Track limits, rule enforcements, good sportsmanship etc

[henry]

Good post Stradivarius.

However I disagree that a singular punishment, drive through, would be the right approach. I agree with those that think that, if possible, the penalty should be immediate and match the "crime". If we take Mexico turn1 I suggest a suitable solution would be to have a "short cut" to turn 3 the time to traverse which would be longer, perhaps by a couple of seconds, than the time taken to negotiate 1, 2 and 3 from a standing start at the outside of 1. That way it always pays, if at all possible, to stay on the track. I'm sure if commissioned Tilke could do the necessary design work to make something like that a reality.

The same basic principle, that it pays to stay on the track even if you have to go really slowly, could probably be applied to some other categories of corner.

[Phil]

He stopped braking well before he ran out of tarmac.

Yes, because he was attempting to take the corner, as seen by his trajectory.

Lets get somethings cleared up to analyze the situation properly. Consider these following two points:

- Everyone who made the corner, pretty much braked at the last possible moment taking their velocity and the radius of the corner(s) into account.
- Hamilton either was breaking too late, was too fast and was braking inadequately (locked wheels) to make the corner.

At this point, there was no way Hamilton was going to make the corner. A fun fact; When you are decelerating your car, the weight is shifting forward. Attempting to corner then will induce oversteer. So he lifted the brake in order to attempt the corner at the speed he was going, but (obviously) realized the speed was too high for the corner. Braking during cornering is a big no-go and will unsettle the car. To stabilize the car and avoid losing control of the car, it was important to straighten the car (you want to be pointing straight and the weight to be equally distributed left and right) and go off the brakes when going off the track.

Once he hit the grass, he was pretty much a passenger to his trajectory. There is no point in attempting to turn the wheel at that point, as that will only result in a potential slide. He plowed through that area and came out without loss of position.

DISCLAIMER:

I am not saying he did not gain an advantage. I am arguing that his driving was at that point purely out of instinct, in absolute damage-control mode and he came out - due to the layout of the track and perhaps a little bit of luck as well as excellent car control - with a gap advantage. That gap advantage was then neutralized due to the safety car before it could become an issue that was possibly going to be investigated.

If something is to be blamed, it is the circumstance and the layout of the track that allowed for this peculiar oddity to happen. There are two solutions; You either enforce an automatic punishment mechanism (as Ben pointed out) or you change the layout of the run-off area.

[trinidefender]

1. Concerning the cutting of turn 1 by Hamilton and Max, it appears s simple solution would stop this madness. A wall. Had a wall been there then you can be damn sure that Lewis wouldn't have braked so late and taken such a large chance. This makes the need for many more fancy rules and arguments for and against a penalty. A wall solves this point blank.

2. Concerning the Max, Vettel, Daniel situation, that really is a mess in itself. As stated in my original post then yes, Vettel did change this racing line more than once and should get a penalty. However this totally ignores the symptom of a much larger problem. Why is Max receiving no flak for essentially causing this. Had he no massively backed off really early then more likely than not Daniel wouldn't have been able to go for the overtake. From what I saw, Vettel changed his line as a result of Max.

Moving back even earlier in the race we come back to the original incident. Shortly after, Max's team comes on the radio and tells him that he should probably let Vettel past. He delays this for another 2 (?) (could be more or could be less I can't remember) laps until the incident with the 3 of them happened.

What about a solution where should something like this happen and the driver concedes that he made a mistake and pulls over to let the driver behind pass (within say one lap or some sort of measurement) then fine. However should he not do that, the driver then faces a 10 second penalty instead of 5 or whatever. if something like this had been in force then max would have known that he could have admitted his mistake and let Vettel pass or taken a 10 second penalty. It should also free up the stewards as it will allow drivers to voluntarily take a small penalty where they know they are wrong or keep going and potentially get a larger penalty.

2 pages and no flame, I like where this is going.

[notsofast]

In American football, when a rule is broken, a ref throws a flag, people stand around sorting things out, and after applying a penalty, the game gets going again. While that may be the best solution for that sport, I don't think that's what we want in racing. The track should be designed in such a way that stewards are rarely needed. Penalties are subjective anyway. What's the best penalty? Five seconds? Ten seconds? It's all subjective. Let the drivers make their own decisions.

The drivers make their own decisions anyway. Not giving up the position was the only reasonably thing to do for Max, as it was the only way he could have a chance at finishing third. Same for Hamilton. Why should he have done anything different? He got the outcome he wanted. By keeping the stewards out of it as much as possible, we avoid needless subjectivity and we avoid having drivers trying to read the stewards' minds.

