Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Driving the track optional? [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
346 replies to this topic

#301 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,110 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:14

They are paint thickness these days. Imola was overdoing it, And you have to consider other racing classes as well. All kinds of bumps breaks a bikers back.

 

Probably the best ones are those in the chicanes on Monza. Nobody wants to drive over them. Beter yet, make kerbs smaller. Now they are the width of cars and then some.

 

Yeah because that'll make the drivers respect the track limits! Imola wasn't overdoing either in my opinion, aside from Rubens I cannot recall a similar accident there in the past (I'm open to examples) I think it was just part of the whole knee jerk reaction to a bad weekend.


Edited by DampMongoose, 04 November 2013 - 15:16.


Advertisement

#302 Fourjays

Fourjays
  • Member

  • 213 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:21

Instead you could have chalk lines in their place, and if a driver hits the chalk line it will show up on the tyres, and thus an automatic drive thru.

This kind of solution would work well, providing it could be waterproof while retaining its ability to show on the tyres. Don't know how possible that is.

#303 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,152 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:26

We haven't got a rain race this season. :(

 

The kerbs were to protect the grass next to the corner from forming holes and ditches. Why do we even have kerbes when they don't have any function anymore?



#304 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 5,996 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:27

Yeah because that'll make the drivers respect the track limits! Imola wasn't overdoing either in my opinion, aside from Rubens I cannot recall a similar accident there in the past (I'm open to examples) I think it was just part of the whole knee jerk reaction to a bad weekend.

 

He's got a point. Many of the curbs are massively wide, but only the 2nd part is actually doing anything. The flat first part can probably be done away with in many cases.



#305 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,322 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:30

This kind of solution would work well, providing it could be waterproof while retaining its ability to show on the tyres. Don't know how possible that is.

I didn't think of that of course. Not sure if drivers not respecting the white lines is such a problem in wet races though.



#306 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,110 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:33

I didn't think of that of course. Not sure if drivers not respecting the white lines is such a problem in wet races though.

 

Hmmm, thinks back to screaming at the TV when Raikkonen took a line 50 metres off the track at Pouhon in 2008... but you have the inadvertantly picked the exact point we need to make it work.  Cover the area on the outside of the kerbs/painted kerbs with water, bingo nobody wants to touch them anymore. 



#307 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 527 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:37



Part of me wants to forget about safety and bring back the high kerbs.



#308 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,322 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:38

Water traps. I like it.  :clap:



#309 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:40

I didn't think of that of course. Not sure if drivers not respecting the white lines is such a problem in wet races though.

 

Well they tend to avoid this in the slower sections because the lines and the kerbs are slippery. But in the faster stuff, when downforce takes over, it can still be an advantage to go off. Look at Hamilton's pole lap at Spa. The rules are the same in the wet or the dry, although I'm sure the stewards would take into account the conditions in determining if a driver has left the track intentionally or unintentionally.



#310 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 5,996 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:40

Trying to think of the idea depth of water for something like that. Obviously the last thing you need are out of control cars sliding into barriers without any speed being taken off. Too deep and you're getting in trouble.

 

A couple of inches might to the trick, provided your circuit is perfectly flat of course.



#311 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 04 November 2013 - 15:54

Hmmm, thinks back to screaming at the TV when Raikkonen took a line 50 metres off the track at Pouhon in 2008... but you have the inadvertantly picked the exact point we need to make it work.  Cover the area on the outside of the kerbs/painted kerbs with water, bingo nobody wants to touch them anymore. 

 

But that, surely, is a textbook case of accidentally leaving the track then rejoining when it is safe to do so without gaining an advantage? Unless I missed something. It looked to me like he fell back from Hamilton at that point, though it's been awhile since I've watched that race admittedly. Either way, I think he got his comeuppance when he took a similar line at Blanchiment and ended up in the wall.

