113 replies to this topic

[tkulla]

Watching Max complain about a lapped Romain Grosjean today made me think about how spoiled drivers are when it comes to backmarkers, who are expected to dive off the racing line when a leader comes by so that they don't hold them up for even a second. Max wanted the Haas driver to pull over and wait for him to go by even though the Red Bull wasn't even in DRS range. And to be clear, I'm not attacking Max here - he's just extending the current attitude towards backmarkers to its logical next step.

 

I think the sport should do the opposite, though. The blue flags should simply let the driver know that the car coming up on him is a leader. He should be under no obligation to leave the racing line and should even be allowed to defend his position. This would benefit the sport in few important ways:

 

1. The end of the race would become much more interesting. Hamilton being seven or eight seconds ahead of Vettel today meant that the race was effectively over with 20 laps left barring an extremely rare mechanical issue. But allow backmarkers to fight and maybe Seb can make it interesting if Lewis has some trouble making passes on them (in the long run I suspect Lewis would benefit from this rule as his creative passing skill would likely enable him to make quicker work of lapped cars than most).

 

2. End of grid teams would have some amount of leverage over leading teams, giving top teams a reason to be fair with them when it comes to rule making and financial arrangements. If Ferrari blocks a rule change that would help out end of grid teams, then maybe Vettel pays a bit of a price for it the next race when trying to get by lapped cars. Alliances would become important, and that's not a bad thing. 

 

3. The "long final stint on harder tyres" strategy would be employed less often. Leaders choosing this strategy would have a tougher time passing backmarkers than those who made that extra pitstop for newer, softer tyres. 

Edited by tkulla, 09 April 2017 - 13:38.

[ExFlagMan]

You mean like the rules used in the rest of motor-sport and as used in F1 before a certain driver/now commentator was instrumental in getting them changed...

[Lights]

2. End of grid teams would have some amount of leverage over leading teams, giving top teams a reason to be fair with them when it comes to rule making and financial arrangements. If Ferrari blocks a rule change that would help out end of grid teams, then maybe Vettel pays a bit of a price for it the next race when trying to get by lapped cars. Alliances would become important, and that's not a bad thing.

It's a horrible thing. Who the hell wants to see a fight for the win decided based on who has the best alliances with a backmarker? I'm here to see racing, not politics. Engine manufacturers will pressure customer teams into letting through there own drivers while blocking those of their rivals. I cannot imagine how you could possibly list this as something positive.

[FLB]

[FLB]

It's a horrible thing. Who the hell wants to see a fight for the win decided based on who has the best alliances with a backmarker? I'm here to see racing, not politics. Engine manufacturers will pressure customer teams into letting through there own drivers while blocking those of their rivals. I cannot imagine how you could possibly list this as something positive.

According to Jacques Villeneuve, this is exactly what happened with Norberto Fontana at Jerez in 1997.

[B Squared]

It doesn't even have to be a backmarker; look how Bottas let Hamilton drive away from him and the rest of the field on the early restart today to insure him (Hamilton) a rather large gap..

Edited by B Squared, 09 April 2017 - 13:58.

[tkulla]

It's a horrible thing. Who the hell wants to see a fight for the win decided based on who has the best alliances with a backmarker? I'm here to see racing, not politics. Engine manufacturers will pressure customer teams into letting through there own drivers while blocking those of their rivals. I cannot imagine how you could possibly list this as something positive.

 

I think you're overstating things a bit. It's not going to "decide" who wins. It will actual create more "fights for the win" than we currently have, since the leader is at a disadvantage since he's the first to encounter the backmarkers, allowing those behind to close up a bit. 

 

I'm not arguing that lapped cars can swerve and block - just that they shouldn't have to dive off the track just because a leader is coming through. The reality is that anyone who is an entire lap behind should be pretty easy to pass for a top car. But it will require a real pass instead of mere radio whining.

 

Really, I think we all want driver skill to be a bigger factor in the results. This does that. Maneuvering through backmarkers is a driver skill that some would be better at than others.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Hmm I'm am not sure on this! 🙈

[Seanspeed]

I think it would be terrible if we let backmarkers defend their 'position'.  

