144 replies to this topic

[TomNokoe]

I'm writing this thread after Grosjean's "sketchy" defence versus Sainz and Ricciardo yesterday, which has re-opened the regulatory wounds that have plagued wheel-to-wheel combat since 2016. It is high time the FIA did something about it.

 

The main purpose of this thread is to discuss the defensive move otherwise referred to as 'weaving' or 'blocking'.

 

In my opinion, there is a very subtle difference between this and 'moving under braking', and it hasn't been given proper consideration over recent years.

 

In the interests of context, I will discuss both, but for reasons to be explained later, moving under braking has seemingly faded out of fashion.

 

A recent history

 

Weaving/blocking and moving under braking aren't new inventions to a defending driver's repertoire. However, with the modern-day reliance on DRS, electrical deployment, and aero regulations that prohibit close racing, overtaking usually occurs within the very narrow window of an attacking driver carrying a tremendous speed differential down a long straight as they approach their target. Generally, overtaking is still quite difficult, meaning any given on-track engagement could be the only chance to overtake. All of these factors are slowing encouraging desperate defensive moves from those trying to maintain position.

 

It was Verstappen's arrival in 2016 that ignited a long-dormant debate. In Hungary of that year, he moved under braking twice when fighting Kimi. Two races later he changed tact slightly, and we witnessed his first (and only?) reactionary weave, at 300kph down the Kemmel Straight. Months later it was again a move under braking battling Lewis at Suzuka. Verstappen was often criticised, but never penalised.

 

Verstappen's occasional defence was to cite the ambiguity of Article 27.6 from the sporting regulations at the time:

 

More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

 

Basically, "I only moved once". On its own, the credibility of this argument could be discussed ad infinitum. That isn't what this thread is about, nor am I deliberately picking on Max, he's just very useful for examples.

 

On the eve of the 2016 United States Grand Prix, the FIA moved to clarify the defensive rules by issuing a race director's note that said:

 

Article 27.5 of the Sporting Regulations states that 'no car may be driven in a manner which could be potentially dangerous to other drivers', furthermore, Article 27.8 prohibits any manoeuvre 'liable to hinder other drivers, such as any abnormal change of direction'.

With this in mind, and with the exception of any move permitted by Article 27.6, any change of direction under braking which results in another driver having to take evasive action will be considered abnormal and hence potentially dangerous to other drivers. Any such move will be reported to the stewards.

 

Crucially, the ruling did not address weaving/blocking. Although, there may have been an implicit understanding amongst drivers and fans that it was supposed to, as noted by Andrew Benson:

 

The drivers' concerns about Verstappen's driving focus on two main areas: moving - or changing line - under braking; and what is called "wait-and-move".
 

The second is when a driver defending his position waits to see which side the driver behind will attack on and only moves to defend after he has done so.

 

[I think this was a crucial point because somehow the two moves almost merged into one, which has muddied the waters ever since.]

 

Only one race later, Vettel fell foul to the "Verstappen rule" after moving under braking during the hectic final laps in Mexico.

 

Over the winter, heading into 2017, the race director's note pre-USA was scrapped. Replaced by the evermore ambiguous, "catch-all" sporting regulation that remains today:

 

At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.

 

Aside from the International Sporting Code (ISC), this is the only F1 sporting regulation that governs racecraft.

 

Verstappen tested the waters of the new regulations early on in 2017, during a final-lap dice with Ricciardo. General consensus started to form that moving under braking was, in fact, acceptable, as long as it was your only move. Charlie confirmed as much at the start of that year.

 

It wasn't until Baku 2018 and the infamous Red Bull crash when the tide started to turn. It felt like Formula 1 as a whole took a collective breath, and to my mind, I can't remember any notable "moving under braking" incidents since. Why? I don't know.

 

However, as one door closed, another opened, giving rise to the reactionary weave or block, which is becoming more common. A few examples:

• Magnussen vs Gasly, Baku 2018
• Magnussen vs Leclerc, Japan 2018
• Ricciardo vs Bottas, Canada 2019 - thanks ARTGP
• Leclerc vs Verstappen, Silverstone 2019
• Leclerc vs Hamilton, Monza 2019
• Grosjean vs Sainz, Silverstone 2020
• Grosjean vs Ricciardo, Silverstone 2020

Grosjean defended his moves yesterday by saying there was nothing in the regulations that specifically prohibited it. Again, the ambiguity of the 2017 catch-all is useless for these borderline decisions.

