Alonso full of mistakes.

[vall]

I thought that the penalty on Alonso was debatable. He could have come away from that pass without penalty, but the stewards took another view. It is their prerogative. Bottom line: Fernando gambled to not get penalized and lost. Basically fair deal there.

The thing that wasn't fair was the time that it took the stewards to come to the decision and the knock on effect the safety car had on the failure to swiftly make a judgement. This was by no means Alonso's mistake. So I think the whole issue belongs more in a thread about the stewarding at Silverstone.

What was Alonso's role in the two collisions (with Massa and Liuzzi if I'm right)? I did not see if he did ok there. I have not seen any analysis of his driving there and would like to know if he did ok.

Domenicali said they were unsure whether Alonso should let Bob pass. They thought it may not be considered unfair advantage. So, they decided to ask Charlie about it. The answer was yes, Alonso should give the position back, but at the same time Bob retired and this was no longer possible. The stewards decided to go for a penalty and it took them far too long again.

[myurr]

I posted this in another thread, but it seems more at home here:


There were two main reasons that the stewards decision took so long - the first is that Ferrari were, in their own words, discussing the incident with race control which implies that they were having a back and forward conversation which would have been delaying the matter from being referred to the stewards.

The second reason is that the stewards have to follow due process, and that is an important point as they are governed by international law and can be taken to court over their decisions. This isn't some gut decision based on the TV feed replay, they HAVE to collect the evidence, review it, discuss and come to a decision that then has to be relayed back to the team.

Alonso / Ferrari should just have conceded the place and then worked on overtaking him again - I was actually gob smacked when I saw Alonso try and keep the place as it was only ever going to end with either him having to give the place back immediately or him getting a drive through penalty. There is so much precedence there was never going to be any other outcome, including Spa 2008 where Hamilton was deemed to have not given sufficient advantage back despite letting the other car back past.

Does anyone know what the exact process is? I would be interested to know.

[autogyro]

+1

Alonso should have allowed the repass strait away.
The rest was caused by Ferrari's delay trying to gain an unfair advantage.
If Alonso had tried to allow the repass and this was obvious even though the other car pulled off, then I do not believe the stewards would have awarded a drive through penalty.

[Super racing]

The contact between De La Rosa & Sutil probably delayed Charlie & the stewards as well, parts were flying all over the track.

The penalty was justified and the result fair, Alonso has a piss poor race, and destroyed Massa's as well.

[vall]

+1

Alonso should have allowed the repass strait away.
The rest was caused by Ferrari's delay trying to gain an unfair advantage.
If Alonso had tried to allow the repass and this was obvious even though the other car pulled off, then I do not believe the stewards would have awarded a drive through penalty.

I thought they should give the position too. I was surprised they did not and expected a penalty, but definitely faster decision.

[vall]

The penalty was justified and the result fair, Alonso has a piss poor race, and destroyed Massa's as well.

I would not agree with that. He had a poor start, yes (Vettel on the same side had poor start too, so it may be the dust.....), but apart of that he was doing well and overtaking Bob and Britney was probably only a matter of time.

It was a typical 1-corner racing incident with Massa. If we are discussing that, then what about Hamilton destroying Vettel's race? He gave him a decisive puncture...

[gridwalker]

In 08, Hamilton got a penalty for making a similar move, allowing a repass then taking the iniative again too quickly ... He was LITERALLY driving a circle around Massa, but he was still punished for being so impetuous.

If Alonso didn't deserve a penalty for that move then I am a scientologist.

[andrew]

Alonso should have been told to let Kubica past straight away and the team should have known this. If Alonso was faster than Kubica, he should have been able to pass him again. Yet another Ferrari mess-up has cost them a possible 3rd place.

[daijiro]

Alonso knows exactly what´s gonna happen if you take advantage using the inside corner´grass to gain a position he is always thinking about how can he beat anyone by any method legal or not (he prefers beat any other driver better not in a legal way but when the stewards are not prepared to watch the trick) .Is the way he feels smarter tha the others.I told this because as i said before I know Alonso very very in deep.

[l4mbch0ps]

Penalties handed out over the past two races really show how unfit for purpose they really are. Because in both cases the punishment was not equal to the offence. I think suitable time penalties should be applied after the race. I think a 5 second penalty added to alonso's race time at silverstone would of been a far more appropriate punishment.

Penalties are not meant to identically offset the advantage gained by the offence. They never have been. The point is he broke the rules, and you get punished for that - not that, if you break the rules, we'll put you right back where you were before you broke them. That's silliness, and quite frankly, nearly impossible in F1. You tell me exactly the gain Alonso made by getting through at that point - then tell me how to exactly assess that penalty, and maybe we'll talk about a punishment perfectly offsetting the crime.

As far as blame on Ferrari, i think that's completely misplaced. The team is not likely to even have seen the pass as it happened, and therefore Alonso is the only one who could say "I passed him while off the track". Alonso is a big boy, he should realize, after all the controversy we've had surrounding this *exact* issue in the last few years, that he should give the place back.

[Ciro Pabón]

I thought that the penalty on Alonso was debatable...

Unlike other penalties...

[WhiteBlue]

I thought that the penalty on Alonso was debatable...

Unlike other penalties...

I'm not sure I understand what you refer to. Obviously a delicate latin humor thing a German is too thick to grasp in this case.

I said debatable because some may not have seen a significant advantage. Half way between the two corners Kube and Alonso were pretty much side by side. Going into the turn it distorts the picture for Alonso because he was taking the longer outside line. Eventually the lesson is you better do not debate the case and give the position up or you might collect a punch that knocks you out cold.

[ISLAMATRON]

Ciro is saying all the penalties are debateable... as clearly evident by the level of debate regarding every penalty here on the forum.

[speedsense]

I thought that the penalty on Alonso was debatable. He could have come away from that pass without penalty, but the stewards took another view. It is their prerogative. Bottom line: Fernando gambled to not get penalized and lost. Basically fair deal there.

The thing that wasn't fair was the time that it took the stewards to come to the decision and the knock on effect the safety car had on the failure to swiftly make a judgement. This was by no means Alonso's mistake. So I think the whole issue belongs more in a thread about the stewarding at Silverstone.

What was Alonso's role in the two collisions (with Massa and Liuzzi if I'm right)? I did not see if he did ok there. I have not seen any analysis of his driving there and would like to know if he did ok.

Domenicali said they were unsure whether Alonso should let Bob pass. They thought it may not be considered unfair advantage. So, they decided to ask Charlie about it. The answer was yes, Alonso should give the position back, but at the same time Bob retired and this was no longer possible. The stewards decided to go for a penalty and it took them far too long again.

Doesn't the rule predicate that the "position" should be given back? If the gained position is 9th the car should return to tenth, regardless of the car in tenth place. As the gained position effects all cars in the race (especially the ones behind)IMHO...

[Richard]

If the gained position is 9th the car should return to tenth, regardless of the car in tenth place. As the gained position effects all cars in the race (especially the ones behind)IMHO...

I like that version. So if you are in car B in a train of three cars A, B, C

If car A is still on the track, then you drop back to behind car A.

If the other car is out of the race you drop back to behind car C (ie the one that that was behind you when you made the bad move).

What happens if the other car pits, do you have to drop back say 5 places to get back in formation? Can you pit before doing that