70 replies to this topic

[robefc]

I wondered about this after the contact between Alonso and Lewis during the Canadian GP and as someone just brought it up in the Lewis v Nico thread I thought I would start this topic rather than drag that thread (even further!) off topic.

There are 2 rules involved, which I think can quite often be mixed up.

The first involves leaving space for a car if they have got sufficiently alongside (I think it's FW in front of rear tyres).

The second involves the making of one move to defend your line and then having to leave a car's width, whereas previously the defending driver would just sweep back across to the racing line.

So in the case of Lewis v Alonso in Canada clearly the first rule is irrelevant as Lewis was always behind.

With respect to the second rule, is Alonso, having covered the inside, entitled to move back across the full width of the track? Is it because Lewis was still behind he was entitled to do this? Or is part of the point of the rule that, if denied the inside, the attacking driver should have the room to brake later on the racing line without having to stop earlier to avoid hitting the back of the car in front (or in this case still hit the car in front)? In other words should space be left for the attacking driver to occupy by braking later or does he already need to be alongside?

Or have I cocked it all up and there is in fact one rule?!

[Lights]

Short version: no, the defending driver isn't allowed to do this.

[robefc]

Short version: no, the defending driver isn't allowed to do this.

Did you write a long version then delete it?

So you feel Alonso wasn't allowed to do what he did in Canada? Nothing said by Lewis or any commentators or pundits that I saw (and obviously not investigated by the stewards).

[smitten]

So you feel Alonso wasn't allowed to do what he did in Canada?

10 years ago nobody would really have given it a second thought. With the modern rules and internet dissection of every nuance of every turn of the steering wheel I thought it was a little marginal.

[Lights]

Did you write a long version then delete it?

So you feel Alonso wasn't allowed to do what he did in Canada? Nothing said by Lewis or any commentators or pundits that I saw (and obviously not investigated by the stewards).

I was thinking about a long version, but that wasn't going anywhere.

I think nobody made an issue of it because of the consequences. Nothing really happened. Had they taken each other out of the race then we would have another endless thread about it. And the stewards sort of work the same way, usually looking more at the consequences than what really happened.

But no, Alonso wasn't allowed to do that. But it's not until I now saw a replay of the incident that I actually realized that.

Edited by Lights, 17 June 2013 - 18:53.

[Skinnyguy]

Have a look at my sig. Point 1. After having covered/passed, if you approach a corner with the inside line and someone out there, you can´t take back the racing line fully.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 17 June 2013 - 18:56.

[robefc]

Have a look at my sig. Point 1. After having covered/passed, if you approach a corner with the inside line and someone out there, you can´t take back the racing line fully.

But in this case he didn't push Lewis off, he was still in front...

[redreni]

For me it was a bit marginal. I've no doubt Hamilton could in principle have braked later than he did as he was on the optimal line. I think having defended to the inside Alonso was not entitled to make a further blocking move in front of Hamilton. Alonso might argue his second move wasn't a defensive, blocking move but just an effort to improve his own line into the corner, and it wasn't calculated to slow Hamilton down since it was in the braking zone. But I don't agree with any interpretation of any rule or guideline that makes a direction change in the braking zone less of an offence than an earlier direction change. Quite the reverse.

Basically I think when you move under braking like that you run the risk of getting speared off the circuit. I think Alonso got away with it because nothing happened. And I think it raises the question: is it wise to wait until there's an accident at 185mph at a corner where there is no run-off at all on the left - just an armco with a chain-link fence over it - and a rather exposed pit entry road ahead, before clamping down on direction changes under braking? in other words, at a place on the track where wheel-to-wheel contact could cause a Dan Wheldon-type accident, is it worth being a bit more proactive than usual with the stewarding? I think it might well be.

[robefc]

I was thinking about a long version, but that wasn't going anywhere.

I think nobody made an issue of it because of the consequences. Nothing really happened. Had they taken each other out of the race then we would have another endless thread about it. And the stewards sort of work the same way, usually looking more at the consequences than what really happened.

