Australian GP – Syndication Server

Alonso penalty proves divisive among drivers at Suzuka

Fernando Alonso’s penalty for his driving tactics against George Russell in Australia has divided opinion up and down the grid ahead of a predicted long drivers’ briefing at the Japanese Grand Prix. Russell crashed heavily after losing control in …

Russell crashed heavily after losing control in dirty air at the high-speed Turn 6 in Melbourne, after Alonso slowed significantly on the previous straight and then accelerated towards the corner again. While not overly criticizing Alonso, Russell believes the incident required a penalty, otherwise it would “open a can of worms” about what a driver can do in defense, while the Spaniard countered that it would “100%” not be a talking point if Russell hadn’t crashed.

“If he was in Abu Dhabi with a run-off area in asphalt or whatever, I think George will rejoin the track a few meters after that and will try to have a go on me in the following lap or in the following straight,” Alonso said. “It will not be any problem.”

However, there were wildly differing opinions across the rest of the field. After Nico Hulkenberg stated he “wasn’t very impressed” by Alonso’s tactics, Charles Leclerc also felt the incident was worth of punishment.

“My view is that it’s something that we do as drivers; however, not to that extent,” Leclerc said. “What Fernando did in Australia was too much, and had to be penalized.

“I think it’s clear what we can and can’t do. You can always try and write it in a better way for it to be even clearer. However, I really believe that common sense is the way forwards. We will never be able to write in the rules every possible scenario of every situation. There might be situations where it is clear for everybody, especially the drivers, that someone deserves a penalty, even if this particular scenario is not written in the rules. So I think common sense needs to be used in certain cases, and that was one of them.”

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1388]

Lewis Hamilton was less committal but still stated he didn’t know what Alonso was attempting to achieve with his move.

“I saw one clip of it, I’ve not thought of it since,” Hamilton said. “It’s not a topic for me — it’s nothing to do with me. The stewards obviously found a reason to penalize. They’ve been asked to be stricter this year, and that’s that. I don’t understand the situation, if I try to put myself in Fernando’s position I can’t understand the maneuver, but I’m just glad that George is safe. It’s a frightening position to be in the middle of the track with cars coming around at crazy speeds.”

Lando Norris, however, feels that a major issue has been created by the fact that Alonso was penalized for his driving because it’s not clear how drivers can defend.

“It shouldn’t be a penalty,” Norris said. “I think it was clear; now it’s not. Just my opinion, maybe other drivers have different opinions. What Fernando did was odd. Like, so extreme. But I don’t think it’s even close to be regarded as a brake test. Did he brake and downshift? I don’t know the exact things of it. But should it be a penalty in any way? No.

“George, in my opinion, should have seen it coming. I don’t want to comment too much on it. George had time to see what was going on, you know. And yeah, I’m sure it’s always tougher being in the situation, that’s why I don’t like commenting on it. But that kind of thing shouldn’t have been a penalty.

“I think it’s clear that if he’s in front, like Max [Verstappen] and Hamilton [in Jeddah 2021] — that’s a brake test,” Norris said. “This was not a brake test. This was just trying to play very smart, Fernando being Fernando … and kind of being caught out about it. It was not aggressive — it was not like one meter in front of a car stopping. It was like 100 meters ahead, slowed down and just the approaching speed caught George off. Nowhere near should that have been a penalty, I would say.”

Norris agreed with Russell’s can of worms argument, but felt that the penalty had opened a different can… Simon Galloway/Motorsport Images

Lance Stroll, too, was firmly in his Aston Martin teammate’s corner, saying drivers should not be punished for incidents where no contact is made.

“I don’t think he did anything stupid, he was just preparing the exit of the corner,” Stroll said. “For me it was ridiculous. To get a drive-through penalty for an incident that doesn’t even involve any contact between the cars or anything like that, I didn’t really understand it.

“I just think a penalty in general was kind of a joke. Where do you draw that line between driving unnecessarily slowly and just being like tactical? I think there’s been instances in the past where guys have slowed down to try and get DRS, or try and avoid DRS, and those guys weren’t given penalties and stuff.

“We’re lifting and coasting in the race, so if you lift and coast for 500 meters going into a corner, does that mean you’re driving unnecessarily slowly? I don’t know, where’s the sweet spot for that? Because now we’re having to do all those things anyway for tires and fuel.

