Another radical idea by Nigel Roebuck

[Ciro Pabón]

Look at the radical idea, by Nigel Roebuck (I have no idea who he is ) that my "fellow forumer" Crossa posted in gp.com (italics mine):

....One thing, I must say, that I would like to see changed is the 'one move' thing, which came in a few years ago, and made it permissible for a driver to swerve - once - in front of a rival attempting to pass. You can dress this up how you like - but that's what it amounts to: you are allowed to 'block' another driver, so long as you only do it once. Inevitably, it gets abused - over time I've seen such as Michael Schumacher (the high priest of 'moving over') change direction two and three times to keep another driver from overtaking, and I can't ever recall a time when the sin was punished.

Time was when 'blocking' was an absolute no-no in motor racing - something that simply wasn't acceptable. Those who did do it incurred the wrath of their fellows. "Jesus," Keke Rosberg once said of Ayrton Senna, "if this sort of thing is OK now, we could finish up with a situation where nobody could ever overtake anybody! Is this really what we want to see in this sport?"

In the 1961 French Grand Prix, at the flat-out circuit of Reims, the last lap came down to a fight between Giancarlo Baghetti's Ferrari and Dan Gurney's Porsche, Out of the last corner Gurney was ahead, but on the long drag down the finish Baghetti was in his slipstream, and then pulled out to overtake just before the line.

I asked Gurney if he'd thought of blocking the Ferrari. "Oh, I thought about it!" said Dan. "I hadn't won a Grand Prix yet, and I really wanted it. But it was only a flash through my mind - obviously, I couldn't do it, just as I wouldn't have wanted him to do it to me. I mean, there was no way..."

There was an F1 driver in the early seventies called Mike Beuttler, who really wasn't very good, but became notorious for keeping people back by chopping across them as they sought to pass. I relate this only because he quickly acquired the nickname of 'Blocker', and that tells its own story, doesn't it? So unusual - and unacceptable - was the practice in those days that someone who did it was singled out for contempt.

In the IRL and in Champ Car, the practice is now officially banned, and if you do it, you are swiftly penalised. Inevitably, this ban has improved the racing, because overtaking is obviously easier - and it also can't have hurt the safety aspect, either. Given that F1 has become preoccupied with safety in this era, it seems to me astonishing that such a potentially dangerous practice has now been sanctioned. Of course F1 is a hard sport, and so it should be - but I think it should also, as much as possible, be a fair one. And I don't see anything admirable in beating someone simply because, when he tried to pass, he was given a choice between abandoning the idea or having a big accident...

Well, what do you think? It seems obvious when you see it this way...

[bhall]

I don't think bringing up IRL and Champ Car makes the argument against blocking any better. Both of those series, especially IRL, run on ovals at speeds constantly in excess of 200 mph where even a tiny mistake can easily be deadly. In that sense, a ban on blocking makes sense.

Also, due to the nature of oval racing, where nearly every inch of the track is a good place to pass, there's no real need to block. Cars are constantly leaving behind a massive slipstream, making it easy for drivers to lose a position only to reclaim it in fairly short order. That's not the case on a road course.

There are only so many opportunities to pass on a road course, especially given the extreme nature of a Formula 1 car. So if a car gets passed, it's a pretty safe bet that the pass will stick. Because of that, it's a good idea that drivers be allowed to do what they reasonably can to defend their position.

I think one move is reasonable. For a good driver, one move should be enough to hold off an attacker. If it doesn't work, the other driver clearly deserves the position.

Perhaps more strictly enforcing the "one-move rule" is the answer.

[RH1300S]

Nigel Roebuck is a long standing and well respected British Journalist. His Fifth Column reports in Autosport are worth the cover price alone.

Ban the one move rule? Why not? It's a silly rule, I have always thought so and sad to say it was introduced when a certain young german was weaving all over the track to keep his rivals behind.

As it turns out one well timed swipe can often be sufficient to keep a passer at bay.

I see nothing wrong with giving someone a squeeze or holding a defensive line. That's all part of the excitement of good wheel to wheel racing. But "one move" allows a driver to veer across the track to put a block on a fellow competitor - not right and nothing to do with racing IMHO

[Steven]

I see nothing wrong with giving someone a squeeze or holding a defensive line. That's all part of the excitement of good wheel to wheel racing. But "one move" allows a driver to veer across the track to put a block on a fellow competitor - not right and nothing to do with racing IMHO

Then what is the difference between a squeeze and a well timed move to drive ahead of your competitor. I mean it's moving away once from the driving line that is allowed, so if the follower moves back the leading one cannot move away again too. Passing is possible then too.

