151 replies to this topic

[ExFlagMan]

Article on Autos[port web site http://www.autosport...-in-f1--warwick

 

Not sure I agree about completely scrapping blue flags - just go back 20 or so years when the Blue Flag was advisory and used to warn the slower car.

 

When they brought in the '3 blues and you pull over or get a penalty' we told them it was a complete load of Horlicks - but did they listen....

 

 

[Slackbladder]

on the other hand, this could cause issues with 'sister teams' If a Toro rosso driver blocked a Merc for example.  (Or a Merc driver in another team). Do you want rear gunners which could swing races?

[Marklar]

As long as we have affilated (RBR/STR) teams on the grid I'm against it. Otherwise I agree with it.

[Clatter]

Of all the problems that exist with F1 blue flags is amongst the least important. The problem I would have is with the secondary teams there is the unfair situation where a driver from the main team could be let through unhindered, but a rival driver unfairly held up. That's not good for racing or the fans, all it would do is create controversy and headlines.

Edited by Clatter, 23 January 2017 - 14:05.

[readonly]

All top teams have secondary teams. It would even out somehow. Don't you think?

[Kalmake]

Getting blocked by different engined back markers would decide races. I would call that "artificial".

[SenorSjon]

I rather have Warwick retired. I think he can cope very badly with the new free-for-all rules of engagement.

[jcbc3]

Funny, that he is critizing the rules, and then gladly go to Australia to 'enforce' them. That's setting himself up for ridicule .

 

I think someone else should be appointed for that gig.

[Gretsch]

Blue flags are not a problem, the drivers who screams "BLUE FLAGS BLUE FLAGS!" as soon as they see a glimpse of a car in front of them are. Just connect blue flag to DRS, when the car behind get DRS you get the blue flag (if the car behind you is actually ahead of you). That way the most you can hold up a opponent is one lap. Then they should give a stop/go penalty for any driver that says "BLUE FLAGS" on the radio. Maybe a race ban as well.

So on the DRS straights you have to let faster traffic by, if you are blue flagged (indicator similar to "DRS available") unless you want a penalty. At all other parts of the track you can be an asshole.

Edited by Gretsch, 23 January 2017 - 15:09.

[TomNokoe]

Backmarkers would play favourites and ruin lead battles. No way. We can't even have a solid race at the front thanks to dirty air. Where is the fun in seeing somebody lose a race because the aerodynamics are so limited that the guy in 1st could possibly have his race ruined by the guy in 21st. Organised unpredictability.

Edited by TomNokoe, 23 January 2017 - 14:18.

[Kristian]

I'm all for banning the 'moving over' rule, but keeping blue flags as a warning that its a leader behind you. 

 

There are pros and cons, but mostly the pros are a way of making top teams design cars that run better in dirty air, ergo aid overtaking. As these teams tend to lead the development pathways, then that can only be a good thing. 

 

Also it will mean even a runaway leader will have to work hard, and get to show his racing skills (which surely is what fans want to see). 

 

A con would be teams deliberately hindering one driver and not another, but it already happens to a certain extent. I personally don't mind this, its just another facet to strategy. It can also help a race as much as hinder it, so I think it will even out. 

 

So yes, big thumbs up from me. 

[RedBaron]

I like the idea. This was discussed in the Villeneuve topic I think.

 

 

I wonder how many drivers in the sister teams would be willing to severely compromise their race holding up a lead car. 

 

Plus a few top teams have secondary teams or drivers placed elsewhere on the grid, holding up a lead rival would be a case of 'what comes around goes around' if one sister team played the hold up game another one would in return. It would neutralise the advantage.

[RedBaron]

I'm all for banning the 'moving over' rule, but keeping blue flags as a warning that its a leader behind you.

 

Yeh the flags should serve just as a warning. Not as check points for penalties.

 

It would be questionable at Monaco though.

Edited by RedBaron, 23 January 2017 - 14:31.

[Kristian]

Yeh the flags should serve just as a warning. Not as check points for penalties.

 

It would be questionable at Monaco though.