 

It also seems that Grosjean himself is confused between "moving under braking" and "weaving/blocking". And again he is falling back on the old adage of "leaving a car's width".

 

I think a few years ago we really wanted to put a rule in place that you can't move on the braking point after some of Max's defending, but there weren't any rules put in action

 

I think in both cases I moved a little bit late, but I always left the car width

 

Masi as well seems to be missing the point:

 

This has actually come about following extensive discussions with the drivers throughout last year. One of the big areas that the majority of them asked for was a clamping down of cars moving under braking and drivers moving under braking. The stewards have given Romain the warning in accordance with the ISC side of it. And further to that, we've agreed that we will discuss it at the next drivers' meeting and go from there. But it's actually come about as a result of the drivers all requesting a crackdown in that area because they thought it was something that needed to be clamped down on a bit more.

 

So where do we stand? We are one tiny misjudgement away from a Webber/Valencia airplane style of crash.

 

I was thinking about adding a poll but the debate has too many layers, so instead, I'm just going to throw some questions I've been pondering.

1. Is moving under braking and weaving close enough in practicality to be considered and discussed as one of the same?
2. Is moving under braking acceptable if it's your only defensive move?
3. Is weaving/blocking acceptable if it's your only defensive move?
4. How late is too late?
5. Does "leaving a car's width" have any relevance to the discussion?
6. Do the FIA need to produce tighter regulation on these types of defensive moves?

      7. Is it "defence" or "defense" ?
 

I have no set expectation of how I want this thread to go, I just wanted to get the ball rolling.

Edited by TomNokoe, 03 August 2020 - 22:14.

[Retrofly]

I dont like it, it doesn't offer good racing, it akin to blocking in video games, it normally puts the frighteners on the following drivers, you shouldn't be scaring the competition to beat them.

 

I dont mind a squeeze, a gradual move from side to side, but jinking left and right as they come past is too far.

[ensign14]

The fish rots from the head.  The stewards have been abject on this.  They had the chance to lay a marker down by using the safe haven of F2 for sending a message, after Luca Ghiotto put three drivers out with a wankstain move.

 

They did eff all.

 

It's open season, boys.

[Ivanhoe]

I don’t like blocking, as it’s righteous dangerous, but I also don’t like slipstreaming right up to the the gearbox leaving the attacking move at the utmost last moment. 

[Yamamoto]

It's "defenze". I'll let others handle the other questions.

Edited by Yamamoto, 03 August 2020 - 21:36.

[TomNokoe]

The fish rots from the head.  The stewards have been abject on this.  They had the chance to lay a marker down by using the safe haven of F2 for sending a message, after Luca Ghiotto put three drivers out with a wankstain move.

 

They did eff all.

 

It's open season, boys.

Despite its recency, I'd totally forgot about this. Good shout.

 

For those who haven't seen - it wasn't penalised.

[ANF]

4. How late is too late? Both Sainz and Ricciardo had to steer away from Grosjean's car to avoid a collision. I think that's the definition of too late.
5. No.
6. They need to enforce the regulations. Grosjean got a driving standards flag for the first offence. He should have got a drive-through for the second.
7. It's defense in US English.

[ARTGP]

To be honest, drivers whine about it....and then turn around and do the same thing. Hypocrits! I always say it, drivers want the rules applied to everybody but themselves.

 

Ricciardo was a knob last season in Canada when he was racing Bottas: https://youtu.be/TYxsbsfGdD4?t=316  .  A high speed game of chicken for several laps on the backstraight.

 

The FIA should stop all of it. but drivers also shouldn't whine when they are guilty of the same reckless driving.

Edited by ARTGP, 03 August 2020 - 21:56.

[MikeTekRacing]

i don't like chops and moves in the braking zone, but the FIA is inconsistent there. Seen some questionable moves by leclerc in hungary. His moves in Monza can't even be defended by leaving a car's width.

