Track limits, rule enforcements, good sportsmanship etc

[bhall II]

My views are in-line with those who've suggested inescapable penalties for off-track excursions, because it's become crystal clear that most race stewards aren't worthy of the opportunity to exercise discretion. As such, penalties need to be automatic and reflect one simple truth: unless a driver is avoiding a crash and/or debris, leaving the circuit is always contrary to the spirit of the rules, and it's never indicative of acceptable tactics and/or skill. Until that's somehow codified, these problems will repeat themselves in perpetuity...

Organizations rely on plans and procedures. Personnel will always seek to find a easier, cheaper, faster or better way of achieving the task. This leads to “the slow steady uncoupling of practice from written procedure” (p.194). Over time, “behavior that is locally efficient” and “acquired in practice” becomes “legitimized through unremarkable repetition” (p. 182)

As Snook points out, “when the rules do not match the situation, pragmatic individuals adjust their behavior accordingly; they act in ways that better align with their perceptions of current demands. In short, they break the rules” (p. 193). As time passes, “the seductive persistence of pragmatic practice loosens the grip of even the most rational and well-designed procedures” (p. 193).It is the “perverse combination of practical drift and tight coupling [which] set the conditions for randomly triggered disaster” (p.200). Snook reminds us “the tighter the rules, the greater the potential for sizable practical drift to occur as the inevitable influence of local tasks takes hold” (p.201).

That said, I don't understand why it's not obvious to everyone that the ability to drive in close quarters is simply becoming a lost art in F1. Compared to previous eras, when testing wasn't greatly curtailed and drivers were often allowed participate in other series, today's racers are amateurs; they are to driving what toddlers are to sprinting - and next year's super-wide race limousines have the potential to make all of them look quite ordinary.

[Tim.Wright]

... And Tim Wright's suggestion that there is more inconvenient path to follow, such as a foam chicane added to the runoff area in these type of corners.

My preferred solution is a wall.

What I wrote above it what I think will be implemented in reality.

[henry]

I agree with Tim.wright. The solution to T1 is blindingly obvious. They've had a polystyrene chicane at T1 Monza for years. But that would require the Mexican circuit to spend money to tarmac another large area which is not needed for safety reasons. Who should pay to enforce the sporting rules by circuit modification?

I think many corners on the calendar would benefit from a designated return point and route to it. Perhaps an extra line. " if you cross this line follow the designated rout to the exit" penalty for not so doing a drive through. Easy for fans to see and understand. The only problem is that there are drivers who will think that forcing another driver over that line would be another excellent weapon in their armoury. Same goes for bill shoe's suggestion.

[Phil]

So as many will probably agree, the 2016 Mexican GP was quite eventful and probably for all the wrong reasons. We had drivers being kicked out off of podiums, drivers going as far as completely ignoring track limits even on lap 1, much unsportsmanlike driving which has seemed to be a staple of this season, predominantly by one driver and many other things.

The only issue I have with this discussion is the link drawn between unsportsmanlike driving and what happened at Mexico. It wasn't unsportsmanlike driving that led to these driving offenses - they were driver errors that led to it. It's not the drivers job to judge what he gained or didn't by having gone over the limit of his ability and his car and then the track and someone gained an undefined advantage because of it. It's the job of the stewards to make this determination and penalize accordingly.

[henry]

So as many will probably agree, the 2016 Mexican GP was quite eventful and probably for all the wrong reasons. We had drivers being kicked out off of podiums, drivers going as far as completely ignoring track limits even on lap 1, much unsportsmanlike driving which has seemed to be a staple of this season, predominantly by one driver and many other things.

The only issue I have with this discussion is the link drawn between unsportsmanlike driving and what happened at Mexico. It wasn't unsportsmanlike driving that led to these driving offenses - they were driver errors that led to it. It's not the drivers job to judge what he gained or didn't by having gone over the limit of his ability and his car and then the track and someone gained an undefined advantage because of it. It's the job of the stewards to make this determination and penalize accordingly.

I would disagree. Neither Hamilton and particularly Verstappen did the sportsmanlike thing which, having made a mistake, would be to use their best efforts to follow the track as closely as possible. Hamilton chose to abort any effort to make the corner in order not to disadvantage himself with an even more damaged tyre and Verstappen, part way round th e corner, changed direction to short circuit the corner sequence to avoid being passed.

