1027 replies to this topic

[Risil]

During the German Grand Prix weekend, Toto Wolff, Christian Horner and an unnamed gaggle of hothead F1 drivers appeared to float the idea that track limits should be abolished and drivers should use all the runoff they like to create the best line through a corner.

What say yinz? Should F1 continue to be subject to a tyranny of white lines, or does the future look like one of those toll booths on a French motorway where the road becomes an open plain of tarmac and order and precedence among motorists is dead?

Surely there's a faster way up Eau Rouge. Those new runoffs at Monza are asking for it. Maybe there's a shortcut or two to be found going out of bounds at Monaco. Feel free to use Photoshop, Paint, Google Earth etc to prove your points.

I expect to have a position paper ready for Charlie by the end of the summer break.
 

 

Edit: Here are Wolff and Horner's quotes (thx KnucklesAgain):

Toto Wolff:

"We have a million miles of run-off areas and it becomes less and less spectacular and we wonder why we have audiences with less interest in what we do.
"So my opinion is that be it Club or Copse [at Silverstone] or whatever, just let them drive the quickest line.
"If it is somewhere really unsafe because we are coming too close to the barriers, or when you rejoin you are putting others in danger, then look at the specifics of that one corner.
"But for the rest, just let them go, let them drive, [create] spectacular pictures.
"If you start to analyse the white line and whether a driver has put two centimetres of his tyre on a white line and his lap time is going away, nobody understands anymore.
"This is not long jump, where two centimetres make the jump invalid, this is a six-kilometre track and two centimetres shouldn't be changing that."

Christian Horner:

"There is a white line that goes all the way round the circuit and one very easy way of [controlling track limits] is that if you have all four wheels over that line, you're out," he said.
"In other sports, it seems to work whether it be with a ball or a foot or whatever it may be.
"There is a reluctance to do that, which is fair enough, and if there is a reluctance to do that, than you have to allow the drivers to use what is there.
"You can't have one rule for Turn 1 and another one for Turn 17 because that's too confusing for us within the paddock let alone for the fans, to say he's a bit out there but he's a bit more out there.
"That for me isn't clear and something we need to move away from, so either come up with something simple or let them do what they like."

[f1paul]

Simple answer NO, 

 

I posted what will happen if you do allow drivers to drive wherever they like in the track limits thread, and I'm gonna say it again.

 

If you allow drivers to drive wherever they like then:

 

• Someone will use the international circuit at Silverstone
• Someone will use the old penultimate corner at Spain
• Someone will straight line both of the Monaco chicanes
• Someone will invent a new circuit at Abu Dhabi
• Someone will drive into the desert at Bahrain
• Someone will use the short circuit at Hockenheim 
• Someone will go onto the old Monza oval
• Someone will use the east circuit at suzuka
• Someone might drive off the circuit completely and go shopping
• The list goes on and on           

Edited by f1paul, 04 August 2016 - 17:49.

[CommanderShepard]

If a driver gains time then no, otherwise yes.

[Grayson]

The classical answer would have been that if it's quicker to get around by going off-track then there's something wrong with the circuit design.

 

The trouble is that it's become very difficult to make running of track cost time without making it unsafe, so we've had to find a compromise. It seems to me that this leaves us with three options:

 

1. Allow drivers to cut corners and make a mockery of the white lines.

2. Find some way to make it physically slower to go outside the white lines without making things more dangerous.

3. Admit that it's physically quicker to go outside the white lines, but then punish the driver in some way so that they've ended up losing time in an artificial manner.

 

Option two would obviously be the best, if it's not a contradiction to physically punish the drivers without adding danger. Option three feels fake and boring, it doesn't feel like we're watching real racing when drivers are told to take a slower line to avoid punishment.

 

By process of elimination, does this mean that drivers should be able to ignore track limits and drive wherever they like?

[Marklar]

Let them drive like they want, but with this feature

[f1paul]

During the German Grand Prix weekend, Toto Wolff, Christian Horner and an unnamed gaggle of hothead F1 drivers appeared to float the idea that track limits should be abolished and drivers should use all the runoff they like to create the best line through a corner.

What say yinz? Should F1 continue to be subject to a tyranny of white lines, or does the future look like one of those toll booths on a French motorway where the road becomes an open plain of tarmac and order and precedence among motorists is dead?

