Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Leclerc - Hamilton, Monza 2019 [split]


  • Please log in to reply
703 replies to this topic

#601 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,610 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:42

Some people are definitely over complicating things. F1 has a penalty system. It just needs to be applied properly (which I think it is most of the time).

Oh and there’s no need to redefine the flags. A black and white flag has a meaning. It is a warning for unsportsmanlike behaviour. It literally means that what you’ve just done isn’t good but it’s not worth a penalty on its own. It does not and should not carry an associated penalty. That’s what a black flag is for. Black flag means return to the pits immediately (where a penalty can be applied. Drive through, stop and go, etc.)

Advertisement

#602 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,570 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:44

There is a penalty system, but it's a) not enforced enough and b) doesn't work well enough even when it is enforced (Albon chosing the 5s penalty over giving the place back). 

 

So the discussion how to improve it is warranted. 



#603 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,610 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:47

There is a penalty system, but it's a) not enforced enough and b) doesn't work well enough even when it is enforced (Albon chosing the 5s penalty over giving the place back).

So the discussion how to improve it is warranted.


I think we’re in agreement. The penalties are there to be used, but they aren’t always used correctly. There’s no need to invent something convoluted when the tools are already there.

#604 Timorous

Timorous
  • Member

  • 481 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:48

In your suggestion, Stewards would need to determine when to apply this punishment. Is it when you leave the track with 4 wheels? Will we get discussions like Monza qualifying? Should leaving the track a little bit have the same punishment as skipping the chicane? How do apply the penalty on a track where overtaking is much more difficult? 

 

It will become regulated no matter what way you look at it. I'd prefer it to be natural. The track is the track and the track should punish the driver. It shouldn't be an artificial rule, with an artificial penalty. It takes away the pureness of racing which the fans are missing (as indicated in the various fan surveys). 

 

To me, the idea sounds like another DRS (albeit slightly better version of DRS). 

 

I agree that natural consequences would be preferred but they do not exist in all places at current tracks so we need something else instead of the penalty system that was used correctly in Canada but did result in a bit of a farce. OTOH in Monza it was not used and many people feel that it was unfair racing and it will lead to escalation on track that could eventually lead into a large shunt.

 

The outline of the system I propose aims to try and encourage drivers to fight cleanly and give each other space in close quarter fighting so we can get great wheel to wheel action. If a driver steps over the line then they get given a handicap which makes keeping their position (or maintaining the attack depending on who did what) far more challenging but does not as a matter of course result in an overtake being completed in the same way a penalty kick does not always result in a goal.

 

For when to apply the punishment the stewards make the decision, a calculation is done to determine how severe it is (3 laps, 2 laps, 1 lap, 30s, whatever) and then it gets applied to the car. I would hope this could be done within half a lap.

 

Oh, come on. In other racing series it's very simple: Albon would have been told to either give the position(s) back within a lap or so – or take a drive-through penalty. And Albon would have given the position(s) back.

(What happened at Monza was that Albon tried to overtake Magnussen on the outside into the second chicane, but Magnussen had the inside line cover, and Albon was therefore "forced" onto the run-off area where he simply cut the chicane and got in front of Magnussen. Kvyat also overtook Magnussen and Albon didn't want to give up two positions, so he chose to take F1's yoke of a penalty: a 5-second time penalty.)

 

Agreed and that would be another option. Show a blue flag to Albon and he has to let the car behind him pass within 3 martial posts. Maybe make it as simple as if you overtake while committing a foul you get shown blue flag until you end up in the position you were in prior.



#605 Timorous

Timorous
  • Member

  • 481 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:59

I think we’re in agreement. The penalties are there to be used, but they aren’t always used correctly. There’s no need to invent something convoluted when the tools are already there.

 

I think the issue is the tools are not already there.

 

People complained about the penalty in Canada because it nullified the racing and due to the farce of having the P1 car on track not win the race. If you had a system where you could dish out penalties that do not nullify the racing and that also mean that the order of the cars over the line is the final order of the race (again, barring any technical rule infringement found in post race scrutineering) then I think there would be less vitriol thrown at the stewards when they do hand out penalties which would be a positive improvement.

 

Imagine in Canada Vettel gets his 3 lap no battery penalty but somehow manages to keep Hamilton behind still and goes on to win the race. That would totally make up for the small mistake he made and there should be no hard feelings on either side. The issue with Canada for me was not that I think Hamilton should have won but that I think Hamilton should have been given the opportunity to have a go. Vettel had the inside line for the next proper bend so if he had left room we would have seen real, wheel to wheel racing. Vettels move prevented that so giving him a penalty that forces there to be more wheel to wheel racing (which ever way it goes) seems like a potentially positive step.



