Driving standards/ stewarding

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by wnut

I like the thinking - this would be a better system

It wouldnt work.

Whats to stop a driver from taking a 'professional foul'?

Say for instance Driver A is leading the championship by 20 points, knows he has an ailing car so when Driver B tries to overtake, he turns in....he can get that driver diqsualified by positioning his car to the letter of the law and 'take a dive'.

Add into that teammates who could also be used to manipulate results and the whole system would be a mess.

Its funny isnt it, 2 weeks ago in Austria, people were screaming that there was too many penalties being given out...and this week because other drivers are involved, they want more penalties.

I suspect if this new system came in, and your favorite driver was penalised, youd say it was too harsh.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

It wouldnt work.

Whats to stop a driver from taking a 'professional foul'?

Say for instance Driver A is leading the championship by 20 points, knows he has an ailing car so when Driver B tries to overtake, he turns in....he can get that driver diqsualified by positioning his car to the letter of the law and 'take a dive'.

Add into that teammates who could also be used to manipulate results and the whole system would be a mess.

Its funny isnt it, 2 weeks ago in Austria, people were screaming that there was too many penalties being given out...and this week because other drivers are involved, they want more penalties.

I suspect if this new system came in, and your favorite driver was penalised, youd say it was too harsh.

The current system has all the drawbacks that you have listed above with no effective redress for professional fouls.

Just to be clear, I would be saying the same about the Hamilton Verstappen crash if the roles were reversed. I want to see racing and if they'd stayed off one another, there would have been a better race, and giving them real incentives to keep it clean would help wheel to wheel racing. You cannot race someone you don't trust not to do something stupid.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by wnut

The current system has all the drawbacks that you have listed above with no effective redress for professional fouls.

Just to be clear, I would be saying the same about the Hamilton Verstappen crash if the roles were reversed. I want to see racing and if they'd stayed off one another, there would have been a better race, and giving them real incentives to keep it clean would help wheel to wheel racing. You cannot race someone you don't trust not to do something stupid.

So far weve had wheel to wheel action in every race, with both drivers for the most part respecting eachother....thats under the current rules, with the current consequences/ incentives. Some of those moves could have resulted in Hamilton being taken out by Max, but he chose to mitigate the risks and back out...

ONE incident all of a sudden has changed peoples minds on this, despite the current rules being in place for several years, with multiple incidents which noone has complained about.

Theres nothing wrong with the current system, its not perfect, but neither is the other solution where you could end up with multiple drivers being black flagged from the race, a myriad of various penalties depending on how quickly the driver affected gets back into the race.

It aint broke, dont fix it.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

So far weve had wheel to wheel action in every race, with both drivers for the most part respecting eachother....thats under the current rules, with the current consequences/ incentives. Some of those moves could have resulted in Hamilton being taken out by Max, but he chose to mitigate the risks and back out...

ONE incident all of a sudden has changed peoples minds on this, despite the current rules being in place for several years, with multiple incidents which noone has complained about.

Theres nothing wrong with the current system, its not perfect, but neither is the other solution where you could end up with multiple drivers being black flagged from the race, a myriad of various penalties depending on how quickly the driver affected gets back into the race.

It aint broke, dont fix it.

It is broke, it cannot and should not be possible for a driver to be found to have caused an accident in which another crashed and was unable to continue and receive a penalty so feeble that they could take it and still win the race. In whatever system there is, that cannot be equitable. The stewards report was that car 44 (HAM) FAILED to avoid contact with Verstappen, that is a fact and is supported in that the pursuing car always has the responsibility to avoid contact.

Having being found guilty of the above it is entirely inequitable that the offending driver carrys on and wins the race, worse still under the red flag they caused, their car is repaired or it would not have finished the race.

The 10 sec penalty is obselete because it applys equally to everyone, yet HAM's Mercedes is at least a second a lap quicker than almost all the grid and more against the backmarkers.

That was not a penalty as shown by the outcome.