 

The only trouble with the water idea is the water would, of course, decrease the rate of retardation for a car spinning across the tarmac run-off. It would be no worse, admittedly, than it is currently when it rains, but the difference is, when the track is wet, the cars are generally travelling slower when an accident begins. With your proposal, you'd have cars leaving the track at dry-weather speeds, then only scrubbing off speed at wet weather rates, leading to harder contact with the barriers than we would otherwise see. Water may also get blown onto the racetrack if it's windy, or dragged on by any car that does go off and rejoin.



#312 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,110 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 04 November 2013 - 16:02

But that, surely, is a textbook case of accidentally leaving the track then rejoining when it is safe to do so without gaining an advantage? Unless I missed something. It looked to me like he fell back from Hamilton at that point, though it's been awhile since I've watched that race admittedly. Either way, I think he got his comeuppance when he took a similar line at Blanchiment and ended up in the wall.

 

The only trouble with the water idea is the water would, of course, decrease the rate of retardation for a car spinning across the tarmac run-off. It would be no worse, admittedly, than it is currently when it rains, but the difference is, when the track is wet, the cars are generally travelling slower when an accident begins. With your proposal, you'd have cars leaving the track at dry-weather speeds, then only scrubbing off speed at wet weather rates, leading to harder contact with the barriers than we would otherwise see. Water may also get blown onto the racetrack if it's windy, or dragged on by any car that does go off and rejoin.

 

Sorry having just re-read my post I'm confusing matters, I mean only to have about 2 feet of water emerging from the outside of the kerbs. not the entire run-off!  Given the car park run-offs we have these days, I don't see this being a problem, slippery surface + lack of grip for the next corner should act in the manner intended.

 

I don't believe it was entirely accidental for Raikkonen at Spa, it allowed him to keep his foot in, when if the track limits were respected he couldn't and wouldn't have kept as close to Hamilton. 

 

Edited for typos...lots of em :drunk:


Edited by DampMongoose, 04 November 2013 - 16:05.


#313 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,322 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 November 2013 - 16:19

Having water traps is actually a lot of work for the tracks and there are loads of issues why it would be difficult. Chalk lines would be easy and cheap to do everywhere apart from in the wet. 



#314 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,110 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 04 November 2013 - 16:31

Fine then cover the outside half of the kerbs in a greasy substance that doesnt move on a gradient.  I prefer the idea that you will see who ran wide by them frantically trying to control a slide rather than the tremndous excitement of seeing a car pick up a chalk line with no time penalty and it having to be noticed by the stewards for there to be any action taken.


Edited by DampMongoose, 04 November 2013 - 16:31.


#315 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 13,436 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 04 November 2013 - 16:55

Instead of water traps or something, maybe they should have their radio communication cut off for a lap while a Justin Bieber song plays in their helmet for that time?  I think that provides a strong deterrent without having to give drivers race-destroying penalties for minor infractions.



#316 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 13:58

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/111199

 

Unnamed "FIA chiefs" have spoken on this issue. And to my mind, they have spoken a lot of desperately disappointing claptrap. I must also confess to feeling some anger at the smug, complacent and downright lazy attitude of the FIA towards this issue.

 

Equally disappointing is Autosport's failure to quote the whole of the relevant bit of the sporting regulations.

 

The unnamed FIA source says: "The current rule does not say a driver cannot leave the track, it says that he may not gain an advantage by leaving the track." That's true but incomplete, for the rule also says a driver may not deliberately leave the track at all without justifiable reason. That's the bit the FIA never mentions and Autosport failed to quote, and it's also the rule the FIA is refusing to enforce and doesn't want to change:

 

"A driver may not deliberately leave the track without justifiable reason." (Article 20.2 SR) 

 

The old chestnut about no advantage being possible from running off the track even when pretty much every driver is doing it pretty much every lap also features.