But no, Alonso wasn't allowed to do that. But it's not until I now saw a replay of the incident that I actually realized that.

Kindly provided by FastnLoud in the lewis v nico thread, it seems by the letter of the law you are right, there certainly seems to be no mention of the car needing to be alongside, I guess there must be a judgement call when they are close enough for the rule to apply and I guess that judgement could be 'if the car in front feels the need to defend then the attacker is close enough that the defender can't come back onto the racing line'.

20.3 More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.
20.4 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

Edited by robefc, 17 June 2013 - 19:09.

[P123]

I didn't see an issue at the time. Probably a better example would be Perez on Kimi in China.

[as65p]

Kindly provided by FastnLoud in the lewis v nico thread, it seems by the letter of the law you are right, there certainly seems to be no mention of the car needing to be alongside, I guess there must be a judgement call when they are close enough for the rule to apply and I guess that judgement could be 'if the car in front feels the need to defend then the attacker is close enough that the defender can't come back onto the racing line'.

20.3 More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

I stand corrected. Didn't realize they have gone that silliy with the rule...

Under that ruling, Alonsos move was clearly illegal. So glad noone bothered, though. Interestingly enough, nobody seemed to take note, not the commentators I heard, not the stewards, not in fact Hamilton, not Brawn who was online with BBC when it happened.

[pingu666]

i think webber has done it a fair few times

[SophieB]

I stand corrected. Didn't realize they have gone that silliy with the rule...

Under that ruling, Alonsos move was clearly illegal. So glad noone bothered, though. Interestingly enough, nobody seemed to take note, not the commentators I heard, not the stewards, not in fact Hamilton, not Brawn who was online with BBC when it happened.

Actually, although he didn't make a public fuss afterwards, looks like Hamilton did in fact note it at the time. Alonso and Hamilton spar in Canada

"Fernando just closed the door on me and took my wing off,” Hamilton complained over the radio.

[robefc]

I stand corrected. Didn't realize they have gone that silliy with the rule...

Under that ruling, Alonsos move was clearly illegal. So glad noone bothered, though. Interestingly enough, nobody seemed to take note, not the commentators I heard, not the stewards, not in fact Hamilton, not Brawn who was online with BBC when it happened.

The main reason it caught my attention was the criticism of Lewis for braking too late, I wasn't too sure if that was valid or not.

I think nobody took any interest because he was behind rather than at anytime alongside and perhaps because of the nature of the corner, you're unlikely to get 2 cars through there anyway. I wonder if Alonso would have continued to leave room if he'd left it initially and had Lewis alongside?

I'm also convinced that most commentators and pundits have a grasp of the rules as hazy as ours if not even more so!

[redreni]

I think nobody took any interest because he was behind rather than at anytime alongside and perhaps because of the nature of the corner, you're unlikely to get 2 cars through there anyway. I wonder if Alonso would have continued to leave room if he'd left it initially and had Lewis alongside?

I'm also convinced that most commentators and pundits have a grasp of the rules as hazy as ours if not even more so!

Amen to that last part. In James Allen's case, hazier than most, I'd say. Although even he didn't take exception to Alonso's move despite his man-love for Hamilton.

I think sporting regulation 20.3 is fairly clear and should either be enforced or changed (although I note it doesn't specify which edge of the track). I don't think the fact that you can't really run side-by-side in the last chicane is relevant; if there's a rule that when the other guy has gone to the inside to defend and then moves back he has to leave you a car's width on the approach to the corner, then you're entitled to try to outbrake him on the outside. At that particular corner Hamilton would also be entitled, if he wished, to go into the pits, the braking point for which is considerably later than if you're staying out. If Hamilton had done that, expecting Alonso to abide by the rules, there could have been a very nasty accident indeed.

[ScuderiaSV1]

I stand corrected. Didn't realize they have gone that silliy with the rule...