#606 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 13,572 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 September 2019 - 12:18

Some people are definitely over complicating things. F1 has a penalty system. It just needs to be applied properly (which I think it is most of the time).

Oh and there’s no need to redefine the flags. A black and white flag has a meaning. It is a warning for unsportsmanlike behaviour. It literally means that what you’ve just done isn’t good but it’s not worth a penalty on its own. It does not and should not carry an associated penalty. That’s what a black flag is for. Black flag means return to the pits immediately (where a penalty can be applied. Drive through, stop and go, etc.)

I think it's more complicated than that! Grand Prix racing is nearly 100 years old, yet apparently the powers that be are completely confused as to what constitutes "racing" and how to regulate transgressions. Apparently if you punt someone off for the lead in the braking zone you get a sportsmanship warning, but if you punt a backmarker off whilst rejoining you get a 10 second stop go, unless they crash avoiding you, but if you get a lift back to the pits riding on someone else's car after the race you get 3 penalty points, whist qualifying laps are allowed to be completed under RED FLAGS. But please don't think about changing your helmet design mid season as that will potentially result in a ban. 100 years of evolution. 100 years to get to this point of total clarity... 



#607 fitjiffa

fitjiffa
  • New Member

  • 28 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 September 2019 - 12:19

Is this a parody video? You can't be serious in that, it has to be a joke.

 

 

Can you please explain exactly why I'm wrong.



#608 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,567 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 11 September 2019 - 14:37

Can you please explain exactly why I'm wrong.

 

You're only considering turning direction while ignoring the lateral force that acts 90 degrees to the direction the car is moving in while in the turn. This lateral force wants to push the car to the outside of the corner. You're also ignoring that the driver on the inside can be turning INTO the corner but can control how much he/she is turning i.e not turning in as much as is possible and/or opening up the steering, which will allow this car on the inside to push out towards the outside.

 

I'm a bit surprised that you seem to think that just because a car is turning right, means it is impossible for that car to move from the inside to the outside of the corner. The driver can set the trajectory or if he/she is carrying too speed into the corner, then the lateral force can set the trajectory for the driver. What do you think understeer is?



#609 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,541 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 11 September 2019 - 14:59

You're only considering turning direction while ignoring the lateral force that acts 90 degrees to the direction the car is moving in while in the turn. This lateral force wants to push the car to the outside of the corner. You're also ignoring that the driver on the inside can be turning INTO the corner but can control how much he/she is turning i.e not turning in as much as is possible and/or opening up the steering, which will allow this car on the inside to push out towards the outside.

 

I'm a bit surprised that you seem to think that just because a car is turning right, means it is impossible for that car to move from the inside to the outside of the corner. The driver can set the trajectory or if he/she is carrying too speed into the corner, then the lateral force can set the trajectory for the driver. What do you think understeer is?

 

Thanks for this post. I am quite amazed so many posters seem to feel that a driver on the inside of the corner just has to increase the steering angle to avoid a driver on the outside. Sometimes a driver has to apply maximum lock and still be drawn (by the lateral force) to the outside of the corner. And there are many corners where you should almost have no lock once past the apex otherwise you will just turn yourself 360 degrees around, ie: you spin...

 

And yes, yes, there are some situations where a driver could drive a non-widening line through a corner. But that basically means you are braking too early and accelerate too little... 

 

PS: Under-steer and over-steer are used much too broadly. If you carry to much speed into a corner or if you kart or car is understeering, you have to apply more lock at the apex. If you apply too much lock, you have a too acute steering angle at the corner exit, which means that the back-end steps out... Apart from that... it is slow. Who was it who said that using the steering wheel in a car was like using the rudder in a boat? It slows you down....



#610 Retrofly

Retrofly
  • Member

  • 3,462 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:00

I think the issue is the tools are not already there.

 

People complained about the penalty in Canada because it nullified the racing and due to the farce of having the P1 car on track not win the race. If you had a system where you could dish out penalties that do not nullify the racing and that also mean that the order of the cars over the line is the final order of the race (again, barring any technical rule infringement found in post race scrutineering) then I think there would be less vitriol thrown at the stewards when they do hand out penalties which would be a positive improvement.

