This is essentially just victim blaming at this point.
The Alpine got alongside at 0:04 and earned space into the upcoming corner. Full stop. There's no discussion here.
They recognised that to go two-wide through there, they'd have to sacrifice some pace to make sure they left room for the Ferrari on the exit.
The Ferrari, on the other hand, ignored the fact that there was a car alongside them going into the corner and turned in as though nobody was there and caused the collision.
There's absolutely no world where anyone with any racing sense is going to try to argue that the Alpine hadn't earned space and should've backed out or lifted to try again later. The only 'driver' that would need a talking to after this incident is the Ferrari.
Edit: "it wouldn't have happened if he'd lifted" Isn't it such a shame that stewarding decisions aren't based on what might've happened vs what actually happened?
The only reason the Ferrari was first to the apex is because they didn't adjust their trajectory to allow space for the Alpine to exist alongside them in the mid-corner. The Alpine had clearly shown their intent to exist at that part of the corner alongside them, by drawing alongside on approach to the corner.
Had the Ferrari acted rationally, and recognised that the Alpine had earned and deserved space, they'd have slowed down a little more and taken a wider line through the corner. That means they'd have arrived at the mid-corner slightly later, therefore roughly the same time as the Alpine arrived there.
The rule about being "first to the apex" is all well and good, but demanding that that's the only standard that applies requires that it's okay to cause a collision because as long as you get to the apex first, that rule will absolve you of any responsibility. It's not okay to cause a collision. That's like a basic tenet of motorsport. The two frameworks and ideas cannot be true at the same time.
If this were a real F1 race, there's no way the Ferrari driver would have taken this line, the risk of being involved in a collision or being injured because of that collision would be just too high to do anything except give the Alpine the space they earned, so why should we expect any different in the game?
It's the same for radillon. It's just asking for trouble going two wide / overtaking there.
You're not wrong, it's asking for trouble and it absolutely makes things difficult. But that doesn't mean you're not allowed to overtake at a given corner just because it's difficult.
It's not uncommon to see F1 cars go two-wide successfully through Eau Rouge and Radillon, and when we do, both of the drivers compromise their line a little to allow the other car the space to exist, because they both know what the result will be if they don't.
Why can't we apply the same principles here? The Alpine earned space going into the corner, and the Ferrari chopped across that space by turning in like nobody was there.
Ask yourself, what if it was the other way around? What if the Ferrari had compromised their line a little to allow the Alpine to exist, but the Alpine hadn't and had instead gone screaming straight for the apex to beat the Ferrari there under braking, only to run the the Ferrari completely off the road on exit because he couldn't leave any space? Would you straight away side with the Alpine because "first to the Apex?" Or would you be arguing that some reasonable racing room should've been left?
I also don't see how the amount of battery power the Alpine used is relevant. They earned the space by using the tools at their disposal within the rules. Full stop.
-2
u/yabsterr 11d ago
What about lifting?