Track limits, rule enforcements, good sportsmanship etc

[GitanesBlondes]

You really think parking someone for running 1cm outside the track on a corner which gave absolutely no performance advantage whatsoever is a reasonable solution?

If a soccer ball goes 1cm outside of the boundary line, it's whistled as being out. If a baseball lands 1cm outside of fair territory, the play is dead. If a football player's foot even crosses the sideline boundary marker, he is whistled for being out of bounds.

Why should F1 be any different?

They went stupid with the curbs by making them wider and wider, and then threw endless runoff next to it, till it became possible to get all 4 wheels off without any penalty from driving in what is supposed to be the out of bounds. Turn 1 at Hockenheim is an abomination because there is no boundary thanks to the tarmac runoff! How many guys just run wide there endlessly? The speed advantage gained in that corner by running wide is insane.

Hence why putting gravel traps right on the edge of the curb would (no pun intended) curb the constant exceeding of the track limits. It's why adding that strip of runoff on the outside of the Parabolica was such a disaster of a decision. Having gravel there made guys think twice about how wide they went, Without it, everyone started running off the track. Boundaries exist on playing fields for reasons; to prevent competitors from trying to skirt the rules, and expand the playing field to their own benefit.

Instead of wasting time fitting cars with sensors, or asking the stewards to determine, have a penalty area via gravel traps and/or grass. It'll sort itself out in no time if the widest a car can get off the circuit is 2 wheels instead of the current 4 wheels and then some.

[nevill3]

I thought Hamilton reported a 100% brake imbalance which caused his wheel locking, he also suggested it was due to a glazed brake disc.

[Tim.Wright]

You really think parking someone for running 1cm outside the track on a corner which gave absolutely no performance advantage whatsoever is a reasonable solution?

If a soccer ball goes 1cm outside of the boundary line, it's whistled as being out. If a baseball lands 1cm outside of fair territory, the play is dead. If a football player's foot even crosses the sideline boundary marker, he is whistled for being out of bounds.

Why should F1 be any different?

There's a huuuuge difference between a dead ball and a disqualification.

Would you consider a red card an appropriate reaction to an offside? Would you end a tennis game because of a foot fault? Would you send a baseball team home because they hit a foul ball?

[Edax]

Judging by the ranting about penalties too many people are too emotionally invested in F1 and too biased...

Someone proposed mayonnaise as a solution. That can only mean we're doing just fine here.

well to be fair I didn't actually propose mayonaise.

But seriously in the stone age we might have gotten away with using stones for most domestic purposes. but to suggest that a bed pebbles is the solution for the most advanced racing series in the world anno 2016, well it hurts my engineering mind.

A couple of years ago the FAa set a group of engineers at work to find a system to prevent runway overruns. They came up with the EMAS which is as brilliant as it is simple. it can stop a fully laden 747 at full speed in 50 meters or so without damaging the gear. And it only took a few people to look beyond the known solutions of nets and arrestor cables.

Surely it should be possible to design a system which is capable of penalising an excursion without compromising on driver safety.

More rules is IMO not an option. You can make the comparison on how lines are considered for soccer or tennis. But in a sport were every millisecond counts the punishment is likely to be more severe than the infringement. You don't get a penalty every time the ball leaves the pitch.

[GitanesBlondes]

You really think parking someone for running 1cm outside the track on a corner which gave absolutely no performance advantage whatsoever is a reasonable solution?

If a soccer ball goes 1cm outside of the boundary line, it's whistled as being out. If a baseball lands 1cm outside of fair territory, the play is dead. If a football player's foot even crosses the sideline boundary marker, he is whistled for being out of bounds.

Why should F1 be any different?

There's a huuuuge difference between a dead ball and a disqualification.

Would you consider a red card an appropriate reaction to an offside? Would you end a tennis game because of a foot fault? Would you send a baseball team home because they hit a foul ball?

I never said someone should be parked. But there can't be carte blanche to run off the circuit endlessly with no sort of penalty to be had.

Point is the boundaries are more often than not, enforced in all sports. Sometimes they are missed obviously.

Since you can't blow a whistle and freeze the race right where it is, there needs to be a defined boundary that actually penalizes the drivers without having to get into the business of assessing time penalties, stop-go penalties, or black flags. Gravel traps are a much easier way of ensuring that without getting into tedious disputes. If you run wide, you'll be in for a problem more often than not. It also has the added bonus of making corners challenging again. Everyone loves Spa, but the circuit is a joke nowadays with the tarmac runoff areas through Eau Rouge, and that ghastly parking lot on the outside of Pouhon. Running wide at Pouhon means nothing. When that was one giant gravel trap, you made sure to get the double lefthanders right.

[bhall II]

There's a huuuuge difference between a dead ball and a disqualification.

Why do you think anyone has even suggested disqualification, though? It seems you've latched onto a rhetorical device that was never intended to be anything more.

Competitively, there's no difference between the result of striking a wall and the result of a rule that would disqualify drivers for off-track excursions. No one argues with walls about the non-negotiable consequences they impose. Why should the rules be any different?