 

to Ivanhoe's point, when you leave the attack at the last minute you're not very smart either....

 

I actually think the black and white flag is the best one here for stuff that doesn't end up forcing somebody out of the road to avoid contact. 

[MikeTekRacing]

Despite its recency, I'd totally forgot about this. Good shout.

 

For those who haven't seen - it wasn't penalised.

 

This one seems a slam dunk penalty the first time I saw it. 

I clicked refresh a few times and the way I see it now - it's almost like they were going to touch even without that slight move. Why the hell did he leave the attack with so little margin?

it looks a bit clumsy on both parties

[AustinF1]

Yes, it's time to act.

 

Actually, they should have acted yesterday during the race. Long before that, actually ...

[Myrvold]

And yet again, IndyCar have found the solution, simpler, easier and better than F1.

 

A driver cannot make a reactionary defensive move. If the defensive move is made after the attacking move, that's a penalty. Simple and clear.

[TheFish]

The fish rots from the head.

Bit harsh.

I agree with the consensus though, it’s not racing. It’s dangerous and it’s dirty. I like seeing close battles that last for corners, like everyone else. I don’t like people being put in unnecessary danger.

[Lights]

It felt like Formula 1 as a whole took a collective breath, and to my mind, I can't remember any notable "moving under braking" incidents since. Why? I don't know.

 

Well there's what Vettel did to Kvyat in Austria, but it wasn't interesting enough for the stewards to look at, so most people never heard about it.

[Jovanotti]

"Time for the FIA to act?" - that ship has sailed 4 years ago unfortunately.

[Lights]

Masi as well seems to be missing the point:

 

Of course.

 

One of the biggest issues F1 faces is that it has people in places governing the racing who do not seem to really understand the details of racing. Whiting didn't get it, and Masi doesn't seem to be any better.

 

The FIA isn't capable of actually writing rules of racing. They tried some stuff sometimes, but then always edited it again later to make it more ambiguous.

Which drivers can easily use to defend themselves (Max & Grosjean as discussed in OP). And it means stuff keeps happening.

 

There was a rule against moving under braking, but then they removed it again. This current 'rule'..:

 

At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person.

 

..just means that the FIA has full control over how they penalize anything based on the outcome of it, how busy they happen to be, and whether they ate their favorite breakfast that morning.

 

This results in inconsistency and a lack of transparency. My thread Race direction / race control / stewarding incompetence is born out of that.

 

ensign14 said it already, the fish rots from the head. There's something rotten in the FIA regarding the governance of racing, racing rules, and stewarding. And it has always been like that. Big changes are needed but they're not going to happen anytime soon because the FIA has issues reflecting on past problems to learn and improve. They prefer the "forgetting there was an issue, moving on, and then later playing dumb"-approach.

Edited by Lights, 04 August 2020 - 08:04.

[Muppetmad]

"Time for the FIA to act?" - that ship has sailed 4 years ago unfortunately.

Sadly, this. The FIA had the opportunity to take a stand against an eminently dangerous form of driving four years ago. It would have been a very easy exercise - we could all knock up a basic wording for the relevant regulation in less than a minute, and then hand it off to the lawyers to argue amongst themselves for a few days - and it would have made a significant impact on driving standards, so long as it was enforced consistently.

 

Alas, the FIA has abdicated responsibility, as it so often does. History teaches us that the FIA will always blame the drivers rather than themselves when it all goes horribly wrong.

[SophieB]

I often think of Mark Hughes' excellent article from last year which makes his frequent argument that trying to encapsulate every bit of wrongdoing in laws simply leads to situations where relatively minor infractions get punished heavily because the wording is clear, while dangerous incidents that have greater impact, born out of recklessness or even malice go unpunished because no-one had anticipated someone doing something so crappy and so there's no precise rule:

 