Surely there's a faster way up Eau Rouge. Those new runoffs at Monza are asking for it. Maybe there's a shortcut or two to be found going out of bounds at Monaco. Feel free to use Photoshop, Paint, Google Earth etc to prove your points.

I expect to have a position paper ready for Charlie by the end of the summer break.

Make a poll? 

[Frank Tuesday]

If a driver gains time then no, otherwise yes.

There is no way to tell if a driver gained time.  Even if the lap or section is slower, there is no way to tell definitively that a driver didn't gain time.  If he would have had to slightly lift, tap the breaks or otherwise slow the car to stay on track, it is possible that he could have gained time by not lifting, yet his section time still be slower than the previous lap.  If you go down the penalty route, you have to punish for the action, not the outcome of the action. 

[P123]

Track limits: Should they just drive where they like?

 

No.

[f1paul]

There is no way to tell if a driver gained time.

You can see it with your eyes

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Drivers should obey track limits.

 

In terms of penalizing the drivers, IMO every time that a driver goes off-track and gains an advantage, race control should add 1 or 2 seconds (Depending on the scale of the advantage that a driver gains by going off-track) to his overall finished time at the end of the race. I think this kind of penalty should work because unlike drive through or stop and go penalties, it won't interrupt wheel to wheel actions.

 

Edit: To avoid further confusion, the time penalty could be only 1 second for every advantageous off-track driving.

Edited by RYARLE, 04 August 2016 - 18:18.

[Marklar]

Drivers should obey track limits.

every time that a driver goes off-track and gains an advantage, race control should add 1 or 2 seconds (Depending on the scale of the advantage that a driver gains by going off-track) to his overall finished time at the end of the race.

This would be farcial.

Track limits should be self-policing. Everytime you are off the track it should mean that you are losing time. Natural track limits.

And don't anyone mention that gravel traps, gras or big kerbs would make it more dangerous. If drivers are taking the run-off as the racing line then they are increasing the risk because the barriers are build based on the impact of a car losing it on the track and not off the track.

Edited by Marklar, 04 August 2016 - 18:01.

[myattitude]

Cover the tarmac runoffs with enough dust to make it disadvantageous to use it, while still grippy enough to slow down before the barriers. Very cheap and effective.

[Frank Tuesday]

The classical answer would have been that if it's quicker to get around by going off-track then there's something wrong with the circuit design.

 

The trouble is that it's become very difficult to make running of track cost time without making it unsafe, so we've had to find a compromise. It seems to me that this leaves us with three options:

 

1. Allow drivers to cut corners and make a mockery of the white lines.

2. Find some way to make it physically slower to go outside the white lines without making things more dangerous.

3. Admit that it's physically quicker to go outside the white lines, but then punish the driver in some way so that they've ended up losing time in an artificial manner.

 

Option two would obviously be the best, if it's not a contradiction to physically punish the drivers without adding danger. Option three feels fake and boring, it doesn't feel like we're watching real racing when drivers are told to take a slower line to avoid punishment.

 

By process of elimination, does this mean that drivers should be able to ignore track limits and drive wherever they like?

Maybe they can find a way to grind the tarmac such that it takes laps worth of performance out of the tyres in a few seconds.  Make 10m of run off super abrasive starting at the white line.  Run off track a couple times and you've got an extra unplanned tyre stop.  

 

Put a full line of sensors around the track, and you lose 1kg/h of maximum fuel flow rate per second spent outside the track.  There would be no instant performance dropoff, which could create a safety hazard, but over the course of the race, you'd slowly lose top speed and acceleration.  

[Frank Tuesday]

You can see it with your eyes

You can't, because you have no reference of what their time would have been if they had been forced to stay on track.

 

It isn't just a matter of gaining time or not for the short amount of time off track.  Ignoring track limits can reduce tyre wear, which leads to improved lap times for the remainder of the tyre stint. 

Edited by Frank Tuesday, 04 August 2016 - 18:08.

[f1paul]

Cover the tarmac runoffs with enough dust to make it disadvantageous to use it, while still grippy enough to slow down before the barriers. Very cheap and effective.

If it's windy then it could be a problem

[superden]

No, or else what the **** is the point?

[Peat]

IMSA couldn't be arsed to spend all thier time calling track limits penalties at COTA last year so let them have at it.

It looked ridiculous.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

This would be farcial.

For every circuit there are only one or two corners that gaining an advantage is a real possibility. Races are full of stewards decision, so why not this one. I think my solution was simple and understandable enough for the fans as well. Even we can just add 1 second time penalty to avoid any further confusion.

