Driving standards/ stewarding

[S griffin]

I think it's time they got rid of the SC free pass rule. Never seemed right someone could be given a lap back like charity, just because they got lucky with a SC and also it adds unnecessary laps under the SC. But even worse we have now seen it is open to abuse

Just leave the lapped cars where they are. If you are a lap back, tough luck. You should earn that lap back, not handed to you on a plate. If there are a few lapped cars between you and the leader, tough luck. The leader has earned that buffer. Anyway, as Senna proved, getting through traffic is part of the art of F1

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think it's time they got rid of the SC free pass rule. Never seemed right someone could be given a lap back like charity, just because they got lucky with a SC and also it adds unnecessary laps under the SC. But even worse we have now seen it is open to abuse

Just leave the lapped cars where they are. If you are a lap back, tough luck. You should earn that lap back, not handed to you on a plate. If there are a few lapped cars between you and the leader, tough luck. The leader has earned that buffer. Anyway, as Senna proved, getting through traffic is part of the art of F1

My question... is the SC free pass rule really meant to help those who have been lapped or rather use the SC as an opportunity to bunch up the leaders? I suspect it really is about bunching up the leaders.

Richard

[Knowlesy]

That is exactly what it is for.

[Akrapovic]

The wave around rule is an America/Endurance racing invention. It's designed to stop battles being split because of a safety car.

For example: Norris is 10th, Gasly is 5 seconds behind in 11th and catching Norris. Lewis laps Gasly, and then a safety car is deployed. The gap has gone from 5 seconds to an entire lap as Norris catches the back of the pack and Gasly is now a lap down.

In endurance racing, this was a serious issue because it happened in every safety car situation, because the LMP1 (or whatever the top class is) was lapping the lower class cars several times a lap. Wave arounds are to stop lower class battles being destroyed by the leaders. There was many occasions where LMP2 and GTE lead battles went from 10 second gaps to 1 lap gaps because of this. The wave around stops lower class races being destroyed.

The spirit of this was lost at Yas Marina as only a handful of cars were allowed to regain their positions. In fact, it made it worse, because the car directly behind Verstappen on the track (lapped) was now a lap behind the car it was chasing. And, to add insult to injury, Sainz in third place was not given the opportunity which Max was given, which is a free attack at the car in front.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The spirit of this was lost at Yas Marina as only a handful of cars were allowed to regain their positions. In fact, it made it worse, because the car directly behind Verstappen on the track (lapped) was now a lap behind the car it was chasing. And, to add insult to injury, Sainz in third place was not given the opportunity which Max was given, which is a free attack at the car in front.

There you go again, misunderstanding the FIA, who were in fact just trying to......uphold their reputation for being incompetent.....

[The Fat Clerk]

What a good job they made of it.

I've had an interesting few days answering questions from Friends & Neighbours .

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My question... is the SC free pass rule really meant to help those who have been lapped or rather use the SC as an opportunity to bunch up the leaders? I suspect it really is about bunching up the leaders.
Richard

Yup, the removing of lapped cars under the safety car is all about bunching up the leaders.

If you have a hugely fast car, allowing you to unlap yourself also lets you score points in a race where you were lap, a feat Lewis has managed on several occasions.

Emilia Romagna this year, Lewis was a lap down before the safety car was thrown and managed to finish second after he was allowed to unlap himself.
So if the safety car rules were changed to what is being proposed above, Lewis would have been quite a few points short by Abu Dahbi.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

Yup, the removing of lapped cars under the safety car is all about bunching up the leaders.

If you have a hugely fast car, allowing you to unlap yourself also lets you score points in a race where you were lap, a feat Lewis has managed on several occasions.

Emilia Romagna this year, Lewis was a lap down before the safety car was thrown and managed to finish second after he was allowed to unlap himself.
So if the safety car rules were changed to what is being proposed above, Lewis would have been quite a few points short by Abu Dahbi.

Ah, but were all the lapped cars permitted to unlap themselves, or just the few that happened to be between the first and second cars as happened in the last race.

[Taxi645]

In order to promote fair, exiting and safe wheel to wheel racing, I would propose the following addition to the rulebook:


During a fight for position a driver may maintain or gain position by going off track if not left at least a car width on the outside on track by the competing driver.