[Phil]

In the case of Hamilton - what do you suggest? Clearly he was on the limit of braking, as evident by the smoke and the locked tire. Then there is also the angle of the corner to consider; He was on the inside, thus would require to turn in sharper in order to make the corner.

What do you think happens, when a car, already at the limit and driving too quick to make the corner, starts to turn in harder?

Or are you suggesting that instead of going straight on the slippery surface [the grass] (as dictated by the trajectory and force), he.... starts to corner on that slippery surface so that he can follow the track more closely?

[n_anirudh]

Hamilton slowed and allowed the pack to catch up with like three corners. Did no one else see this?.

Nopes, he did not- not atleast within the next 3 corners...



The cars bunched up as VSC and SC were deployed

On Vettel i believe he should get a race ban or a heavy fine. He certainly brought the sport into disrepute. You can't just tell the referee to eff off no matter the circumstances.

To quote his exact words -

Vettel had seethed in the last few laps of the race, at one stage venting his anger at race director Charlie Whiting for not ordering Verstappen to let him pass.
'He [Verstappen] is a c***,' Vettel yelled over the team radio. 'Am I the only one, or are you not seeing what I'm seeing? He's just backing me off into [Daniel] Ricciardo.
'Move, move for f***'s sake. He cut the chicane. He has to give me the position. End of the story.'
'Charlie said that,' was the message to Vettel from the Ferrari pit wall. Vettel replied: 'Yeah? Here's a message to Charlie: f*** off. Honestly, f*** off.'

Who is Charlie? Can be anyone technically (although we all know who he was referring to). He did not name anyone - so no question of bringing the sport to disrepute.

[henry]

In the case of Hamilton - what do you suggest? Clearly he was on the limit of braking, as evident by the smoke and the locked tire. Then there is also the angle of the corner to consider; He was on the inside, thus would require to turn in sharper in order to make the corner.

What do you think happens, when a car, already at the limit and driving too quick to make the corner, starts to turn in harder?

Or are you suggesting that instead of going straight on the slippery surface [the grass] (as dictated by the trajectory and force), he.... starts to corner on that slippery surface so that he can follow the track more closely?

He could have braked as hard as he could in a straight line until such time as he ran out of tarmac, then, and only then he could look for a way to rejoin the track as quickly and safely as possible. Instead he aborted his braking early and took the line that would lose him the least amount.

[Phil]

He could have braked as hard as he could in a straight line

He did, as evident by the locked tires and smoke. Pressing the brakes harder yields no benefit in the case. The car won't physically decelerate more.

until such time as he ran out of tarmac

I'm assuming he knew he wasn't going to make the corner - thus go off track and for that, it was better to straighten the car. If he had not, he would have likely lost control of his car once he hit the grass (because it's slippery).

, then, and only then he could look for a way to rejoin the track as quickly and safely as possible. Instead he aborted his braking early and took the line that would lose him the least amount.

I'm assuming most drivers act instinctively in such a situation. The goal here wasn't to gain an advantage by going off track, but to not lose too much because of the lock up. Thanks to the layout of the track, it worked out in his favor. Still, it's the responsibility of the stewards to decide if that was punishable worthy or not. As I said previously and in the other topic - I assume the safety car was the reason he didn't receive a penalty.

[henry]

He stopped braking well before he ran out of tarmac. He knew he wasn't going to be able to make the corner at racing speed so he abandoned any attempt to demonstrate a desire to follow the track

I'm sure drivers do act instinctively. And their instinct is how do I minimise the damage from this error as opposed to how do I drive as close to what is required by the rules, using the track. His goal was to minimise his disadvantage and he did so by aborting any attempt to try to negotiate the corner which means of course he gained an advantage.

I'm not picking on Hamilton. I think all drivers would have done something similar. You raised the issue of sportsmanship and I am trying to make the point that in playing a sport a "sportsman" tries his utmost to stay within the rules. Only when they fail should there be a need for a rules official to step in. Over time the drivers and regulators have given up on the rules other than as a hint of what might be required. Bhall II referred to this in his post.

At COTA in the last race Alonso passed Sainz and then drove off the track. He could have eased off the throttle and turned more tightly demonstrating a desire to drive to the regulations. But that would have allowed Sainz to challenge back at him.