 

Imagine in Canada Vettel gets his 3 lap no battery penalty but somehow manages to keep Hamilton behind still and goes on to win the race. That would totally make up for the small mistake he made and there should be no hard feelings on either side. The issue with Canada for me was not that I think Hamilton should have won but that I think Hamilton should have been given the opportunity to have a go. Vettel had the inside line for the next proper bend so if he had left room we would have seen real, wheel to wheel racing. Vettels move prevented that so giving him a penalty that forces there to be more wheel to wheel racing (which ever way it goes) seems like a potentially positive step.

 

The simplest way would simply have been to let Hamilton pass Vettel. Ok, you might not get a battle but you have at least the opportunity for Vettel fighting back, which could have happened with DRS etc. Not perfect but better than the outcome we had with Hamilton just cruising around a few seconds behind.

 

It also removes any ambiguity about who's actually ahead of who.



#611 Retrofly

Retrofly
  • Member

  • 3,462 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:03

Thanks for this post. I am quite amazed so many posters seem to feel that a driver on the inside of the corner just has to increase the steering angle to avoid a driver on the outside. Sometimes a driver has to apply maximum lock and still be drawn (by the lateral force) to the outside of the corner. And there are many corners where you should almost have no lock once past the apex otherwise you will just turn yourself 360 degrees around, ie: you spin...

 

And yes, yes, there are some situations where a driver could drive a non-widening line through a corner. But that basically means you are braking too early and accelerate too little... 

 

PS: Under-steer and over-steer are used much too broadly. If you carry to much speed into a corner or if you kart or car is understeering, you have to apply more lock at the apex. If you apply too much lock, you have a too acute steering angle at the corner exit, which means that the back-end steps out... Apart from that... it is slow. Who was it who said that using the steering wheel in a car was like using the rudder in a boat? It slows you down....

Like I said previously, its also hard to police, on the exit, how much of the lateral movement of the car is down to under-steer or the drive opening up the wheel, its really hard to judge if its on purpose on not.

 

Entry into the corner its pretty obvious, you should ideally be breaking in a straight line and leave a cars width if a car is next to you. Its not perfect but the consensus with the FIA/Drivers/Fans is that crowding at the exit of a turn is fair gain. Doing it under breaking, not so much.



#612 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,570 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:04

Thanks for this post. I am quite amazed so many posters seem to feel that a driver on the inside of the corner just has to increase the steering angle to avoid a driver on the outside. Sometimes a driver has to apply maximum lock and still be drawn (by the lateral force) to the outside of the corner. And there are many corners where you should almost have no lock once past the apex otherwise you will just turn yourself 360 degrees around, ie: you spin...

 

And yes, yes, there are some situations where a driver could drive a non-widening line through a corner. But that basically means you are braking too early and accelerate too little... 

 

PS: Under-steer and over-steer are used much too broadly. If you carry to much speed into a corner or if you kart or car is understeering, you have to apply more lock at the apex. If you apply too much lock, you have a too acute steering angle at the corner exit, which means that the back-end steps out... Apart from that... it is slow. Who was it who said that using the steering wheel in a car was like using the rudder in a boat? It slows you down....

 

Imo it's not about increasing steering angle to avoid a driver on the outside, it's about how fast you accelerate. To keep your car on the inside line on the exit, obviously you can't take the same exit speed you'd normally take to this corner. 

 

What many drivers nowadays do is simply ignoring the driver on the outside, accelerate like they'd do without anyone around them and then take the normal line (going wide, pushing the outside guy of).

 

Apparantly this is tolerated now. But it wouldn't be strange to demand drivers on the inside to take more care, reduce speeds and keep space on the outside. 



#613 fitjiffa

fitjiffa
  • New Member

  • 28 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:12

You're only considering turning direction while ignoring the lateral force that acts 90 degrees to the direction the car is moving in while in the turn. This lateral force wants to push the car to the outside of the corner. You're also ignoring that the driver on the inside can be turning INTO the corner but can control how much he/she is turning i.e not turning in as much as is possible and/or opening up the steering, which will allow this car on the inside to push out towards the outside.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I agree,  but you say that the driver can turn in less. That means the car is still turning right (to make it easy lets say its a bend to the right), just with less steering angle so its going less right. Its still not going left. 

 

Obviously i understand understeer (I once drove a Renault 21 turbo, with slightly bald tyres, in the pissing rain). Understeer will make the car widen its line, but it will STILL be going right, just not as much as it would without the tyres losing grip.

 

But lets make it easy. Pretend there is no under or oversteer in this right hand bend we are discussing. 

 

On a right hand bend, in which a car has steered to the right all the way from turn in to the point where the wheels are fully straightened, it cannot have gone left, can it?

