Penalties and their effectiveness.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Penalties and their effectiveness.

In the aftermath of the Quatar Grand Prix and the plethora of penalties handed out for drivers exceeding the track limits, how effective are the penalties?

[steve_r]

Most races go by without track limit infringements. And other races such as Qatar and Austria and a small number of others have seemingly regular / constant infringements by many / most drivers at some point over the weekend. It's largely the fault of the track layout combined with the interpretation taken of what constitutes an infringement.

Either relax the rules and let ALL the drivers find the fastest way around the track OR put in some way of slowing the cars down if they venture off track - such as slippery Astroturf or raised kurbs.

I doubt any fan wants to see situations where loads of qualy times are deleted and loads of drivers get penalties during the race for venturing one inch over a painted white line.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Most races go by without track limit infringements. And other races such as Qatar and Austria and a small number of others have seemingly regular / constant infringements by many / most drivers at some point over the weekend. It's largely the fault of the track layout combined with the interpretation taken of what constitutes an infringement.

I agree that track configurations seem to drive this and to the second point about what constitutes an infringement, I "think" you are talking about questions of "four wheels off" vs. other ways of looking at what is "outside track limits". I think there is two other (maybe more issues). The third is effectiveness of the penalty and the fourth is timeliness of the application of the penalty.

The classic example of all of this being solved (rather harshly) is street circuits such as Monaco in which "track limits" is frequently defined by a barrier. As to timeliness of the penalty, is it immediate as you know you have hit the wall. As to effectiveness of the penalty it is also very effective as typically be over right on the spot.

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. With solutions ranging from walls to various surface such as gravel and low grip AstroTurf. In the "Rate the GP" thread, Teretonga mentioned the use technology to implement a virtual wall. We have talked on/off about geofencing as well. I like the idea of geofencing, but it would take some work to implement and make it accurate.

As I call out above, there needs to be nearly instantaneous detection and penalty application. I feel like at the moment that the escalation from warning to penalty is too lenient. As mentioned above, the walls at Monaco don't give warnings. Maybe the closest thing to a warning at Monaco is a close brush that doesn't do damage to your car. But a barrier doesn't care if it was your first or tenth mistake on a particular corner.

As mentioned above, it seems some circuits have this problem more than others. And clearly there will be some circuits in which the most optimal line will result in pushing the envelope with regards to track limits which other circuits that optimal line may not create that same level of risk. You could revise circuits so that the risk is reduced or removed, but I think that takes away part of the skill of driving. That part of that is knowing that you sometimes have to give it up in a corner to stay on the circuit as the alternative might be a DNF.

So in short, I like the idea of geofencing if it can be realized in a cost effective and accurate way. I think penalties should be dealt with quickly and maybe even in an automated way (no need for stewards to "review") if the geofencing technology is showing track boundary issues (remember it needs to be accurate... few if any false positives) then the penalty should be costly and immediately applied. As to what that penalty is, I can't say. I think in a perfect world, it would be something like an automatic reduction in car power for a specific period of time. There would need to be work to implement that in a safe and controlled way (you don't want to drop power and cause a car to unexpectantly slow in front of a following driver, or cause the car to become unstable and loose control, etc.)

All of this is looking for a lot of complicated technical solutions. I think they are achievable, but probably cutting edge and maybe not what F1 would want to tackle right now.

Richard

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Richard C

The classic example of all of this being solved (rather harshly) is street circuits such as Monaco in which "track limits" is frequently defined by a barrier. As to timeliness of the penalty, is it immediate as you know you have hit the wall. As to effectiveness of the penalty it is also very effective as typically be over right on the spot.

Richard

And in Monaco, the most difficult race track of them all, in wet conditions this year, am I right in saying that not a single driver found the barrier? So they can do it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

And in Monaco, the most difficult race track of them all, in wet conditions this year, am I right in saying that not a single driver found the barrier? So they can do it.

Right. Absolutely they can. The drivers currently exceed track limits because they know they can with very little risk. So the risk vs reward equation is screwed up on tracks without barriers on the edge of circuits.

Richard

[peterelise]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Right. Absolutely they can. The drivers currently exceed track limits because they know they can with very little risk. So the risk vs reward equation is screwed up on tracks without barriers on the edge of circuits.

