37 replies to this topic

[Planetdune]

I was wondering.. we know some teams are very close with some others. Lets say that sister team is able to qualify on the second row. Would any rule stop them from driving with 4 cars next to each other in formation (for lengthy periods of time) and basically just block any possible overtake attempt? Football has the obstruction rule to prevent such tactics but not sure F1 have something similar.

Edited by Planetdune, 28 November 2021 - 16:36.

[shure]

It would be fraught with risk, not to mention have any sister teams actually ever been 1-4 in formation?  Would be horrendously hard to plan and maintain, so much so that I don't think it's a viable scenario. You'd also have to go at the speed of the slowest car, which would leave you very vulnerable to an undercut.  Plus you'd have to coordinate communications etc.  No way it'd happen

[LightningMcQueen]

Sister teams should be even be a thing.

Like in football.. one team and one team only

[ARTGP]

There is no rule. Two teams could decide to physically block the circuit if they so desired. However, the overtaker would only get a 5 second time penalty for overtaking outside of the circuit if they so desired.  

Edited by ARTGP, 28 November 2021 - 16:53.

[ANF]

The International Sporting Code used to have an article that prohibited exactly this kind of blocking. It was removed for the 2010 ISC:

 

"Any obstructive manoeuvre carried out by one or several drivers, either having common interests or not, is prohibited. The persistent driving of several vehicles abreast or in a fan-shaped arrangement is authorised only if another car is not trying to overtake. Otherwise, the blue flag will be waved."

 

Was this kind of driving common back in the day?

[TheRhodesian74]

We've already seen the sister team effect this season with Gasly so desperate to get out of Verstappen's way in Qatar he left the track

 

Plus we've seen AT drivers make their cars very....erm, wide when Hamilton was trying to pass them, even so much as sacrificing their own race by losing time keeping Hamilton behind

 

It certainly benefits Verstappen to have 3 teammates out there. I suppose as long as it's stays within the 'rules' there isn't much that can be done

[thefinalapex]

We've already seen the sister team effect this season with Gasly so desperate to get out of Verstappen's way in Qatar he left the track

Plus we've seen AT drivers make their cars very....erm, wide when Hamilton was trying to pass them, even so much as sacrificing their own race by losing time keeping Hamilton behind

It certainly benefits Verstappen to have 3 teammates out there. I suppose as long as it's stays within the 'rules' there isn't much that can be done

Wich instances were that when the AT was very wide for Hamilton? Apart from tsunoda in istanbul i can’t think of any.

[Ben24]

Wich instances were that when the AT was very wide for Hamilton? Apart from tsunoda in istanbul i can’t think of any.

Gasly basically waved Hamilton through on the first lap in Brazil. Left the door wide open in a part of the track Hamilton should've never got through. AT also pitted him right as Hamilton caught him in Mexico instead of trying to block for the sake of the senior team. AT have simply been in too close of a battle with Alpine to risk throwing away any points fighting battles other than their own. With Alpine pulling so far ahead at the last race things could now theoretically change in the last couple of races but in reality it's pretty unlikely they'll be in a position to have any impact

[thefinalapex]

Gasly basically waved Hamilton through on the first lap in Brazil. Left the door wide open in a part of the track Hamilton should've never got through. AT also pitted him right as Hamilton caught him in Mexico instead of trying to block for the sake of the senior team. AT have simply been in too close of a battle with Alpine to risk throwing away any points fighting battles other than their own. With Alpine pulling so far ahead at the last race things could now theoretically change in the last couple of races but in reality it's pretty unlikely they'll be in a position to have any impact

Your post is exactly why the guy i quoted is just posting bs as per usual. But i expect he is gonna enlightened me with all those instances when AT made it so hard for Hamilton😂

[SenorSjon]

Gasly basically waved Hamilton through on the first lap in Brazil. Left the door wide open in a part of the track Hamilton should've never got through. AT also pitted him right as Hamilton caught him in Mexico instead of trying to block for the sake of the senior team. AT have simply been in too close of a battle with Alpine to risk throwing away any points fighting battles other than their own. With Alpine pulling so far ahead at the last race things could now theoretically change in the last couple of races but in reality it's pretty unlikely they'll be in a position to have any impact

Not only that.
- Tsunoda leaving the track in Q3 Mexico cost both RB's their final run.
- In Brazil, Tsunoda hitting Stroll brought out the SC, wiping out the gap Verstappen had build. That 5s loss was pivotal for when to make the 2nd stop to prevent an undercut.
- In Qatar Q3, Gasly messed up, indirectly putting his main team up for a penalty and profiting himself. He then didn't use the Softs at the start to threaten Lewis.