[Phil]

Well, it's not all bad. Imagine if every track was like Monaco (e.g. no run-off area). We would see drivers take less risks because any error will result in DNF and for us viewers the race being neutralized (safety car) to clear possible debris. It's not all win/win. There is always a trade-off. We should be happy that the track has allowed us to witness ballsy overtaking moves that could have ended in tears, but didn't.

I'm sure for next year, they will have learned from this race and will put in some bumps across the grass to nullify any advantage a car plowing through there could possibly gain. Problem solved.

[bhall II]

Stewards aren't necessary to mete out penalties for infractions that are obvious to everyone with eyes, and the penalties themselves don't necessarily have to trigger immediate consequences. The solution could be as easy as adding off-track exploration to the list of things that result in points being assessed against a driver's Super License. The key is consistency; whatever happens needs to happen every single time without exception. Otherwise, the heightened risk of incurring a race ban could have the desired chilling effect.

[n_anirudh]

I seem to the only person unable to understand the application of Article 27.6 -

The note said: "Article 27.5 of the Sporting Regulations states that '...no car may be driven...in a manner which could be potentially dangerous to other drivers...', furthermore, Article 27.8 prohibits any manoeuvre '...liable to hinder other drivers, such as...any abnormal change of direction'.

"With this in mind, and with the exception of any move permitted by Article 27.6, any change of direction under braking which results in another driver having to take evasive action will be considered abnormal and hence potentially dangerous to other drivers. Any such move will be reported to the stewards."

How would the driver ahead defend his position or block a driver . In yesterdays race, the driver behind can just brake quite late and position his car in the way of the driver ahead. So, the driver ahead should not defend and meekly give up his position?



1) Ricciardo went on the dusty side of the track and aimed his car at Vettel
2) Vettel took a central driving line - Tracks are wider these days and multiple racing lines exist.
3) Ricciardo just left his car in a position where Vettel had to take action...this is so much like Senna/prost 89. There were 3 cars here to consider and not 2. Any previous year, this would not be a penalty and would be written off as a racing incident.



Vettel showing road rage - yes. F1 cars are way faster than normal road cars and more dangerous. Driving for 300km at avg speeds of 250kmph+ is tiring and things can get heated up rather quickly.

IF the German GP was next, there would definitely be no ban on Vettel. Its Brazil and will possibly be a sellout as Massa is retiring. Will Vettel be banned -doubt it, but a fine would be in place probably..

[henry]

He stopped braking well before he ran out of tarmac.

Yes, because he was attempting to take the corner, as seen by his trajectory.

Lets get somethings cleared up to analyze the situation properly. Consider these following two points:

- Everyone who made the corner, pretty much braked at the last possible moment taking their velocity and the radius of the corner(s) into account.
- Hamilton either was breaking too late, was too fast and was braking inadequately (locked wheels) to make the corner.
....

Once he hit the grass, he was pretty much a passenger to his trajectory. There is no point in attempting to turn the wheel at that point, as that will only result in a potential slide. He plowed through that area and came out without loss of position.

DISCLAIMER:

I am not saying he did not gain an advantage. I am arguing that his driving was at that point purely out of instinct, in absolute damage-control mode and he came out - due to the layout of the track and perhaps a little bit of luck as well as excellent car control - with a gap advantage. That gap advantage was then neutralized due to the safety car before it could become an issue that was possibly going to be investigated.

If something is to be blamed, it is the circumstance and the layout of the track that allowed for this peculiar oddity to happen. There are two solutions; You either enforce an automatic punishment mechanism (as Ben pointed out) or you change the layout of the run-off area.

I rewatched the start. As I see it he braked too late for T1 and entered that corner too fast, missed the apex and then turned his wheels straight. He was still well on the track pointing roughly at the apex of T3. At that point he had a choice. 1 brake some more, probably quite heavily, and arrive at T2 below racing speed and too far to the left for a decent corner entry. Or 2, keep the wheel straight and power across the grass, missing T2. He chose the latter. He made no attempt to stay on the track. As pointed out by Stradivarius there is an explicit rule on this. He was a long way from needing to turn on the grass or brake while turning provoking oversteer. He just chose to minimise his losses.

Had he tried to take T2 I think he probably could have made it but with a very strange line and well below racing pace.

And that would have provoked an interesting problem for the stewards because having been punted by Verstappen Rosberg chose to avoid T2 and go across the grass. Rosberg's instincts probably said " better keep away from Verstappen , no telling what he's going to do" .