Under that ruling, Alonsos move was clearly illegal. So glad noone bothered, though. Interestingly enough, nobody seemed to take note, not the commentators I heard, not the stewards, not in fact Hamilton, not Brawn who was online with BBC when it happened.

I don't know that I would go as far as saying "clearly" illegal. Alonso had JUST gotten by Hamilton. Therefore, I don't think you can apply the part of the rule which states "..having earlier defended his position offline.."

In addition, I think the following rule is more clear on this particular pass. Because Alonso had passed Hamilton, he wasn't always in "defensive" mode. Rather, he had just gained "defender" status:
20.4 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

Lewis was not "alongside" after Alonso made the pass. To clarify, Alonso was fully ahead of Lewis by the time he slammed on the brakes and began his downshift. I had to listen to the video several times to find the exact moment he begins decelerating, but it seems to me that Lewis was not alongside at this point. Therefore, I think 20.4 applies much more in this particular scenario than 20.3. As a result, I don't see any fault with what Alonso did. If Lewis had been alongside, then another interpretation could be made.

At the end of the day, I think this is excessive scrutiny. Usually the naked eye will pick up on a dubious attempt. And it seems the majority agree they didn't recognize 'foul play' until closely scrutinizing the video after the fact.

Edited by ScuderiaSV1, 17 June 2013 - 21:01.

[as65p]

Actually, although he didn't make a public fuss afterwards, looks like Hamilton did in fact note it at the time. Alonso and Hamilton spar in Canada

Fair enough, but that's really a heat-of-the-battle soundbite you could hear from any driver. I don't have the impression he refers to the rule we discuss here.

[as65p]

I don't know that I would go as far as saying "clearly" illegal. Alonso had JUST gotten by Hamilton. Therefore, I don't think you can apply the part of the rule which states "..having earlier defended his position offline.."

In addition, I think the following rule is more clear on this particular pass. Because Alonso had passed Hamilton, he wasn't always in "defensive" mode. Rather, he had just gained "defender" status:
20.4 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

Well, first, I think the rule (I only learned about today) is hilarious. That out of the way, I don't think there is any question Alonsos move falls under that rule. I don't see how you could claim he's just overtaken Hamilton, that was almost a full lap before. Alonso was the defender and Hamilton the attacker, there's no way around that IMO.

Lewis was not "alongside" after Alonso made the pass. To clarify, Alonso was fully ahead of Lewis by the time he slammed on the brakes and began his downshift. I had to listen to the video several times to find the exact moment he begins decelerating, but it seems to me that Lewis was not alongside at this point. Therefore, I think 20.4 applies much more in this particular scenario than 20.3. As a result, I don't see any fault with what Alonso did. If Lewis had been alongside, then another interpretation could be made.

I would have argued the same until half an hour ago, but clearly 20.3 makes no reference to 'alongside'. That's the hilarious part I reckon, drivers being asked to leave space where there is only air at the time...

However, as the rule exists...

At the end of the day, I think this is excessive scrutiny. Usually the naked eye will pick up on a dubious attempt. And it seems the majority agree they didn't recognize 'foul play' until closely scrutinizing the video after the fact.

I think this because anyone watching for longer than 3 or 4 years is conditioned to see nothing wrong in it (and in an absolute sense there is nothing wrong with it, it's racing, FFS). But again, as the rule exists... Alonso can count himself lucky, I think.

[undersquare]

Actually, although he didn't make a public fuss afterwards, looks like Hamilton did in fact note it at the time. Alonso and Hamilton spar in Canada

QUOTE
"Fernando just closed the door on me and took my wing off,” Hamilton complained over the radio.

Yeah, I thought Nando braked early to slow Lewis through the chicane, then moved in the braking area. I couldn't believe it when Hill and Herbert both said they thought Lewis was unfairly trying to give FA a puncture!

[redreni]

QUOTE
"Fernando just closed the door on me and took my wing off,” Hamilton complained over the radio.