This sort of thing used to be covered by a code of behaviour among the drivers. Attempting to incorporate this into words – rather than consistently using the black flag to anyone contravening that code – was where the trouble started. Any wording always creates loopholes, an invitation to find a way around the wording. As soon as you define in words what is legal, an obvious competitive reaction is, ‘So anything not in the wording is legal?’ On this basis, behaviour that would never have been considered before was being unintentionally invited. So chopping ruthlessly across another car at 200mph (Schumacher on Mika Häkkinen Spa 2000, or Max Verstappen on Kimi Räikkönen, Spa 2016) was OK because it didn’t break the one-move rule. But running wide off the circuit, losing time and scrabbling to rejoin before the guy behind can pass is not OK because it could be deemed that he had not rejoined in ‘a safe manner’ (as per Vettel in Montréal). There is a requirement that the driver should leave a defined amount of track as he rejoins, which Vettel didn’t – as he was trying to keep control of his car after sliding across the grass and hitting a big kerb as he rejoined. The code demanded a 5sec penalty, thereby ruining what had been an epic 50-lap struggle.

 

“I sympathise in a way with the stewards,” said Vettel after he’d calmed down. “I’ve said many times when I’ve been in there that they are sitting in front of a piece of paper and they’re watching the race and they say, ‘We agree but look, we have to do these things.’ It’s just our times; we have regulations for everything. So we end up talking about racing situations like lawyers. It’s not the sport I fell I love with.”

Strip the regs back, dump the obligation to apply rules just because they are there, have an ex-racer referee with a let-them-race mentality. His decision will be final regardless of all arguments and he’ll come down hard and without mercy on anyone taking advantage of that leniency through driving deliberately dangerously. By way of a simple black flag: come in, switch off your engine, get out of the car, you’re finished for the day. Then the code of etiquette would decide how things flowed.

 

 

I think in a way, Mark Hughes got some of his wish  - punishing fewer infractions was very clearly what led to the renewed use of the black and white flag rather than hand out penalties. But I am not seeing the will or courage to implement the other half of what he (rightly) says is necessary  - the handing out of black flags for drivers who take the piss. And reactionary late defensive moves should NEVER have fallen into the 'let them RACE' stuff. I would have been shocked if they'd handed Grosjean the black flag after his second offence on Sunday but I wouldn't have argued with it. Instead they gave him a warning, he did it again and they...gave him another warning. Pathetic.

[ensign14]

Grosjean seems immune from prosecution. 

 

Look at the tail end of 2018.  US Grand Prix.  Grosjean is on 9 penalty points.  One more infraction and he's out.  What does he do?  Smash Leclerc into retirement.  As clear a 3 pointer as you will ever see.

 

Penalty?

 

1 point.

 

Which gets wiped out at the next race as it's 12 months since his first penalty.

 

His defence in that incident was "I lifted and braked early to avoid an accident".  That ought to be aggravating circumstances, if he's driving more carefully and hits someone, then he's a danger to everyone and everything on track.  Yet the stewards reduced the penalty to 1 point.  Solely, it seems, to avoid banning a driver for reaching 12 points.

 

So the system is worse than useless, it is positively encouraging of idiotic driving.

[MJB5990]

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. When it's a reaction and not a defence. 
5. No.
6. 100%.

 

I have a big problem with what we see today. So many of the drivers have been guilty of it over the past 5 years (Max, Charles, Magnussen, Leclerc, Ricciardo, Grosjean, Vettel) and i'm sure there are more. The big problem I have is that it seems to be a reaction. Rather than just defend the inside early and stay there, they wait until the guy behind makes their move and then try to cover it. How nobody has ended up airborne yet I don't quite know.

 

I have zero problem with guys defending their line, that's racing. But defend your line early and stay there. F1 has to realise that they are the example to all other single seater categories across Europe (if not worldwide). If F1 make this stand, it's easier for F2, F3 and F4 to make a similar stand and stop this happening in the lower formula aswell. Kids in karts will be doing this, because they can see their heroes doing it on a Sunday afternoon in cars that are doing 200mph. It's unacceptable and needs to stop.

[absinthedude]

I dont like it, it doesn't offer good racing, it akin to blocking in video games, it normally puts the frighteners on the following drivers, you shouldn't be scaring the competition to beat them.

 

I dont mind a squeeze, a gradual move from side to side, but jinking left and right as they come past is too far.