 

As for your scenario where Lewis gets held up and Vettel catches up - the opposite is just as likely to happen - Vettel gets held up and Lewis stretches his lead.  It is not something that inherently benefits a chasing car at all.  

[SenorSjon]

Verstappen got penalized for the same in AD in 2015. He was in front of Hamilton, Lewis wasn't really gaining on him, yet he received a 20s penalty plus 2 penalty points. https://web.archive....t.php/id/122060

So, I understand he whined a bit. It is also FOM's choice to keep broadcasting it.

Edited by SenorSjon, 09 April 2017 - 14:14.

[Disgrace]

2. End of grid teams would have some amount of leverage over leading teams, giving top teams a reason to be fair with them when it comes to rule making and financial arrangements. If Ferrari blocks a rule change that would help out end of grid teams, then maybe Vettel pays a bit of a price for it the next race when trying to get by lapped cars. Alliances would become important, and that's not a bad thing.

 

If Honda got their act together, McLaren would have no allies while Red Bull own a second team. This idea doesn't pass even elementary scrutiny.

[quickshift]

Watching Max complain about a lapped Romain Grosjean today made me think about how spoiled drivers are when it comes to backmarkers, who are expected to dive off the racing line when a leader comes by so that they don't hold them up for even a second. Max wanted the Haas driver to pull over and wait for him to go by even though the Red Bull wasn't even in DRS range. And to be clear, I'm not attacking Max here - he's just extending the current attitude towards backmarkers to its logical next step.

 

I think the sport should do the opposite, though. The blue flags should simply let the driver know that the car coming up on him is a leader. He should be under no obligation to leave the racing line and should even be allowed to defend his position. This would benefit the sport in few important ways:

 

1. The end of the race would become much more interesting. Hamilton being seven or eight seconds ahead of Vettel today meant that the race was effectively over with 20 laps left barring an extremely rare mechanical issue. But allow backmarkers to fight and maybe Seb can make it interesting if Lewis has some trouble making passes on them (in the long run I suspect Lewis would benefit from this rule as his creative passing skill would likely enable him to make quicker work of lapped cars than most).

 

2. End of grid teams would have some amount of leverage over leading teams, giving top teams a reason to be fair with them when it comes to rule making and financial arrangements. If Ferrari blocks a rule change that would help out end of grid teams, then maybe Vettel pays a bit of a price for it the next race when trying to get by lapped cars. Alliances would become important, and that's not a bad thing. 

 

3. The "long final stint on harder tyres" strategy would be employed less often. Leaders choosing this strategy would have a tougher time passing backmarkers than those who made that extra pitstop for newer, softer tyres. 

what a stupid idea we could have team mates 5 laps back holding up leaders for kick and giggles

[RedBaron]

before a certain driver/now commentator was instrumental in getting them changed...

 

Who?

[tkulla]

It never ceases to amaze me how many fans just want F1 to be as easy as possible for the leading driver. Just get the best car, put it on pole and drive off into the sunset with the clean air advantage. The series is far too much of a design and engineering contest and even that qualifying is half the engineers rather than the driver. We might as well go all the way and allow autonomous cars. After all, it wouldn't be that hard to make one that could drive at the front, and with all the ballast they could add low in the car in place of the drivers weight it would surely qualify on pole.

[Lights]

I think you're overstating things a bit. It's not going to "decide" who wins. It will actual create more "fights for the win" than we currently have, since the leader is at a disadvantage since he's the first to encounter the backmarkers, allowing those behind to close up a bit. 

 

The reality is that anyone who is an entire lap behind should be pretty easy to pass for a top car. But it will require a real pass instead of mere radio whining. 

 

Potentially, it could very well decide who wins. Especially around tracks like Melbourne, Monaco or Singapore where it's almost impossible to pass in dry conditions. So I don't think I'm overstating things at all, it would likely frustrate me if something like this would affect the outcome.