Yeah, I thought Nando braked early to slow Lewis through the chicane, then moved in the braking area. I couldn't believe it when Hill and Herbert both said they thought Lewis was unfairly trying to give FA a puncture!

Absolutely, and to clarify, my main beef is moving under braking and the danger of it, rather than strictly a question of fairness. It's not as if Hamilton would have been able to pass Alonso no matter what line Alonso took into the chicane. I think if anything 20.3 makes the danger more acute because it could potentially create the expectation in the mind of the driver of the car behind that the gap on the outside won't disappear - by the letter of the law the driver ahead must leave space. So by having the rule and not enforcing it the stewards are effectively encouraging drivers to commit late on the brakes to a space which shouldn't disappear, but which in reality may well disappear.

[undersquare]

Absolutely, and to clarify, my main beef is moving under braking and the danger of it, rather than strictly a question of fairness. It's not as if Hamilton would have been able to pass Alonso no matter what line Alonso took into the chicane. I think if anything 20.3 makes the danger more acute because it could potentially create the expectation in the mind of the driver of the car behind that the gap on the outside won't disappear - by the letter of the law the driver ahead must leave space. So by having the rule and not enforcing it the stewards are effectively encouraging drivers to commit late on the brakes to a space which shouldn't disappear, but which in reality may well disappear.

Yeah it's a safety issue. Plus to me Lewis was setting up to do exactly the same as Nando had done to him, spoiling the other car's line into the chicane then having better exit speed himself and pass into T1, to huge applause, but a lot of people thought he hadn't sussed that rather obvious plan and Nando had outsmarted him. Really Lewis had played fair and Nando not so much.

Though probably Lewis would have been more alongside if he'd been geared a bit taller, which would have helped.

[PurpleHam]

There was definitely a distinct atmosphere between them after the race in the room before they went to the podium, they normally will have a handshake and a few words showing the mutual respect they have, but they never went anywhere near each other.

I happen to think Hamilton is a very fair driver, you can race him and be confident he knows where the lines are, it was a little naughty of Alonso but the car Hamilton had did not have the legs to stop the Ferrari anyway, a better top gear in the Merc would have made it interesting but the Ferrari would pass at will if Nando got good drive out of the last turn before the DRS zones.

[pingu666]

ud get less acciedents and better racing (all things being equal) if they drove by those rules
if some guy chops across with only a small gap and the guy behind is braking at what he thought the limit would be in clean air, then chances are hes gonna hit the back of the car in front with loss of downforce and drag...

[robefc]

I would have argued the same until half an hour ago, but clearly 20.3 makes no reference to 'alongside'. That's the hilarious part I reckon, drivers being asked to leave space where there is only air at the time...

It kind of makes sense to me that if the defender wants to move to the inside to prevent the attacker attempting a pass there he can't then also have the benefit of the perfect line into the corner where you can brake later.

It gives the attacker the opportunity to use later braking as well as tow/top speed to get alongside before entry to the corner.

[as65p]

It kind of makes sense to me that if the defender wants to move to the inside to prevent the attacker attempting a pass there he can't then also have the benefit of the perfect line into the corner where you can brake later.

It gives the attacker the opportunity to use later braking as well as tow/top speed to get alongside before entry to the corner.

Well, yeah, in modern racing that's how it works, I guess.

But just consider for a moment, the idea that a driver can only defend one side and covering the other side too is regarded kind of unfair is very young. Not that long ago it was a valued skill, an art of timing and position, to cover each side just at the right time. But that was the past. Nowadays, especially with that "prophylactically leave space for cars that might arrive in the future" rule it's reduced to a chess game. Make your single move, stay put, then twiddle your thumbs and watch passively what the other guy is doing.

[as65p]

ud get less acciedents and better racing (all things being equal) if they drove by those rules
if some guy chops across with only a small gap and the guy behind is braking at what he thought the limit would be in clean air, then chances are hes gonna hit the back of the car in front with loss of downforce and drag...