Richard

The reason they can do it at Monaco is that the physical barrier is visible from where they sit whereas the painted line is not. Why is anyone surprised they go over a painted line, in some cases by millimetres, when they can’t see the line as they get nearer to it? I get that there is a large element of risk v reward so drivers will take much more risk with a painted line track limit than they will with a barrier but even when there was real risk of qualifying being ruined, we still saw lots of extremely capable drivers go over the limit by a tiny amount.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by steve_r

put in some way of slowing the cars down if they venture off track - such as slippery Astroturf or raised kurbs.

I think this should always be the first choice option. Make it so the drivers don't want to go off track. My preference would be gravel or grass on the outside of every corner, and in tracks where that is impossible due to motorbikes, preferably something temporary to slow them down.

Originally Posted by steve_r

relax the rules and let ALL the drivers find the fastest way around the track

But if that is impossible due to safety reasons, then this is definitely the best option, in my opinion. But to be honest, I don't really mind the plethora of penalties for track limits, for me it doesn't make the sport look silly, it makes the drivers look silly and wouldn't last forever.


The penalty system that most annoys me at the moment is the five second penalties for causing a collision that totally destroys another driver's race at no cost to your own, like Hamilton on Piastri in Monza, Perez on Albon in Singapore. In Suzuka, Lando Norris' best chance of winning would be to accidentally punt Verstappen out of the race at Spoon curve in such a way that doesn't damage his own car, as all he would have got would be a five-second penalty and his margin over Oscar Piastri was much greater than that. Which is a complete joke.

[Rusty Nail]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I think this should always be the first choice option. Make it so the drivers don't want to go off track. My preference would be gravel or grass on the outside of every corner, and in tracks where that is impossible due to motorbikes, preferably something temporary to slow them down.

Agree with that. Maybe the geofencing option could be employed where a reduced adhesion surface is not possible

[steve_r]

Everyone seems to be using Monaco with its walls as the basis for comparisons. Monaco is a freak track, and at the risk of annoying absolutely everyone on this thread, I don't think that is the best comparison at all.

We don't tend to get multiple track limit infringements at plenty of "normal" tracks that don't have walls. Why is that?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Everyone seems to be using Monaco with its walls as the basis for comparisons. Monaco is a freak track, and at the risk of annoying absolutely everyone on this thread, I don't think that is the best comparison at all.

I think you are missing the point of using Monaco as the example. The point is... in some places in Monaco the edge of the circuit is lined with barriers. There may be a hypothetical "faster" line, but that would include driving through the barriers. Somehow, magically, the drivers manage to not hit the barriers all the time. That is the point. The drivers CAN keep the cars on the circuit if incentivized enough.

Originally Posted by steve_r

We don't tend to get multiple track limit infringements at plenty of "normal" tracks that don't have walls. Why is that?

Why? The optimal racing line does not take out outside of the circuit limits. In short, the driver doesn't have to "give something up" (slow more, different apex, etc.) to make the corner work optimally. One answer (and maybe a valid one) is to dumb down all of the circuits. If people run wide in a corner, then widen the exit on the outside. And I do think some corners might need some adjustments if they are egregious and pervasive offenders. But in general IMHO they should use a light touch when doing this. Why make it so much easier for the driver? We already complain that F1 is "too easy" for the drivers.

Imagine if there were little or no curbs on circuits and everything was well paved. Just painted lines. Chicanes would be shortcut to the fullest extent. Everyone would run super wide on fast sweepers that lead to long straights in attempts to carry as much speed through and out of the corner. And not all corners are equal with respect to impact on lap time. So we will see some corners be problems more than others.

Richard

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I think you are missing the point of using Monaco as the example. The point is... in some places in Monaco the edge of the circuit is lined with barriers. There may be a hypothetical "faster" line, but that would include driving through the barriers. Somehow, magically, the drivers manage to not hit the barriers all the time. That is the point. The drivers CAN keep the cars on the circuit if incentivized enough.

Richard

I am really not missing the point at all. I understand the point. Monaco is not a normal track and is not the best track for comparisons . Why not compare with tracks that have a lot more in common such as Silverstone, Monza, Spa...

Blame drivers if just one of two of them transgress. But when you have hundreds of transgressions by all or almost all the drivers then a solution must be found rather than simply blaming the drivers.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I am really not missing the point at all. I understand the point. Monaco is not a normal track and is not the best track for comparisons . Why not compare with tracks that have a lot more in common such as Silverstone, Monza, Spa...

Blame drivers if just one of two of them transgress. But when you have hundreds of transgressions by all or almost all the drivers then a solution must be found rather than simply blaming the drivers.