[Aysedasi]

As a matter of interest then, what would you have applied? (I'm not being antagonistic, just interested). Stop and go? Or a straight red card....?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

It is broke, it cannot and should not be possible for a driver to be found to have caused an accident in which another crashed and was unable to continue and receive a penalty so feeble that they could take it and still win the race. In whatever system there is, that cannot be equitable. The stewards report was that car 44 (HAM) FAILED to avoid contact with Verstappen, that is a fact and is supported in that the pursuing car always has the responsibility to avoid contact.

Having being found guilty of the above it is entirely inequitable that the offending driver carrys on and wins the race, worse still under the red flag they caused, their car is repaired or it would not have finished the race.

The 10 sec penalty is obselete because it applys equally to everyone, yet HAM's Mercedes is at least a second a lap quicker than almost all the grid and more against the backmarkers.

That was not a penalty as shown by the outcome.

I see it otherwise. If I may explain, and hopefully demonstrate that the full range of possible outcomes is too complex to allow this single incident to determine if something is 'broken'.

By your description, you are asking for '[it] should not be possible for a driver to be found to have caused an accident [...] and receive a penalty [...] that they could take it and still win the race.'

The consequences for the other driver are not considered in determining whether a penalty is applied - and to do so makes the application of a penalty too complicated. In effect, you are saying that any driver found to have caused an accident to never be able to go on and win a race. If that is the position you are looking for, then the only way to enforce this is for any driver having cause an accident to be immediately excluded. At this point, 'racing' would no longer exist.

'worse still under the red flag they caused, their car is repaired or it would not have finished the race.' - a red flag is used when the conditions mean it is not safe to continue. At the time of the red flag, the stewards had not determined that Hamilton was at fault. Because the reason for a red flag is safety, then all cars still running at that point should be permitted to make whatever changes are necessary to remain safe. There should not be a distinction on which cars are allowed to be made safe, and which are not, particularly when the stewards are still investigating the incident that resulted in a red flag.

'The 10 sec penalty is obselete because it applys equally to everyone, yet HAM's Mercedes is at least a second a lap quicker than almost all the grid and more against the backmarkers.' To take this logic, then penalties should be on a sliding scale based on the car's performance? Does that mean that currently the Red Bull should receive a larger penalty than any other car on the grid. At Austria, should Perez's penalties (5secs) been more than the penalty given to Norris because Perez is in a faster car?

Ultimately, I see it that each element of what happened should be considered in isolation, so that a consistent approach can be had without conflating matters:

• Causing a collision that you are predominantly at fault for (not wholly at fault) - one of the lower end of penalties (5 or 10 sec).
• Working on a car under red flag conditions - all cars should be made safe, and make changes in line with regulations.
• Applying consistent penalties - the same penalty is applied regardless of the speed of the car involved.

[Anyopenroad]

The circumstances which led to Hamilton winning here are pretty unusual.

First, the collision itself. I don't think this is in any way a cut-and-dried red card tackle (to use a football analogy). The stewards (referee) didn't think so either.

Second, a tap like that causing a crash that severe is very unlucky. The angle, force and instant could have been different by a tiny fraction and the result would have been far less dramatic. The severity of the crash was far greater than the severity of the infraction that led to it.

Third, a red flag allowing Merc to fix a car that would otherwise have been retired. Again, an unusual situation. I personally (as said on the other thread) don't think repairing under red flag should be allowed.

Fourth, Hamilton having a car far superior to the rest. The rules can't take that into account.

Assembling a set of rules which would deliver the equitable outcome you are looking for, in circumstances that may well never be repeated, is pretty tough to envisage. The only way to do it would be to say that a driver causing a collision which takes a competitor out of the race is black flagged. That will lead to some extreme outcomes just as controversial the other way. It might also simply kill racing since even a minor misjudgement might (thanks to random chance and physics) lead to disqualification.

This isn't a new problem. Drivers have their races wrecked through no fault of their own every weekend, at every level of racing, all over the world and have done since racing began. It's just part of the sport.

[greentrumpet]

But Hamilton's car is not far superior, this year Red Bull have the edge, Ferrari and McLaren are close also. If the Merc was that good Bottas wouldn't be struggling, Hamilton is just driving on another level.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

The circumstances which led to Hamilton winning here are pretty unusual.