 

Just imagine all the leaders stuck behind a Sauber train! 

 

But, as I said, teams would have to solve it with strategy, which would open up some variation maybe. 

[Afterburner]

Countdown to two-hour Vettel radio montage...

[BuddyHolly]

I've been saying they should ban the blue flags for years!   Having lapped cars 'leap' out of the way is just pathetic.

[ANF]

Make it happen.

[jcbc3]

I like the idea. This was discussed in the Villeneuve topic I think.

 

 

I wonder how many drivers in the sister teams would be willing to severely compromise their race holding up a lead car. 

 

Plus a few top teams have secondary teams or drivers placed elsewhere on the grid, holding up a lead rival would be a case of 'what comes around goes around' if one sister team played the hold up game another one would in return. It would neutralise the advantage.

 

And we would have multiple races ruined by back marker interference instead of one back marker being penalised. But traffic to these boards would explode. 

[HP]

Blue flags are not a problem, the drivers who screams "BLUE FLAGS BLUE FLAGS!" as soon as they see a glimpse of a car in front of them are. Just connect blue flag to DRS, when the car behind get DRS you get the blue flag (if the car behind you is actually ahead of you). That way the most you can hold up a opponent is one lap. Then they should give a stop/go penalty for any driver that says "BLUE FLAGS" on the radio. Maybe a race ban as well.

So on the DRS straights you have to let faster traffic by, if you are blue flagged (indicator similar to "DRS available") unless you want a penalty. At all other parts of the track you can be an asshole.

We may not like the blue flag messages. If I try to put myself into the shoes of a front running driver, I can understand him 100%. A driver wants to maximise his race. To make sure that the team and the FIA is aware as soon as possible, he shouts: "blue flag". Nothing wrong with that at all. Any sensible racing driver would do that under the current rules IMO.

 

What can be improved is to include a signal button on the steering wheel so the driver doesn't need to shout.. And those broadcasting the race might be more sensible and not broadcast such messages at all. Their intent is not for the race viewer. Nor do they add anything for the race viewers (except annoyment because of the way some racing driver talk).

 

Blue flags are since long part of racing series, it's just the penalty system that F1 introduced makes it controversial. In times gone, especially before pit to driver communication was used, a driver could scream at a car ahead  of him, and nobody would be bothered, because there was nobody to listen. However in those times gone, it was much more common that once a slower driver spotted the faster car approaching, he made room for the car. No need for the "courtesy flag". These days courtesy seems to be a forgotten art, so maybe that's why drivers have to scream more "blue flag, blue flag".

 

Also IMO they should get rid of DRS, so your idea needs some improvement as well.

[TheRacingElf]

Can somebody explain to me why the blue flag rules suddenly have to be changed? What's wrong with it? Another way of creating artificial "excitement"?

[Gretsch]

 

 

Also IMO they should get rid of DRS, so your idea needs some improvement as well.

 

They can get rid of DRS and still keep the detectors for blue fags, exactly the same tech can be used, just have it inversed - faster car closer than X timeunits at measure point => let him by in the BFY (blue flag yield) zone.

I think the predictability with such a system would give the sport peace in that area. "Oh ****, he comes close enough just after the BFY zone, now he might have to stay behind for a whole lap". Nobody would be upset because it is the rules and since it is predictable it can also be used as part of strategy. 

[Gretsch]

Can somebody explain to me why the blue flag rules suddenly have to be changed? What's wrong with it? Another way of creating artificial "excitement"?

I think it is because last season, blue flag was always a talking point. I guess Pirelli think blue flags steals their glory.

[f1paul]

[Ruusperi]

Everything that makes the life more challenging and devilish for the drivers is preferable (for example gravel traps, radio ban etc). But speaking of priorities, I'd rather remove DRS as it takes all the excitement out of overtaking. Lapped cars isn't that big problem anyway due to the pace difference.

[f1paul]

[Jvr]

Was it not at Malaysia last year when Hamilton noted Charlie about the blue flags and as a response Charlie immediately zapped his engine... 