So, even if AT will get in Lewis his way the next two races, it would only even up the score vs their main team.

Edited by SenorSjon, 28 November 2021 - 18:06.

[OO7]

Gasly basically waved Hamilton through on the first lap in Brazil. Left the door wide open in a part of the track Hamilton should've never got through.

I don't think that's quite what happened.  Gasly was off track on lap 1 at T4, which allowed Hamilton to close right up on the inside of him exiting T4.  Gasly had dirt on his tyres and tried to defend the inside into T5, but the dirt on his tyres plus being so close in the aero wake of Vettel's Aston, caused him to have a moment where the rear stepped out slightly and Hamilton went by around the outside.

Edited by OO7, 28 November 2021 - 18:23.

[smitten]

Between this and other threads on the go, there seems to be a strong vein of paranoia currently running through the forumites!

[pdac]

There are good reasons why F1 drivers are not being knee-capped by hired thugs. One of them is that they do not go around driving four-abreast to block the track for rivals that are behind them.

[PayasYouRace]

I'm rather enjoying the OP's fantasy that somehow Red Bull and Alpha Tauri are going to lock out the first two rows of the grid, and then just drive around in formation four abreast right from the start, somehow.

[kyle936]

'Nothing new under the sun...' - like everything else, it's already happened - the early laps of the 1982 Brands Hatch 1000 Kilometres - Marc Surer and Manfred Winklehock side by side in their Ford C100s all the way around the early laps in torrential rain until one or the other put the tail out exiting Surtees and punted the other into the armco, causing the race to be stopped (and resulting in a 'aggregate time' race that ended in a cliffhanger) - the most extraordinary thing I've ever witnessed at a motor race, but it's always left me wondering why it's never been tried otherwise, before or since...

 

 

Their 'excuse' was that they were doing it for visibility; the fact that no-one could possibly overtake them was entirely incidental...

[Hrco42]

If we're making threads like this, why not go full ******? What if one of the ATs crashed into Hamilton on purpose? They can't punish RB for that

[Anderis]

'Nothing new under the sun...' - like everything else, it's already happened - the early laps of the 1982 Brands Hatch 1000 Kilometres - Marc Surer and Manfred Winklehock side by side in their Ford C100s all the way around the early laps in torrential rain until one or the other put the tail out exiting Surtees and punted the other into the armco, causing the race to be stopped (and resulting in a 'aggregate time' race that ended in a cliffhanger) - the most extraordinary thing I've ever witnessed at a motor race, but it's always left me wondering why it's never been tried otherwise, before or since...

 

 

Their 'excuse' was that they were doing it for visibility; the fact that no-one could possibly overtake them was entirely incidental...

One thing I totally didn't expect to see in this video was a mention of BMW Sauber in 1982...

[Planetdune]

If we're making threads like this, why not go full ******? What if one of the ATs crashed into Hamilton on purpose? They can't punish RB for that

What if Max defends so hard it puts both DNF and Max wins because of having a couple points advantage. They would not take points away from a previous race.. how would they handle this ? (this is under the scenario where clearly max could have done more to avoid the accident)

[Sterzo]

It would be no good the Red-Bullish cars driving four abreast. They'd never get past the Mercedes-powered cars driving six abreast.

[BRG]

What if Max defends so hard it puts both DNF and Max wins because of having a couple points advantage. They would not take points away from a previous race.. how would they handle this ? (this is under the scenario where clearly max could have done more to avoid the accident)

We have of course got a precedent for this very situation, in Adelaide 1994 when Schumacher, having crashed and lost the WDC, deliberately ran into rival Hill to put him out of the race, thereby regaining the WDC.  The FIA did nothing.