“If you ask me, Fernando did a big lift and coast — it was tactical,” Stroll insisted. “Tires are also getting tricky at the end of the race and he wanted to get a good exit out of that corner. It’s not like he braked and George ran into the back of him. George did the corner and didn’t run into the back of him at all — unfortunately lost some downforce and had a moment, that’s racing.”

Stroll expects the situation to create a major talking point in the drivers’ briefing on Friday night.

“To be honest, I didn’t read the full explanation, I just saw the video. As a driver, I have my view on it. There’s going to be, I’m sure, a very long drivers’ meeting this weekend — which I’m not looking forward to, because they’re already too long,” he said. “But I’m sure there’ll be a whole long list of explanations.

“Seriously, the race director should just give his points, and then whoever wants to stick around and talk about the color of the clouds for the next hour and a half can stick around, and whoever wants to leave can leave!”

Hulkenberg unimpressed with Alonso’s Australian GP tactics

Nico Hulkenberg says he “wasn’t very impressed” with Fernando Alonso’s tactics defending against George Russell in Melbourne, after the Spaniard was penalized for slowing in a straight line. Alonso was given a retrospective drive-through penalty – …

Nico Hulkenberg says he “wasn’t very impressed” with Fernando Alonso’s tactics defending against George Russell in Melbourne, after the Spaniard was penalized for slowing in a straight line.

Alonso was given a retrospective drive-through penalty — converted into 20 seconds of race time — after the Australian Grand Prix due to the way he defended against Russell on the penultimate lap, as the Mercedes drivers lost control at Turn 6 and crashed heavily. Hulkenberg says the corner in question made it the wrong place to perform such a move, even if he accepts drivers do slow in such a manner in different situations.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1388]

“My personal view, and what I saw, I wasn’t very impressed with Fernando’s tactics there to be honest,” Hulkenberg said. “Because Melbourne after all is kind of a street circuit, it’s quite narrow there, we approach that corner with 260/270 clicks, it’s a blind exit, and if for whatever reason the flag system or someone is late and one of us would have t-boned George, I think the outcome and the way he feels might have also been quite different.

“While that tactic is quite a common one in Formula 1, in that particular corner, with that speed, with a blind exit, I think it’s the wrong corner to do it, and it produced quite a dangerous situation.

“What I also don’t understand is right after on the radio he’s talking about throttle issues or throttle stuck or not stuck, but then later on he doesn’t talk about that anymore, he just talks about it being standard procedure and tactics. That doesn’t align — he seems to have changed his opinion there. Like I say, I wasn’t very impressed with that, personally.”

Given his acknowledgement of the specific layout of that corner at Albert Park, Hulkenberg says it’s also important the location and angle of the barrier is revisited to stop cars bouncing back onto the track after Russell ended up on his side in the middle of the circuit.

“It’s the wrong speed range, the wrong corner, and I think also the shift or the change — the deceleration — was quite a big delta, obviously. It’s easy to overreact and lose the rear of the car like happened to George.

“We’ve also seen with that corner — last year with Alex [Albon] who crashed there — that barrier puts a car back onto the circuit. We need to look at that and change something there because that’s really not good when you come around that corner and you have a car in the middle of the track.”

Steiner calls for greater clarity on defending after Alonso penalty

Formula 1 needs to be more clear about what is and isn’t an acceptable level of defensive driving in the wake of Fernando Alonso’s penalty at the Australian Grand Prix, according to Guenther Steiner. Alonso was given a retrospective drive-through …

Alonso was given a retrospective drive-through penalty — converted into 20 seconds of race time — for driving in a “potentially dangerous” manner when slowing ahead of George Russell on the approach to Turn 6 late in Sunday’s race. The decision has sparked debate on what counts as skillful defense and when it crosses a line, but speaking after being announced as a new Miami Grand Prix ambassador, former Haas team principal Steiner says clarity is the most important outcome.

“I haven’t seen the data, I just read what you’ve all read, that he was on the brakes and tapping the brakes and things like this,” Steiner said. “I think we are at the point now where, we had it with Kevin [Magnussen] where he was defending in Saudi Arabia, now Fernando defending the position…

“I actually was with Checo [Perez] on the plane back from Melbourne and we had a quick chat about it, and we came to the conclusion that fighting this hard for P6 is a little bit overdoing it. I mean, I know that everybody needs the points, but it’s like, ‘Wow.’ I think we are at the limit.