 

Autosport themselves then make a couple of interesting claims, namely: "In races, that advantage is defined as gaining position, whereas in qualifying it is judged by laptime - and there is no way of proving as fact that a driver gained an advantage through running wide and off track at a corner." Surely that can't be right - if you're running in clear air in a race, surely you're not allowed to gain laptime by exceeding the track limits and therefore gain the advantage of cutting your gap to the car ahead and/or boosting your time cushion to the car behind? And the bit about "proving as fact" simply has nothing to do with the enforcement of rules in sport. If things needed to be "proven as fact" no sporting fixture would ever be settled.

 

The next bit at least shows that the FIA has realised what some of us have been saying on this forum; that judges of fact would be needed out and about around the circuit in order to be able to enforce the rules properly:

 

The FIA said: "This would be very problematic as we would have to have observers for this specific function on every corner. This is totally unrealistic. Furthermore, there would be a deluge of miscreants before the stewards and they would be obliged to investigate every excursion."

 

They have this fallacy in football. They say if football players were cautioned and shown the yellow card for every minor instance of dissent, there would be a deluge of yellow and red cards in every game. But you only have to look at rugby union to see that, if a sufficiently strict line is taken on the issue of dissent then, by and large, dissent doesn't occur. It's no different with track limits in motorsport. If every instance was investigated and punished as appropriate, the number of instances would drop very quickly to nearly none.

 

Then to cap it off: "The whole idea is to build the tracks to ensure that no advantage can be gained by leaving the racing surface. We believe that to a large extent we've achieved that." At least they've got a sense of humour, I suppose...



#317 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,152 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 14:02

The pictures at that article say it all. Those are not kerbs, just different painted tarmac with a gutter.

 

Ah well, we now know they won't police every corner... just like the do police every incident. What is the difference?



#318 string158

string158
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 14:04

I still dont fully understand why gravel traps have been completely removed.  If we were to get a brake failure nowadays theres nothing to slow the cars down at all.  Or are the cars desinged such that a hydraulic failure would never cause all 4 brakes to fail??



#319 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 14:33

I still dont fully understand why gravel traps have been completely removed.  If we were to get a brake failure nowadays theres nothing to slow the cars down at all.  Or are the cars desinged such that a hydraulic failure would never cause all 4 brakes to fail??

 

See Mark Webber at Singapore a few years ago. If your brakes fail, you need to throw your car into a spin, that way the tarmac will slow the car better than gravel would have if you'd gone in straight. If you don't manage to get the car to spin, you're right, you'll go in very hard and you'll be worse off than if there was gravel there.



Advertisement

#320 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,030 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 15:01

Instead of water traps or something, maybe they should have their radio communication cut off for a lap while a Justin Bieber song plays in their helmet for that time?  I think that provides a strong deterrent without having to give drivers race-destroying penalties for minor infractions.

 

Drivers with poor musical taste to have an advantage? Surely that's not what we want. :)



#321 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 288 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 08 November 2013 - 16:28

Instead of water traps or something, maybe they should have their radio communication cut off for a lap while a Justin Bieber song plays in their helmet for that time?  I think that provides a strong deterrent without having to give drivers race-destroying penalties for minor infractions.

 

Define "minor infraction". A few millimetres difference to the reference plane on the bottom plank of the car seems to me as a minor infraction, yet Kimi Raikkonen was DQ'd for it in Abu Dhabi. See also Lotus' suspension attachment points, RBR's slots, RPM range tweaks, flexing wings etc. No big deals compared to, say, Mercedes' tyre test.

 

 

 

Autosport themselves then make a couple of interesting claims, namely: "In races, that advantage is defined as gaining position, whereas in qualifying it is judged by laptime - and there is no way of proving as fact that a driver gained an advantage through running wide and off track at a corner." Surely that can't be right - if you're running in clear air in a race, surely you're not allowed to gain laptime by exceeding the track limits and therefore gain the advantage of cutting your gap to the car ahead and/or boosting your time cushion to the car behind? And the bit about "proving as fact" simply has nothing to do with the enforcement of rules in sport. If things needed to be "proven as fact" no sporting fixture would ever be settled.

 

 

Yeah, all it would take to enforce this rule would be common sense, but that's a path FIA decided to abandon in the last 10 years or so.