[Zoe]

Cry me a river. When looking for such a precedent, I'd take Senna in 1990 over all other antics.

[Dhillon]

We have of course got a precedent for this very situation, in Adelaide 1994 when Schumacher, having crashed and lost the WDC, deliberately ran into rival Hill to put him out of the race, thereby regaining the WDC. The FIA did nothing.

FIA should have given Schumacher a 10 second penalty.

[BRG]

Cry me a river. When looking for such a precedent, I'd take Senna in 1990 over all other antics.

If you wish.  Either way, the FIA let the culprit get away with it.

[garoidb]

What if Max defends so hard it puts both DNF and Max wins because of having a couple points advantage. They would not take points away from a previous race.. how would they handle this ? (this is under the scenario where clearly max could have done more to avoid the accident)

 

 

We have of course got a precedent for this very situation, in Adelaide 1994 when Schumacher, having crashed and lost the WDC, deliberately ran into rival Hill to put him out of the race, thereby regaining the WDC.  The FIA did nothing.

 

It is not an exact precedent because there wasn't a situation in 1994 where Hill predominantly caused an incident which, together with a meaningless penalty, led to a points swing equivalent to a race victory. They were free to penalise Schumacher but, having not penalised Senna, chose not to. In the scenario described by Planetdune, they could not apply a more severe penalty to Max than they did to Lewis for the same thing, surely? 

Edited by garoidb, 29 November 2021 - 12:10.

[absinthedude]

There have been incidences where the driver of a car who's constructor is considered friendly with another has made things difficult for a rival to pass/lap him. But that's about it. holding up a leading car for a few corners. Even before "sister teams" and top manufacturers selling their engines to multiple teams. Things like Scuderia Italia run Dallaras with Ford/Cosworth engines being helpful to Ferrari because both were Italian. 

 

But only for a few corners. Nothing which could be prosecuted under the regulations. 

[Zoe]

FIA should have given Schumacher a 10 second penalty.

 

[Requiem84]

FIA should have given Schumacher a 10 second penalty.

For being ‘predominantly at fault’ you mean?

[Dhillon]

For being ‘predominantly at fault’ you mean?

Yes and judging just the incident and not the consequence.

[Planetdune]

Yes and judging just the incident and not the consequence.

I normally agree but when it decides a world championship surely the situation should be given more attention?

[Dhillon]

I normally agree but when it decides a world championship surely the situation should be given more attention?

Yes absolutely, thats why I feel more apt penalty should have been given this year in Silverstone.

[w1Y]

I think the key is for Lewis and merc just to be ahead of the AT at all times. Can't control what they do for max.

But I do think AT need particular attention to what happens on the race and timing and I think race control should also be ensuring they keep to the 3 blue flags.

[CoolBreeze]

Sauber Jerez 1997. True or not true

[Dhillon]

It is pretty silly to assume that RB management will ask one of their drivers to take out Lewis.
Ask Flavio what can go wrong with that.

[Brackets]

So, the is the new Thread Where We Equate Silverstone To Jerez.

 

Duly noted.

[Dhillon]

No, Jerez contact was on a much slower corner. Serious injury was unlikely 😛

Edited by Dhillon, 30 November 2021 - 08:52.

[Brackets]

Sauber Jerez 1997. True or not true

 

Well, Fontana effectively ended his F1 career there and then. Not even in the Piranha Club there is a place for leeches.

 

Since I am that kind of person, I pissed myself laughing upon learning that news. And that was before I knew Rosset was gonna take his place.

[Requiem84]

Which year did Schumi have to cone back through the pack in Suzuka?

I vividly remember Wurz in the Benetton moving over in the esses. What was the story behind that?

[Dhillon]

Which year did Schumi have to cone back through the pack in Suzuka?

I vividly remember Wurz in the Benetton moving over in the esses. What was the story behind that?

 

1998 when Schumacher stalled on grid and had to start at the back.

 

Don't know the 'story' may be Todt requested Benetton, or Wurz realised he was not fighting Michael and choose to save tyres.