The use of the track question comes down to "did you do all you could to try to use the track as defined". If you didn't you are being unsportsmanlike.

[bhall II]

I'm assuming most drivers act instinctively in such a situation. The goal here wasn't to gain an advantage by going off track, but to not lose too much because of the lock up. Thanks to the layout of the track, it worked out in his favor. Still, it's the responsibility of the stewards to decide if that was punishable worthy or not. As I said previously and in the other topic - I assume the safety car was the reason he didn't receive a penalty.

I think that's why consequences need to be automatic. Drivers would be far less likely to disregard track limits if they know it will result in a penalty every time. The knock-on effect would be braking points determined by corner characteristics alone, not corner characteristics, the position of nearby rivals, and a quick but hopeful prayer for deliverance from on high.

[Manoah2u]

It was rather messy what happened during the race.

Hamilton's off-track running was acceptable for a few clear reasons.
1) It was the first lap, 1st corner
2) Half the field had brake errors due to the (cold) tires
3) Rosberg in P2 directly following also outbraked and went offtrack, nihilising the entire 'incident'
4) Hamilton clearly visible on onboard footage pushed his pedal not fully to the metal whilst rejoining the track for a while, and was visably slower in the following corners untill the pack catched up sufficiently - showing effort he wanted to do away any potential 'advantage' he might have gained.

Rosberg's off-track running was acceptable for similar reasons
1) it was the first lap, 1st corner
2) Half the field had brake errors due to the (cold) tires
3) Nico was pushed off the track due to Verstappen making contact whom had brake errors due to the cold tires and it being the first lap, first corner
4) Rosberg's off-track running caused him to lose ground and pay attention on not getting smashed to bits on re-entry and still maintain position

Verstappen's bumping into Rosberg in the first corner was acceptable for similar reasons
1) it was the first lap, 1st corner
2) Half the field had brake errors due to the (cold) tires
3) Verstappen had no benefit from the incident, and onboard shows he gets close to Rosberg in the 2nd corner but holds back ever so slightly knowing he's under a magnifying glass

Verstappen's off-track advantage against Vettel was correctly penalised for the following reasons
1) it was not the first lap, 1st corner
2) he gained an advantage and did nothing to nihilise the advantage he got
3) had he 'released' the throttle a bit to let vettel get closer and NOT push him into DannyRic, he might have gotten away with it
4) he has been under a magnifying glass and under warnings, he got a get-out-of-jail freecard in the 1st lap incident, his cards simply ran out
5) he clearly pushed Seb into Daniel's range, despite claiming otherwise. It was in his own interest to get Seb to defend and seaze attacking Max himself.

Vettel's defense against DannyRic was rough, and fairly agressive but defendable because:
1) despite he SHOULD keep his cool, he was in the heat of the moment due to the situation with Verstappen
2) He did leave enough room for Daniel to not get pushed off the track
3) He has the RIGHT to defend his position
4) Daniel had brake errors following comitting to a gap that vettel shut tight, indicating there wasn't room for him to enter without compromising
5) Daniel completely burned through his tire showing how desperate he was to commit to that pass, whilst potentially having Vettel for dinner the following corners easily

Daniel didn't get nor deserved a penalty for the collision between him and Vettel because:
1) it was an opportunistic move that ended up in nothing but a racing incident without damage or compromise to Vettel
2) he completely destroyed his tire and compromised his own possibilities thanks to that

What i DO find appaling however is Vettel's reaction

I DO think Vettel should get a reprimand and preferably a huge fine for his rage on the radio because:
1) it was seriously uncalled for to say f*ck charlie, whom by then probably already decided to make the smartest move and give Max a 5-sec penalty which would hurt Max more than just letting Vettel pass and then see him come by again.
2) road rage is the most dangerous sentiment out there
3) its all public and really it does put the sport in a negative daylight
4) It is not fitting for a 4-time WDC
5) personal frustration and stress should remain personal, not become a public issue for all
6) it didn't stay solely to the radio, he also behaved really childish when driving up next to Max, with the waving finger

[Stradivarius]

He could have braked as hard as he could in a straight line until such time as he ran out of tarmac, then, and only then he could look for a way to rejoin the track as quickly and safely as possible. Instead he aborted his braking early and took the line that would lose him the least amount.