If you are referring to the GP at Qatar, then I do believe that only 3 out of 20 drivers were penalised during the race. I appreciate that you may be exaggerating for effect, so I do believe that you can blame the drivers.

I find it difficult to agree with your proposition that it is always the fault of the circuit, when you can often, or maybe usually, see that the drivers that set the fastest laps of a race are not those that do not constantly abuse track limits. So it does prove that it is the drivers at fault.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

If you are referring to the GP at Qatar, then I do believe that only 3 out of 20 drivers were penalised during the race. I appreciate that you may be exaggerating for effect, so I do believe that you can blame the drivers.

I find it difficult to agree with your proposition that it is always the fault of the circuit, when you can often, or maybe usually, see that the drivers that set the fastest laps of a race are not those that do not constantly abuse track limits. So it does prove that it is the drivers at fault.

Ok - 51 infringements this weekend.

In Austria there were 1,200. Simply telling the drivers to not do it will not work.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fi...n-gp/10490773/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I am really not missing the point at all. I understand the point. Monaco is not a normal track and is not the best track for comparisons . Why not compare with tracks that have a lot more in common such as Silverstone, Monza, Spa...

Blame drivers if just one of two of them transgress. But when you have hundreds of transgressions by all or almost all the drivers then a solution must be found rather than simply blaming the drivers.

Actually I don't think you are getting the point. By asking me to use some other example from Monaco illustrates that you are not getting the point I am making. Maybe I am communicating my point poorly. But lets move on.

You ask for comments regarding a circuit such as Silverstone. Of which I do explain in that same post. However I talk generically. But if you want specifics, then here is my thoughts regarding Silverstone. But first, a small pre-amble. Generally when track limits are exceeded it is either cutting a corner on the inside or running wide on the exit. And the main issue we see is running wide on exists. But I will talk a bit to both.

Silverstone seems to primarily stop this by strategic red sausage curbs. These are not tempting to ride as the circuit is quick and you typically will have the car on edge and riding those high curbs at speeds will risk damage or crashing. A few corners have walls on the inside such as Copse, but in reality it really is the placement of sausage curbs. I also think the circuit design doesn't have much in then way of "running wide gains time" except for maybe the exit of Stowe. And if I remember correctly this is exactly a place where track limits can be a problem at Silverstone. Lastly, I "think" Silverstone is one of the wider tracks. So the wider the track, the more likely that the naturally fast line will NOT exceed the limits of the circuit. If you were to trim off the outside width on some corners you probably would increase the likelyhood for track limit violations. Especially if the ability to run wide was not risky to the car. I say all of this without really being particularly knowledgeable of Silverstone and might have missed some details. At the end of the day, the same issues apply at Silverstone. I just use Monaco as the example because it is an extreme example with many of it's "curbs" being barriers.

Ok, so apologies for this string of quotes and replies.

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well, on a very simplistic level, the drivers are the ones with a steering wheel and control over where they put the car on the circuit, aren't they.....?

Agree!

Originally Posted by S griffin

These track limit penalties are too much and clearly aren't a deterrent

Agree!

Originally Posted by steve_r

In Austria there were 1,200. Simply telling the drivers to not do it will not work.

Originally Posted by steve_r

They are quite capable of keeping cars on tracks other than at certain specific tracks which clearly need a different solution. Handing out 1200 penalties over a weekend would be ridiculous.

Agree! And if you have to hand out 1,200 infringements, and with the assumption that drivers COULD avoid the vast majority of those, that is an indication that something is wrong in the penalty phase of that system. There is not enough "deterrent" effect in the current system.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

the FIA has to grow a backbone and introduce draconian penalties that actually punish errant drivers which they enforce rigorously

Agree! (sorry for snipping out the rest of your post which is also good)

Originally Posted by peterelise

I don’t think I’ve complained anywhere that giving drivers a penalty for exceeding track limits is unfair or outrageous.

Fair enough. Sorry for that.

Originally Posted by peterelise

My observation was that it isn’t surprising to me that they often exceed a track limit that they can’t see.

Sorry, still not buying that it is a problem of not being able to see the circuit. It is no doubt "a" factor, but not the "primary" factor IMHO. See my comments above about the sausage curbs at Silverstone. Visually they are not particularly large, but the drivers "know" they are there and the consequences of hitting them and somehow they manage to miss them.

Originally Posted by peterelise

Your point seems to be that if the penalty was more severe they wouldn’t do it and I agree with this. As it is, the penalty already exceeds any benefit they get for ignoring the track limit. I could be wrong but I think during the race they get 3 warnings and then each successive offence is 5 seconds. Of course in qualy they lose the lap which has been a very heavy penalty.