 

Mostly in agreement with this post with the caveat that squeezes against concrete or armco aren't on. I am old enough to remember F1's first "big squeeze" which was Senna against Prost in Portugal in 1988. We all gasped at the time and it was much discussed in the motor racing press. It looks tame now. That is where we are today. Schumacher on Barrichello in Hungary 2010 was little short of attempted murder. Squeezing against solid barriers should be punished. Squeezing where there's some run-off is a valid tactic. Even a squeeze like Senna on Prost all those years ago would probably be OK now.

 

The blatant blocking does nothing for racing. Grosjean last weekend being a specific example. I think showing him the black/white flag was appropriate as a warning. I also agree with Mark Hughes. But the real issue is that squeezing and blocking started 30+ years ago and has never been dealt with. The drivers today have all grown up watching such "tactics" and therefore believe it to be OK. As Stirling Moss used to say, you'd never do that in his day because one or both of you would be going home in a coffin.

[Cliff]

And yet again, IndyCar have found the solution, simpler, easier and better than F1.

A driver cannot make a reactionary defensive move. If the defensive move is made after the attacking move, that's a penalty. Simple and clear.

Meh, that only makes interesting racing on ovals. In F1 it would mean “after you please” and would take away the biggest tool to defend. As long as it’s just one reactionary move I’m Fine with it. Part of the problem is the following car slipstreaming way to close, giving himself no time to react.

Edited by Cliff, 04 August 2020 - 09:09.

[Fisico54]

Mostly in agreement with this post with the caveat that squeezes against concrete or armco aren't on. I am old enough to remember F1's first "big squeeze" which was Senna against Prost in Portugal in 1988. We all gasped at the time and it was much discussed in the motor racing press. It looks tame now. That is where we are today. Schumacher on Barrichello in Hungary 2010 was little short of attempted murder. Squeezing against solid barriers should be punished. Squeezing where there's some run-off is a valid tactic. Even a squeeze like Senna on Prost all those years ago would probably be OK now.

 

The blatant blocking does nothing for racing. Grosjean last weekend being a specific example. I think showing him the black/white flag was appropriate as a warning. I also agree with Mark Hughes. But the real issue is that squeezing and blocking started 30+ years ago and has never been dealt with. The drivers today have all grown up watching such "tactics" and therefore believe it to be OK. As Stirling Moss used to say, you'd never do that in his day because one or both of you would be going home in a coffin.

 

Absolutely, Senna's antics were never punished so then Schumacher continued in the same manner

[Nemo1965]

My five cents: the blocking and weaving are also sign of the equalitarian modern mindset. In Ye Old Days many young drivers came in to F1, weaved and blocked in their first season (F1-drivers called that 'F3-manners') and were then told off by the senior drivers. The established drivers were 'names', they were the establishment and that demanded and got respect. Funnily enough the famous fight between Arnoux and Villeneuve at Dijnon in 1979 has come up in several threads I read, and while the duel back then was canonised by the press and fans alike, most F1-drivers back then did NOT approve. But Arnoux and Villeneuve, quite un-typically, laughed off the criticism. 

 

So one can say that Senna and Schumacher set the tone for this lack of racing etiquette, or that the FIA is to blame... but I think it is rather a logical effect from the idea in the day to day world that old forms are bad forms and that expertise, etiquette and 'how things should be done' are looked at with contempt.

Edited by Nemo1965, 04 August 2020 - 09:30.

[Spillage]

I actually think a warning was appropriate for what Grosjean did. It was sketchy, but I wouldn't say it was outrageous.Given that he was warned I think we can assume that some rule already exists against this, but in this case it's the kind of thing that should only incur a penalty if performed repeatedly and after a warning has already been issued. Meanwhile Ghiotto was a textbook case of causing a collision, and he should have been punished on those grounds.

[PayasYouRace]

Meh, that only makes interesting racing on ovals. In F1 it would mean “after you please” and would take away the biggest tool to defend. As long as it’s just one reactionary move I’m Fine with it. Part of the problem is the following car slipstreaming way to close, giving himself no time to react.

 

No it wouldn't because the defending driver could make a move before the attacker to try to, for example, claim the inside line for the corner.