 

And the reality is actually that today for example Verstappen was a lap in front of Grosjean, yet he was only so slightly quicker that combined with the dirty air he couldn't even get within any sort of range for an overtake attempt. 

[Lights]

It never ceases to amaze me how many fans just want F1 to be as easy as possible for the leading driver. Just get the best car, put it on pole and drive off into the sunset with the clean air advantage. 

 

Far from that actually, but your proposal would only increase the amount of politics and luck, which is the opposite of what I'd like to see.

 

Plus that I don't think someone who is 5km behind someone else should be in any way be allowed to 'defend his position' against him like you say, whatever that position is supposed to mean.

I'm very confused by that actually because if they swap places there is no change in position, so what position is there that they'd need to defend?

[tkulla]

Potentially, it could very well decide who wins. Especially around tracks like Melbourne, Monaco or Singapore where it's almost impossible to pass in dry conditions. So I don't think I'm overstating things at all, it would likely frustrate me if something like this would affect the outcome.

 

And the reality is actually that today for example Verstappen was a lap in front of Grosjean, yet he was only so slightly quicker that combined with the dirty air he couldn't even get within any sort of range for an overtake attempt. 

 

 

It would surely influence a few races. Good! Teams will have to adjust their strategies to make sure they are capable of making actual passes. And only Monaco presents a situation when a much faster car can't pass since that track is not really made for modern F1 cars. And if a leading car isn't much faster (like Max today) then there's no harm in staying behind that car. In fact, it will allow DRS usage. So what's the problem, again? F1 needs some spice, and this provides a bit of that without any cost. 

[Seanspeed]

It never ceases to amaze me how many fans just want F1 to be as easy as possible for the leading driver. Just get the best car, put it on pole and drive off into the sunset with the clean air advantage. The series is far too much of a design and engineering contest and even that qualifying is half the engineers rather than the driver. We might as well go all the way and allow autonomous cars. After all, it wouldn't be that hard to make one that could drive at the front, and with all the ballast they could add low in the car in place of the drivers weight it would surely qualify on pole.

NASCAR might be more up your alley dude.  

 

F1 is in large part an engineering contest, yes.  That's a big part of the draw for many of us.  

 

But drivers still absolutely matter and can be the difference between winning and not winning.  Take Lewis out of the equation and Mercedes do not win today.  

 

Sorry people dont like your idea man.  But there's legit reasons for it and it's not some conscious effort to want to make things easy on anybody.  It's about fairness.  

[tkulla]

Far from that actually, but your proposal would only increase the amount of politics and luck, which is the opposite of what I'd like to see.

 

Plus that I don't think someone who is 5km behind someone else should be in any way be allowed to 'defend his position' against him like you say, whatever that position is supposed to mean.

I'm very confused by that actually because if they swap places there is no change in position, so what position is there that they'd need to defend?

 

Really, a semantic argument? Okay. He's defending his position on the lead lap. This could certainly mean something in and of itself for a team (kind of like how Rocky wanted to "go the distance" with Apollo). 

[noikeee]

I think the following posts sum up my opinion rather well:

 

It's a horrible thing. Who the hell wants to see a fight for the win decided based on who has the best alliances with a backmarker? I'm here to see racing, not politics. Engine manufacturers will pressure customer teams into letting through there own drivers while blocking those of their rivals. I cannot imagine how you could possibly list this as something positive.

 

 

According to Jacques Villeneuve, this is exactly what happened with Norberto Fontana at Jerez in 1997.

 

 

I think it would be terrible if we let backmarkers defend their 'position'.  

 

As for your scenario where Lewis gets held up and Vettel catches up - the opposite is just as likely to happen - Vettel gets held up and Lewis stretches his lead.  It is not something that inherently benefits a chasing car at all.  

 

 

If Honda got their act together, McLaren would have no allies while Red Bull own a second team. This idea doesn't pass even elementary scrutiny.