Yeah, you have to wonder how there wasn't carnage at every corner before those rules. Bless the FIA for saving the drivers from racing, cause that could be dangerous!

[stillOrange]

I stand corrected. Didn't realize they have gone that silliy with the rule...

You really can't remember Bahrain last year?
You have to leave a space, all the time you have to leave a space

[pingu666]

no its still racing, and its actually more like a chess game if you have to decide what side to be on and stick to it. if you can cover the line then jump back onto racing line loosing very little, thats not so chess like to me

the attacker can make the guy defend in the wrong place to get a advantage elsewhere

[Nigol]

I've noticed several drivers doing it. Everyone does it. But actually it IS illegal atm...

[Morbus]

It's really simple. AFTER making your move to defend, you are obliged to always leave a car's width when coming back to the racing line. If you did not defend, then you are in the racing line. If you did defend and the other driver isn't along side you, that still doesn't entitle you to go back to the racing line without living a car's width alongside you, why should it.

To draw a parallelism:
If someone punches you in the face, you're not allowed to kill them. Now I ask, what if someone DOESN'T punch you in the face?

[TomNokoe]

When I posted this in the HamVRos thread I kind of went to run and hide. It's a stupid rule but the stewards that weekend had been pathetic, and were ridiculously harsh to Kimi and unbelievable lenient to Webber(another thread another day) It ticked me off that Mr Complete was able to get away with it. It probably bore the brunt of Hamilton's frustrations after the race and rightly so. He was fair to Alonso and Alonso simply wasn't to him. It wasn't marginal it was rather obvious. At one point Alonso had his car pointing away from turn in as he shoved half his car across the racing line to scupper Hamilton. It worked.
I am bitter and I am a rapid fanboy but sometimes I make a little sense
For anyone who cares: http://i41.tinypic.com/qpgfu9.png

Edited by TomNokoe, 18 June 2013 - 02:16.

[jjcale]

QUOTE
"Fernando just closed the door on me and took my wing off,” Hamilton complained over the radio.

Yeah, I thought Nando braked early to slow Lewis through the chicane, then moved in the braking area. I couldn't believe it when Hill and Herbert both said they thought Lewis was unfairly trying to give FA a puncture!

+ 1

[jjcale]

There was definitely a distinct atmosphere between them after the race in the room before they went to the podium, they normally will have a handshake and a few words showing the mutual respect they have, but they never went anywhere near each other.

I happen to think Hamilton is a very fair driver, you can race him and be confident he knows where the lines are, it was a little naughty of Alonso but the car Hamilton had did not have the legs to stop the Ferrari anyway, a better top gear in the Merc would have made it interesting but the Ferrari would pass at will if Nando got good drive out of the last turn before the DRS zones.

Didnt FA say that LH was very fair in some comments after the race? ... might have been the official post race interview

I thought it was interesting that FA emphasised this at the time.

Edited by jjcale, 18 June 2013 - 04:26.

[RedOne]

Didnt FA say that LH was very fair in some comments after the race? ... might have been the official post race interview

I thought it was interesting that FA emphasised this at the time.

It was actually LH saying that FA was very fair on the podium interview.

[revlec]

There was definitely a distinct atmosphere between them after the race in the room before they went to the podium, they normally will have a handshake and a few words showing the mutual respect they have, but they never went anywhere near each other.

I happen to think Hamilton is a very fair driver, you can race him and be confident he knows where the lines are, it was a little naughty of Alonso but the car Hamilton had did not have the legs to stop the Ferrari anyway, a better top gear in the Merc would have made it interesting but the Ferrari would pass at will if Nando got good drive out of the last turn before the DRS zones.

People seem to ignore this fact and are quick to blame HAM whenever something happens. They will never learn.
_

Back to the topic,
Michael Schumacher defensive driving in Monza 2011(at the variante Ascari) to keep Hamilton behind is the perfect example of why this rule has been implemented. Ross Brawn was in fact on the radio to tell him(Schumacher) to not move across the track under braking.

