The Hungarian Grand Prix was predictably predictable; boring as expected. It is just as well that other situations have exploded, meaning that the circus leaves Budapest with plenty to digest.

I was amazed by what Fernando Alonso did in qualifying. It really was a dirty tactic worthy even of King Dirty Tactic himself, Michael Schumacher. But I could not help admiring the genius of it. It was not dangerous like Rascassegate, and Alonso had the brains to work out exactly how long he needed to stay in the box so that he could get a lap in but Hamilton couldn’t. I have to admire the cleverness of it.

While Alonso’s stunt looked bad on television, it has since transpired that it was a kind of ‘tit-for-tat’ payback for Hamilton breaking team policy by leading the train in the fuel burn phase when it was Alonso’s turn. Apparently they take it in turns so that the advantages even out, but Hamilton’s competitive side got the better of him and he became greedy.

The fallout has been nasty in the extreme. It looks as though all kinds of relationships have been ruined. Of course, Hamilton and Alonso seem to have had a proper falling out now. Alonso’s relationship with the McLaren team looks dead and buried, with strong rumours that he has decided he will move to another team for next year. Even the relationship between Hamilton and Ron Dennis has gone sour, with reports of an exceptionally angry exchange of words on the team radio.

It is difficult to know who, or what, to point the finger at. It looks as though Hamilton instigated it, but should it be a surprise when an extremely competitive individual grabs every opportunity he can? Alonso could have risen above it but his “payback” was harsh.

An interesting theory links back to one of McLaren’s biggest weaknesses — the lack of flexibility in their strategies. We have seen some poor strategy from McLaren this season, with notable backfires in Monaco and Canada.

Clive at the excellent Formula 1 Insight blog reckons that McLaren’s undoing was their decision to stick to their original strategy so rigidly when they could have just adapted it to cope with what Hamilton had done. Let’s face it. Asking a competitive driver with the adrenaline pumping to let his team mate through is surely like moving a mountain.

There have even been plenty of people blaming the qualifying format, and I certainly sympathise with that view as well. If it wasn’t for that ridiculous fuel burn-off phase then none of this probably would have happened.

I struggle to understand why McLaren as a constructor was penalised in the way it was. I can fully understand why Alonso was moved back five grid positions. But why McLaren were unable to score Constructors’ points, and suffered the humiliation of being barred from the podium ceremony, I do not get. (Incidentally, does this mean that officially Hamilton won the race in a non-existent car?!)

Some of the commenters at F1Fanatic reckon that McLaren was punished for not acknowledging that Alonso was in the wrong. But if that is so, surely the penalty is rather harsh?

In fact, given McLaren’s large lead in the Constructors’ Championship, and the fact that we are nearing the end of the season, it looks suspiciously as if it was designed to artificially bring Ferrari back into the hunt. After all, even with this penalty, McLaren lead the Championship by 19 points. Without the penalty, that would be a downright intimidating 34 points.

This has further increased the perception that penalties handed out in F1 are inconsistent and unfair. F1 Insight made reference to the random penalty generator, and that was before we learned what the punishment actually was.

This situation is understandable in one sense, because I don’t recall anything like what Alonso did happening before. The closest comparison was Rascassegate, but most agree that this is not as serious as that. Like I said, the five place penalty was probably about right, but where did the FIA pluck the McLaren punishment from? They really do make it up as they go along.

During the commentary, Damon Hill quipped that the FIA were one step away from introducing the Naughty Chair. Michael Schumacher certainly made the podium his personal “naughty step” once or twice in his career. Maybe it would be better just to put the drivers on a stand and let the crowds throw rotten tomatoes as they see appropriate. It would certainly avoid all of this random penalty business.

Still, Ron Dennis has hinted that McLaren may not appeal the decision. Perhaps this is wise because, (rightly or wrongly) the media seems to want to see McLaren punished for the Stepneygate goings-on (even though it was not their fault) and for perceived bias against both Alonso and Hamilton (yeah, biased against both drivers — that’s the media’s logic for ya).

Perhaps it would be wise for McLaren to take this on the chin, then use the three-week break to lick their wounds and rebuild bridges. When Ron Dennis was interviewed on ITV after the race, he looked absolutely shattered — emotionally drained and fed up with the events of the past few months. I hope he has a good holiday, because he undoubtedly needs it. As Sidepodcast noted:

…you do have to ask what big Ron has to do to catch a break these days? The poor man lurches from crisis to crisis, firefighting at each turn, yet none of it is a result of any wrongdoing by the man himself.

Finally, a word on Pitpass, who have once again completely blown this whole thing out of proportion by yet again predicting the death of F1. They said that after Rascassegate and it was of course nonsense. This is fantastic entertainment, and there is no doubt that recent events have got people interested in F1 like never before.