327 replies to this topic

[AustinF1]

Yeah, the word ‘enabling’ confuses me a bit. The same language is used for an overtake on the outside though and in that case it makes no sense that ‘the car’ is the defending car. Just poor drafting I guess.

Same as it ever was ...

[pdac]

Yeah, the word ‘enabling’ confuses me a bit. The same language is used for an overtake on the outside though and in that case it makes no sense that ‘the car’ is the defending car. Just poor drafting I guess.

 

It's inexcusable. So many of the rules use subjective terms like "sufficient". This is fine for talking about the reasons behind a rule, but the actual wording should not be open to interpretation. Yes, it takes a bit of language skill to word it correctly. But are we saying that the FIA does not have anyone they can turn to with sufficient understanding of the language to be able to do that?

[Clatter]

It's inexcusable. So many of the rules use subjective terms like "sufficient". This is fine for talking about the reasons behind a rule, but the actual wording should not be open to interpretation. Yes, it takes a bit of language skill to word it correctly. But are we saying that the FIA does not have anyone they can turn to with sufficient understanding of the language to be able to do that?

 

It's not a new problem, so it can be assumed it's by design.

[pdac]

It's not a new problem, so it can be assumed it's by design.

 

It's still inexcusable,

[FortiFord]

I do wonder how the Stewards decided not to take any action against Hamilton after his move on Russell at Spoon, especially given these guidelines published last year.

 

“In order for a car being overtaken to be required to give sufficient room to an overtaking car, the overtaking car needs to have a significant portion of the car alongside the car being overtaken and the overtaking manoeuvre must be done in a safe and controlled manner, while enabling the car to clearly remain within the limits of the track.

 

"When considering what is a 'significant portion', for an overtaking on the outside of a corner, among the various factors that will be looked at by the stewards when exercising their discretion, the stewards will consider if the overtaking car is ahead of the other car from the apex of the corner.

 

"The car being overtaken must be capable of making the corner while remaining within the limits of the track."

[registered]

I feel the stewards view incidents between team matea differently to other incidents. Which of course is not right from sporting perspectives the rules should apply the same all the time

[pdac]

I feel the stewards view incidents between team matea differently to other incidents. Which of course is not right from sporting perspectives the rules should apply the same all the time

 

Yes and yes.

[AustinF1]

Yeah iirc that wasn't even noted. Is that right? Kind of amazing imho.

[registered]

It was noted but "no further investigation necessary"

[AustinF1]

It was noted but "no further investigation necessary"

Thanks. Yeah, I remember now. Amazing.

[Carsey]

Im surprised other teams dont appeal it to be fair.  Given the lack of a penalty for Lewis would have promoted Sainz to 5th.

 

I think the key is needing to have your car ahead at the apex of the corner.  Its a funny old rule.

[AustinF1]

All of this business of driving people off the track - whether you're ahead at the apex or not and whether you stay on the track or not - needs to stop.

[Carsey]

I agree.  I think as soon as the front wing comes alongside the car infront you should be entitled to some space.

 

At present you can have 2 cars side by side (or marginally behind on the overtaking car) and the rules allow the car being overtaken to the full track providing they can make the corner.  (as they werent ahead at the apex)  (on the outside)

[New Britain]

I feel the stewards view incidents between team matea differently to other incidents. Which of course is not right from sporting perspectives the rules should apply the same all the time

 

Yes and yes.

 

That point of view is reasonable, but I am not sure that the question is as binary as you folks appear to think.

 

The problem is that the drivers are not actually entrants to the competition. Rather, the teams are the entrants, with the drivers being the teams' employees. The FIA have a duty of care to the drivers, but that applies to every sport, whether it be football or rugby - clearly team sports - or golf or skiing - clearly individual sports.

 

A distinct illustration of the team basis of F1 is that the prize money is awarded not to the individual drivers, but to the teams.