[robefc]

Well, yeah, in modern racing that's how it works, I guess.

But just consider for a moment, the idea that a driver can only defend one side and covering the other side too is regarded kind of unfair is very young. Not that long ago it was a valued skill, an art of timing and position, to cover each side just at the right time. But that was the past. Nowadays, especially with that "prophylactically leave space for cars that might arrive in the future" rule it's reduced to a chess game. Make your single move, stay put, then twiddle your thumbs and watch passively what the other guy is doing.

I bow down to your superior knowledge on the historical front, as you know I've only been watching since 07.

But did it really take that much skill to place your car on the inside and then just weave all the way back across to the racing line?

Edited by robefc, 18 June 2013 - 12:00.

[redreni]

I bow down to your superior knowledge on the historical front, as you know I've only been watching since 07.

But did it really take that much skill to place your car on the inside and then just weave all the way back across to the racing line?

No but it took guts. Get it wrong and - well - ask Wolfgang von Trips what happens if you try to reclaim the racing line and get it wrong..... oh, no, thinking about it, you can't ask him, but that's kind of the point....

And that's why the stewards need to be mindful of enforcing driving standards - you can no longer rely on drivers' fear to keep things clean.

[as65p]

No but it took guts. Get it wrong and - well - ask Wolfgang von Trips what happens if you try to reclaim the racing line and get it wrong..... oh, no, thinking about it, you can't ask him, but that's kind of the point....

It took guts AND skill. Which is sort of the point of racing. Or used to be.

Bit of a cheap shot, taking one example of it going wrong from over half a century ago. How much overall percentage of racings dead toll is down to drivers moving around defending their lines? And please, don't answer "Even one is too much". Of course it is, the only solution to that is stop useless activities like racing alltogether.

[as65p]

I bow down to your superior knowledge on the historical front, as you know I've only been watching since 07.

But did it really take that much skill to place your car on the inside and then just weave all the way back across to the racing line?

Yep. Because you need perfect timing, otherwise you'll be covering thin air, get overtaken and look silly.

Besides, stop flirting with your alleged lack of knowledge. The rules in question are younger than 2007 plus nowadays you can watch any amount of less restricted racing any time back to the 70's at least.

Edited by as65p, 18 June 2013 - 12:24.

[redreni]

It took guts AND skill. Which is sort of the point of racing. Or used to be.

Bit of a cheap shot, taking one example of it going wrong from over half a century ago. How much overall percentage of racings dead toll is down to drivers moving around defending their lines? And please, don't answer "Even one is too much". Of course it is, the only solution to that is stop useless activities like racing alltogether.

I don't know, but the number of accidents without injury due to this kind of defending is very high, and that's partly my point. In the 50s and 60s this type of contact was very rare but when it happened it was disastrous. Now it's very common but the consequences are usually, though not always, relatively minor.

So I think in modern, relatively safe racing you need the stewards to intervene to try to keep the racing clean. Otherwise you get professional fouls.

And I also think that there are still certain tracks, certain corners, certain areas where the drivers' sense of invincibility exceeds the actual level of safety of the track - e.g. the last corner at Montreal, the Nouvelle Chicane at Monaco (where we had a GP3 driver in the catch fencing last year after the guy ahead moved in the braking zone), the hairpin at Paul Ricard (where that poor kid was killed in F3000 after the guy ahead moved in the braking zone), etc where the stewards need to look out for the drivers, the marshalls and the spectators.

I don't think telling the drivers they can't change their line in the braking zone is going to destroy racing as we know it or can be reasonably met with the response "well you might as well ban racing altogether, then". It will improve the racing if anything.

As for the rule about not coming back on line after defending, I think it's a bit mental because you shouldn't have to leave space for fresh air. But if the rule is there it should be enforced because having the rule but not enforcing it is likely to cause unecessary incidents.

[robefc]

Yep. Because you need perfect timing, otherwise you'll be covering thin air, get overtaken and look silly.