[Adam43]

I need to think about that in case there are unintended consequences. Or whether that is kind of just what we have. But seems OK as a guide.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I need to think about that in case there are unintended consequences. Or whether that is kind of just what we have. But seems OK as a guide.

Or just penalise the over-aggressive divebomber.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Or just penalise the over-aggressive divebomber.

The proposal was not only about divebombing, but any move where room is not given on the outside.


If there is tarmac on the outside, better leave room on track or you are giving the other guy a free pass.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The proposal was not only about divebombing, but any move where room is not given on the outside.


If there is tarmac on the outside, better leave room on track or you are giving the other guy a free pass.

I like this proposal. I'm sure it's not perfect, but I like the principle.

[E.B]

I was somewhat surprised to see that in terms of track limit violations Lewis seems to have been warned just over double the number of times Max was.....
https://twitter.com/F1Ally/status/1471597938329763849?

Having pointed that out that is obviously all sessions and I suspect many would use practice sessions to explore what they can / cant get away with.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by E.B

I was somewhat surprised to see that in terms of track limit violations Lewis seems to have been warned just over double the number of times Max was.....
https://twitter.com/F1Ally/status/1471597938329763849?

Having pointed that out that is obviously all sessions and I suspect many would use practice sessions to explore what they can / cant get away with.

Then there were the 27 track limit violations that were not a problem until Max cottoned on! (Bahrain)

[Adam43]

And they didn’t count those times Hamilton went off track because make was trying to overtake. (joke)

There are some numbers on there what are significant and interesting and it ain’t what Verstappen and Hamilton did!

BTW , is this source reliable. I have no reason to doubt it, but you should always ask the question. I’m not familiar F1ally. Is there an original source? Any previous years to compare too.

[Adam43]

I presume that this data is collected from the post race FIA bulletins. Assuming that this is this race only? Although I am too lazy to go and get the data and add them all up. This is the internet so rigour in checking facts is not needed.

However, below is a graphical representation to help as the question, which of these numbers is big?

Shown on this are the average (42.9) and one standard deviation from the average.

Obviously, the data is not corrected for number of laps raced, or, importantly where those laps were.

The takeaways - Maz (!) and Gas. And on the other end Oco.

[Taxi645]

These are the current rules in regards to leaving room as commuted to the drivers:


https://the-race.com/formula-1/the-r...-aggressively/

At the start of this year the FIA said if a driver is overtaking on the inside of a corner, they must “have a significant portion of the car alongside” to be given space. There are “various factors” that will determine what it is a “significant portion” but one that is specified is whether their front tyres are alongside the other car by “no later than the apex of the corner”. The car overtaking on the inside must also “clearly remain within the limits of the track” – but nothing is specified for the car being overtaken.
As for overtaking on the outside of a corner, once again the driver attempting the move must have a “significant portion” of their car alongside. In this scenario, though, the stewards will consider if the overtaking car is “ahead of the other car from the apex of the corner”. And in this case, both cars must be able to make the corner while remaining “within the limits of the track”.

I would've liked more protection for the guy on the outside, but this is there guidance for now.

Further reading: https://the-race.com/formula-1/talks...vers-confused/

[Taxi645]

1 I must say that I don't like this whole "in front at the apex" thing. It only further stimulates already existing unsporting behaviour, namely to release the brake by the inside guy to try to get to the apex as fast as possible to be in front. The problem with this is that drivers will risk often not being able to keep car width on the outside at the exit because they released the brake early/ too much. If the guy on the outside sticks to his guns and is still in front at the apex (which he is fully entitled to) this will automatically lead to a collision or a car run off the track.

I think the rule should be changed to: "if a driver is overtaking on the inside of a corner, they must “have a significant portion of the car alongside” to be given space. This means their front tyres must be in front of the other car from the entry to the apex of the corner”

This way, you discourage the inside guy to release the brakes too early/too much in order to be first at the apex resulting in not leaving enough room of they fail to do so. Of course you are still perfectly allowed to try to overtake on the inside if you're not at front from entry to the apex, but you'll known you will have to leave a full car width on the outside unless you fully cleared the other car on the exit.

So I think this guideline, which was issued at the start of the season, is ill-conceived and further promotes unsporting behaviour in stead of promoting enduring side to side racing. Which was exactly what we didn't need to promote enduring wheel to wheel fighting. It only promotes one corner battles.