In summary, I think the current penalty system is reasonable however a system that provided more timely advice of limit breaches would be beneficial.

I can't agree that the current system is reasonable, but agree with most of the rest.

I will try to shut up on this topic. I think I have voiced my displeasure enough. I frankly am not really upset about it. I am more interested in potential solutions than arguing details as to the cause.

Apologies if my forceful arguments came across as unfriendly as well.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Richard, you make the valid point that the drivers do not actually have to see where the edge of the track is because they should already have that planted firmly in their minds - I mean, what is the point of drivers doing track walks if not to understand where every things is? - and this is an argument that I have had in various threads concerning our BTCC saloons.

A few of the tracks that these cars race at have tyre stacks at known track limit problems, usually chicanes. Unfortunately, if hit, they cause damage to the cars, but what I have tried to explain is that these stack are static - they don't jump out to catch out the unwary, so the drivers are, or should be, fully aware of them. But they all drive so close to them that it doesn't take long for them to be hit, often by multiple cars in one incident because following drivers, rather than driving their own race, are totally focused on the car/s in front of them.

[Sodemo]

Every track should have a minimum of 2 metre strip of grass which lines the track. What you then have beyond that (tarmac or gravel) is open to discussion but as a means of controlling track limits I can think of no better solution.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Every track should have a minimum of 2 metre strip of grass which lines the track. What you then have beyond that (tarmac or gravel) is open to discussion but as a means of controlling track limits I can think of no better solution.

As we saw on Sunday with the BTCC, grass is not necessarily the answer, and that grass was at least damp if not wet; it certainly was wet on the other side of the track.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As we saw on Sunday with the BTCC, grass is not necessarily the answer, and that grass was at least damp if not wet; it certainly was wet on the other side of the track.

I agree that grass is not slippery enough. In my head I am picturing some sort nylon or teflon plates screwed down into a tarmac or concrete base. Then if necessary they could be removed for MotoGP. However the bikes are also beginning to demonstrate a track limits problem and that slippery border would definitely be a serious disincentive to running wide. Unfortunately deliberately installing something that will almost certainly cause bikes to crash may be a step too far.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Every track should have a minimum of 2 metre strip of grass which lines the track. What you then have beyond that (tarmac or gravel) is open to discussion but as a means of controlling track limits I can think of no better solution.

MotoGP shares some circuits with F1, Quatar is one of them. I confess I know very little about MotoGP, however would not a 2 meter grass strip lining the track be dangerous for riders?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

MotoGP shares some circuits with F1, Quatar is one of them. I confess I know very little about MotoGP, however would not a 2 meter grass strip lining the track be dangerous for riders?

Why would grass be dangerous for riders?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Why would grass be dangerous for riders?

Grass has less friction than tarmac, so the tyres on the bike will suddenly lose grip if they go onto grass and that will unsettle the bike, especially at speed.

[VIVA GT]

I'm (just) old enough to remember race circuits (or have at least seen films/pictures) where there were no kerbs at the edge of the track. I seem to think that they were introduced to prevent the grass at the edge of the track being worn down by drivers cutting the corner and creating a dangerous hole at the side of the circuit.
I've also seen a picture somewhere of Copse Corner at Silverstone from the mid to late 60's (it was of a Mark 1 Escort Saloon Car) where the inside edge of the track was lined with square breeze blocks! You wouldn't want to go near to those...

[Aysedasi]

Well, on a very simplistic level, the drivers are the ones with a steering wheel and control over where they put the car on the circuit, aren't they.....? I'm going out this morning down to the shops, I could drive over the curbs here and there and drive over the pavement in places to get me past traffic and potentially get me there fractionally quicker, but I don't, as that would be foolish and it's not allowed as I am supposed to drive on the road. I know that. So do all the other drivers. The fact that the pavement might look inviting to me or give me some advantage due to the design of the road is neither here nor there.

[S griffin]

The problem is the tracks these days allow drivers to get away with more than they did back in the day. But what's worse is now there are places where using the runoff is quicker. So they need to get rid of it in places where an advantage can be gained. It's that simple in my book. These track limit penalties are too much and clearly aren't a deterrent

[Aysedasi]

But are they such minor infringements when they happen so often? What do you do when drivers are incapable of applying the discipline to drive on the actual circuit? Just ignore it and let them do it? Then you effectively 'punish' those who actually drive where they're supposed to. That's far more nonsensical, surely?