Besides, stop flirting with your alleged lack of knowledge. The rules in question are younger than 2007 plus nowadays you can watch any amount of less restricted racing any time back to the 70's at least.

F1 takes up too much of my time as it is!

I guess it could be argued that the driver already has the tow to help him get alongside (and possibly DRS) so he needs to get alongside or not be entitled to room but then it's simply a question of top speed whereas this rule allows the attacker to also compete on the brakes.

Is it not fair to say that the dice was historically (by which I mean relatively recent history) loaded too much in favour of the defender hence the lack of overtaking and the need for KERs, DRS et al?

[as65p]

I don't think telling the drivers they can't change their line in the braking zone is going to destroy racing as we know it or can be reasonably met with the response "well you might as well ban racing altogether, then". It will improve the racing if anything.

I don't think what Alonso did was covered by the sweeping generalization "moving in the braking zone". His movement started well outside the braking zone and was pretty constant, no sudden suprises there for the follower (which is what I think the drivers talk about when using that term).

And no, I don't think that stuff improves racing, unless you measure good racing by number of overtakes, which I think is wrong.

As for the rule about not coming back on line after defending, I think it's a bit mental because you shouldn't have to leave space for fresh air. But if the rule is there it should be enforced because having the rule but not enforcing it is likely to cause unecessary incidents.

In theory yes, rule should be enforced. But with this one... if they really did enforce it, I reckon we would have around 3 to 6 additional penalties per race. But apparently it is not enforced very strictly, I smell common FIA tactics here, make a rule to cover lots of varying degrees of something, then only use it in severe cases.

[as65p]

F1 takes up too much of my time as it is!

I guess it could be argued that the driver already has the tow to help him get alongside (and possibly DRS) so he needs to get alongside or not be entitled to room but then it's simply a question of top speed whereas this rule allows the attacker to also compete on the brakes.

He can always compete on the brakes, he just has to chose the right side. We're not talking of weaving here, that's already covered by the one move rule. If Hamilton had chosen the inside when Alonso started to move outside, he would have had space to compete on the brakes, cause Alonso would have been prevented to come back by the one move rule. That's just about tolerable I think, but additional 20.3 takes it a step too far, IMO.

Is it not fair to say that the dice was historically (by which I mean relatively recent history) loaded too much in favour of the defender hence the lack of overtaking and the need for KERs, DRS et al?

Define "too much"!

Yes, probably too much for large parts of the audience who want to see position changes above everything. But too much racings historical context, I don't think so. Overtaking was never as easy as today, I don't like it getting even easier with every new rule on the matter.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

whereas this rule allows the attacker to also compete on the brakes.

The problem is that, again, the rule is incomplete.

You can't "compete on brakes", having been given enough room, if the leading car can "win" the corner by turning in (ala Kimi at Monaco on Perez).

If the rule doesn't allow for the car's width to continue through the apex - putting some of the onus on the lead car turning in to look in his mirrors - then the rule makes no sense. Unless one presumes something magical is going to happen that will allow the overtaking car to get a wheel ahead under braking *before* the turn in - which can't really happen in F1.

This is why we have "drag race" passing on the DRS straights, and only Sato-dive bombing left over.

It's really *two* moves if the lead driver is allowed to turn in with a car beside him. It doesn't matter if the inside trailing car is going to out brake himself - that the whole point of racing. If he does he should have to give back the position.

Otherwise, the rule effectively creates a situation where the overtaker on the inside in the braking zone has to be perfect on every attempt, which isn't realistic. So the rule rewards and creates banzai attempts, because effectively that's the only solution to the equation.

"Perez wouldn't have made that corner" - for Kimi to say that is idiotic, because on his part *turning into Perez' car sure didn't allow Kimi to make the corner, either*. If a car is alongside, they should have to make room through the corner, even if the lead driver thinks it can't be done.