 

In football, if a player fouls his or her teammate, the opposition is not awarded a free kick, nor is the offending player susceptible to a yellow card. The point of a sanction is to discourage an entrant from breaking the rules and thus potentially gaining an advantage over another entrant.

 

If something (something 'normal' - we're not talking about criminality) happens within a team, with no negative impact on another team, why should conduct internal to a team be punished?

Edited by New Britain, 27 September 2023 - 22:51.

[flyboym3]

That point of view is reasonable, but I am not sure that the question is as binary as you folks appear to think.

The problem is that the drivers are not actually entrants to the competition. Rather, the teams are the entrants, with the drivers being the teams' employees. The FIA have a duty of care to the drivers, but that applies to every sport, whether it be football or rugby - clearly team sports - or to golf or singles tennis - clearly individual sports.

A distinct illusration of the team basis of F1 is that the prize money is awarded not to the individual drivers, but to the teams.

In football, if a player fouls his or her teammate, the opposition is not awarded a free kick, nor is the offending player susceptible to a yellow card. The point of a sanction is to discourage an entrant from breaking the rules and thus potentially gaining an advantage over another entrant.

If something (something 'normal' - we're not talking about criminality) happens within a team, with no negative impact on another team, why should conduct internal to a team be punished?

And exactly the same at the race before in Monza. But nobody was interested in resurrecting this thread for Sainz/Leclerc.

Why is that?

[AustinF1]

And exactly the same at the race before in Monza. But nobody was interested in resurrecting this thread for Sainz/Leclerc.

Why is that?

Questionable overtakes, people running others off the track etc happens almost every race. Even though this thread only gets bumped occasionally, it's not about any one driver. It's about the overall state of F1 overtaking and driving standards in general.

[bibliophagos]

That point of view is reasonable, but I am not sure that the question is as binary as you folks appear to think.

The problem is that the drivers are not actually entrants to the competition. Rather, the teams are the entrants, with the drivers being the teams' employees. The FIA have a duty of care to the drivers, but that applies to every sport, whether it be football or rugby - clearly team sports - or golf or skiing - clearly individual sports.

A distinct illustration of the team basis of F1 is that the prize money is awarded not to the individual drivers, but to the teams.

In football, if a player fouls his or her teammate, the opposition is not awarded a free kick, nor is the offending player susceptible to a yellow card. The point of a sanction is to discourage an entrant from breaking the rules and thus potentially gaining an advantage over another entrant.

If something (something 'normal' - we're not talking about criminality) happens within a team, with no negative impact on another team, why should conduct internal to a team be punished?

That football analogy doesn't really make sense, does it? The individual footballers aren't competing with each other, or maybe I have missed a football player who was crowned World Football Champion for beating their teammates.
The teams may be the entrants, but the drivers are competitors with each other as well. Entirely different from football.

[FortiFord]

Im surprised other teams dont appeal it to be fair. Given the lack of a penalty for Lewis would have promoted Sainz to 5th.

I think the key is needing to have your car ahead at the apex of the corner. Its a funny old rule.

In my view, the part about being ahead at the apex goes out of the window if the defending driver cannot make the corner. You can get yourself ahead at the apex if you brake so late that you know you will not make the corner.

[P123]

In my view, the part about being ahead at the apex goes out of the window if the defending driver cannot make the corner. You can get yourself ahead at the apex if you brake so late that you know you will not make the corner.

 

Agreed on that.  Such a thing should be an instant 'give up position'.  Not a lengthy investigation, not a 5s penalty.  Just cede position.  

 

Sometimes the perceived 'crowding' is muddied a bit by the attacking driver simply keeping their foot planted, also safe in the knowledge that they can take a no penalty risk due to the tarmac runoff. What looks like crowding isn't always so.  Not entirely straightforward for the stewards, although you'd hope they use telemetry as evidence in their decisions.

 

It's something that has been happening for years.  Massa and Kubica were at it at Fuji back in '07... and it got so silly I suspect the stewards just let it go, as one was as bad as the other.  Even the much celebrated battle between Leclerc and Max at Silverstone a few years back at least one of them fully offtrack a few times.