[SophieB]

I actually think a warning was appropriate for what Grosjean did. It was sketchy, but I wouldn't say it was outrageous.Given that he was warned I think we can assume that some rule already exists against this, but in this case it's the kind of thing that should only incur a penalty if performed repeatedly and after a warning has already been issued. Meanwhile Ghiotto was a textbook case of causing a collision, and he should have been punished on those grounds.

 

He was warned twice. He was given the black and white flag and his team told him (we know this because we heard his outraged, disbelieving reaction on the team radio). His response was to do the same only more blatant to Ricciardo and so the action they took for ignoring their warning was to give him another warning. Only they waited until after the race to issue the second one, possibly because it would have been really embarrassing for them to have issued a second black and white flag mid race, especially if he ignored that one too.

[Spillage]

He was warned twice. He was given the black and white flag and his team told him (we know this because we heard his outraged, disbelieving reaction on the team radio). His response was to do the same only more blatant to Ricciardo and so the action they took for ignoring their warning was to give him another warning. Only they waited until after the race to issue the second one, possibly because it would have been really embarrassing for them to have issued a second black and white flag mid race, especially if he ignored that one too.

I did not know that. I thought the black-and-white flag was only shown after the Ricciardo move. My bad! Obviously if a driver ignores the black-and-white flag then a penalty must be applied immediately - there's no point having it otherwise. It would be like having yellow cards in football without the provision that receiving a second one means you're off. 

[BillBald]

And yet again, IndyCar have found the solution, simpler, easier and better than F1.

 

A driver cannot make a reactionary defensive move. If the defensive move is made after the attacking move, that's a penalty. Simple and clear.

 

 

Meh, that only makes interesting racing on ovals. In F1 it would mean “after you please” and would take away the biggest tool to defend. As long as it’s just one reactionary move I’m Fine with it. Part of the problem is the following car slipstreaming way to close, giving himself no time to react.

 

It's still perfectly possible to defend, if you are not allowed to make dangerous reactive moves. The defending driver just has to use his judgement, decide where the following driver is going to want to go, and then occupy that space. The best drivers actually do this, it's really only idiots who need to wait until the following driver has made his move, and then swerve into his path.

 

Of course, a lot more skill is required to defend fairly, and no-one should expect Grosjean to get to that level anytime soon.

[KnucklesAgain]

Haha!

 

 

Haas boss Gunther Steiner says Formula 1's penalty system isn't "working right" after ....

 

... Red Bull's Alex Albon was penalised five seconds for hitting Kevin Magnussen at the British Grand Prix

[KnucklesAgain]

Also on Autosport: "Daniel Ricciardo will raise Romain Grosjean's aggressive defensive moves during the British Grand Prix at the next Formula 1 drivers' briefing on Friday"

[smitten]

It's always been within the power of the stewards - I don't see what the FIA really have to do with it.

[Dicun]

I dont like it, it doesn't offer good racing, it akin to blocking in video games, it normally puts the frighteners on the following drivers, you shouldn't be scaring the competition to beat them.

 

I dont mind a squeeze, a gradual move from side to side, but jinking left and right as they come past is too far.

 

 

Thank you - I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote.

 

This is exactly the reason why I never in my life will understand the glorification of Senna and his legacy. What is called and seen as appalling blocking, weaving, scare tactics, chopping, crashing and bullying when committed by any other driver ever is always called and seen bravery, inspiring, amazing warrior-like fighting, serving justice etc. if Senna did it.

 

Mind-boggling really.

[Dicun]

Mostly in agreement with this post with the caveat that squeezes against concrete or armco aren't on. I am old enough to remember F1's first "big squeeze" which was Senna against Prost in Portugal in 1988. We all gasped at the time and it was much discussed in the motor racing press. It looks tame now. That is where we are today. Schumacher on Barrichello in Hungary 2010 was little short of attempted murder. Squeezing against solid barriers should be punished. Squeezing where there's some run-off is a valid tactic. Even a squeeze like Senna on Prost all those years ago would probably be OK now.

 

The blatant blocking does nothing for racing. Grosjean last weekend being a specific example. I think showing him the black/white flag was appropriate as a warning. I also agree with Mark Hughes. But the real issue is that squeezing and blocking started 30+ years ago and has never been dealt with. The drivers today have all grown up watching such "tactics" and therefore believe it to be OK. As Stirling Moss used to say, you'd never do that in his day because one or both of you would be going home in a coffin.