 

 

what a stupid idea we could have team mates 5 laps back holding up leaders for kick and giggles

 

Baffles me that this continuously comes up all the time. No, getting rid of blue flags wouldn't improve racing whatsoever and would just cause new problems. Yes, "it works in all other kinds of motorsports". Where overtaking isn't stupid hard like it is in Formula 1, or where the differences between cars are enormous as seen in endurance racing. F1 is inherently different therefore it needs different rules.

[tkulla]

NASCAR might be more up your alley dude.  

 

F1 is in large part an engineering contest, yes.  That's a big part of the draw for many of us.  

 

But drivers still absolutely matter and can be the difference between winning and not winning.  Take Lewis out of the equation and Mercedes do not win today.  

 

Sorry people dont like your idea man.  But there's legit reasons for it and it's not some conscious effort to want to make things easy on anybody.  It's about fairness.  

 

Actually, NASCAR has a lot of the same problems as F1 these days, including diminishing viewership.

 

As for Lewis and whether drivers "matter" today, there are a dozen drivers (at least) who would have won that race just as easily. He did absolutely nothing special today. He didn't have to, because drivers leading a modern F1 race have literally nothing to worry about. 

 

How is it not fair? Every driver would have to battle through traffic. Seems fair enough to me. If a driver or a team wants to be a dick towards other drivers and teams and gets a bit of extra resistance that seems pretty fair to me too, Karma is a bitch, as they say. 

Edited by tkulla, 09 April 2017 - 14:38.

[Seanspeed]

Actually, NASCAR has a lot of the same problems as F1 these days, including diminishing viewership.

 

As for Lewis and whether drivers "matter" today, there are a dozen drivers (at least) who would have won that race just as easily. He did absolutely nothing special today. He didn't have to, because drivers leading a modern F1 race have literally nothing to worry about. 

 

How is it not fair? Every driver would have to battle through traffic. Seems fair enough to me. If a driver or a team wants to be a dick towards other drivers and teams and gets a bit of extra resistance that seems pretty fair to me too, Karma is a bitch, as they say. 

A dozen drivers would have easily stuck it on pole and won the race?  I really dont think so.  Bottas is a good driver.  Bottas only qualified 3rd and finished 6th.  

 

I'd have agreed with you on that bit if we were talking about this last year, but Ferrari are a genuine threat and the driver factor is making a notable difference at the moment.  You say drivers leading a race have nothing to worry about, but we saw in Australia that's just not true at all.  

 

And it's not fair because it's only 'the same for everybody' on-paper.  In reality, how easily you can get by a backmarker can come down to luck.  Maybe they make a little mistake, maybe they dont.  Maybe they happen to do a really good job defending, maybe they wont.  Hell, even the part of the track can make a big difference.  Catch somebody heading onto the main straight and maybe you dont get slowed down at all while the next car coming through catches them through twisty bits and has to wait almost a full lap to get by.  Point is - luck is involved and I dont think that's a good thing.  Other people have also brought up how this could be exploited via politics and strategy.  

 

I dont doubt it would add some 'spice' to the show.  But a good dish requires the right spices and I dont think this is one that F1 needs.  

[Casey]

 

The reality is that anyone who is an entire lap behind should be pretty easy to pass for a top car. But it will require a real pass instead of mere radio whining.

 

Really, I think we all want driver skill to be a bigger factor in the results. This does that. Maneuvering through backmarkers is a driver skill that some would be better at than others.

Totally wrong , if the front runners are on old tires and the back marker is on new rubber lap times can be pretty close making it very hard and so screwing up a fight between the race  leaders  .

Edited by Casey, 09 April 2017 - 14:51.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

It's a stupid and unworkable idea.  I do agree that it's excessive that these days the lapped driver should drop everything, and make the lead lap car's unhindered passage his only goal in life, but to allow them to defend their position only makes sense if you never watched a single F1 race.  This will only ensure that the real racing will be done by the political skills of the team managers on the pit stands arranging for unhindered passage (because in F1 it's stupid to play the nice guy for free).

[tkulla]

A dozen drivers would have easily stuck it on pole and won the race?  I really dont think so.  Bottas is a good driver.  Bottas only qualified 3rd and finished 6th.  