[Clatter]

All top teams have secondary teams. It would even out somehow. Don't you think?

You can't look at it that way. You could never be sure it would be an equal effect each race. One time it could prevent someone challenging for a win, another time it could be for minor points.

[Clatter]

I think it is because last season, blue flag was always a talking point. I guess Pirelli think blue flags steals their glory.

So Pirelli are now responsible for comments made by one of stewards are they? 😞

[RedBaron]

All top teams have secondary teams. It would even out somehow. Don't you think?

Maybe it wouldn't need to even out, teams knowing they could be victim of whatever they dish out could mean no one does it, at least not to a greater extent than they already do.

It wouldn't be good moral for the sister team or their drivers either, being told they have to give up all their hard work and efforts each race in order to aid the primary team and it's drivers.

[Clatter]

Maybe it wouldn't need to even out, teams knowing they could be victim of whatever they dish out could mean no one does it, at least not to a greater extent than they already do.

It wouldn't be good moral for the sister team or their drivers either, being told they have to give up all their hard work and efforts each race in order to aid the primary team and it's drivers.

But the likelihood is that even if they don't do it every time, they would when it really counted. Can you imagine the situation if a championship was won\lost because of deliberate blocking.

[Marklar]

All top teams have secondary teams. It would even out somehow. Don't you think?

1. Nothing evens out in motor racing.
2. Having Manor as your secondary team is an advantage compared to having STR as your secondary team based on how frequent they get lapped. Though it's easier to make it look 'real' if the car is actually competitive. Even if Manor tries to defend, they will be passed quickly. Not so Toro Rosso, but it wouldnt look too blatant if someone passes them quickly either. So that's perhaps 'even it out' a bit.
3. The extend of relation (and therefore power on them to ask them to do something) is also in every case different.
4. Not every competitive team has a secondary team (McLaren, Williams, FI), while some have multiple.

Edited by Marklar, 23 January 2017 - 17:14.

[RedBaron]

But the likelihood is that even if they don't do it every time, they would when it really counted. Can you imagine the situation if a championship was won\lost because of deliberate blocking.

It's happened before Sauber often held up Williams in 97, most notably in Jerez.

What's to stop a team getting a sister team to meddle now anyway? In a finale scenario where blue flags carry a penalty what would stop a Toro Rosso ignoring blue flags and taking a 10 second penalty in exchange for the world title for Ricciardo/Max vs a Mercedes?

A 10 second stop go penalty isn't exactly a deterrent when it comes to the crunch in a critical moment.

[Marklar]

I had once the idea to drop blue flags (i.e. the order to let them through), but to mandate that in case of on collision the car to be lapped will be deemed to be at fault regardless who was at fault.

The lapping car will take slightly more risks, because it knows that the other car doesnt want to be penalised, but it wont risk everything because it cant be sure that the other car will really be cautious (as it could be a secondary car helping its sister team). The lapped car will either act like it does now or defend a bit, but not very hard. So it would get more difficult to lap other cars, without it being too unfair/extreme. Of course in a championship decider this might be worth nothing though, but if you look to Brazil '12 this is anyway already the case. And Monaco would be really funny

But tbh I love these 'blue flag' complains on the team radio somehow, they would be gone in this case and I think some would miss it

Edited by Marklar, 23 January 2017 - 17:32.

[pdac]

YES

 

I've been calling for this for ages. If you want more competitive racing, then you sure as hell will have the aero guys rethinking things if they can't get past a much slower car because the lose performance when they get close. Remove blue flags. Remove DRS. Let's get back to racing for position.

[Prost1997T]

[Clatter]

It's happened before Sauber often held up Williams in 97, most notably in Jerez.

What's to stop a team getting a sister team to meddle now anyway? In a finale scenario where blue flags carry a penalty what would stop a Toro Rosso ignoring blue flags and taking a 10 second penalty in exchange for the world title for Ricciardo/Max vs a Mercedes?

A 10 second stop go penalty isn't exactly a deterrent when it comes to the crunch in a critical moment.