#322 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 5,661 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 November 2013 - 16:33

I still dont fully understand why gravel traps have been completely removed.  If we were to get a brake failure nowadays theres nothing to slow the cars down at all.  Or are the cars desinged such that a hydraulic failure would never cause all 4 brakes to fail??

 

Watch an F1 car go off at full speed into a gravel trap. They often barely slow down at all. I think due to a combination of the flat bottoms and low weight the cars seem to skip over the gravel, instead of coming to a stop like they do over tarmac. Also, gravel makes the marshals job a lot tougher.

 

I think some people should remember that the gravel was not designed to "punish" drivers that put a wheel off track, it was there to slow down cars and prevent them from having a serious accident. When tarmac run-offs are proven to be better, then they will be the replacement.


Edited by Fastcake, 08 November 2013 - 16:34.


#323 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 08 November 2013 - 16:52

I don´t think tarmac slows cars better before the impact at all. 

 

But anyway for me the worst point of what they said is that "they have all the circuits as they want" as if in all the corners it was faster to stay on track. Bullshit. Astroturf is not even the same in all circuits. Only in Suzuka I´ve seen it does take away grip, they even carry green dust with them on the tyres, in a lot of other places it just looks painted cement.



#324 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 12,279 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 08 November 2013 - 18:05

Hmmm, seems more and more like the only really viable solutions are mine of land mines and guided missiles, or someone else's (JP?) for stingers. ;)

Neil



#325 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 4,756 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 November 2013 - 19:12

I think the tarmac needs to stay as it's the only way of providing a way of slowing an out-of-control car (assuming the throttle isn't stuck open). I've seen grasscreep mentioned which could be used to create a slippy strip just beyond the kerb but I'd have thought that with the downforce the cars produce that'd only be effective in slow sections (besides the risk of being a source of dirt to drag onto the racing line)

 

The solution IMHO lies in the kerbs - I've seen some kerbs with the sawtooth ridges used as a way of discouraging drivers using too much but I'd have thought that in high speed (and so high downforce) corners there would be the risk that it would launch the cars if they lost control. I'd suggest that the solution is to create a dip on the outside of the kerb which would be deep enough to unsettle the cars if they ventured too wide and dropped a wheel into it but wouldn't provide any kind of 'launching' safety risk. Something like (and I apologise in advance for the crudeness) this:

~~~~ Track
==== Kerb
---- Tarmac

        
~~~~~~~~~~~~============        -------------
                       |     __/
                       |____/

(obviously the profile on the surface that leads back to the tarmac would be more of a gentle curve!)



#326 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 527 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 19:44

See Mark Webber at Singapore a few years ago. If your brakes fail, you need to throw your car into a spin, that way the tarmac will slow the car better than gravel would have if you'd gone in straight. If you don't manage to get the car to spin, you're right, you'll go in very hard and you'll be worse off than if there was gravel there.

Or look at when Schumacher broke his leg at Stowe when his rear brakes had failed. His front brakes worked just fine, but they didn't slow the car down very much as it bounced over the gravel trap.

 

Monday July 19th, 1999

The FIA are looking into improving the efficiency of the run-off areas around tracks, following Michael Schumacher's accident at the British Grand Prix last week.

"The gravel was not efficient in Michael's case," admitted FIA president Max Mosley. "He said it didn't feel as though he was slowing at all. The basic problem you have is that a car goes out of control and ideally you want to stop it before it hurts someone, and that was always the idea with gravel."

FIA technical advisor, Peter Wright, believes that gravel should not be discounted completely, but changes should be made to the current gravel traps. "Gravel beds don't work as badly as people think, but we have a lot of data on how well cars brake on the track and off it. We have put forward the idea that maybe in some cases you would be better off with a specially designed tarmac than gravel. It is not the perfect solution, but it is something that we are looking at very seriously."

http://www.atlasf1.c...s/1999/1461.htm

 



#327 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 12,279 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 08 November 2013 - 19:45

I'd suggest no matter how gentle the curves (on EITHER side of the dip) it would still cause a launch in the wrong circumstances.  Having said that, I think the deterrent should be to increase the danger of going off.  Screw all this namby pamby safety BS.  Once upon time they didn't go off track because it would be an accident. 

