The Stewards examined testimony from Alonso, Russell, and their respective team representatives, along with a plethora of data including positioning/marshaling system data, video footage, telemetry, team radio communications, in-car video evidence, and telemetry provided by both teams.
Russell’s incident occurred on lap 57 at the exit of Turn 6 while he was trailing the Aston Martin by approximately 0.5 seconds as they approached the corner.
Alonso clarified to the stewards that his approach to Turn 6 was intentional, aiming to lift earlier and carry less speed into the corner to optimize his exit.
Conversely, Russell conveyed to the stewards his perspective that Alonso’s maneuver was erratic, catching him off guard and leading to an unusually rapid closure of the gap, resulting in decreased downforce at the apex and subsequently causing him to lose control and crash.
Notably, there was no physical contact between the two cars. Telemetry data indicated that Alonso lifted off the throttle slightly more than 100 meters earlier than usual approaching that corner in the race.
Additionally, he applied minimal braking at a point where he typically didn’t brake, although this braking force was negligible and not the primary cause of his deceleration.
Furthermore, Alonso downshifted at an atypical point, followed by an upshift before accelerating into the corner and subsequently lifting again to negotiate it.
Alonso admitted that while he intended to decelerate earlier, he misjudged it slightly, necessitating additional actions to regain speed. Nevertheless, this maneuver resulted in a significant and unorthodox closing speed between the two cars.
The stewards’ deliberation centered on the regulation’s wording, emphasizing that “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.”
In this particular instance, the stewards did not take into account the aftermath of the crash. Furthermore, they deemed that they lacked adequate information to ascertain whether Alonso’s maneuver was intended to hinder Russell or simply aimed at securing a better exit, as he asserted.
Does Alonso have the prerogative to explore alternative approaches to the corner? – Certainly. Should Alonso bear responsibility for the turbulence, which ultimately led to the incident? – No.
However, did he opt to execute an extraordinary action, regardless of intent, involving lifting, braking, downshifting, and various other elements of the maneuver over 100 meters earlier than usual, and to a much greater extent than necessary to decelerate for the corner?
According to his admission of the incident, yes. In the stewards’ view, by undertaking these actions, he drove in a manner that was at the very least “potentially dangerous,” given the high-speed nature of that section of the track.
This season, the FIA Formula 1 penalty guidelines, including penalties for this infraction, have been revised and heightened to a baseline of a 10-second penalty. Moreover, in cases involving aggravating circumstances, the stewards may impose a Drive Through Penalty.
In this instance, the stewards deemed Alonso’s deliberate choice to execute an unconventional maneuver at that juncture as an aggravating circumstance, rather than a mere error.
Consequently, they imposed a drive-through penalty, which was converted to a 20-second time addition to his elapsed race time, along with three penalty points.
This decision resulted in the Spaniard falling from 6th to 8th position.
Alonso was in front therefore it was his corner and down to him as to how he executed the corner, Russel was chasing and not that close and should have been more alert. Alonso did lift earlier than the previous lap but he has the right to choose how he takes the corner. The stewards have this totally wrong in my book it’s a racing incident nothing else. Sorry for Russel but he’s a super licence holder in F1 on his talent so should be more aware to his surroundings and what did he expect Alonso to do roll over and let him pass him. The rule book has gone mad lately to many rules with time penalties being handed out like confetti. Yes, if they break the track limits, weave around and deliberately brake test yes, they need punishment but it’s a drivers’ job to stay in front and not be passed if this means taking corners differently to the previous laps so be it, after all the chasing driver takes a different line into a corner many times to confuse the guy ahead. RACING INCIDENT FULL STOP