[Sterzo]

Questionable overtakes, people running others off the track etc happens almost every race. Even though this thread only gets bumped occasionally, it's not about any one driver. It's about the overall state of F1 overtaking and driving standards in general.

Exactly so, and given that we, the forum members, have set out to solve a problem, the first stage is to define the problem, which you have done.

 

If we go right back to basics, the principle should be that any deviation from your usual racing line to prevent or deter overtaking, or to push off, slow or intimidate an opponent, is unacceptable. Then it becomes a matter of wording rules to reflect that, and training stewards. There will always be judgement needed, and therefore inconsistency, but that's the route to take.

[New Britain]

That football analogy doesn't really make sense, does it? The individual footballers aren't competing with each other, or maybe I have missed a football player who was crowned World Football Champion for beating their teammates.
The teams may be the entrants, but the drivers are competitors with each other as well. Entirely different from football.

 

I agree that the football (or other traditional team sport) analogy is flawed, but the problem is that an analogy with competitors in 'individual' sports is equally flawed.

 

Some of the factors that make F1 a team sport and each driver a component of the team, rather than a free agent:

 

- The driver is an employee (or contractee) of the team.

- The drivers do not enter the competition themselves, the teams do.

- The team decide who will compete in any event.

- The development of the equipment that the driver is allowed to use is dictated by how the team did the previous year, even if that driver was driving for a competitor the previous year.

- All the prize money for success goes to the team.

- If the team order Driver A to let his teammate Driver B come past him, the FIA are not entitled to intercede on a basis that Driver A's 'right' to do the best for himself has been interfered with.

 

I'm not saying that F1 is exclusively a team sport. My point is that, also, it is not exclusively an individual sport, and the question raised in this thread of whether there should be a penalty when teammates collide because of driver error does not have a black-and-white answer.

Drivers are promoted as the stars of the show and the bulk of the attention is given to driver, rather than team, competition, but that is the result of superficial marketing efforts that do not change the underlying regulatory and commercial structure of the sport.

[sketchy2001]

Wouldn't it be nice if overtaking happened the way George and Lewis demonstrated at Casino Triangle?

Plenty of respect for the fact there is another car there even though George probably could have claimed the 2nd apex as his.

Just a shame that that only really happens when it is teammate on teammate (and not even that is guaranteed).

 

I really hate the "ahead at the apex" statement as it encourages lawyer-like responses of "I had the right".

Surely it would be easier to say that, when two drivers enter a turn together then both drivers need to leave space.

 

By "together" I mean that the lead car cannot physically drive in front of the trailing car without the trailing driver being given the options of back out or collide.

I would not include the late-lunge techniques, as demonstrated by Perez in recent races.

 

Giving away some of the advantages that the 'lead' car currently has would increase the chance of a pass being possible ...maybe making DRS un-needed (the holy grail?)

[Roadhouse]

Wouldn't it be nice if overtaking happened the way George and Lewis demonstrated at Casino Triangle?
Plenty of respect for the fact there is another car there even though George probably could have claimed the 2nd apex as his.
Just a shame that that only really happens when it is teammate on teammate (and not even that is guaranteed).

I really hate the "ahead at the apex" statement as it encourages lawyer-like responses of "I had the right".
Surely it would be easier to say that, when two drivers enter a turn together then both drivers need to leave space.

By "together" I mean that the lead car cannot physically drive in front of the trailing car without the trailing driver being given the options of back out or collide.
I would not include the late-lunge techniques, as demonstrated by Perez in recent races.

Giving away some of the advantages that the 'lead' car currently has would increase the chance of a pass being possible ...maybe making DRS un-needed (the holy grail?)

You'd still need a significant part alongside imho. A cheeky nose on the inside shouldn't do, because that's hard to see from the outside car and often ends in tears for the defending driver.

Significant for me would be something like at least halfway while being in full control.