2 Every year it is the same deal at corner 4 in Austria. It's just pay-off to run your competitor into the gravel trap. Russel gets a 5 second penalty and finishes 4th while Perez' his race is over in stead of a pretty certain 4th. Same for Vettel.

This is just not right and should be changed in my opinion. As said before foreseeable consequences should be taken account in the penalty. The inside guy knows beforehand he will screw the outside guys race at turn 4 by leaving no room if he takes too much risk. Now with the only 5s penalty the cost vs. just pays off reward. The risk is just worth it.

[broadrun96]

That penalty was ABSOLUTE garbage on Russell. Where was he supposed to go because Perez pinched in, Perez WAS NOT on the outside he was mid track. I couldn't be bothered to watch after that and multiple 4 over rulings that didn't match the video. Stewards today should be embarrassed of the garbage race that was run.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

That penalty was ABSOLUTE garbage on Russell. Where was he supposed to go because Perez pinched in, Perez WAS NOT on the outside he was mid track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VQLxpraTco

Outside does not mean the outside of the track, outside means being the outside car of two cars going side to side. I can imagine you think he pinched from Russel's onboard, but that's because Russel trajectory was not such that he was going to leave a car width on the outside so he was moving to the outside so from Russel on board it looks like Perez cut's in. You can't expect the outside guy to steer straight to the outside of the track, make a near 90 degree turn on the spot and then continue along the outside of the track. He also, has to follow an arc that is possible within the rules of physics.

Generally the outside driver will always take the most outside line possible on exit for two simple reason:

1 That is the fastest line. Taking a more narrow line will compromise your exit speed. You don't do that for no good reason.
2 If you stay more to the inside on exit the chances for a collision are bigger.

What you see with Perez (see his onboard) is a normal trajectory towards the outside of the track.

That said I can fully understand the dilemma Russel was in. The rules now promote rushing to the apex to be able to be in front at the apex to claim the corner. With Perez so far back at corner entry, would he expect Perez to be in front at the apex so he needs to leave room? No, with Perez so far back at entry, you try to get off the brake sooner/more to be the first at the apex. In this case Perez was sooner at the apex still so was entitled to be left room as stated by the new rules, but Russel couldn't tighten his trajectory any more because they both rushed to the apex.

That's what I'm saying, this first at the apex thing, further promotes collisions and people being run off track. I have given it a bit more thought and even my changed rule proposal would not have helped: "if a driver is overtaking on the inside of a corner, they must “have a significant portion of the car alongside” to be given space. This means their front tyres must be in front of the other car from the entry to the apex of the corner” because also with the rules defined as such their still would have been an incentive for Russel to do everything to be first at the apex.


Personally I feel with this new rule introduced at the start of the season the FIA have tried to put into text a rule to cater for the "claim the corner" practise we have grown used to in many classes. After having thought about it quite often the last months, I think it is probably impossible to come up with a rule that tries to "organise" the claim the corner practise while still making sure the outside is left room and promoting multiple corner battles.

Earlier I proposed the following rule: "always give another driver racing room if any part of their car is next to yours"

I can understand that that would take it too far so a slight compromise would be: A car on the outside much be left a car width on track as long as his front wheels are still ahead of the rear wheels of the inside car.

1 This is easy to check for stewards because it is easy to judge to position of the relevant wheels.
2 It does not promote rushing to the apex which leads to collision and one corner battles.
3 If you are really so far ahead on the inside that your rear wheels are ahead of the outside guys front wheels than you can "claim the corner" and use the full width of the track and the outside guy needs to yield.

Now of course it is hard to judge the exact position of your rear wheel in relation to the front wheel of the outside car, but that's part of the job as a racing driver. In the Russel vs. Perez case it would have changed the thought process in Russel's head; is their a good chance Perez will have enough of his car along side (front wheels ahead of my back wheel), to be entitled racing room? Probably yes, so I need to control my speed to maintain a trajectory that leaves racing room.. I you compare this with: I need be first to the apex to claim the corner. You can quite easily see how this changes the thought process in the drivers head and make multi corner fights much more likely.

[Aysedasi]

I think it's the 'yielding' aspect of this that troubles me. Plus the fact that it seems to put all of the responsibility to avoid a coming together on the driver on the inside (who usually goes into the corner ahead), while the driver on the outside (who can see far more than the driver on the inside) continues with relative impunity...