 

The car will end up on the left side of the track but it has still turned right all the way round the corner.


Edited by fitjiffa, 11 September 2019 - 15:17.


#614 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 1,192 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:12

Any driver that is alongside throughout the braking zone and the turn should be given space throughout the entry and the exit of the corner*, no matter whether they are inside or outside. Barring few exceptions (Monaco or other exceptionally tight corner complexes) any one arguing how the 'car is just drawn to the apex' is making excuses. It's not 'drawn' to the outer apex. The car inside is simply carrying too much speed if it can't give the space to someone who has earnt it.

*obviously in a dream world. Euro single seaters have had faulty policing for ages so it doesnt really apply. :(

#615 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,567 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:21

Yes, I agree,  but you say that the driver can turn in less. That means the car is still turning right (to make it easy lets say its a bend to the right), just with less steering angle so its going less right. Its still not going left. 

 

Obviously i understand understeer (I once drove a Renault 21 turbo, with slightly bald tyres, in the pissing rain). Understeer will make the car widen its line, but it will STILL be going right, just not as much as it would without the tyres losing grip.

 

But lets make it easy. Pretend there is no under or oversteer in this right hand bend we are discussing. 

 

On a right hand bend, in which a car has steered to the right all the way from turn in to the point where the wheels are fully straightened, it cannot have gone left, can it?

 

The car will end up on the left side of the track but it has still turned right all the way round the corner.

 

But who is actually claiming that the car, turning into a right hand corner, is actually going left? I feel like you're arguing against a point that no one is making.



#616 fitjiffa

fitjiffa
  • New Member

  • 28 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:25

But who is actually claiming that the car, turning into a right hand corner, is actually going left? I feel like you're arguing against a point that no one is making.

 

So, 'hanging a car out to dry' at corner exit isn't against the rules because it hasn't been crowded out, but instead it has been prevented from turning tightly enough to make the corner.



#617 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,567 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:34

Imo it's not about increasing steering angle to avoid a driver on the outside, it's about how fast you accelerate. To keep your car on the inside line on the exit, obviously you can't take the same exit speed you'd normally take to this corner. 

 

What many drivers nowadays do is simply ignoring the driver on the outside, accelerate like they'd do without anyone around them and then take the normal line (going wide, pushing the outside guy of).

 

Apparantly this is tolerated now. But it wouldn't be strange to demand drivers on the inside to take more care, reduce speeds and keep space on the outside. 

 

It comes down to positioning. If the driver on the outside is fully alongside then I agree, the driver on the inside should concede. But this also doesn't happen all the time, it's 50/50. If there is good run off e.g tarmac, grass, on the outside, chances are the driver on the inside could still plant it knowing that the driver on the outside will go off. The driver on the inside is in an advantageous position because the lateral force is working to their advantage while the same lateral force is working against the driver on the outside. That is, the car on the outside has its tyres already loaded laterally (G force pushing the car to the outside) so the slightest nudge from the car on the inside is going to easily send the car on the outside off the track.

 

The driver on the inside even has a ready made excuse (or truth) "I lost grip and slid/understeered out".

 

Both drivers know this which is why overtaking around the outside is only achieved when the overtaker has a big grip advantage and is able to execute the move perfectly, that is, be at least fully alongside the driver on the inside, and preferably slightly ahead. Only this can force the driver on the inside to come off the throttle and concede the corner.

 

That's why overtaking drivers are always trying to take the inside line even though it's the tighter, slower one and why the defending driver is always trying to cover the inside line. If they all raced in such a way that the inside driver automatically conceded the corner just because the driver on the outside was partly alongside, then there would be no cat and mouse game of trying to judge just how much of the inside line to cover in defence. The defending driver would simply stay on the outside racing line and if the overtaking driver dove into the inside, then the defending driver on the outside would just stay partly alongside and expect the driver on the inside to be forced to concede the corner each and every time.



#618 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,567 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:36

So, 'hanging a car out to dry' at corner exit isn't against the rules because it hasn't been crowded out, but instead it has been prevented from turning tightly enough to make the corner.

 

What makes you think that the definition of "crowding out" only applies if the driver turns in the complete opposite direction of the one they are travelling in? If we are both going through a corner, side by side, and you decide that you are suddenly going to turn less tightly so that you start moving across onto the trajectory I am on, and you keep doing that until I run out of tarmac and forced off the track, then you are crowding me out.