This works, because if it *can't* be done - then the driver that messed up is penalized for BLOCKING. For a lead driver to turn in on a car alongside of him under the premise that "the inside driver wouldn't have made the turn" makes less sense than the inside driver going for it. The racing line is no longer what it was once a car is alongside.

Also note that the inverse circumstance *is* allowed: when a passing driver on the outside is forced out by the leading car. If the leading car were to collide on the outside driver's pass attempt, he would be penalized, no?

[JaredS]

I would have argued the same until half an hour ago, but clearly 20.3 makes no reference to 'alongside'. That's the hilarious part I reckon, drivers being asked to leave space where there is only air at the time...

It's quite obvious why the rule is there. The driver behind sees that air..that empty space and bases his braking point on that when suddenly the door is closed and he can't exactly brake any harder when he's already on the limit. So there becomes a significantly increased risk of contact because the driver behind literally has nowhere to go.

Moving around the braking zone is incredibly dangerous. Not only that, is it ok to block the driver behind multiple times just because he's behind? Lewis received a reprimand in a previous season for moving several times to break the tow i.e not even moving to get in someone's way but instead moving to get out of way of someone behind.

[pingu666]

if the drivers have to leave space, we would probably get more side by side racing

its worth if for the commentary alone

[redreni]

It's quite obvious why the rule is there. The driver behind sees that air..that empty space and bases his braking point on that when suddenly the door is closed and he can't exactly brake any harder when he's already on the limit. So there becomes a significantly increased risk of contact because the driver behind literally has nowhere to go.

Moving around the braking zone is incredibly dangerous. Not only that, is it ok to block the driver behind multiple times just because he's behind? Lewis received a reprimand in a previous season for moving several times to break the tow i.e not even moving to get in someone's way but instead moving to get out of way of someone behind.

A lot of drivers now like to do the Schumacher trademark "one move" where you make your one move on the straight so late that the other driver doesn't have time to switch back to the other side of the track without hitting you, so he has to lift. And it has been accepted for a long time that, having forced the other guy to lift, the leading car can then return to the racing line because the other car is well behind him, so the move back to the racing line isn't a defensive move at all. It's hard to see how it's consistent with 20.3, though.

But weaving to break the tow is a different issue. I don't believe it's ever been allowed. If you move with the intention of breaking the tow that's clearly a defensive move in my view. Not a block, but a move to defend your position nonetheless. What else is it for? As such, you can only do it once, you cannot weave. I thought a reprimand was fair in the circumstances.

[schubacca]

Yeah, you have to wonder how there wasn't carnage at every corner before those rules. Bless the FIA for saving the drivers from racing, cause that could be dangerous!

I know,

How did Senna, Prost, and Schumacher ever get around a race track?

[as65p]

It's quite obvious why the rule is there. The driver behind sees that air..that empty space and bases his braking point on that when suddenly the door is closed and he can't exactly brake any harder when he's already on the limit. So there becomes a significantly increased risk of contact because the driver behind literally has nowhere to go.

Moving around the braking zone is incredibly dangerous. Not only that, is it ok to block the driver behind multiple times just because he's behind? Lewis received a reprimand

Reprimand, eh? You know they are as good as a pad on the back, as far as the consequences go?

Besides, nobody was "moving around" here. Alonsos was a constant trajectory in one direction which started way before the braking zone. I know it's a grippy phrase to damn someone, only problem is it doesn't fit the siuation at all.

in a previous season for moving several times to break the tow i.e not even moving to get in someone's way but instead moving to get out of way of someone behind.

Another , though that probably deserves more. Priceless terminologie you invented there. So Hamilton really tried to make way for Petrov, but stupid russian didn't get it?

[as65p]

if the drivers have to leave space, we would probably get more side by side racing

its worth if for the commentary alone

Serious? What we would get with that happening in F1 (forgetting for a second that this really technically impossible for single seaters on non-oval tracks) is endless discussions how driver A pushed driver B into the wall, including demands for all kinds of punishment.