I'm not saying all instances of leaving the track warrant disqualification (or anything even remotely that severe). But, in a strange way, it might actually be the most logical solution.

I agree, which is why I earlier stated that the talk about walls is nonsense. Everyone who say that they want a wall, really want any driver who leaves the track to be out of the race and this can be achieved by simply enforcing the rule of Article 27.4 in the sporting regulations. An immediate drive-through would probably be enough of an incentive to keep the drivers on the track and then exceptions can be made in those cases where the driver is clearly not at fault.

I'm sorry if my part was unclear. My brain has developed its own shorthand over the years, and I don't always have complete control over it.

[flynfrog]

A wall completely removes any aspect of the sporting regulations, stewarding and general bureaucracy from the situation. Leave the track and the only laws you need to deal with are the laws of physics (which make non-negotiable real-time decisions without a committee). It throws out a load of bureaucracy and reintroduces the physical element of the sport.

I love this and plan to steal it at some point.
=D>

I have often argued that the tracks them selves can be used instead of technical regulations. I.E. rougher bumpy tracks make tunnels not work so good. Track layouts can be used to tailor DF settings to get away from high corner speeds.

[Tim.Wright]

There's a huuuuge difference between a dead ball and a disqualification.

Why do you think anyone has even suggested disqualification, though? It seems you've latched onto a rhetorical device that was never intended to be anything more.

Competitively, there's no difference between the result of striking a wall and the result of a rule that would disqualify drivers for off-track excursions. No one argues with walls about the non-negotiable consequences they impose. Why should the rules be any different?

I'm not saying all instances of leaving the track warrant disqualification (or anything even remotely that severe). But, in a strange way, it might actually be the most logical solution.

I agree, which is why I earlier stated that the talk about walls is nonsense. Everyone who say that they want a wall, really want any driver who leaves the track to be out of the race and this can be achieved by simply enforcing the rule of Article 27.4 in the sporting regulations. An immediate drive-through would probably be enough of an incentive to keep the drivers on the track and then exceptions can be made in those cases where the driver is clearly not at fault.

I'm sorry if my part was unclear. My brain has developed its own shorthand over the years, and I don't always have complete control over it.

I guess I made a literal interpretation of your rhetorical device. I hate when that happens.

I actually think gravel is a good solution to the track limits problem - infinitely better than time penalties.

I just think energy absorbing walls would also solve the track limit problem and also add quite a few other positives.

[zac510]

I think it's good to have a variety of solutions over the season, just as we have a variety of tracks - some slow, some fast, some twisty, some straight. A normalised solution will probably favour one driving style or car, whereas variety will create a more entertaining season, if we just accept at some circuits you can overrun and at other circuits you'll lose your wheel, we can settle down and enjoy the racing.

Edax, that EMAS stuff was interesting, thanks

[Stradivarius]

In today's f1, with extremely vague rules and inconsistent interpretations, I completely agree with Tim.Wright that the laws of physics have some clear advantages. They are absolutely non-negotiable and the punishment is instant. This is contrary to the current situation in f1, where it is often unclear what is ok and what is not. In Mexico one guy was sent away after he thought he would go to the podium. Then another guy replaced him at the podium and later a third guy was handed third place. With a simple wall and the laws of phyics, which can't be escaped anyway, there would have been no doubt.

The problem with a wall and the laws of physics is that it comes with a death sentence which can be applied in rare cases. That is why I would rather change the mindset about the rules, because I believe it would be possible to do it in a more efficient and reasonable way instead of the current circuis with slow decisions and inconsistent rulings. One way of solving this would be to use some of the same filosophy as with DRS where an automatic system detects that a car has left the track and limits the power output for a reasonable amount of time, let's say before and during the next time the car is in the DRS zone. With such a system and a couple of alert and intelligent people to override the system if the driver is not considered to be at fault, it would be much easier for the drivers and the fans to accept a ruling. Vettel could then have concluded, after Verstappen cut the corner and stayed ahead, that he would have an easy overtake once he got to the DRS zone. This would still leave a small possibility of controversy, but that is more acceptable than making the drivers risk their life driving towards a wall.

[Tim.Wright]

Obviously a wall needs to be thought out because it's adding an element of risk but it's already an accepted risk to a degree - in the sense that many tracks exist which are lined with concrete and armco walls which are continuously being hit in a big way and this is accepted.

Walls don't have to be concrete. They can be rows of tyres placed 2m off the track limits and before a tarmac runoff. They can be ballasted and padded skids like I proposed. They can even be foam in parts of the track deemed too dangerous for a solid wall or where track limits transgressions are inconsequential.

The increase in the chance of injury increases, but I think this is completely acceptable - we are now in an age where there have been more deaths during cricket games than F1 races in the last 20 years. Why is it acceptable to a football player to sustain an injury but not a driver?