 

I'd have agreed with you on that bit if we were talking about this last year, but Ferrari are a genuine threat and the driver factor is making a notable difference at the moment.  You say drivers leading a race have nothing to worry about, but we saw in Australia that's just not true at all.  

 

And it's not fair because it's only 'the same for everybody' on-paper.  In reality, how easily you can get by a backmarker can come down to luck.  Maybe they make a little mistake, maybe they dont.  Maybe they happen to do a really good job defending, maybe they wont.  Hell, even the part of the track can make a big difference.  Catch somebody heading onto the main straight and maybe you dont get slowed down at all while the next car coming through catches them through twisty bits and has to wait almost a full lap to get by.  Point is - luck is involved and I dont think that's a good thing.  Other people have also brought up how this could be exploited via politics and strategy.  

 

I dont doubt it would add some 'spice' to the show.  But a good dish requires the right spices and I dont think this is one that F1 needs.  

 

But the best races all involve variability and luck. Rain. Safety cars. Car issues. These are the things that suddenly make the driver important. Can the driver switch to slicks first? Can the driver make an alternative strategy work? Can the driver work around a car issue? 

 

And that variability of who you catch and where on the track is exciting! Should the leader try a riskier pass in a tricky corner or wait for the DRS pass on the straight? All of a sudden that driver has something to do, has decisions to make, and then can use his skill to make it happen. 

 

With this rule change last year I would bet that Lewis would have won the championship over Rosberg, since his far superior wheel-to-wheel skill would have been quite useful in these situations. 

[tkulla]

Totally wrong , if the front runners are on old tires and the back marker is on new rubber lap times can be pretty close making it very hard and so screwing up a fight between the race  leaders  .

 

Right! Which totally changes the strategy for the leaders. Instead of a 40 lap stint on the prime tyre there's an incentive to make sure they're quick and able to push at all times. Sounds like a more fun race to watch to me.

[tkulla]

It's a stupid and unworkable idea.  I do agree that it's excessive that these days the lapped driver should drop everything, and make the lead lap car's unhindered passage his only goal in life, but to allow them to defend their position only makes sense if you never watched a single F1 race.  This will only ensure that the real racing will be done by the political skills of the team managers on the pit stands arranging for unhindered passage (because in F1 it's stupid to play the nice guy for free).

 

Well, since you called it "stupid" I guess I should just give up. 

 

Why shouldn't politics be a factor? It's a huge part of the sport. The reality of the politics of this situation is that the independent teams actually need to be respected instead of treated poorly. That ALSO sounds like a win for the sport, doesn't it? A Sauber isn't going to be malicious towards a Mercedes for no reason. If they have a reason, well maybe Toto shouldn't have treated them poorly. 

[Seanspeed]

But the best races all involve variability and luck. Rain. Safety cars. Car issues. These are the things that suddenly make the driver important. Can the driver switch to slicks first? Can the driver make an alternative strategy work? Can the driver work around a car issue? 

 

And that variability of who you catch and where on the track is exciting! Should the leader try a riskier pass in a tricky corner or wait for the DRS pass on the straight? All of a sudden that driver has something to do, has decisions to make, and then can use his skill to make it happen. 

 

With this rule change last year I would bet that Lewis would have won the championship over Rosberg, since his far superior wheel-to-wheel skill would have been quite useful in these situations. 

I've never seen a race be better because somebody broke down.  That's not really 'luck', either.  Reliability is a part of the technical challenge of the sport.  

 

Rain can be welcome, but it's generally the same for everybody outside some rare exceptions(like it raining only on one part of the track...).  It's also not something I'd want to have at *every race* and it's obviously not something within anybody's control.  

 

Safety cars can help or ruin races and in different ways.  I actually really like the virtual safety car because it alleviates a lot of the 'luck' factor that safety cars introduce.  I think it's much better to see a straight, fair competition.  

 

Personally, I would not find it 'exciting' to see drivers battling against backmarkers.  I would find it frustrating and potentially infuriating.  Imagine if a backmarker was defending against a car and they collided with the fault being on the backmarker.  Even if my preferred team could potentially benefit from that, they could equally be victim of it.  And I just dont like that.  It's not what I want to see in F1.  