“But also, the stewards’s verdict — you are wrong but you are right — it wasn’t very clear to me. ‘You get the penalty but we don’t know if you should get the penalty.’ It’s like, ‘I give you the penalty but I’m not sure if you’ve done wrong.’ So I think it needs to be a clearer stance, and it needs to be the same for everyone as well.

“I think we were on the limit there — if not over the limit.”

Aston Martin has opted against appealing the penalty given to Alonso — despite it costing the team two points overall — citing a lack of new evidence that would allow it to request a right of review.

Two sides to Alonso’s Australian GP penalty argument

It was a bit of a bizarre end to the Australian Grand Prix when it came to the incident involving George Russell and Fernando Alonso. But while I’m going to stand up for Alonso to some degree, I’m also not against the fact that the stewards issued a …

The first viewing hadn’t caused me to raise any eyebrows, and my focus was instead on Russell losing control and his car ending up on its side in the middle of the track.

The summons for both drivers to see the stewards was issued shortly after the checkered flag, and as that meant an investigation was being launched it genuinely took me a moment to work out if it was for that incident, or something that might have happened away from the television cameras on an earlier lap.

Sure, Russell appeared to get close to the back of Alonso’s car, but from the serene perspective of a stabilized on-board camera on the Mercedes roll hoop it didn’t appear overly erratic.

Since I was running around the paddock and unable to check which lap corresponded to the time of the incident mentioned in the stewards’ summons, I even asked an Aston Martin press officer if there was something I was missing. You won’t be surprised to hear they said no, and were similarly perplexed at that stage.

But what those on-board cameras show and how it actually feels to a driver behind the wheel — from a much lower vantage point and far less stability in their vision — are two very different things.

It was telling that the hearing involving the two drivers lasted for almost a full hour. Had it been a 10-minute visit, it would have suggested a quick and simple resolution one way or the other, and the initial expectation of no further action being taken. I actually thought they had both long since returned to their respective teams by the time they actually emerged; Russell walking alongside Mercedes sporting director Ron Meadows, and Alonso following a few paces behind next to Aston Martin’s Andy Stevenson.

There were stern expressions on their faces, and no words being spoken. At the very least, it suggested there had been some serious discussions going on.

And that’s when telemetry started surfacing, and previous lap to later lap comparisons, as fans did their own usual excellent investigatory work while waiting for the FIA to make its own decision.

By the time a penalty was handed out to Alonso because the stewards felt “he drove in a manner that was at very least ‘potentially dangerous’ given the very high-speed nature of that point of the track,” it had felt like one was coming. And the reaction seems to overstate the significance.

“A bit surprised by a penalty at the end of the race regarding how we should approach the corners or how we should drive the race cars,” Alonso wrote soon afterwards. “In F1, with over 20 years of experience, with epic duels like Imola 2005/2006 or Brazil 2023, changing racing lines, sacrificing entry speed to have good exits from corners is part of the art of motorsport.”

Add to that Aston Martin team principal Mike Krack’s comments and you’d think Alonso had just been banned from driving (as some fans calling for a particularly draconian penalty had suggested).

“I want you to know that we fully support Fernando,” Krack said in a message to the team’s fans. “He is the most experienced driver in Formula 1. He has competed in more grands prix than anyone else and has more than 20 years of experience. He is a multiple world champion in multiple categories.

“To receive a 20-second time penalty when there was no contact with the following car has been a bitter pill to swallow, but we have to accept the decision. We made our best case but without new evidence we are unable to request a right of review.

“Fernando is a phenomenal racer and he was using every tool in his toolbox to finish ahead of George — just like we saw in Brazil last year with Sergio [Perez]. This is the art of motorsport at the highest level. He would never put anyone in harm’s way.”

While accepting the judgment of the stewards, Mike Krack (second from right) stayed fully in his driver’s corner. Zak Mauger/Motorsport Images

I’ve got issues with almost all of the comments from Alonso and Krack, but also agree that you could argue that the penalty was on the harsh side.

Just because Alonso is so experienced, does not mean he cannot make mistakes or misjudgments. The results he has secured in different categories are impressive, but there are also different driving styles and standards that are allowed by the regulators in each that need abiding by and adapting to. Every driver has got something wrong at some point.