 

There will never be an alternative to actively and properly enforcing the track limits through fines/penalties/etc while there are just hectares and hectares of tarmac with a track defined by painted lines.  Or as they're also known go-kart tracks.  Well, no alternative unless my excellent land mines proposal is accepted!

 

Neil



#328 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 08 November 2013 - 19:59

I don´t think tarmac slows cars better before the impact at all.

 

It does, if the car going off has some form of control, especially over braking.

 

But if there's a wheel off, or Torro Rosso's self destructing front suspension.. Or a jammed wide open throttle.. Or chronic aquaplaning.. Anything where rubber is not sufficiently gripping the surface basically, tarmac is a disaster in waiting.

 

Gravel has its drawbacks, the worst being the way cars sometimes skip over it. How much that is car, how much that is the raking of the gravel, I don't know, it's certainly not always the case. Cars rolling over in gravel might look dangerous, but especially with the raised head protection I doubt it's all that bad. In fact, it might be quite safe, as the energy is disipated into the roll, instead of kept as momentum into the barrier.

 

If not gravel, I want something that punishes a driver for going way off the track. And slows cars even if they have a total loss of braking (including engine braking). And, to be honest, looks prettier. Gravel traps on corners look much nicer than a carpark with painted lines.



#329 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 08 November 2013 - 20:02

(obviously the profile on the surface that leads back to the tarmac would be more of a gentle curve!)

 

The current black painted babybels already delaminate if they drive over the wrong kind of tarmac - They'd sit shivering in their blankets and never come out to play if there were gutters behind every kerb!



#330 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 22:45

The current black painted babybels already delaminate if they drive over the wrong kind of tarmac - They'd sit shivering in their blankets and never come out to play if there were gutters behind every kerb!


I guess the drivers would have to be cafeful, then.

#331 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,458 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 November 2013 - 23:06

you risk bicyclng if you have a trough or a rut.



#332 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,708 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 23:50

I took an Infiniti FX-45 for a test drive last week and it had a lane departure warning system.  Whenever I would get near the lane marking on either side of the car it would activate this annoying bong sound to alert me of my poor driving. It was infuriatingly accurate!

 

If they can do this on a road car then it can be put on an F1 car, and instead of just an annoying bong sound the system should also penalize the driver by immediately cutting engine torque in half while they are off track or perhaps making kers non functional for a couple of laps. It could also send a quick email with all the details to Charlie and the stewards for their review. Going off track would be not much of an advantage anymore.


Edited by halifaxf1fan, 08 November 2013 - 23:55.


#333 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 09 November 2013 - 00:46

Automatic power cutting is extremelly dangerous. You don´t want cars not accelerating in acceleration zones, it creates massive speed differentials and will always surprise drivers behind.

 

I´m all for gravel. I haven´t seen it amplify massive crashes in single seaters, it does a fairly good job stopping both intact and damaged cars enough to hit the barriers hard. There are cases of course but I struggle thinking how these could have been mitigated by tarmac.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=JPPuc-EFcKI

 

Anyway, for me it would be tarmac for some obviously dangerous places (Copse, 130R, etc), gravel everytime walls are far away or speeds are not too high. A tarmac runoff in the outside of Rivage, or surrounding Barcelona last chicane, that´s a joke



#334 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 09 November 2013 - 08:02

I've said this before many times but there is only one track on the GP calendar which is completely (with the exception of one corner which is parking lot for street cars) unaffected by this mess, and that is Albert Park - thanks to the glorious grass and gravel traps that have been saved. Which is one of the reasons it's the only F1 race of the season I look forward to. You actually have to respect the track and not see if it's faster to follow the asphalt between the painted lines, or the asphalt outside the painted lines.