Edited by Seanspeed, 09 April 2017 - 15:08.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Well, since you called it "stupid" I guess I should just give up. 

One of many reasons.

 

Why shouldn't politics be a factor? It's a huge part of the sport. The reality of the politics of this situation is that the independent teams actually need to be respected instead of treated poorly. That ALSO sounds like a win for the sport, doesn't it? A Sauber isn't going to be malicious towards a Mercedes for no reason. If they have a reason, well maybe Toto shouldn't have treated them poorly. 

This is supposed to be racing, not a reality show.

Edited by Dmitriy_Guller, 09 April 2017 - 15:15.

[John00]

what a dumb idea 

[Vielleicht]

I've always thought that you shouldn't be able to get DRS off of lapped cars

[pdac]

Bring it on.

[Retrofly]

Monaco would be great. The whole field stuck behind Palmer

[tkulla]

I've never seen a race be better because somebody broke down.  That's not really 'luck', either.  Reliability is a part of the technical challenge of the sport.  

 

Rain can be welcome, but it's generally the same for everybody outside some rare exceptions(like it raining only on one part of the track...).  It's also not something I'd want to have at *every race* and it's obviously not something within anybody's control.  

 

Safety cars can help or ruin races and in different ways.  I actually really like the virtual safety car because it alleviates a lot of the 'luck' factor that safety cars introduce.  I think it's much better to see a straight, fair competition.  

 

Personally, I would not find it 'exciting' to see drivers battling against backmarkers.  I would find it frustrating and potentially infuriating.  Imagine if a backmarker was defending against a car and they collided with the fault being on the backmarker.  Even if my preferred team could potentially benefit from that, they could equally be victim of it.  And I just dont like that.  It's not what I want to see in F1.  

 

I'm not talking about DNFs. I'm talking about manageable problems. Brake or transmission issues, or any problem that might get worse if not driven around.

 

The virtual safety car is an example of a change that is technically more "fair' but definitely hurts the show. And don't get me wrong, I'm against gimmicks to liven up the show. This isn't that. This is actual racing just like in every other series. In practice it wouldn't make a huge difference in most cases - many drivers wouldn't fight too hard for fear of losing time to their rivals. But they shouldn't have to drive out of the way. Let the leader make an actual move.

 

So what DO you want to see in F1? The fastest driver in the fastest car winning EVERY race without sweating too much? That sounds like a disaster for the sport

 

F1 has been a victim of it's own progress. And it has become less interesting since the cars have become so reliable and setups are much more science than art as they were back when I started watching F1 in the late 80s. Senna wouldn't be Senna if he drove today. There's just no way to pull out a qualifying lap a second faster than everyone else today. They'd see in practice that he was getting the tyres up to a certain temperature and his teammate would just do the same thing and be within a few tenths. There was so much variability in those days, and the driver was a much bigger part of the result. While you can't turn back time that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for ways to make the drivers more important. This is one small thing that does that. 

[Ickx]

It would not have any impact what so ever. It is the lapped cars interest not to lose time. 

[FullOppositeLock]

It never ceases to amaze me how many fans just want F1 to be as easy as possible for the leading driver. Just get the best car, put it on pole and drive off into the sunset with the clean air advantage. The series is far too much of a design and engineering contest and even that qualifying is half the engineers rather than the driver. We might as well go all the way and allow autonomous cars. After all, it wouldn't be that hard to make one that could drive at the front, and with all the ballast they could add low in the car in place of the drivers weight it would surely qualify on pole.

Besides all the other very solid reasons given as to why this is an awful idea, I'm not sure of you've really thought this through. Blue flags don't really benefit the race leader any more than it does those drivers chasing him. In fact it could be argued having to really overtake backmarkers who defend their position would normally be easier for the fastest car (often the race leader) than it would be for cars with more limited pace advantage over the backmarker. Rather than making the racing closer there is a very good chance it does the exact opposite. This is a tuslly one of the reasons why I like the idea of Brawn's technical team studying rule chance proposals with models rather than knee jerking our way from one problem to the next.