And when it comes to the penalty itself, it’s not removing the art of defensive driving. Just like overtaking, it’s attempting to make a call on when that art might be taken just slightly too far.

In the stewards’ decision, it explained how Alonso had lifted much earlier than usual and downshifted, then accelerated again and upshifted, adding: “Alonso explained that while his plan was to slow earlier, he got it slightly wrong and had to take extra steps to get back up to speed.”

Right there is the crux of the issue: “Alonso got it slightly wrong.” It doesn’t have to have been his intent to cause an incident at all, and I’ll back him that it certainly wasn’t. The intent will have been to disrupt Russell behind to create a bigger gap on the exit of Turn 6 to protect himself from attack using DRS. And in trying to do so, Alonso slightly overdid it.

Alonso’s apparent claim that there was an issue with the engine on the following lap did not make it as far as the stewards’ room, in another suggestion that he perhaps knew he might have just crossed the line, particularly given where Russell ended up.

The outcome was dramatic, but the crime was far from egregious. Lift slightly later and not need the acceleration again, and Alonso likely brings Russell just as close to him at the apex but in a less erratic way. Even if the outcome had been the same, it’s more understandable that Russell could have been expected to be prepared for Alonso to do something different in that corner, and needed to take care as the following car.

The stewards’ decision makes clear that the Spaniard was entitled to try and drive in a defensive manner and get creative:

“Should Alonso have the right to try a different approach to the corner? Yes.

“Should Alonso be responsible for dirty air, that ultimately caused the incident? No.”

But it says in doing so he took it slightly too far and created a “potentially dangerous” situation. It’s the same as when attacking, you can try a different approach to get past a car but you don’t need to make contact to receive a penalty for the way you positioned yourself and impacted a rival.

Krack was keen to highlight that Alonso is the most experienced driver on the grid, but as such he’s more likely to have more opportunities to be involved in incidents. He’s raced more laps and been involved in more battles, and the law of averages is that for all the brilliant racing that is just the right side of the line — like Brazil last year — there will be the odd occasion that the mark is marginally overstepped.

That doesn’t make Alonso a dirty driver, and doesn’t necessarily make the penalty fair. Alonso had every right to try something clever to hold Russell off, and the stewards had every right to work out if he took it that bit too far on this occasion.

They’re extremely fine margins, and Alonso doesn’t need vilifying for getting it wrong, but also needs to acknowledge that his immense experience and skill doesn’t preclude him from misjudgments.

Blame for Williams chassis issue is on me – Vowles

Williams team principal James Vowles says he has to take the blame for the lack of a spare chassis that left the team with just one car racing in the Australian Grand Prix. Alex Albon’s crash in FP1 damaged his chassis, and with Williams still yet …

Williams team principal James Vowles says he has to take the blame for the lack of a spare chassis that left the team with just one car racing in the Australian Grand Prix.

Alex Albon’s crash in FP1 damaged his chassis, and with Williams still yet to have manufactured a spare, it was left to the team to decide which of the two drivers would get to compete in the rest of the race weekend. Vowles opted to withdraw Logan Sargeant, leaving Albon to take over his teammate’s car and finish 11th in the race. But after describing the situation as “unacceptable,” Vowles says he takes responsibility.

“It lies on me, there’s nowhere else it should ever stop,” Vowles told Speed City Broadcasting. “We’ve changed so much technology within the factory — we’ve changed how we design and produce the chassis, we’ve changed how we do things aerodynamically, we’ve changed how we add performance, how we do upgrades…

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1388]

“We’ve added process; we’ve added at the same time we’re going to do three cars — not one car — and you would imagine that stretches an organization to the limit.

“In the beginning of the year we were very open and honest — we were so late on the car because we changed so much, and one of the outcomes of that is we couldn’t make an additional chassis. You can’t move forward unless you are prepared to take some massive risks, and we did. But the outcome of it is you play with fire, and that caught us out.”

Shortly after Albon’s crash, Vowles couldn’t guarantee the damaged chassis would be repaired for the following race in Japan, but now believes the required work should be completed in plenty of time.

“I’m confident that we’ll be able to fix the chassis,” he said. “We put measures in place to ensure the chassis was back here very early on Monday morning — I think arrived around 2am or so — and since then there was already crews inside the building working on that, stripping it down and doing repairs.