[f1paul]

IMSA couldn't be arsed to spend all thier time calling track limits penalties at COTA last year so let them have at it.

It looked ridiculous.

I remember that, it was just stupid. IMSA could drive wherever they wanted but WEC couldn't and the races were on the same day for those who don't know about the Lone start LeMans weekend. The drivers said they had to adapt their driving styles. 

[Lights]

The classical answer would have been that if it's quicker to get around by going off-track then there's something wrong with the circuit design.

 

The trouble is that it's become very difficult to make running of track cost time without making it unsafe, so we've had to find a compromise. It seems to me that this leaves us with three options:

 

1. Allow drivers to cut corners and make a mockery of the white lines.

2. Find some way to make it physically slower to go outside the white lines without making things more dangerous.

3. Admit that it's physically quicker to go outside the white lines, but then punish the driver in some way so that they've ended up losing time in an artificial manner.

 

Option two would obviously be the best, if it's not a contradiction to physically punish the drivers without adding danger. Option three feels fake and boring, it doesn't feel like we're watching real racing when drivers are told to take a slower line to avoid punishment.

 

By process of elimination, does this mean that drivers should be able to ignore track limits and drive wherever they like?

 

This sums it up nicely.

 

Option 2 is the best, and option 3 is what the FIA sadly seems to be going for.

 

But ehm, Risil, what's the diference between this thread and Track limit madness?

Edited by Lights, 04 August 2016 - 18:14.

[Stephane]

Like this ?

[f1paul]

Like this ?

He forgot to cut the sea front chicane and the swimming pool 

[Risil]

But ehm, Risil, what's the diference between this thread and Track limit madness?

 

Track limit madness is a very big thread and I wanted to make one specifically to discuss the "NO TRACK LIMITS!!!" idea which may yet happen.

[JacnGille]

If what are described as "the best drivers in the world" have such a hard time driving with the "boundaries" of a road course why don't they migrate over to off road desert racing or take up drag racing. Problem (for the drivers) solved!

[PlatenGlass]

For every circuit there are only one or two corners that gaining an advantage is a real possibility.

Given this, it shouldn't be hard to design the whole track properly, rather than leaving one or two corners poorly designed.

My view is that other than massively cutting corners in an obvious way (or doing doughnuts over the start/finish line), going round the track should be the fastest route and there shouldn't be any need for penalties. Going wide should never result in a penalty. If it's an advantage, it's just poor circuit design. Plain and simple.

[AustinF1]

 

Simple answer NO, 

 

 

 

^^^Este.

[AustinF1]

I remember that, it was just stupid. IMSA could drive wherever they wanted but WEC couldn't and the races were on the same day for those who don't know about the Lone start LeMans weekend. The drivers said they had to adapt their driving styles. 

Yeah I posted about that in the other thread. The highlight was when some IMSA cars had slightly better times than some WEC counterparts, and the IMSA announcers crowed about it over the PA.  I just watched 1 lap of that video posted above and saw pretty much everyone going way wide at 1, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19, and 20. Ridiculous. What an abomination. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt insulted and ripped off by that nonsense, and I'm glad it's getting some proper attention on a well-read board like this one.

Edited by AustinF1, 04 August 2016 - 19:12.

[Muppetmad]

Grass. Gravel. With these, this problem suddenly disappears.

[Risil]

Make a poll? 

 

Made a poll.

[Tenmantaylor]

Let them drive like they want, but with this feature

That kerb is way too accommodating.

[johnmhinds]

Paul Ricard has had the solution for over a decade:

 

[AustinF1]

Paul Ricard has had the solution for over a decade:

 

 

What is that?

Edited by AustinF1, 04 August 2016 - 19:12.

[Tenmantaylor]

Is it sponsored by Martini per chance?

[Risil]

I bet you'd take a chance and cut across the blue stuff if track position was at stake, or if you were on a qualifying lap.

[Kalmake]

Completely cutting corners is obviously not what they meant, but don't let that stop you.

 

They are talking about running wide and avoiding the confusing centimeter game with stewards.

[johnmhinds]

What is that?

 

They have abrasive strips that ruin your tyres if you run wide, and slow you down if you're spinning towards the barrier.

 

I'm surprised Paul Ricard hasn't become the standard that all tracks have to adhere to to be honest, the safety features that are used there have been ahead of the game for a while.

https://www.circuitp...nnovations.html

Edited by johnmhinds, 04 August 2016 - 19:18.