 

edit: And FWIW I don't think that there is anything wrong with running the driver on the outside out of space on corner exit if the car on the inside is slightly ahead, for reasons explained in my post above. I only think it's crowding out and against the rules, if the car on the outside is fully alongside and has therefore earned their right to racing room on corner exit.


Edited by gillesfan76, 11 September 2019 - 15:38.


#619 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,567 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:42

So, 'hanging a car out to dry' at corner exit isn't against the rules because it hasn't been crowded out, but instead it has been prevented from turning tightly enough to make the corner.

 

Example of unfair crowding out by not turning in tightly enough and thus preventing the car on the outside from also doing the same. Penalty well deserved.



Advertisement

#620 Retrofly

Retrofly
  • Member

  • 3,462 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:45

That move started on the entry of the corner, not the exit.



#621 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,567 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:46

This great website gets brought up from time to time and it should again now https://f1metrics.wo...ules-of-racing/

 

Please see item 7. Going around the outside.



#622 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 1,192 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 September 2019 - 15:54

 

That's why overtaking drivers are always trying to take the inside line even though it's the tighter, slower one and why the defending driver is always trying to cover the inside line. If they all raced in such a way that the inside driver automatically conceded the corner just because the driver on the outside was partly alongside, then there would be no cat and mouse game of trying to judge just how much of the inside line to cover in defence. The defending driver would simply stay on the outside racing line and if the overtaking driver dove into the inside, then the defending driver on the outside would just stay partly alongside and expect the driver on the inside to be forced to concede the corner each and every time.

 

It doesn't work like that in practise though, even where there's no crowding. The driver outside always has to compromize the corner by not taking the apex already. 



#623 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,567 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 11 September 2019 - 16:03

It doesn't work like that in practise though, even where there's no crowding. The driver outside always has to compromize the corner by not taking the apex already. 

 

The apex is not some magical grail. If both drivers drove exactly side by side through the corner, the one on the outside obviously can't take the apex but is only one car's width away from it. While the driver on the inside can't take the wider entry but is one car's width away from it. All things equal, the driver on the outside has a slightly wider radius to drive through and hence can take a slightly higher overall speed through the corner.

 

This is offset by the fact that the driver on the outside has to also drive a slightly longer distance. But on corner exit, the driver on the outside will be carrying a higher minimum speed.



#624 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 1,192 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 September 2019 - 16:27

The apex is not some magical grail. If both drivers drove exactly side by side through the corner, the one on the outside obviously can't take the apex but is only one car's width away from it. While the driver on the inside can't take the wider entry but is one car's width away from it. All things equal, the driver on the outside has a slightly wider radius to drive through and hence can take a slightly higher overall speed through the corner.

This is offset by the fact that the driver on the outside has to also drive a slightly longer distance. But on corner exit, the driver on the outside will be carrying a higher minimum speed.


It's almost 50%-50% to inside-outside in this scenario. Currently it's like 90-10 odds yet drivers are still trying to pass round the outside even if it's practically impossible when there's crowding. Removing the crowding wouldn't upset the balance 100% to drivers not taking defensive lines (and why should that even be preserved, really?) anymore, which was what you implied.

#625 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 19,143 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 11 September 2019 - 16:46

Reactive moves were absolutely not considered okay until a few years ago (mostly due to Verstappen). Chopping in front of the other guy has nothing to do with racing and is extremely dangerous. I've never seen Lewis (or any other of the older drivers) do this.

I think it was more of unwritten rule, that drivers simply knew was wrong.  There was/is no reg in place preventing drivers from behaving specifically in such a fashion, which is why Verstappen was able to get away with it.  I guess it could/should fall into the "dangerous driving" section of the sporting regs, but then that is open to interpretation to a degree.



#626 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,541 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 11 September 2019 - 16:57

This great website gets brought up from time to time and it should again now https://f1metrics.wo...ules-of-racing/

Please see item 7. Going around the outside.


Thanks for this. I am not losing my mind after all. Especially the explanation and illustration about ‘If the driver on the inside is ahead at corner exit, it is the duty of the driver on the outside to back out or take evasive action to avoid a collision’ should be read by a couple of posters.

#627 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 6,342 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 11 September 2019 - 17:18

 

 

And yes, yes, there are some situations where a driver could drive a non-widening line through a corner. But that basically means you are braking too early and accelerate too little... 

 

 

true, driving with other cars around you means doing things differently than when on an empty track. what's the problem with that?



#628 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 15,912 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 11 September 2019 - 17:19

Thanks for this. I am not losing my mind after all. Especially the explanation and illustration about ‘If the driver on the inside is ahead at corner exit, it is the duty of the driver on the outside to back out or take evasive action to avoid a collision’ should be read by a couple of posters.