It could happen, but is against the rules. Allowing it just makes it more likely.

[Clatter]

I had once the idea to drop blue flags (i.e. the order to let them through), but to mandate that in case of on collision the car to be lapped will be deemed to be at fault regardless who was at fault.

The lapping car will take slightly more risks, because it knows that the other car doesnt want to be penalised, but it wont risk everything because it cant be sure that the other car will really be cautious (as it could be a secondary car helping its sister team). The lapped car will either act like it does now or defend a bit, but not very hard. So it would get more difficult to lap other cars, without it being too unfair/extreme. Of course in a championship decider this might be worth nothing though, but if you look to Brazil '12 this is anyway already the case. And Monaco would be really funny

But tbh I love these 'blue flag' complains on the team radio somehow, they would be gone in this case and I think some would miss it

So how would that help if the car being lapped took the attacker out of the race?

[RedBaron]

It could happen, but is against the rules. Allowing it just makes it more likely.

It's against the rules yes, but the punishment is only a 10 second penalty. When there is a championshio at stake as far as penalties go that doesn't even make a dent in the spoils.

The reason it doesn't happen now or so obviously to the extent being forcast in this thread isn't because of the penalty, it's because of the horrendous publicity the team and driver would get. That would still be the case if blue flag penalties were removed.

A short tactical delay is fine and happens now under the current set of rules without a doubt. Blocking lap after lap and trashing the backmarkers race and leaders race just won't happen.

[P123]

With junior teams, sister teams or whatever, it would never work. You'd have something like a Toro Rosso allow a Red Bull to lap it immediately at Monaco and then hold a Ferrari up for three or four laps. There would be an outcry, and rightfully so.

[MikeV1987]

They aren't racing for position so lapped cars should get out of the way. Not interested in seeing back runners hold up the front runners.

Edited by MikeV1987, 23 January 2017 - 18:49.

[savvy2210]

Can somebody explain to me why the blue flag rules suddenly have to be changed? What's wrong with it? Another way of creating artificial "excitement"?

Not at all. The lapping car has to get around the slower car. If he does it correctly all well and good, if not he loses time into the clutches of the following car.   

 

The following car can see the car ahead is going to lap someone, so closes up, tries to get him caught up the gearbox of the slower car and overtakes. This is motor racing, before the artificial blue flag, jump - out the way rule for the lapped car, even though they are in a hard fought contest with a competitor, came in.

 

Their used to be excitement when the driver comes to a slower car, will he gain or lose time. Now it it's just Maaah

[ExFlagMan]

The main problem with current rule is that it is self defeating, especially as RC tend to start the 3 flags signal much too early on many occasions so that to obey the rule the backmarker has to really back off b a considerable amount, which means that by the time they have got back up to speed they have lost up to 10 seconds. Get caught out several times and suddenly they are back in the firing zone for being lapped again.

All this was recognised by regular flag marshals when the rule was first implemented and the response we got back when we pointed it out was - 'we will tweak the software so that the call is not made too soon'. Must be a pretty difficult software fix, as there does not seem to have been much improvement in the 20+ years since it was introduced.

[redreni]

on the other hand, this could cause issues with 'sister teams' If a Toro rosso driver blocked a Merc for example.  (Or a Merc driver in another team). Do you want rear gunners which could swing races?

 

I'm not convinced this would be a worse problem than the one we have now, because the flaw in the regulations as they stand is the car that benefits is not the one that is penalised. If, because of team orders or intra-team politics, a driver is willing to lose time blocking a driver that is trying to put a lap on him, then he is presumably willing to be penalised for it and the guilty team, as well as the driver on who's behalf the blocking is done, both get away with it.

 

I hate the F1 blue flag rule with a passion. At most, a blue flag should mean the slower car is not supposed to move off line to defend its position. I wouldn't have too much of an issue with that. Extending that to mean you have to move off line in order to make way for the other car is wrong-headed. What about when a fast car loses a minute in the pits and comes out just ahead (on track) of cars that are on a similar pace? Why on earth should a car lose masses of time in that scenario letting everyone by? If he stays on the lead lap, he could come back into contention versus some of those other cars if, for example, they lose a lot of time through similar misfortune or (more likely) a SC?