[kevinracefan]

as Vettel said.. design the corners so that there's no desire to run off limits...

 

In F1 I like wet grass..

 

In Nascar, not so much..

 

Indianapolis needs to reconfigure the corners for Nascar in a way that the indycar corners are un-affected..

 

There.. that fixes everything!!

[f1paul]

^^^Este.

Sorry, what does this mean. 

[f1paul]

Made a poll.

[Marklar]

What is that?

Abrasive stripes. Apparentely it party caused the damage Nico Rosberg suffered in Russia 2014 (besides his lockup) which then forced him to pit.

Isn't always that efective though.

[PayasYouRace]

So gravel works to stop cars but has the potential to flip cars because they can dig in. So what if we could seal it up in some way?

 

Oh wait!

 

What Paul Ricard have done is essentially a very coarse tarmac, which provides the runoff benefits of gravel while providing a some measure of penalty for using it. I think the idea could be explored more.

[f1paul]

Paul Ricard has had the solution for over a decade:

 

F1 should go there for the French GP!

[loki0420]

Just make kerbs they couldn't gain time on. Its so obvious.

[Risil]

Completely cutting corners is obviously not what they meant, but don't let that stop you.
 
They are talking about running wide and avoiding the confusing centimeter game with stewards.

 

I'm not really sure that is what they're saying. These are the people that signed off the elimination qualifying at the start of the year, remember.

 

Toto Wolff definitely suggested drivers could take any line whatsoever through Copse, and Christian Horner definitely said they should treat every corner the same and let them drive where they like.

[MarkWRX]

And a related article stated that next year, with bigger wings, diffusers and tires, they will exceed track limits even more because they will have higher corner entry / exit speed.  I am pretty sure that's what the brake pedal is for.  Just because the cars are made faster doesn't mean unfettered ability to use that speed on every corner. 

 

In the interests of safety, the old gravel traps and grassy runoff have gone the way of...car control.  The Tilke-drome tracks do not penalize the driver for mistakes on corner entry. Go in too fast and just run wide on the exit, the reenter and hope it's safe to do so. 

 

They should be able to find a way to make exceeding track limits (that means going outside the lines everywhere - not just on certain turns) cost the driver time.  Either make it slick with layers of glossy paint or make it so rough as to make it something drivers and engineers won't want to do often.

 

Since watching my first F1 race on the Wide World of Sports in the last 60s, I have seen glorious triumph and desperate tragedy. The fact that the FIA and FOM have, in a single year, so thoroughly screwed up F1 (qualification, radio rules, track limits) make me worry about the future of the sport.

[Risil]

So gravel works to stop cars but has the potential to flip cars because they can dig in. So what if we could seal it up in some way?

 

Oh wait!

 

What Paul Ricard have done is essentially a very coarse tarmac, which provides the runoff benefits of gravel while providing a some measure of penalty for using it. I think the idea could be explored more.

 

Maybe that could work but they'd have to do something about the stripes, they look horrendous.

[dutra]

Just look how far they went on turn 1 at the A1 Ring.... If you want track limits, put a proper physical limit where you want, otherwise it's plain stupid to tell the driver "hey, don't use that thing around the track, because it may look like track, but it isn't, ok?".

[Marklar]

I'm not really sure that is what they're saying. These are the people that signed off the elimination qualifying at the start of the year, remember.

Toto Wolff definitely suggested drivers could take any line whatsoever through Copse, and Christian Horner definitely said they should treat every corner the same and let them drive where they like.

They do make exceptions

"If it is somewhere really unsafe because we are coming too close to the barriers, or when you rejoin you are putting others in danger, then look at the specifics of that one corner.

Assume cutting the final chicane in Montreal or Eau Rouge in Spa might be such a corner. But yeah, other that they are suggesting that they should drive however they like to, yes.

[BRG]

Completely cutting corners is obviously not what they meant, but don't let that stop you.

 

They are talking about running wide and avoiding the confusing centimeter game with stewards.

Ah, so you are saying that there are still limits but just not the current limits?  But what happens when they start to abuse the new limits?  WIll there be a plan to ignore those limits and set newer limits?  Or would we be on the outskirts of La La Land by then?

 

A limit is a limit.  Exceed it, get penalised.

[Risil]

Maybe Wolff meant they should scrap Eau Rouge and the final chicane at Montreal.