 

Monza would be the second least affected but it too has gained more tarmac. All the others have been completely ruined

 

Thank god for F1 abandoning such places like Okayama etc in the last few decades, now they're free from the wrath of the FIA safety commisions.


Edited by SonnyViceR, 09 November 2013 - 08:03.


#335 nosecone

nosecone
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:32

In some cases the gravel works better for slowing down a car. Especially when it is wet the tarmac may deliver less grip and consequently less decelaration than gravel. But the tarmac increases the safety under normal conditions.

 

There are simple ways to force the drivers to use the track. You can make some grass or gravel behind the kerb* before the tarmac runoff area begins. This was already tried at the Korea circuit. At some corners there is a band of grass behind the kerb (nice idea but they try this gadget at the wrong corners...). No driver will ignore the track limits at that corners and this is what we have to achieve. Run-off areas which contain only gravel are not the best solution. I can hear the casual forum user scream "why does it take soo long to remove the car" if a car stucks in the gravel.

 

The best solution in my eyes is to put a band of natural grass behind the kerb. For safety reasons they can pave the rest of the run-off area if they want to.

 

Water could easily flow on the track if a car drives through it. In Q this would case a problem for the following cars, who have to face a wet track then.

High kerbs are bad for bike racing (although paved run-off areas are bad too)

To put some powder behind the kerb just works if the powder isn't blown away from the wind

 

 

* assumed the kerb is less than a car's width


Edited by nosecone, 09 November 2013 - 10:33.


#336 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,716 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:52

and that is Albert Park - thanks to the glorious grass and gravel traps that have been saved. 

 

Worth also noting that the gravel traps are temporary.

Each year they lay down a big plastic sheet over the grass, place the gravel on top of that, and at the end of the weekend remove it and try to let the grass grow again.



#337 JeePee

JeePee
  • Member

  • 302 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:18

Already happend 10 years ago:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YJFFrJ7zlMY

 

That first corner was a joke. But god I love the sounds in that clip. And the oversteer in the 2nd corner  :love:



#338 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 09 November 2013 - 15:04

Already happend 10 years ago:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YJFFrJ7zlMY

 

 

Ten years ago there´d be the random corner every 5/6 circuits that they could cheat (like Nurburgring T4, Monza chicanes). But it was general knowledge they could do it, and everyone did it as hard as curbs/turf/whatever physichal obstacle would allow them. 99% of corners on the calendar had the fastest line INSIDE track limits, and going off was a big penalty. The situation was clear for everyone. There were a few corners were going off was faster, and they were free to do so.

 

Nowadays there are circuits with several corners with the fastest line OUTSIDE track limits. Sometimes they´re policed, sometimes they aren´t. Going off is no big deal, sometimes it´s even faster. The situation isn´t clear at all.


Edited by Skinnyguy, 09 November 2013 - 15:08.


#339 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,152 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 09 November 2013 - 21:01

It started with the rebuild destruction of Hockenheim. Suddenly there were also runoffs after the corner instead of grass. So you could continue on next to the track. Schumacher (who else?) demonstrated this in 2005? Unfortunately at the cost of a puncture. But heck, since then, the runoffs are marble free instead of the track.



Advertisement

#340 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 January 2014 - 16:25

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/112242

 

Interesting to note the MSA has decided to be contrary and implement a four-stage approach to penalising track limits violations: 1. no action; 2. black & white flag; 3. 5-second penalty (is this a laptime penalty or is it added to the competitor's race time?) and 4. drive-through. And, controversially, they're not saying you can't put all four wheels off the track, they're saying you can't put any wheels off the track.

 

The only thing I like about the MSA's approach is saying that where there is no kerb, the white line defines the track, but when there is a kerb, the back of the kerb defines the track. So if there's a narrow apex kerb, under the FIA's rules you can climb all over that and drive on the dirt and grass on the inside, as long as your outside wheels are on the tarmac, which a lot of people think is wrong and drags dirt and stones onto the track and damages tyres - that will no longer be allowed in the UK. And if you have a very wide, flat exit kerb, which is wider than the cars, presumably you'll still be allowed to use it under the MSA's rules, even if that means putting four wheels over the white line, as it is the kerb rather than the line that defines the track limits. That seems sensible to me on both counts.