And the not backing out/ therefore being crowded is muddied somewhat by modern track design. There is generally no risk to an attacking driver in hanging on forever on the outside. No grass or gravel. The drivers know this. Rejoin over a nice flat kerb. Complain you weren't given room. It's not always what it seems.

#629 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 2,209 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 11 September 2019 - 17:30

13 pages debating a clear cut incident. I was listening to the race on the radio - Palmer instantly called it a foul and was certain Charles would get penalty. He didn't for whatever reason - perhaps a Ferrari leading a race in Monza had something to do with it. We'll never know.

 

What I would say is that Charles showed a very devious side over the weekend. His quail shenanigans with Vettel was akin to the Mclaren drivers in Hungary 2007. Lewis insinuated that the move was deliberate to secure pole - perhaps similar to Schumacher in Monaco, but less obvious.

 

It is too early in his F1 career to reveal this side of his character. The other drivers would have made note - payback will be swift and served cold  :cat:



#630 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,731 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 11 September 2019 - 17:32

There is generally no risk to an attacking driver in hanging on forever on the outside. No grass or gravel.


And for the defensing driver as well as the case may be.

#631 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 15,912 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 11 September 2019 - 17:55

And for the defensing driver as well as the case may be.


It is a bit of a vicious circle- driver attacking knows he can hang on a bit longer as limited risk, driver defending knows he really has to get his elbows out to prevent that happening.

#632 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 3,117 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 11 September 2019 - 18:18

So many people in F1 media comparing this to a yellow card in football when it simply not the case.

In football if you get a yellow card for a shirt pull for example and then commit another yellow card offense like a bad tackle or a handball those together while different offensive constitutes a red card.

In F1 it seems you will have to commit the same offense twice to get a penalty.

So one lap you can run someone off the road, another lap you can cut the chicane keeping you infront and another you can weave multiple times stopping someone getting past and because they are different offenses no penalty.

This is all ridiculous


Agreed. Masi made the initial comparison, but it looks like he knows nothing about football rules.

#633 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,731 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 11 September 2019 - 18:20

It is a bit of a vicious circle- driver attacking knows he can hang on a bit longer as limited risk, driver defending knows he really has to get his elbows out to prevent that happening.


I was more referring to the defending car on the outside, I doubt if Leclerc would have defended like he did in Austria if there was grass or gravel instead of tarmac outside of T3.

#634 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,610 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 September 2019 - 18:24

This great website gets brought up from time to time and it should again now https://f1metrics.wo...ules-of-racing/
 
Please see item 7. Going around the outside.


I had the “The Williams-Renault Formula 1 Motor Racing Book“ it uses as a reference.

#635 Heyli

Heyli
  • Member

  • 2,500 posts
  • Joined: May 17

Posted 11 September 2019 - 18:27

I think it was more of unwritten rule, that drivers simply knew was wrong.  There was/is no reg in place preventing drivers from behaving specifically in such a fashion, which is why Verstappen was able to get away with it.  I guess it could/should fall into the "dangerous driving" section of the sporting regs, but then that is open to interpretation to a degree.

Possibly, because it might be difficult to prove that a move is reactionairy. Driver can always state he just wanted to defend and didnt see the move from the attacking car (or something along those lines).



#636 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,731 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 11 September 2019 - 18:38

Chopping moves are here to stay unfortunately, introduced by the new guys and never penalized. But gosh I hate this kind of driving.

Chopping/blocking is of all times.

https://www.motorspo...idiot-can-block

#637 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,541 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 12 September 2019 - 07:37

Chopping/blocking is of all times.

https://www.motorspo...idiot-can-block

 

The article you refer to actually only half establishes that blocking is of all times. Roebuck refers to the fact that Nino Farina, the first world-champion of F1 was a blocker, that there were several through the history of F1 who were infamous for it, but that the indignation about it showed: it was considered very, very bad form to do it.

 

The thing I get out of the article is that 'fair racing' was a form of etiquette, a social construct. That is always going to work better than rules written to the 9th degree. I really believe that the more complex you write the rules about racing, the less drivers will feel the need to be in good rapport with their fellow drivers and hence, drive fairly. 

 

But... tally ho. Onto the next Grand Prix. I thought it was a nice discussion.