This is what happens when the contestants routinely ignore the rules and behave in an unsporting manner.

The OP was interested in how we might return to a more sporting situation, particularly in relation to track limits. These examples show it would need a multi faceted approach. Physical controls on the track supplemented by severe punishments for those who will not drive fairly. There should never be any doubt in a drivers mind that a fellow contestant isn't going to leave him room to race. Unfortunately some drivers see putting the doubt in people's mind as one of their skills. Fixing that would probably need some draconian punishments that no one in a position to do so looks to have the will to do.

[Phil]

Stewards aren't necessary to mete out penalties for infractions that are obvious to everyone with eyes, and the penalties themselves don't necessarily have to trigger immediate consequences. The solution could be as easy as adding off-track exploration to the list of things that result in points being assessed against a driver's Super License. The key is consistency; whatever happens needs to happen every single time without exception. Otherwise, the heightened risk of incurring a race ban could have the desired chilling effect.

I completely agree. The only problem I see is that these kind of offenses are too difficult to properly asses. How do you judge ones off track excursion? Was it unforced? Forced? Due to a technical issue? Some other issue (tyres going off, tyre temperatures, wet patch standing water etc etc etc)? Or was there clear intent by the driver? Even if there is, it's something you can rarely prove, as shown by the endless discussions in here regarding various on track incidents. Take Monaco 2014 Q3 and Rosberg seemingly zick-zagging until awkwardly coming to a stop half way on the track and inducing a yellow flag situation? How do you punish, or assess the level of offense? It becomes much more difficult in a racing incident and becomes increasingly more so if there are additional variables to the situation - like two or more drivers being involved.

I think rules and punishments are good, when the offense can be measured against a black/white rule. Went off the track? Then the sector time must not be allowed to be quicker than the average lap. But even that is difficult with the way these cars work and that they get quicker as they burn off fuel. Maybe add a tolerance margin?

I think we need less stewarding because historically, the application of penalties has been too inconsistent and create too much controversy. I think the sport is in danger of over complicating itself, maybe as a result of these inconsistencies. Usually, on most tracks, going off track yields a disadvantage by itself: You either crash, you potentially damage your car, you pick up dirt and that later might have an impact on your overall performance and ability to compete. The biggest point, going off track should be potentially slower, so you are disadvantaged right there.

There are some tracks where this is not always the case due to run off areas - such as Monza or we've seen it in Canada as well, but these things are easily solvable. In Monza (among others), they put in chicanes to guarantee that going off track yields a disadvantage.

[bhall II]

It doesn't have to be difficult or complicated. That's just the way it is right now, because the stewards are given wide latitude when it comes to adjudicating infractions.

From my point of view, unless a driver is physically forced from the track by a competitor or a foreign object, all off-track excursions, regardless of outcome, intent, weather conditions, technical considerations, etc., should be met with some form of negative reinforcement. While that's admittedly harsh, everyone involved has been shown to be incapable of a more nuanced application of the rules, and more of the same won't accomplish anything.

I don't think F1's brain trust realizes just how embarrassing this has become. It's now all but guaranteed that every grand prix will feature several instances of bullshit controversy, and I don't think that can be said about any other sport. Mile for mile, NASCAR is downright sophisticated compared to F1 these days.

[Phil]

If you want less controversy, IMO the sport needs to get less complicated, not more. And by adding more rules, that's exactly what you are doing...

Driver goes off track. Was it forced by a competitor? Rarely easily determined, as shown by the numerous topics we have here. If it wasn't, of course the driver wasn't doing it on purpose (because leaving the track always presents a certain risk) so the question then becomes if it was a justifiable measure to avoid a collision, simple loss of control and you'd also have to wonder if it had to do with state of tyres (maybe too worn?), temperature (too cold, meaning loss of grip) or maybe there was a car related issue? Like for example the harvesting of kinetic energy resulting in an unexpected lock of wheels? There are literally a thousand of issues that could happen and then we wanted to punish drivers according to some list with rules for leaving the track?

The tracks just need to be designed better, in a way that leaving the track does not result in an advantage. And IMO the best idea would be to have a similar rule to the yellow flag one - if you leave the track, your sector time(s) are not allowed to be quicker, meaning the driver himself needs to gauge by how much he needs to lift to nullify the advantage he gained to be not investigated and subsequently punished. Problem solved.

