Vergne says Alonso avoided a big accident

[Scott]

...and that the stewards are correct not to punish him for his off-track pass, as he was avoiding an accident.  Not so sure I would give Sutil the same lee-way though, as Alonso was just hanging on while Sutil powered through and passed two cars off track (even if he was pushed off).

Alonso had to go to the hospital to be checked out after he suffered a 25g hit during his excursion past Vergne.  He said his back hurt somewhat, but he was happy he still had all his teeth. 

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111117

[Ian]

25g, that's gotta hurt.

[Monty]

I did not care about the outcome of the stewards investigation but it yet again brings into question the suitability of these boring 'painted' tracks.
If there had been an inside wall there is no doubt that Alonso would have backed off and taken his place behind Vergne. It is only because the track limits are set by lines and kerbs that he could get away with such a reckless move.

[John S]

What puzzles me about all this is who was passing whom?????

It's my understanding that the driver in front has to give room, ie. the car width rule, to the overtaker. Surely Vergne was passing Alonso for position not the other way around. So why did Vergne have to leave Nando room? 

 

[Monty]

Because Alonso was rejoining the track it was his responsibility to 'join safely' (I'm sure Alia will be able quote the actual regulation  ).
Vergne was ahead of him on the track so Alonso was trying to overtake.
It is possible to argue that Vergne 'crowded' Alonso but that would assume that Vergne could see Alonso trying to get up his inside.
What I am 100% sure of is, if there was an inside wall, Alonso would not have attempted the pass!

[Scott]

I think Alonso would have had blue lights flashing at him as he went through the tunnel, but even so, it is a blind entry.  I think if both knew the other was there, then Vergne probably would have kept a better eye on him (not necessarily yield, but at least know where he was).  If there was a penalty to hand out, it would probably go to Alonso - agreed.  But it was also Alonso's lightning reaction that kept them both in the race.

[John S]

Vergne was ahead of him on the track so Alonso was trying to overtake.

I view it as Alonso trying to take back a place that he had just lost to Vergne, now does the one car width rule apply for the car that has just been passed but refuses to give way?  ....I think not, but who knows with such inconsistent stewarding these days. 

[Alianora La Canta]

Two regulations are relevant here.

Article 30.13 states that "At no time may a car be driven... ...in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers". It's a broad-ranging regulation that includes an implicit requirement to rejoin tracks safely.

The more specific (and partiallysuperfluous) regulations is Article 20.2. It states that "Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage... ...A driver may not deliberately leave the track without justifiable reason."

So a driver leaving the track (there was never any debate Alonso did this) is obliged to rejoin safely (otherwise they will break 2 regulations!), without gaining an advantage they are likely to retain and to have a good reason for leaving the track.

"Advantage" is determined by overtaking someone in the process of leaving the track, retaining a position by leaving the track, or saving time by leaving the track (the latter is more often enforced in practice and qualifying than the race).

Alonso's argument that he was avoiding an accident appears to have been accepted by Vergne, so it is no surprise that the stewards accepted it too. The only danger in Alonso's rejoining method appears to have been to Alonso himself (i.e. the back injury), which isn't covered in the Article (and in any case would be considered its own penalty). The "advantage" thing is more difficult, but the specific reason that made the off-track excursion valid in the first place (avoiding an accident) may well have been used. Vergne lost less by being passed that way than by being deliberately crashed into.

The "car width rule" only applies if the car ahead has already taken the privilege of the "one move" rule. This is affirmed by Article 20.4, i.e. "Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason." There are a lot of "ifs" but if they are met, there was no obligation on Vergne's part to give Alonso any space whatsoever (given that there was no particular danger in implicitly making Alonso back off - else that would be a breach of Article 30.13).

Article 30.13 makes no reference whatsoever to anything that may have happened before the straight where the "one move" happens - each corner effectively acts as a reset button. Turn 1 was the reset button in the Alonso/Vergne case, if I remember the part of the track they were on correctly.

[Monty]

I wish Alianora would be more precise! 

[Willy]

It is a really silly pit lane exit.