“We’re in a good place for having the chassis back early enough for Suzuka. A lot of the work’s done actually back in Melbourne; there were photographs and techniques called NDT — non-destructive testing — there’s various ones you can do there, but it allows us to fully understand how big the damage is and what we have to do.

“And that preparation is key. What it meant was already at 2am on Monday, work could start. It wasn’t then a reflection on what was happening, it was more, ‘This is what we’re doing and this is how we execute it.’ So in Suzuka we’ll have two cars without too many issues.”

Alonso surprised by post-race Melbourne penalty

Fernando Alonso says the way drivers have to get creative to try and defend positions at times is “part of the art of motorsport” after being surprised by the penalty he was given after the Australian Grand Prix. The stewards handed Alonso a …

The stewards handed Alonso a retrospective drive-through penalty – converted into 20 seconds being added to his race time – for driving in a “potentially dangerous” manner when defending against George Russell on the final lap of the race in Melbourne.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1388]

Alonso lifted more than 100 meters earlier than he had at any other stage of the race on the run to Turn 6, downshifted, then accelerated again and upshifted, before again slowing for the corner. Russell lost control coming close to the rear of Alonso’s car and encountering a loss of downforce, suffering a heavy crash and leading to the stewards investigating the incident and penalizing Alonso.

“Double points for the team and a better race pace than the rest of the weekend allowed us to cross the finish line in 6th and 7th place,” Alonso wrote of the outcome. “A bit surprised by a penalty at the end of the race regarding how we should approach the corners or how we should drive the race cars. At no point do we want to do anything wrong at these speeds.

“I believe that without gravel on that corner, on any other corner in the world we will never be even investigated. In F1, with over 20 years of experience, with epic duels like Imola 2005/2006 or Brazil 2023, changing racing lines, sacrificing entry speed to have good exits from corners is part of the art of motorsport.

“We never drive at 100% every race lap and every corner, we save fuel, tires, brakes, so being responsible for not making every lap the same is a bit surprising. We have to accept it and think about Japan, to have more pace and fight for positions further up the field.”

Aston Martin has the right to appeal the penalty – that dropped Alonso to eighth in the final result and ultimately cost the team two points – but has suggested it is unlikely to do so.

Norris felt he could have split Ferraris in Melbourne

Lando Norris believes he should have finished ahead of Charles Leclerc in the Australian Grand Prix after ending up third behind the two Ferraris. Carlos Sainz took a relatively comfortable victory after overtaking Max Verstappen prior to the Red …

Lando Norris believes he should have finished ahead of Charles Leclerc in the Australian Grand Prix after ending up third behind the two Ferraris.

Carlos Sainz took a relatively comfortable victory after overtaking Max Verstappen prior to the Red Bull’s early retirement, with Norris running second to Sainz at the time. However, Ferrari stopped Leclerc earlier than Norris at the end of the first stint and used the undercut to get ahead, also covering off a McLaren response later on and securing a one-two finish.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1388]

“I think when you take the Red Bull out of it I would say, no [a podium was not unexpected],” Norris said. “I think our pace has been good all weekend. We put things together very nicely [in qualifying]. We showed a good long run and high-fuel pace on Friday. So I wouldn’t have said we had no chance.

“I didn’t expect probably us to be competing against the Ferraris. I think our pace was not as good as Carlos, but probably better than Charles. So I think if I was being honest we maybe missed out a little bit on an opportunity to be P2. But yeah, for us to say that is a good sign. And I think it’s a good positive for the whole team.

“It’s a good boost. It’s nice to be back on the podium. Whether or not the Red Bull was there or not our pace was good and hopefully that continues for more races.”

Expanding on where he feels McLaren could have reacted differently, Norris says an earlier second pit stop to try and regain track position was the only likely move that would have succeeded.

“I mean, we didn’t leave anything on the table but the lap we were going to undercut, he boxed. So then again you have to go off and do kind of a different strategy. We got close in the second stint. I got very close. If I boxed, I think I would have undercut. But he boxed, so I missed that opportunity.

“So you always think, what happens if we did it one lap earlier? But it’s tough to make all those decisions at the time. And it can easily go wrong at the same time. There are always consequences of doing so.