Obviously forbidding such practice may ease overtaking, but what are they allowed to do then to defend a position?

[Gecko]

Interesting point. I would say that the one move rule is reasonable but should be amended. I believe the rule should be that the driver in front is allowed to choose whatever line he or she wants, but in doing so must not cause the other driver to take evasive action. This means that the driver in front can only change the line as long as the driver behind isn't too close, after which the leading driver should behave predictably. The driver behind should still be required to give up the corner if there is not sufficient overlap between the two cars before turn in.

[Ciro Pabón]

Thanks, RH1300S. I love the guy already... fifth column! I guess you can imagine what this means for a spaniard... Some of us haven't forgotten Emilio Mola.

I've been able to read a couple of his columns through you lead (thanks again) and he seems intelligent and erudite to me (this is really a hard to find combination in journalism). What I read (Atlas F1 "Ask to Nigel" and some cut & paste columns of Autosport) let me with an open question: I know some people find hard to swallow the combination of "real politics", a little cynicism and sports, so I wonder what the reaction to his writings are. Not good nowadays, I bet. You tell me.

Tomba: I know that in Champcar (that I am following somehow now, thanks in part to Tifosi77) the no-blocking rule has been taken to extremes. There was a penalty (I don't remember who was chastised) for driving in a straight line recently. I can only imagine the controversies...

I also read that Mr. Roebuck is a "Prost man", so now I understand better his attitude about Senna, attitude that, I know, some people at the forum shares with me, only we don't proclaim it loudly, Senna having the status of untouchable legend and some of us being tired of arguing with people that has all the time in the world and "attack the poster, not the posts", something we've learned to avoid here.

Anyway, a surefire way to defend your position is to stick to the racing line, don't you think? If the other driver can overtake you in these conditions, well, doesn't he deserve it? Gecko proposition seems reasonable: there are many ways to "moderate" a little what Champcar is doing.

Just imagine how would you feel if you were overtaking somebody on a road and the guy applied the "one move" rule. Actually, at my kart racetrack, the blocking moves are regarded as highly impolite or extremely rude or whatever adjective you want to put on them (SOB comes to my mind ) and the guys that execute them are seen as bad losers, if not simply losers. Let me tell, before the answers come, that I don't think this is a proposal for "a perfect world": it is perfectly feasible keeping the competition as alive as always. After all, racing is about precission and intelligence, not chicanery. I said this before somebody comes with the argument of "fighting for position is what racing is about" and trying to contrarrest a little bhallg2k reasonable point of view, that I don't share.

[RH1300S]

Yes Ciro - I love reading Nigel's articles. I find very few things I disagree about. He has a good take on modern F1 balanced with a true love of the sport and understanding of it's history.

A would define the difference between a squeeze and something unacceptable as:

If you give someone a squeeze you might come into a corner a little tighter and let him risk his nose against your car. I see nothing wrong with that. Or even use a line on the straight that forces your follower to take a braking point he wouldn't necesarily want - but leave enough space for a car (just ). We all know the guys that do this well (JPM anyone ) and hats off to them.

Unacceptable is the chop across someone's bows on a straight as a block or a violent deviation in a corner just for the purpose of causing another car to have to lift.

[zenvision]

I think if the drivers don't have the right to squeeze to maybe to block, overtaking would lose its appeal? Who cares about overtaking if its not difficult? I much prefer watching 1 overtaking at Monaco like Kimi on Webber than a host of others, like in Monza. An example of how the rules should be is looking at Schumi's last ever overtaking in F1 on Kimi. That showed how overtaking should be, the guy infront doing his utmost to keep the other one behind and the one behind giving it everything trying to find those inches.

[mx_tifoso]

I think if the drivers don't have the right to squeeze to maybe to block, overtaking would lose its appeal? Who cares about overtaking if its not difficult? I much prefer watching 1 overtaking at Monaco like Kimi on Webber than a host of others, like in Monza. An example of how the rules should be is looking at Schumi's last ever overtaking in F1 on Kimi. That showed how overtaking should be, the guy infront doing his utmost to keep the other one behind and the one behind giving it everything trying to find those inches.

i agree with your comment,i dont think anyone would disagree with the fact that schumachers last overtaking maneuver on raikkonen was completaly eye popping,thats how f1 should be,if you dont defend well or dont have a car with the pace to be in front,your'e gonna get passed by the guy with the better car and overtaking skils, and thats what happened at brazil between schu and raikkonen,overtaking shouldnt be penalised for whatever reason,as long as its done in a "safe" and non-irratic manner,if you can overtake someone,you should be able to do it whenever you can,thats how races are won or lost