[hollus]

First of all: To everyone that stayed civil in this thread (which is everyone!): =D> =D> =D> Amazingly, this also seems to apply to the race thread

As mentioned there: in Hamilton's case, the very reason that (in spirit) creates the first corner exception, does not apply. Of all 22 drivers, he was the only one that had a clear track ahead, an unimpeded line and did not need to react to anyone else's movements. OK, that's highly subjective, but the Stewards had available the most lenient penalty imaginable: a 5 second penalty which in practice would be served some 20 laps down the road. Weren't 5 second penalties introduced exactly so that Stewards would have a very minor penalty in their list of choices?

In any case, in case someone here is too young to know how Senna-Toleman's "foam chicanes" work:

A 30cm high "foam wall" is probably a perfectly good deterrent (still a wall in human's eyes) that risks only the need to deploy a safety car. Installed far away enough from the apex, it would nicely have forced first Hamilton, then Rosberg and later Verstappen to go around it.
An it is a wonderful place for advertising. What coolest advertising that seeing your logo destroyed into a million pieces in super solow-mo in newsreels all over the world?

[bhall II]

If you want less controversy, IMO the sport needs to get less complicated, not more. And by adding more rules, that's exactly what you are doing...

An uncompromising rule is a streamlined rule, because it offers no deference to cause, only effect. In that regard, my proposal can be considered a draconian simplification of the rules.

If a driver goes off-track without being physically pushed, he's guilty of an infraction and subject to penalty. Nothing else matters, but the consequences are equitable as long as they apply to everyone without prejudice. (If a driver is forced off due to a technical matter, he can take it up with his team. There's never been a time when drivers' fortunes haven't been intrinsically linked to that of their respective teams.)

[Manoah2u]

Foam wall is interesting solution.
Another solution would be more runoff track instead of grass. A good reason why Hamilton and co went straight ahead through the grass was because there's an underlying risk that you slide through the grass and spin; think about the Spain incident for example.

Hamilton angled his car BEFORE touching the grass, then kept it straight as he could, and then when returning to asphalt continued.
If he banked right, he had to do it in the grass, possibly losing control and spinning, and coming head-on to the entire field barging in.
Dangerous AND a guaranteed loss of the WDC.

Hamilton did the safest thing he could. the gap was also bigger because of the rosberg-verstappen incident. had that not taken place, rosberg would have been much closer to lewis, so the view is rather distorted.

To put a 'wall' there is rather unwise, as it is a corner that pops up after a long high-speed straight, where you could 'easily' lose control. You don't want a wall in such a case. The way the corner is constructed works fine, however if it would be so absolutely neccesary to avoid 'going straight ahead',
there is always the option to add some bumps to the field, making it a very uncomfortable ride and further slowing the car down.

gravel would be a bad idea because if you look at the verstappen-rosberg contact issue, then with a bit more speed and during race instead of start, there is the possibility that nico would have been bumped off track by max and 'pushed' inevitibly in the same trajectory as Lewis did - if there would be a gravel trap, than his race would have been finished due to the clumsyness and fault of another driver - that's a very bad situation.

I don't think there is any problem in what happened at the start. Again, if there would have been no contact between Max and Nico, then Nico would have easily been much closer to Lewis, and nobody would have given a fuzz. Also, the only reason he gets 'fuzzed' about it is because of the Vettel-Verstappen incident which had a different outcome. Had that incident never occured , it wouldnt have been mentioned so strong.

Anyway, the thing that i liked most about this GP is that it lives up to it's expectations; Excitement and havoc. Just like I expected, just like i hoped. Texas as boring as expecting, this as crazy as expecting. Great race, great racing.

Vettel behaved improperly, but he's not the first to do that. I almost felt there could have been a chance that he rammed max off the track in the cooldown lap, or that they got into a fistfight ala Nelson Piquet style. Imagine Vettel getting into that room with Lewis, Nico and Max there.

I saw a absolute clear indication after the race that vettel steamed towards max to have 'a moment' with him , i noticed very much how FOM delibaretly did NOT show that on TV until it was clear nothing happened and vettel drove off lol.

Brazil will be fantastic!

[n_anirudh]

Monza like solution...with bumps or slower foam walls slaloms..

1) Hamilton who could have had a suspension failure (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... on-failure) would probably not have gone over bumps/grass.
2) an alternate path would have slowed him down and not let him run away by gaining an advantage.
3) Since that period, Ham pulled a sizeable lead over Nico and could not be caught.
4) The referees think Ham slowed enough...but how much is "enough"? Technically, this is arbitrary and not quantitative.

A 5 sec penalty at a pit stop would have been a sufficient penalty, but then I doubt Rosberg or Merc would have gone to stewards for that.