“I think we still did a very good job. Third and fourth for us, as a team, is positive and a good load of points. But they were clearly a better team, and they have a better car at the minute. So whether or not we could beat them, they have a better car, they have a quicker car, and we have to work harder until we can match what they’re doing.”

Alonso dropped to eighth after penalty in Melbourne

Fernando Alonso has been given a 20-second time penalty after the Australian Grand Prix for driving in a “potentially dangerous” manner that caused George Russell to crash. Russell crashed at Turn 6 on the final lap of the race, closing in rapidly …

Fernando Alonso has been given a 20-second time penalty after the Australian Grand Prix for driving in a “potentially dangerous” manner that caused George Russell to crash.

Russell crashed at Turn 6 on the final lap of the race, closing in rapidly on Alonso towards the apex and then sliding wide into the gravel and hitting the barrier, sustaining heavy damage. The pair were then summoned to the stewards where it emerged Alonso had lifted off more than 100 meters earlier than he had at any stage the race and created a significant difference in closing speeds.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1388]

“Alonso explained to the stewards that he intended to approach Turn 6 differently, lifting earlier, and with less speed into the corner, to get a better exit,” the stewards’ decision read. “Russell explained to the stewards that from his perspective, Alonso’s maneuver was erratic, took him by surprise and caused him to close distance unusually fast, and with the resulting lower downforce at the apex of the corner, he lost control and crashed at the exit of the corner. There was no contact between the cars.

Big impact for George Russell 😮

Good to see the Mercedes man walk away unscathed from this crash 👍#F1 #AusGP pic.twitter.com/Jsq6RZ1UBS

— Formula 1 (@F1) March 24, 2024

“Telemetry shows that Alonso lifted slightly more than 100m earlier than he ever had going into that corner during the race. He also braked very slightly at a point that he did not usually brake (although the amount of brake was so slight that it was not the main reason for his car slowing) and he downshifted at a point he never usually downshifted. He then upshifted again, and accelerated to the corner before lifting again to make the corner.

“Alonso explained that while his plan was to slow earlier, he got it slightly wrong and had to take extra steps to get back up to speed. Nonetheless, this maneuver created a considerable and unusual closing speed between the cars.”

Article 33.4 of the FIA’s F1 Sporting Regulations states: “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.”

The stewards stated they did not have sufficient information to know if Alonso intended to cause Russell problems or was solely trying to get a better exit as he claimed, and also disregarded the outcome of the incident, saying Alonso has the right to try a different approach to the corner and is not responsible for dirty air that causes an accident.

“However, did he choose to do something, with whatever intent, that was extraordinary, i.e. lifting, braking, downshifting and all the other elements of the maneuver over 100m earlier than previously, and much greater than was needed to simply slow earlier for the corner?” the stewards asked in summary. “Yes, by his own account of the incident he did, and in the opinion of the stewards by doing these things, he drove in a manner that was at very least ‘potentially dangerous’ given the very high-speed nature of that point of the track.”

While the baseline penalty for such driving is a 10-second time penalty, the stewards noted that a drive-through is recommended when there is “an aggravating circumstance” involved.

“In this case we consider that Alonso affirmatively choosing to perform an unusual maneuver at this point to be an aggravating circumstance, as opposed to a simple mistake.”

As the penalty is handed out post-race, it is converted from a drive-through into a 20-second time penalty, dropping Alonso from sixth in the final classification to eighth, and promoting Lance Stroll to sixth and Yuki Tsunoda into seventh. Alonso also receives three penalty points for the incident.

Melbourne win extra special for Sainz after ‘roller coaster’ start to 2024

Carlos Sainz says his future departure from Ferrari and recent appendicitis both add to the special feeling he got from his victory in the Australian Grand Prix. Just 16 days after undergoing surgery to have his appendix removed in Saudi Arabia, …

Carlos Sainz says his future departure from Ferrari and recent appendicitis both add to the special feeling he got from his victory in the Australian Grand Prix.

