caused the incident? – no.”
Nick T.
4th April 2024, 20:32
George didn’t even complain once until Herbert summoned him to the stewards room. And this is a guy who is famously…let’s call, it track litigious.
With opinion massively divided at best, to claim it was clear this was a penalty is odd at best.
Armchair Expert (@armchairexpert)
4th April 2024, 6:47
It’s fascinating that Russell and the press don’t mention his team mate Hamilton on purpose slowing down Vettel in Eau Rogue of all places which apparently is a great racecraft and mark of the GOAT, but when Alonso does it to Russell, who as he admitted wasn’t even looking ahead:
it’s a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY!!!1 The same Russell who has such a great racecraft that he went wide at Hockenheim in 2019, handing the only point possible to score for Williams that year to his team mate Kubica OR crashed out driving behind the Safety Car at Imola in 2020 OR crashed into Bottas one year later and tried to blame the rival for his own shortcomings OR crashed into Zhou at the start of the 2022 British Grand Prix creating a monumental shunt OR crashed into barriers on the last lap of the 2023 Singapore Grand Prix OR crashed into Max in Las Vegas, claiming he didn’t see it coming. Do you see a certain pattern here? That maybe the problem is with Russell and his poor racecraft, rather than other drivers or Alonso in this case?
Jere (@jerejj)
4th April 2024, 7:20
I beg to differ that rather penalizing him opened a can of worms by setting a possibly problematic new precedent for the future.
Additionally, the fact George was looking at the steering wheel only further strengthens his responsibility as the driver behind in that situation because had he done that change immediately after the previous corner, he would’ve had more reaction time & possibly even noted the flashing red light.
MacLeod (@macleod)
4th April 2024, 7:47
+1 your completly right this is now a new rule!
Nacho Nachev
4th April 2024, 8:07
+1
Mayrton
4th April 2024, 8:28
Absolutely agree. Worrying stewarding once again.
Nick T.
4th April 2024, 20:37
The extreme bad blood between Herbert and Alonso makes this even more of a sticky situation IMO. I think we can all agree it would be best for stewards who have had any conflicts with a driver get personal to recuse themselves whether you think this penalty was fair or not.
Davethechicken
4th April 2024, 10:33
Adjusting settings on the wheel is part of F1 now. Like it or not. If you can no longer do that safely on the straights as some other driver is now braking when they are normally accelerating, where can it be done.
Like it or not it is fundamentally unsafe to brake or deliberately slow when one is expected to be accelerating.
Put it another way, if one driver is 0.2 sec behind the other, about to overtake, is it on for the driver ahead to brake and make the guy behind decide in a split second to crash into the barrier or the car ahead?
Coventry Climax
4th April 2024, 17:14
Even if adjusting things on the steering wheel is now part of F1, that does not take away the responsability of keeping aware of what’s going on around you. To make matters worse and quite ridiculous though, the stewards decided that all or part of that responsability is now on the shoulders of all the other drivers, with those stewards to decide at will.
Ever seen a fighter jet cockpit from the inside? It’s called heads-up display. Allows the pilots to adjust whatever they like while keeping their eyes where they should be and not be distracted.
So what you call ‘part of F1 now’ can just as easily be seen as a design flaw, and whose fault is that?
Oh, I know, Alonso’s ofcourse.
Davethechicken
4th April 2024, 22:08
You are misrepresenting what the stewards said.
Erratic driving at those speeds is dangerous. They acted on that basis. Quite clearly a driver could easily cause the car behind to crash into them by applying the brakes unexpectedly. On the roads it as called crash for cash, an insurance scam.
On the race track it is altogether higher stakes.
Braking in a flat out part of the track simply to cause your opponent to evade you is blatantly dangerous.
It is unfair and should be punished.
Drivers have a responsibility for one another in a sport with countless fatalities and life changing injuries over the years.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
4th April 2024, 8:01
Many things are of course ‘possible’ though I fail to see why the precedent of stewards being able to determine if something is erratic and potentially dangerous is any cause for concern. I’d further suggest that this is one of the calls I would expect them to make.
Undoubtedly….. But what if it were at ‘that’ point that Alonso had decided to slow/change down.