I completely agree! Hamilton chose to cut the corner because it benefited him. It would not have been impossible for Hamilton to slow down further and rejoin the track before turn 2, and probably even avoid leaving the track with all four wheels. But this would have cost him several positions because he would have had to slow down a lot more than the others. Instead Hamilton chose to cut the corner and keep his speed.

In my opinion it does not help that he slowed down later. Turn 1 is the obvious place for overtaking and that is where most of the action happens. The whole sport is about pressuring your opponent into making a mistake so that you can take advantage and pass. Hamilton did make the mistake, but he compensated by cutting the corner and clearly benefited from it. I am aware that he was the first one to enter the corner, but he clearly made a mistake which should have cost him, but didn't.

In my opinion Hamilton is clearly in violation of Article 27.4: "Drivers must make every reasonable effort to use the track at all times and may not deliberately leave the track without a justifiable reason." Hamilton deliberately left the track for no reason other than to keep the lead. The same can be said about Verstappen.

In my opinion all this talk about putting walls along the track is nonsense. If you feel that a driver should be out of the race if he cuts the corner, you don't need to introduce a hazard like that. If there was a will to enforce the rules, it would have been perfectly possible, even easy, to give a black flag to any driver who leaves the track, except for situation where the driver is not to blame. Personally, I think that a black flag is too much, but a drive-through would be ok.

Rosberg, on the other hand, was not to blame for leaving the track. He had a couple of car lengths between himself and Verstappen before entering the corner. Verstappen then braked later and came up the inside of Rosberg into turn 1. Rosberg left enough space for Verstappen on the inside of turn 1. But Verstappen did not leave any space for Rosberg on the exit. However, Rosberg also chose to cut the corner more than necessary and gained his place back from Verstappen, but this choise was made after he was already forced off the track.

I don't understand why the rules are not applied. I am aware that earlier precedence is to allow such moves, and I am also aware that exeptions are often made on the first lap, but I don't see how it benefits the sport. In other sports the rules are much more rigid. If an athlete on his own crosses a line he is not allowed to cross, he is disqualified, no questions asked. If an athlete is pushed over a line by a competitor, common sense is applied, which usually is easy as well. Another problem I find it would be easy to solve, but which doesn't seem to bother Charlie Whiting, is the extremely slow response to situations during a race. In Mexico Verstappen was holding up Vettel, helping his team mate close the gap and indeed attempt to pass. I see no reason, other than lack of effort and will from the officials, why this should be possible in F1.

[Manoah2u]

So I guess i've missed the aftermath

Ricciardo went and became 3rd after the incident where VET DID get punished for.

Also, this could turn sour for Seb as i read comments that the FIA president is concidering a race suspencion for Vettel in regards to his excessive swearing and attacking.

[Stradivarius]

3) Rosberg in P2 directly following also outbraked and went offtrack, nihilising the entire 'incident'
4) Hamilton clearly visible on onboard footage pushed his pedal not fully to the metal whilst rejoining the track for a while, and was visably slower in the following corners untill the pack catched up sufficiently - showing effort he wanted to do away any potential 'advantage' he might have gained.

3) I have a few comments here. Firsto of all, Rosberg did not outbrake himself. You see very clearly from the helicopter view that Rosberg started braking earlier than Verstappen and left him room on the inside of turn 1, only to be force off track by Verstappen at the exit. This does not excuse Hamilton's failure to stay on the track.

4) It is a ridiculous compensation for staying ahead by cutting the corner, to lift off the throttle without giving away the lead. The start of the race is all about positions, while time is mostly irrelevant. Generally speaking, there is only a few places and times during a race where positions can be gained or lost, apart from pit stops. Those are the start, the first turn of the race, and the first turn after the main straight on each lap. In Mexico turn 1 is the end of the main straight, so clearly the greatest threat to Hamilton's lead was turn 1 on the first lap. And this was when Hamilton did make a mistake, but he "cheated" his way out of it. I must emphasize that when I use the word "cheated" it is not meant as an accusation against Hamilton, it is an accusation against the people who decide and enforce the rules in f1 generally. The drivers are actually allowed to cheat their way out from a mistake like Hamilton did. Hamilton just exploitet this.