Just 16 days after undergoing surgery to have his appendix removed in Saudi Arabia, Sainz started on the front row in Melbourne and took a remarkable win as he passed Max Verstappen on lap 2 before the championship leader retired. Sainz was comfortable in the lead after that point, and says the win shows how quickly situations can changed as he won the third race after it was announced he’ll be replaced by Lewis Hamilton in 2025.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1388]

“I think it’s not only the last two weeks, you know, it’s the whole start of the year in general, how the year started with the news of the non-renewal,” Sainz said. “Then you get yourself fit, you get yourself ready for the start of the season, pushing flat out. And then you get to Bahrain, you do a good podium, you say, ‘OK, now the season is starting well and I can keep the momentum going.’

“And suddenly, boom, missing a race in Jeddah and the operation. Long, long days in bed, not knowing if I was going to be back in time. Obviously a lot of unknowns. Am I going to be back fit? Am I going to be back feeling still good with the car? And then suddenly you come back and win.

“So yes, what I said on the radio, you know, life is a roller coaster sometimes, but it can be really nice and good to you sometimes. And just letting it sink in and enjoying the moment.”

Sainz took the lead after Verstappen ran wide at Turn 3 as a brake issue worsened, but the Spaniard believes he also had the car to put pressure on Red Bull regardless of Verstappen’s issues.

“I got a decent start from the dirty side of the grid, but obviously couldn’t put Max under pressure into Turn 1, but from there on it was a kind of a very strategic first lap and a half where you are wanting to protect the tire from opening up the graining,” he said. “But at the same time, I knew this weekend and this race, I could have the pace to challenge Max. And I thought to myself, with how powerful the DRS is around here, if I get myself within the DRS range after lap 1, we can put him a bit under pressure.

“I think he did a mistake into Turn 3 that allowed me to stay within the DRS and I could feel myself being pretty quick. I don’t know when his brakes started to go, but in dirty air, obviously, it’s not the same than in clean air with a big gap.

“I saw him… obviously pushing on lap 1 and I was like, ‘OK, I’m going to push with him too and challenge in the car.’ But obviously it could have been the brakes, as he said. So, I don’t know, honestly, but it felt good to pass him, with brake issues or not, because it is tough to pass Max and the Red Bull.

“It’s what we’ve said from the beginning — if you are there and you can put Red Bull under pressure, you can sometimes get it done. But you need to be there — and we need to be there more often if we want to win.”

Stuck brake curtails Verstappen dominance

Max Verstappen’s first retirement in two years was caused by a stuck right rear brake that eventually failed at the Australian Grand Prix. The polesitter held the lead on the opening lap but complained the car had snapped away from him strangely as …

Max Verstappen’s first retirement in two years was caused by a stuck right rear brake that eventually failed at the Australian Grand Prix.

The polesitter held the lead on the opening lap but complained the car had snapped away from him strangely as Carlos Sainz stayed close on the second lap and used DRS to overtake in the middle sector. Starting the next lap, smoke started emerging from the right rear corner of Verstappen’s car and he had to slow, with the brake exploding in the pit entry and catching fire as he returned to the Red Bull garage.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1388]

“My right rear brake basically stuck on from when the lights went off,” Verstappen said. “So the temperatures just kept on increasing and until the point of course that it caught fire. It explains it now, having one brake caliper just stuck on. It’s like a handbrake.

“I had that moment, of course after the first lap, but then already the temperature was increasing and increasing. So it just works like a handbrake. But of course, I didn’t know that stuff was happening. I just felt the problem was the balance in the car was off.”

Verstappen says he’s philosophical about the retirement given how good Red Bull’s reliability has been, with his last failure to finish coming at the same race in Melbourne in 2022.

“Not so much [emotion] to be honest. I mean, I’m disappointed with not being able to finish the race because I think we would have had a good shot at winning — the balance felt quite nice on the laps to the grid. Like I felt confident and like a good improvement compared to what I felt in the long runs when we did in practice. But some things you can’t control.

“It excites me, in a way. Of course I would like to win. Of course, we had a lot of good races in a row, a lot of basically good reliability. And I knew that the day would come that you end up having a retirement and unfortunately that day was today.

“I think we just had already a very good run of two years. That’s already quite impressive. Of course, you never like to see it happen, but it’s more important now that we understand why it happened.”

Verstappen — who says the failure couldn’t be caused by a tear-off — was also caught on camera arguing with a team member in the garage after jumping out of the car, but says that was due to the team’s actions when he got back into the pits.

“Well, that was related to us doing a pit stop while the car was on fire. I was like, ‘Why are we doing a pit stop?’ but that was it.”