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I think it's the 'yielding' aspect of this that troubles me. Plus the fact that it seems to put all of the responsibility to avoid a coming together on the driver on the inside (who usually goes into the corner ahead), while the driver on the outside (who can see far more than the driver on the inside) continues with relative impunity...

It is not so much yielding, as in you don't have to yield position, you only have to leave racing room.

I think that it's okay to leave most the responsibility of the avoiding a collision on the inside car because:

1 He does not have the outside track limits so close.
2 He has the centrifugal force on his side.

Consider what Russell would have done if there was more responsibility on the inside driver fro leaving room. The smart thing to do in a corner where the outside line is so strong is to then take the outside line yourself for defending but leave 1.5m on the outside (not enough for Perez to squize into, forcing him to to the inside but more to the inside than ideal for Perez). It's then on Perez to leave room to Russell on the exit. The result could quite possibly be they would have gone side to side right up to the turn 6 corner.

So it's not that defending is not possibly any more, you would just have to approach it in a very different way.

[Aysedasi]

Yep, I do see that.... Makes far more sense to take the outside line and effectively close off the inside....

[Taxi645]

This is a pretty good article I think about the Hamilton-Verstappen crash and how they racing rules fit in and actually promote these kind of clashes.
https://the-race.com/formula-1/how-v...-racing-rules/

As can be guessed from my earlier additions to this thread, I very much agree with especially this part:

"While this could be a very specific rivalry, the driving standards guidelines might not be helping either. Because drivers are encouraged to race with a different perspective: get fully alongside at the apex (regardless of how you get there) and presumably you’re entitled to space; get even marginally ahead on the outside and presumably you can do what you want to the car at the apex.
It shifts the emphasis from ‘how do I get through this corner sensibly’ to ‘how do I claim this corner as mine’. That plays to the extremity we saw in Brazil, where Verstappen was demanding space on the inside and Hamilton felt he wasn’t obliged to leave much."

To me these rush to the apex to claim the corner rules is one of the worst rules changes we've had this year. A lot of time and energy and political strive was spend on creating cars that can race each other and luckily they succeeded and then they go and introduced a set of rules that actually promotes ending wheel to wheel fights (either by one winning or by crash) in just one corner.

Most of the epic fights we know from the past lasted multiple corners or even laps. It's such a pity they have devised these rules that actually discourages multi corner battles.

I would so much hope they would use a weekend or two (perhaps with a sprint race as well) to try the following rule:
Any car must leave another car room on track in any part of the corner if the other cars wheels are still in front of it's back wheels.

This would:

- Promote leaving space in stead of claiming the corner practise.
- Would be easier to understand for the drivers and easier to police because it does not contain vague descriptions like a significant portion of the car alongside which in the heat of the moment is too unclear.
- It makes judgement easier for the stewards because there is not timing element written in the rules, you have to leave room for the whole corner if the condition is met that the cars front wheels are in front of your rear wheels.

If we try to see into Hamiltons and Verstappen's head in regarding the current racing rules before the Brazil crash:

- Hamilton: I'm far enough ahead (I hope), if I take the ideal line (which doesn't leave room) I will carry enough speed to stay ahead at the apex and claim the corner.

- Verstappen: I'm significantly enough along side and will stay so if I hurry through the corner, (probably not leaving Hamilton enough room on the outside at the exit) I will still be significantly enough along side at the apex to be given space.

Well the result we all know. So with racers racing each other hard these rules promote single corner fights, crashes and discourages leaving space (because the rushing to the apex element is poorly compatible with allowing enough space).


No let's try to go through their heads again but now with the rules as proposed: Any car must leave another car room on track in any part of the corner if the other cars wheels are still in front of it's back wheels.

Hamilton: Hmm, Verstappen is significantly along side. I problably won't get my rear wheel in front of his front wheel so I can't claim the corner and have to leave him space. He better leave me space on the outside to.

Verstappen: My front wheels is in front of his rear wheel, he has to leave me space. He can then be a dick and run Hamilton off track, get a 10s penalty and hopefully learn after a few repeated offences or he returns the favour and leave Hamilton room on the outside and the battle continuos perhaps even into turn 4 and beyond.

I really hope they would consider this rule. After the car design regulations promoting wheel to wheel racing, it is time the driving standard rules should do the same.