'Piastri lacked loyalty, complained Alpine, but that goes both ways' — Mark Hughes

Following on from last month’s column about Oscar Piastri, Alpine and McLaren, the contract recognition board’s publication of its findings has painted Alpine in an unflattering light and actually vindicated the actions of Piastri and his management in signing for McLaren. The young Australian driver did not actually have a valid Alpine contract despite having been promised one since last November. Furthermore, he had already informed Alpine of his McLaren deal weeks before Fernando Alonso dropped his bombshell that he was leaving. So when Alpine announced the next day that Piastri would be Alonso’s replacement, it knew he was already signed elsewhere as a result of its own less than full commitment to him.

At the time he signed his McLaren contract, Piastri was not being offered an Alpine seat. He was being offered two years sub-contracted to Williams with a possible Alpine drive in 2025. Unsurprisingly, he found the McLaren offer more enticing. There was no Alpine ’23 offer – not until well after he’d informed them he’d already gone.

Having lost both Alonso and Piastri essentially through careless, presumptive negotiation – believing it had the leverage to force through its own agenda regardless – Alpine has found itself in something of a bind regarding its ’23 seat alongside Esteban Ocon, (the driver who was signed on a three-year deal midway through ’21, having just been out-qualified by Daniel Ricciardo 15-2 the previous season…).

Initially, the solution to the bind seemed to be Pierre Gasly. AlphaTauri/Red Bull had taken up its third year option on him for ’23 but was willing to sell – just so long as it could sort out a superlicence for its preferred candidate Colton Herta. An exciting young American driver in the Netflix age was reckoned to be the perfect foundation for a big marketing push for the Red Bull drink in the US.

“At Monza, de Vries stood in at Williams for Alex Albon and was a mini sensation”

The only problem was that Herta did not technically qualify for the superlicence. Red Bull requested of the FIA to make an exception for a driver who has been described as the most exciting young talent in IndyCar for a decade. It is at the FIA’s discretion to award superlicences in what it judges exceptional cases. But no deal, said the FIA. The same FIA which working with FOM has spent the last several years negotiating the future power unit formula in order to entice the VW Group into F1. No sooner had it done so than Red Bull appeared to have knocked the Porsche deal over (see page 116). So when Red Bull asked the FIA for a favour, a favour what’s more that might undermine the FIA’s own F2 series, the answer was no.

Herta must get the required number of superlicence points if he wishes to take up an F1 seat. He’s almost there, but not quite. A few FP1 sessions with AlphaTauri this year will add to the tally but still leave him short. Contesting the New Zealand Toyota series in the European winter and winning it would then make him eligible. But with no guarantee, Red Bull isn’t about to let Gasly go to Alpine until the Herta situation is resolved.

As such, Alpine is helping out, including Herta in its ‘driver assessment’ tests at the Hungaroring in order to get him more fully up to speed for his forthcoming FP1 sessions. You still following this? Also expected to be included in Alpine’s Hungary tests are Nyck de Vries and F2 front-runner Jack Doohan. They – as well as experienced hands Nico Hülkenberg and Antonio Giovinazzi – are fall-backs in case they don’t get Gasly. Or at least they were.

At Monza, de Vries stood in at Williams for the unwell Alex Albon – and was a mini sensation. Maybe Alpine doesn’t need to get tangled up in Red Bull’s complicated Herta/Gasly dance. Maybe de Vries is the obvious answer. But at the time of writing Williams was understandably very, very keen to have de Vries in its car full-time for ’23, in place of Nicholas Latifi. With Williams’ offer being firm and immediate and any opportunity with Alpine being a maybe – and with a team whose credibility among junior drivers is not high – de Vries is reportedly unsure.

Alpine had not at any point shown the sort of commitment to Piastri appropriate to the delivery of the results he was making. He was only taken on by the Alpine academy for winning the Formula Renault title. The prize money he got for that was already allocated, in that whoever won the title would have received the prize.

He then won the F3 title at the first attempt as an academy driver. He followed that up with the F2 title at his first attempt. Other academy drivers are funded for multiple seasons in the same formulae. But Piastri’s brilliance was making him a great bargain. And still Alpine dragged its heels. He turned up in Bahrain this year without a contract to be the third driver. The promised contract never came.

Alpine complained of a lack of loyalty and gratitude. But that goes both ways. In return for an at times less than full commitment from Alpine, was he supposed to turn down a proper McLaren offer when he had no valid Alpine contract?

Since he began covering grand prix racing in 2000, Mark Hughes has forged a reputation as the finest Formula 1 analyst of his generation
Follow Mark on Twitter @SportmphMark