I think this is the whole issue. If people drive too far outside the window of expectation, when is it safe to make changes on the wheel, tear of a visor strip etc.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
4th April 2024, 8:02
Sorry. That comment was intended to be a response to @jerejj
notagrumpyfan
4th April 2024, 9:05
But you should ask your question if Alonso was driving ‘outside the window of expectation’. He is one of the best defenders (albeit ‘cunning’) and it was to be expected that he would take a different line and/or braking point to defend his position (on the following straight).
It will be difficult to determine what is and what isn’t allowed when defending. You cannot have a rule which states driving should match the attacker’s ‘expectation’, nor a rule saying one cannot change direction/speed when the following driver is looking at the steering wheel.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
4th April 2024, 9:26
Ahhh yes. The old ‘expect the unexpected’.
I entirely agree. And I am unsure any additional rule is required (I can’t really see where I implied otherwise). We already have a system whereby the stewards can make an assessment and determination as to whether a drivers actions are erratic or dangerous.
Not that you have stated this, however there does seem to be an implication that those of us who feel Alonso’s move(s) were fairly penalised are by default against any unusual/surprise/creative driving. Personally I am all for it, but believe there is an associated risk. Pulling off such moves successfully and safely is part of the skillset. Unfortunately for Alonso, his actions were not considered adequately safe.
MurasamaRA300 (@murasamara300)
4th April 2024, 8:59
Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous.
Time to go the extra mile and just stop the weekend right after qualifying.
No need to race at all!
Also, qualifying format must be changed! There should only be ONE car on track.
The seagull that flew by Norris in the caption competition must be slapped with a serious penalty for causing turbulence! :D
Lorengzte (@lorengzte)
4th April 2024, 9:48
I think drivers should be allowed to do risky moves, but it’s on them if it doesn’t work out, giving a risk of penalty.
The same way they’re free to perform Ricciardo-style divebombs, but should they mess up and send the other car off track, they run the risk of a penalty for forcing another driver off the track – the same goes for defensive driving.
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
4th April 2024, 9:56
Did Alonso stop unexpectedly in the coffee queue, or was George looking down at his phone?
tielemst
4th April 2024, 11:27
Seems that we’re all craving great, tight and agressive racing but at the same time want to regulate the hell out of it so races become boring processions.
The greatest overtakes from 10+ years ago would all be penalized in today’s F1.
Mayrton
4th April 2024, 11:59
To me a cause of this symptom is that we’ve had 4 years of Vettel and 8 years of racing under Mercedes dominance. F1 organisers and stewards have grown accustomed to processional parades with little to none track action. They have been lulled to sleep on the true DNA of this sport. Like you said, the overtakes of 10+ years ago would all be penalised these days.
Davethechicken
4th April 2024, 15:14
I disagree.
There is a difference between fair hard racing and deliberately braking when expected to be on full throttle to force an evasive manoeuvre.
F1 is much safer than ever but a fatal accident will happen again.
The rule makers, the stewards and the drivers (even begrudgingly Alonso) see the difference.
GT Racer (@gt-racer)
4th April 2024, 13:56
I gather that many of the drivers are of the view that the penalty was unnecessary and that they want to discuss it with the FIA in the drivers briefing in order to not only understand why it was even investigated but to also get assurances that it’s not opening up a can of worms in terms of telling drivers how they should approach corners.
I also gather that drivers want to discuss Melbourne’s Turn 6 as it’s felt the 2022 changes have made it a more problematic corner with the run-off no longer been suitable for the extra speed & slightly different angle of approach as cars that go off now tend to end up been thrown back onto the circuit (Something seen in F1 & support categories the past few years). It seems drivers will ask for the runoff to be altered & if it isn’t possible to do that then the feeling is that the corner should be reverted back to something closer to it’s previous configuration.
Jere (@jerejj)
4th April 2024, 16:36
Moving the tyre barrier as far away from the track edge as possible, given the space limitations outside track boundaries & simply removing T7 altogether, i.e., moving the track edge further outwards so that returning to full-throttle earlier would be possible without even risking going over the curb at the exit.
Altering T6 would make the whole radius alteration for 2022 seem pointless in hindsight & thus contradictory, so if the present radius truly were an issue, that change shouldn’t have been done in the first place.