[langwadt]

Obviously a wall needs to be thought out because it's adding an element of risk but it's already an accepted risk to a degree - in the sense that many tracks exist which are lined with concrete and armco walls which are continuously being hit in a big way and this is accepted.

Walls don't have to be concrete. They can be rows of tyres placed 2m off the track limits and before a tarmac runoff. They can be ballasted and padded skids like I proposed. They can even be foam in parts of the track deemed too dangerous for a solid wall or where track limits transgressions are inconsequential.

The increase in the chance of injury increases, but I think this is completely acceptable - we are now in an age where there have been more deaths during cricket games than F1 races in the last 20 years. Why is it acceptable to a football player to sustain an injury but not a driver?

ho many cricket/football players and games are there compared to the 20 something races with 20 something F1 drivers?

[Stradivarius]

Obviously a wall needs to be thought out because it's adding an element of risk but it's already an accepted risk to a degree - in the sense that many tracks exist which are lined with concrete and armco walls which are continuously being hit in a big way and this is accepted.

Walls don't have to be concrete. They can be rows of tyres placed 2m off the track limits and before a tarmac runoff. They can be ballasted and padded skids like I proposed. They can even be foam in parts of the track deemed too dangerous for a solid wall or where track limits transgressions are inconsequential.

The increase in the chance of injury increases, but I think this is completely acceptable - we are now in an age where there have been more deaths during cricket games than F1 races in the last 20 years. Why is it acceptable to a football player to sustain an injury but not a driver?

The disadvantage with having a wall, even a safe wall, is that it eliminates the possibility of letting an innocent driver go clear, for example if he is forced off the track. Regarding your reasoning around safety, I get your point and I often think the same way myself, i.e. why are people so afraid of terrorists or plane crashes, but not afraid of driving a car, when driving a car clearly is the greatest threat to the common man. But on the other hand, the existence of current risk factors is not a good justification for introducing new risk factors if they can be avoided.

[bhall II]

I guess I made a literal interpretation of your rhetorical device. I hate when that happens.

I actually think gravel is a good solution to the track limits problem - infinitely better than time penalties.

I just think energy absorbing walls would also solve the track limit problem and also add quite a few other positives.

Eh, more often than not, my ideas are deliberately provocative, fleshed out in a manner that demands full attention, and devoid of details that I've (perhaps improperly) assumed are obvious to everyone. Minor it's miracle anyone what a that can saying hell understand I'm ever the.

Anyway, this is my argument against gravel traps...

[...]

"Gravel traps on road racing courses should be paved over so drivers can steer, brake and recover" -- John Fitch --

Now, if you know a little about barriers, you know who Mr. Fitch is and then you agree with him. If you don't know who he is, perhaps you can find very quickly.

Jhon Fitch in the 60's before receiving the Kenneth Stonex Award from the Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, for his lifelong contributions in the field of roadside safety


Now, from a really old TRB magazine, I find this (which I've already posted three years ago, pardon me for being so insistent):

"The entire series of tests on gravel traps indicate a deceleration of only 0.5 G, or the rate of moderate braking for a passenger car.

The full scale study determined that even this modest rate does not begin until the car has slowed to 50 mph. This compares to a 3 to 4 G braking capability for Formula One cars on a paved surface. Then there are the lesser problems of cars being eliminated from races due to damage caused by the gravel, or by simply getting stuck."

Transportation Research Record 1233, 1989, Design and Testing of Roadside Safety Devices

[...]

My argument against walls is that the consequence of their functionality is irrevocable, creating a paradigm in which the distinction between victims of circumstance and perpetrators of circumstance is all but erased [noted by Stradivarous as I wrote this]; the damage walls inflict is costly to repair; and they're ultimately unnecessary if the goal is consistency, because wall-like consistency can be achieved in other ways.

That said, gravel traps and walled barriers would definitely be easier to implement, and they probably represent the best chance for a quick resolution to the problem. However, I think it's nonetheless important to understand that walls invariably impose limits on design, because their "average lethality," if that makes any sense, is unlikely to improve significantly over time and will most definitely never match improvements offered by novel solutions that leverage modern technology from start to finish. In other words, solutions based upon physical contact can't help but be more damaging than non-contact solutions. Hence, my exploration of unconventional ideas.

Personally, I need a solution that enables higher speeds. What made F1 truly special is not that it was quicker than other series; it's the fact that it was quicker than other series by a country mile. I want that back.

[bill shoe]

The disadvantage with having a wall, even a safe wall, is that it eliminates the possibility of letting an innocent driver go clear, for example if he is forced off the track.

I think the current culture where pushing other cars off the track as a normal & accepted racing move is actually enabled by the ease of leaving and rejoining the track. If a driver was pushed into a wall every time a following driver dived across the apex with brakes locked, then F1 would no longer be able to tolerate those moves. The acceptance of it would have to change or F1 would become a silly farce.

Someone earlier in the thread posted a picture of Canada's wall of champions. Have you ever seen an F1 car crudely push another car into that wall? No! The push-off culture seems to be purely an artifact of Tilke-drome runoff areas.