Edited by FullOppositeLock, 09 April 2017 - 18:28.

[f1paul]

Current meaning of blue flag-"a blue flag is used to indicate to a driver that there is another driver trying to lap them."

 

Now lets change it slightly-"a blue flag is used when F1 drivers get really angry and complain about a driver who sometimes isn't in the way and is having to be waved even though the lapped car is nowhere near the car that's lapping it"

[PayasYouRace]

You mean like the rules used in the rest of motor-sport and as used in F1 before a certain driver/now commentator was instrumental in getting them changed...

 

Who was that?

[loki]

It's Verstappen showing his youth and relative inexperience dealing with stress and his emotions.    Lapped traffic is part of racing.  It's one thing if you are right up on the guy and he's fighting or blocking you.  It's quite another if he's several car lengths ahead.  Instead of throwing a temper tantrum he needs to get on with it and concentrate on his race.  The kid is good, he'll be a champion but he's a spoiled whiner that needs to be brought down a peg or two.

[THEWALL]

This is as bad a proposal for supposedly improving racing as cheese tryes, DRS and any artificial measure.

[OO7]

This is why Liberty and the F.I.A should listen to fans, but be very careful about what they actually hear.

[PayasYouRace]

I would like to see the leaders have to make their way around backmarkers. It's a skill that current F1 drivers do not need to have. But backmarkers wouldn't be allowed to fight for the place. I just don't want to see them have to jump out of the way when a leader is nearby.

 

I think the lack of blue flags for Grosjean was spot on today. He wasn't being caught.

[Ivanhoe]

I would like to see the leaders have to make their way around backmarkers. It's a skill that current F1 drivers do not need to have. But backmarkers wouldn't be allowed to fight for the place. I just don't want to see them have to jump out of the way when a leader is nearby.
 
I think the lack of blue flags for Grosjean was spot on today. He wasn't being caught.

Grosjean was blueflagged

[sopa]

If there is a lap between cars, they are not racing each other by the definition of racing. They are not direct competitors. So I see no point in why they should be allowed to 'race' the front-runners, who have a completely different situation in their "race". Not to mention the already mentioned problems with alliances, etc.

 

Also you have to consider the difficulties of overtaking in F1. Imagine Monaco, lol. Everyone sits behind the last guy all race.

 

E: However, I agree with the Grosjean situation. He was too far ahead to move aside.

Edited by sopa, 09 April 2017 - 18:57.

[loki]

There is nothing that says the lapped car has to significantly reduce speed to allow the other car by.  The rule is to warn them not to impede the overtaking car.

[OO7]

I would like to see the leaders have to make their way around backmarkers. It's a skill that current F1 drivers do not need to have. But backmarkers wouldn't be allowed to fight for the place. I just don't want to see them have to jump out of the way when a leader is nearby.

 

I think the lack of blue flags for Grosjean was spot on today. He wasn't being caught.

I'd be happy with that after they fix the cars.

[RiccardoPatrese]

There is nothing that says the lapped car has to significantly reduce speed to allow the other car by. The rule is to warn them not to impede the overtaking car.

There is. Max got penalisized for that in AD.

[FLB]

If there is a lap between cars, they are not racing each other by the definition of racing. They are not direct competitors. So I see no point in why they should be allowed to 'race' the front-runners, who have a completely different situation in their "race". Not to mention the already mentioned problems with alliances, etc.

 

Also you have to consider the difficulties of overtaking in F1. Imagine Monaco, lol. Everyone sits behind the last guy all 

Completely agree. Coulthard vs Bernoldi in 2002 was not the same as Arnoux vs Everybody else in 1989.

[loki]

There is. Max got penalisized for that in AD.

He was penalized for impeding the the overtaking car.  He wasn't a second ahead of that car.

[RiccardoPatrese]

He was penalized for impeding the the overtaking car. He wasn't a second ahead of that car.

Wrong. He was 1,5-2 seconds ahead.