 

What I don't like about it is they don't appear to have given any thought to enforcement. Jonathan Palmer is quoted in the article as saying it will be no different to how it is now, but how it is now is not good enough. There's no point changing the rules if you're going to continue to not enforce them.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this works in MSA-sanctioned racing next season. I can see it looking rather odd having BTCC cars being expected to respect track limits, particularly as the MSA now defines them. Something tells me the touring car drivers won't respect the track limits, so my guess is any weaknesses in the enforcement aspect will be shown up pretty early on in that category. What do others think?



#341 balmybaldwin

balmybaldwin
  • Member

  • 108 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 23 January 2014 - 17:16

How about hay bales 1 car width from the track, this will allow a minor unintented infringment to get a way with it, whilst providing a obvious penalty for exceeding the limits, but still allow a tarmac surface allowing cars to slowdown before they hit the barriers, it also harks back to the old days, and is relatively easy to clear up



#342 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 13,436 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 23 January 2014 - 18:00

Just let them race. 

 

Seriously. 

 

This is the definition of making a mountain out of a molehill.  Racers have always done this.  It does not detract from the skill involved.  It is fair so long as every driver is allowed to do it in the common places, as has been the case for so long.  And if there's an extreme case, then provide a warning and subsequent penalty for repeat offenses. 

 

Its not difficult.  Things were fine before. 



#343 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,899 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 January 2014 - 18:28

They werent really. All this extra track room is a new thing. It wasnt that long ago that even in F1 you had a simple kerb at the exit, then they started adding grasscrete. Wait til you guys see how bad the exit of Turn 1 at Austria is now.



#344 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 January 2014 - 18:44

Having seen FR3.5 race there before i expect more of the same - http://youtu.be/M0wI_EHrFC4?t=9m2s - Granted its a race start so it exaggerated the issue but it still makes the same point.

 

On one hand i admire what the MSA are doing, the abuse of track limits has perhaps gone a step too far in recent years (at least it seems that way) but equally banning any wheels going beyond the track limits seems a little too totalitarian IMHO.

 

As others have said, its all well and good enforcing this rule during a major event but when its a low level club meeting how the chuffing hell can you expect reliable enforcement? I suspect its the club racers who'll suffer most from this change. Inconsistent penalties ahoy!

 

Motorsport sh*****g on the little guy? Shocking.  :rolleyes:



#345 Roscoe

Roscoe
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 23 January 2014 - 18:51

I don't think it's the offence as such that annoys me but the application of the rule.  Either it's got to be all OK, or none of it is OK.  The most annoying thing last year was you could do it on some corners but not others.



#346 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 13,436 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 23 January 2014 - 21:46

F1 tracks didn't suddenly change massively in 2013 for it to become a huge issue.  There has always been places where drivers took a bit more out of the exits to improve cornering speeds.  Its been more common the past 5 years or so, but the specific uproar in 2013 did not come out of unique circumstances.  Even slightly farther back in the past, there were always corners where you could keep your foot in it a bit more.  Maybe less of them, but still, they were there.  Point is - what is it *really* detracting from things? 



#347 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,152 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 24 January 2014 - 08:34

Because on Tilke drome parking lots, you can race an oval, skipping all the chicanes.

 

We've seen tracks evolve in tarmac with lines, and people don't even adhere to the lines anymore. Watch current day Spa and watch it on YT from the nineties. The old Spa was a lush green environment with grass on the sides and a 'trespassers will be shot' sign outside the curb. It was dangerous to go off track. Now fast forward 20 years and you have almost the whole width between the guardrails as tarmac. The track widens up, the challenge goes down. Faults go unpunished and drivers drive around knowing this.