[flyboym3]

Agreed on that. Such a thing should be an instant 'give up position'. Not a lengthy investigation, not a 5s penalty. Just cede position.

Sometimes the perceived 'crowding' is muddied a bit by the attacking driver simply keeping their foot planted, also safe in the knowledge that they can take a no penalty risk due to the tarmac runoff. What looks like crowding isn't always so. Not entirely straightforward for the stewards, although you'd hope they use telemetry as evidence in their decisions.

It's something that has been happening for years. Massa and Kubica were at it at Fuji back in '07... and it got so silly I suspect the stewards just let it go, as one was as bad as the other. Even the much celebrated battle between Leclerc and Max at Silverstone a few years back at least one of them fully offtrack a few times.

Hmm I'm not sure.
What if for example, George who broke even later than Lewis, knew he couldn't make the corner either by braking that late, but knew if he braked even later than lewis it would simulate him being pushed wide then can proceed to wave the red card to the ref?

[Ramses1348]

We need a rule that is both easy to enforce and that does not favour the defending driver, who is already hugely helped by the dirty air. My proposition is simple:
All the time you have to leave a space. That’s it. If there is contact when no space is given, driver in front is penalized. If there is contact despite the space that was given, driver behind is penalized.

Simple, and will force the driver in front to look at his mirror and evaluate if the driver behind has a fair shot at a pass or not, and hence have to potentially compromise his own lines if somebody is too close. There is no « it’s my corner, no it’s mine » **** that depends on half front wing being 3/4 alongside. Sure it complicates the life of the defender (horror, they have to look at their mirror), but today they have it super easy, dirty air + taking the corner as if the other does not exist makes defending very easy (outside of drs flybys that need to be abolished).

People will say it’s unfair to the driver in front. Maybe, but so is the dirty air for the driver behind. At least it compensates.

Edited by Ramses1348, 28 September 2023 - 14:02.

[AustinF1]

Wouldn't it be nice if overtaking happened the way George and Lewis demonstrated at Casino Triangle?

Plenty of respect for the fact there is another car there even though George probably could have claimed the 2nd apex as his.

Just a shame that that only really happens when it is teammate on teammate (and not even that is guaranteed).

 

I really hate the "ahead at the apex" statement as it encourages lawyer-like responses of "I had the right".

Surely it would be easier to say that, when two drivers enter a turn together then both drivers need to leave space.

 

By "together" I mean that the lead car cannot physically drive in front of the trailing car without the trailing driver being given the options of back out or collide.

I would not include the late-lunge techniques, as demonstrated by Perez in recent races.

 

Giving away some of the advantages that the 'lead' car currently has would increase the chance of a pass being possible ...maybe making DRS un-needed (the holy grail?)

I call that the "NASCAR punt". I'm a fan of Checo, but he might as well just go on over to NASCAR if he's going to continue in this vein. But then again, it seems to be working ok for him in F1, too.

[Clatter]

Exactly so, and given that we, the forum members, have set out to solve a problem, the first stage is to define the problem, which you have done.

If we go right back to basics, the principle should be that any deviation from your usual racing line to prevent or deter overtaking, or to push off, slow or intimidate an opponent, is unacceptable. Then it becomes a matter of wording rules to reflect that, and training stewards. There will always be judgement needed, and therefore inconsistency, but that's the route to take.

That doesn't work. If another car has managed to get between the car and their normal racing line, then they are no longer entiltled to that line. There should be no expectation of being able to take any particular line in the heat of battle, just that they must give each other room when they are in any way alongside each other.

[Sterzo]

That doesn't work. If another car has managed to get between the car and their normal racing line, then they are no longer entiltled to that line. There should be no expectation of being able to take any particular line in the heat of battle, just that they must give each other room when they are in any way alongside each other.

I think, Clatter, if you read my precise wording, there's no contradiction there. It doesn't forbid departing from the line when you're being overtaken. There might be other situations where the wording isn't OK - if they emerge I could spend another 30 seconds rewriting them.