 

 

Absolutely, Senna's antics were never punished so then Schumacher continued in the same manner

 

     

[JRodrigues]

"Time for the FIA to act?" - that ship has sailed 4 years ago unfortunately.

 

This. 

[MJB5990]

Another incident in the race yesterday when Romain moved way too late as Kimi was attempting a move. Again, very dangerous and too late. If you want to defend the inside, then defend it, don't wait until the other car is there and then move. It's beyond stupid. 

[ensign14]

Grosjean AGAIN though.  Isn't he head of the GPDA as well?  That's like putting Herod in charge of babysitting.

 

I often think of Mark Hughes' excellent article from last year which makes his frequent argument that trying to encapsulate every bit of wrongdoing in laws simply leads to situations where relatively minor infractions get punished heavily because the wording is clear, while dangerous incidents that have greater impact, born out of recklessness or even malice go unpunished because no-one had anticipated someone doing something so crappy and so there's no precise rule:

 

As indeed we saw yesterday.  Grosjean drives like a murderous cock; no penalty.  Perez and Kvyat do not hold anyone up; penalty.

[Ruusperi]

Wonder what's esports' stance on the subject. By definition there's no danger involved so that's not an argument to disallow moving twice (unless, of course, you want esports to emulate current F1 rules). So in practice they could have "rules" straight from the Burnout-series, haha.

 

In real life, I think DRS is once again to blame. Firstly it kills battles by making overtaking so dull that it's questionable to even talk about "battles". More importantly, DRS creates dangerous speed differences on straight, and despite there being strict rules for defending, no driver is perfect and accidents will eventually happen. By getting rid of DRS I'm sure there would lesser need for additional defending rules that otherwise are making already sterile F1 even more sterile. F1 is inherently dangerous so there's a limit where some risks must be accepted, whether it's honest defending or going into the corner wheel-to-wheel. We love that stuff. Why? Because it's so damn brave stuff.

[lustigson]

Perhaps there's a single answer to all those questions, and it's this:

 

Hold.

 

Your.

 

Line.

 

Well, maybe it's three answers, when I put it this way.

[BRG]

In real life, I think DRS is once again to blame.

Hardly.  This problem long pre-dates the invention of DRS.

[Myrvold]

Perhaps there's a single answer to all those questions, and it's this:

 

Hold.

 

Your.

 

Line.

 

Well, maybe it's three answers, when I put it this way.

 

That can be seen as "not allowed to defend".

 

Again. Outlaw reactionary moves. You can defend the way you like, as long as you make your move before the attacking driver.

[sgtkate]

Perhaps over simplified but if either car *has* to make a move to avoid contact, then the driver who was making the move should be penalised. There will be grey though if both cars made sudden movements at the same time...

 

Actually the post directly above mine also offers a good solution, banning reactionary defensive moves.

[Frood]

There was another example in the F2 sprint race with Delétraz forcing Mazepin very late onto the grass. Far be it for me to defend Mazepin, especially with his past, but it's two weeks in a row that the guy has been forced into the grass by a late reactionary move. Yet, nothing from the FIA - no black and white flag for Schumacher at Silverstone and none for Delétraz this weekend.

[TomNokoe]

bump

[PlatenGlass]

Certainly was a bump.

[Kev00]

Yeah they need to set an example here. Fernando’s car could have ended up anywhere. He was extremely lucky. Stroll needs to be banned at the very least

[Frood]

Stroll has been banned for this before, back in Formula 3. He's learnt nothing.

[Myrvold]

And yet again, IndyCar have found the solution, simpler, easier and better than F1.

 

A driver cannot make a reactionary defensive move. If the defensive move is made after the attacking move, that's a penalty. Simple and clear.

 

I'll keep saying this.

[NewMrMe]

The way to deal with this is to punish all moves that are late reactions. Drivers will only stop doing it when they know they will definitely get a harsh penalty.

 

From now on all late defensive moves need to be a 10 second stop go penalty.

[pacificquay]

Stroll needs a ban for this.

 

He’s been driving like this since F3 - remember Monza 2015?