Clearly not judging by the historical examples of Hamilton pushing Rosberg off the track despite the fact that Rosberg was fully alongside. Those examples never resulted in penalties, do you think they should have?timorous wrote: ↑28 Oct 2025, 12:14Badger wrote: ↑28 Oct 2025, 10:32The stewards use the guidelines to determine who is entitled to the corner exit. They don't consider it "forcing another off the track" when that driver was never entitled to space on the outside to begin with, we have tonnes of precedent for this. In that case it is on the outside driver to yield the corner. Hamilton fans used to be all too aware of this, but I guess that was contingent on who was on the receiving end of the squeezetimorous wrote: ↑28 Oct 2025, 08:15I keep seeing talk of the new rules. They are not rules but guidelines. It says this at the top of the document.
The rules are still in Appendix L chapter 4 and section 2B clearly states moves that force another car off track are not allowed.
The purpose of the guidelines is to determine who is at fault in the case of contact at the apex. The number of arguments between he cut across me and I had won that corner were quite frequent so the guidelines give reference points for when it is cutting across Vs when the attacker has earned space.
They also cover situations at the exit to determine if the attacking outside driver has earned space or if the inside driver can take the usual racing line.
Nowhere in the preamble or in section A that cover overtakes on the inside does it state that if the overtaking car has priority they can force the defending driver off track, that is just made up nonsense.I will refer you to this video where you can examine the US, Canada, and Suzuka incidents for yourself. No penalties mind you.
https://youtu.be/lUj74hs62fM?t=195
F1 is not much different now than it was back then in terms of driving standards and guidelines, people just like to complain a lot more.
Historically the defending driver has always been entitled to space unless they are a good half a car behind on entry / exit depending on if the defend the inside or stay on the outside.
With that in mind it seems like a better and more aligned with the intent interpretation would be that these guidelines determine when the defending driver can take the normal racing line and when they need to compromise or face penalty. They should not be used to say when the attacking driver can force another car off track because for as long as the defending driver is substantially alongside there should be no circumstances where they can be forced off track. The guidelines also at no point say that the attacking driving winning priority grants them the ability force the other driver off. That is a made up interpretation that seems to have been accepted despite it's clear absurdity.
You keep making the argument that there "should be no circumstances under which the defending driver on the outside can be pushed off the track". "Should" doesn't come into it, what matters are the accepted standards and guidelines that the drivers and stewards have agreed to beforehand, and what precedent has been set. And as we can clearly see in that video I provided, it has been perfectly acceptable to push the outside car off the track for a long time, provided you have proper position as the attacking car on the inside, then it's your corner. In this case "proper position" means having at least your front wheel alongside the mirror at the apex because that's what the drivers and stewards have agreed as the standard in the guidelines. You can take issue with those guidelines if you want, that's fine, but don't deny that it is the current standard. What you feel "should" be the standard is irrelevant.