#638 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,731 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 12 September 2019 - 08:06

Well, I posted the article as a reaction to a post that was suggesting that blocking was kind of “invented” by the new generation in F1, which is just not true, it has always been there, and I guess it always will if as long as it’s legitimised by not penalising it, which would be a very easy thing to do under article 27.4 of the Sporting Regulations. I totally agree that it is a bad form to do it.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 12 September 2019 - 08:09.


#639 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 12 September 2019 - 08:12

Well I have been watching F1 for the better part of 20 years now, and I can definitely not remember as many instances of dirty driving from the younger prospects. Of course it's true that there have always been dirty drivers even before F1 even existed, but I think the difference is that success seems to legitimate a lot more nowadays.



Advertisement

#640 Unicast

Unicast
  • Member

  • 1,290 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 12 September 2019 - 08:20

I really don't like this word "dirty" driving and also I think it's not right to label all young drivers as dirty drivers! Generalization and labeling, most often than not, leads to the wrong conclussions and it's just a poor way of contructing an argument.

I think we can look all the way back to the begining of F1, and find in each era certain drivers who, have a certain character, and do things their way and others which are different.

There is a certain unwritten code of conduct in F1 but there will always be drivers willing to break or bend some rules in order to get a competitive edge in certain situations.

It's just the nature of the game... I am sure no one wants to get harmed or get others harmed in the process so we just have to deal with it and create a good regulation framework (while also acknoleging that you can't police everything) which makes it fair for everyone while still leaving some freedom for wheel to wheel racing because, at this end of the day this is what is selling tickets and keeps F1 interesting.


Edited by Unicast, 12 September 2019 - 08:20.


#641 sgtkate

sgtkate
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: May 17

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:04

The problem that I see isn't the penalties, although they are awful, but the total inconsistency of their application. This is a genuine question but why can we not have rules that state:

 

- Both drivers must leave a full car width to the wihte line of the track from the braking zone until the end of the corner if any car has more than 1 wheel length alongside them (the actual distance can be set so it's very clear where the limits are)

- Neither driver must change direction once they have started braking, except to ensure rule 1 is not broken

- The driver who is behind must yield the corner if they do not have at least 1 wheel length alongside the car in front at the beginning of their braking zone (not the leading drivers note!)

- The driver in front is responsible for maintaining the cars width and will be penalised if they do not

- The driver behind will be penalised if they do not yield the corner/line if they are not 1 wheel length alongside when they commence braking

 

Any unintended consequences if these were the rules? Would it encourage the driver behind to divebomb as they get to force the leading driver into leaving them space if they can get a wheel overlap, or does that actually encourage overtaking moves?



#642 sgtkate

sgtkate
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: May 17

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:09

This great website gets brought up from time to time and it should again now https://f1metrics.wo...ules-of-racing/

 

Please see item 7. Going around the outside.

Or ignore my post and simply ENFORCE THIS^^^^^

Only slight change I'd make is to say that once you've made your defence move on the straight you cannot then change direction again the take up the 'racing line', so if you decide to go to the inside on a straight to defend you cannot then swing out at the braking zone because that's the better line into the corner, you need to complete the corner on an inside line.



#643 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 9,879 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:19

Chopping/blocking is of all times.

https://www.motorspo...idiot-can-block

The article you refer to actually only half establishes that blocking is of all times. Roebuck refers to the fact that Nino Farina, the first world-champion of F1 was a blocker, that there were several through the history of F1 who were infamous for it, but that the indignation about it showed: it was considered very, very bad form to do it.
 
The thing I get out of the article is that 'fair racing' was a form of etiquette, a social construct. That is always going to work better than rules written to the 9th degree. I really believe that the more complex you write the rules about racing, the less drivers will feel the need to be in good rapport with their fellow drivers and hence, drive fairly. 
 
But... tally ho. Onto the next Grand Prix. I thought it was a nice discussion.

Not only was it considered bad form; it was highly unusual as well:
“In the early ‘70s a somewhat inconsequential driver named Mike Beuttler was known in the business as ‘Blocker’ because he was notoriously difficult to pass (more usually to lap), frequently moving over on faster drivers. The very fact that he acquired such a nickname shows how untypical were his track manners back then.”

Roebuck believes “everything began to change” at Estoril in 1988 when Senna blocked/chopped/squeezed Prost towards the pit wall: “we had never seen the like of it before.”