 

But the thing I hate most about the blue flag rule is the way it's used as a pretext for why we need wave-bys on SC restarts. People point to that Singapore race where it got hairy because the slower cars near the front of the pack were moving off line on cold tyres to let people past and then causing havoc when they rejoined the racing line whilst going very slowly, and in the confusion Webber and Hamilton crashed. Essentially, that was a problem caused by fear of being penalised for breaking the stupid blue flag rule. What's F1's solution? Another stupid rule, of course. Let's gift people an entire lap for no coherent sporting reason!

 

No. Let's make it so the backmarkers are allowed to drive on the racing line and, therefore, have a chance to keep their tyres in the window and don't become so slow that they pose a danger. I'm with Warwick on this. The leaders are leading because they're faster. Let them overtake the slower cars properly, then, like in WEC (and no, I'm not comparing apples with pears, in WEC the race leading LMP1 cars have to overtake all their slower competitors properly if they want to put a lap on them, including not only cars in lower classes but also other LMP1 cars, and they seem to manage it just fine; nobody is required to jump out of their way).

Edited by redreni, 23 January 2017 - 20:18.

[DS27]

 

I hate the F1 blue flag rule with a passion. At most, a blue flag should mean the slower car is not supposed to move off line to defend its position. 

 

It really should be this simple shouldn't it. But this would be a common sense rule so almost certainly won't happen.

[johnmhinds]

What is up with the end of that article? It reads like he did an interview and then Autosport just picked out random quotes and stuck them together to fit some narrative they're trying to push.

Edited by johnmhinds, 23 January 2017 - 20:47.

[redreni]

I had once the idea to drop blue flags (i.e. the order to let them through), but to mandate that in case of on collision the car to be lapped will be deemed to be at fault regardless who was at fault.

The lapping car will take slightly more risks, because it knows that the other car doesnt want to be penalised, but it wont risk everything because it cant be sure that the other car will really be cautious (as it could be a secondary car helping its sister team). The lapped car will either act like it does now or defend a bit, but not very hard. So it would get more difficult to lap other cars, without it being too unfair/extreme. Of course in a championship decider this might be worth nothing though, but if you look to Brazil '12 this is anyway already the case. And Monaco would be really funny

But tbh I love these 'blue flag' complains on the team radio somehow, they would be gone in this case and I think some would miss it

 

I see what you're saying, but wouldn't it be better to mandate that the car that's at fault is deemed to be at fault regardless if it's lapping or being lapped?

 

I don't buy that a car that's fast enough to be lapping another car within a 90 minute race cannot be expected, with the aid of pass flaps, to overtake the other car. If it can't, fine, let it lose the race as a result and, as Kristian has argued above, there you have the perfect incentive for the team with the fastest car to do something about its sensitivity to wake turbulence and/or to just hire a driver that's better at clearing backmarkers.

 

I never understood what was meant to be so bad about the days when the fastest car/driver package could lose a race due to being tentative in traffic. Mansell won several races he had no real business winning by being more decisive than others in traffic. The 90s reinterpretation of blue flags is just one example of the de-skilling of F1.

Edited by redreni, 23 January 2017 - 21:34.

[savvy2210]

They aren't racing for position so lapped cars should get out of the way. Not interested in seeing back runners hold up the front runners.

Yes they are fighting for position. I guess you were delighted with the six car U.S. Grand Prix.

[Kalmake]

I find the mix of different classes in endurance silly, fake racing. Would you add GP2 cars to F1 races?

 

Back markers should not be allowed to influence the leaders in any way. There is no need for it. Sucks for them, but it's their own fault for being so slow.

[JacnGille]

Countdown to two-hour Vettel radio montage...

[Ricardo F1]

Blue flags are fine and necessary and frankly often spices up racing between back markers.  I can think of more than a few occasions were one canny back marker used the faster car coming through to overtake someone they were racing.