#644 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,731 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:02

The problem that I see isn't the penalties, although they are awful, but the total inconsistency of their application. This is a genuine question but why can we not have rules that state:

- Both drivers must leave a full car width to the wihte line of the track from the braking zone until the end of the corner if any car has more than 1 wheel length alongside them (the actual distance can be set so it's very clear where the limits are)
- Neither driver must change direction once they have started braking, except to ensure rule 1 is not broken
- The driver who is behind must yield the corner if they do not have at least 1 wheel length alongside the car in front at the beginning of their braking zone (not the leading drivers note!)
- The driver in front is responsible for maintaining the cars width and will be penalised if they do not
- The driver behind will be penalised if they do not yield the corner/line if they are not 1 wheel length alongside when they commence braking

Any unintended consequences if these were the rules? Would it encourage the driver behind to divebomb as they get to force the leading driver into leaving them space if they can get a wheel overlap, or does that actually encourage overtaking moves?

You got the rules mixed up a bit and some of the things you’re saying aren’t even in the rules. The car width rule for example only applies to defending on a straight, saying that after making a defensive move you may make a second move to the raceline as long as you leave at least a car width space. There is alzo no explicit rule that forbids moving in the braking zone.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 12 September 2019 - 10:04.


#645 sgtkate

sgtkate
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: May 17

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:12

You got the rules mixed up a bit and some of the things you’re saying aren’t even in the rules. The car width rule for example only applies to defending on a straight, saying that after making a defensive move you may make a second move to the raceline as long as you leave at least a car width space. There is alzo no explicit rule that forbids moving in the braking zone.

Yes, I was offering some slightly different ones as the current ones are clearly too difficult to enforce. I was trying to tweak the current rules so we have less variation in interpretation.



#646 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,731 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:17

Well we have 27.4 which deals with erratic or dangereuses driving, that’s all you to make and to reactive blocking. The crowding off can be perfectly dealt with by looking at who’s ahead of the apex. I think it’s really not that difficult.

#647 sgtkate

sgtkate
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: May 17

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:18

Well we have 27.4 which deals with erratic or dangereuses driving, that’s all you to make and to reactive blocking. The crowding off can be perfectly dealt with by looking at who’s ahead of the apex. I think it’s really not that difficult.

But yet it seems to be incredibly difficult. Each GP we end up with a lengthy discussion over nearly every penalty and was it fair etc so obviously the rules have a incredible about of interpretation. Interpretation means a lack of consistency and controversy. That's fine if people accept that but the entire point of rules is making them enforceable and consistent.



#648 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,554 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:23

I think Hamilton is bluffing. Why would he race harder because the rules allow when his racecraft has served him so well for years and his consistency in finishing in podium positions is precisely what is delivering him all these championships. 

 


Because the car advantage he has had appears to be diminishing, and he may need to fight harder for those positions.

#649 Laptom

Laptom
  • Member

  • 300 posts
  • Joined: August 16

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:39

Again, Max has been penalized often enough, and his recent driving seems to be a lot cleaner than it was 1-2 years ago.

It´s silly to keep pointing at Austria, because as mentioned a lot of drivers squeeze on corner exit (Sainz even did it yesterday, was barely questioned by anybody). Only difference was that they banged wheels, which was mostly because Charles decided to instead of backing down.

So Charles response to that was: "I was squeezed there in Austria once, so I can now do anything I like. Weaving, cutting corners, blocking in the breaking zone" All things that Max has been punished for in the past. (Apart from the weaving I guess, but they were far to lenient for that, even most Max fans feel he was in the wrong in Baku & Spa 2016)

It´s a silly overreaction, and I dont understand why people keep saying "because that one thing was ok in Austria, now everything is ok"


Agree with this. Austria was 100% pure racing. This was pure dangerous.

#650 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 8,114 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 12 September 2019 - 11:44


Roebuck believes “everything began to change” at Estoril in 1988 when Senna blocked/chopped/squeezed Prost towards the pit wall: “we had never seen the like of it before.”

Dear Nigel has a short memory. One has to go back as far as Farina, this from Nigel in 2012,
 

On one lap at Spa, Denis Jenkinson told me, Farina narrowly led Castellotti out of La Source, but as they headed down the hill – where the pits and start-finish line used to be – the Lancia jinked right, trying to pass the Ferrari before Eau Rouge. Instantly Farina moved the same way, edging Castellotti ever closer to the pits – where there was no barrier, of course, and where mechanics were standing. Jenks was in someone’s pit at the time, standing on the wall, and he described it as a moment of pure horror – and a miracle that no one was killed.

Farina had done it without a thought – but then this was the same man who had impatiently turfed Marcel Lehoux’s ERA off the road, while lapping it en route to victory in the one-off Deauville Grand Prix in 1936. Lehoux was killed.