First, the collision itself. I don't think this is in any way a cut-and-dried red card tackle (to use a football analogy). The stewards (referee) didn't think so either.

Second, a tap like that causing a crash that severe is very unlucky. The angle, force and instant could have been different by a tiny fraction and the result would have been far less dramatic. The severity of the crash was far greater than the severity of the infraction that led to it.

Third, a red flag allowing Merc to fix a car that would otherwise have been retired. Again, an unusual situation. I personally (as said on the other thread) don't think repairing under red flag should be allowed.

Fourth, Hamilton having a car far superior to the rest. The rules can't take that into account.

Assembling a set of rules which would deliver the equitable outcome you are looking for, in circumstances that may well never be repeated, is pretty tough to envisage. The only way to do it would be to say that a driver causing a collision which takes a competitor out of the race is black flagged. That will lead to some extreme outcomes just as controversial the other way. It might also simply kill racing since even a minor misjudgement might (thanks to random chance and physics) lead to disqualification.

This isn't a new problem. Drivers have their races wrecked through no fault of their own every weekend, at every level of racing, all over the world and have done since racing began. It's just part of the sport.

I totally agree with all of this. In my opinion, Hamilton was at fault for the accident, but the penalty of ten seconds was correct, as it was only a small error by Hamilton, but with disastrous consequences, and it was also lap one, and not a slam-dunk. It seems a bit unfair that Hamilton takes out his title rival and then collects maximum points while Verstappen gets nothing, but I think we just have to accept that, on this occasion, Hamilton was just extraordinarily lucky, as he was in Imola and Baku in this title fight. There is no need to change the penalty system.

[john ruston]

Am amazed at the experts on here are obviously well versed in race driving and incidents
I suppose the majority of F1 drivers on the grid consider it a racing incident are not in as good position to make a judgement as the followers on this site!
Netflix has is downsides!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Am amazed at the experts on here are obviously well versed in race driving and incidents
I suppose the majority of F1 drivers on the grid consider it a racing incident are not in as good position to make a judgement as the followers on this site!
Netflix has is downsides!

The perils of discussion forums John, people love a good debate - and long may it continue.

It is true though, virtually all of the drivers' views I've read expressed it as a racing incident - as in fact many of us here have said all along.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

The perils of discussion forums John, people love a good debate - and long may it continue.

It is true though, virtually all of the drivers' views I've read expressed it as a racing incident - as in fact many of us here have said all along.

And we also don't know how close to a racing incident the stewards were in their judgment.

We can assume it was not marginal (due to 10sec, not 5sec penalty), but they only said predominantly, not wholly, so their is some fault at Verstappen's door.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

The current system has all the drawbacks that you have listed above with no effective redress for professional fouls.

Just to be clear, I would be saying the same about the Hamilton Verstappen crash if the roles were reversed. I want to see racing and if they'd stayed off one another, there would have been a better race, and giving them real incentives to keep it clean would help wheel to wheel racing. You cannot race someone you don't trust not to do something stupid.

A competitive driver in that position (both of them) don't rely on anyone they just have the blind red mist need to win and damn the rules and everyone else. If you haven't been there you won't understand and can't believe that happens but it does most probably hundreds of times a week in all forms of motor sport around the world. Karting is a contact sport believe it or not and stuff like this happens and is routine behaviour and is the reason karts have side pods to prevent the interlocking of wheels and the inevitable roll that is the result. The prime example of win at all costs was the BTCC in past years and still maybe but I don't watch it these days. Trust certainly did not exist in that series.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

And we also don't know how close to a racing incident the stewards were in their judgment.

We can assume it was not marginal (due to 10sec, not 5sec penalty), but they only said predominantly, not wholly, so their is some fault at Verstappen's door.

I Think we can assume they were more towards 60/40 than 90/10 given the penalty. IIRC its 5 sec, 10 sec, drive through, drive though with 5 sec hold and drive through with 10 sec hold? .....so a 10 sec penalty suggests they saw Max contributed a decent chunk to the contact also

[Taxi645]

Quite relevant to the discussion we had earlier about how the amount of "alongsideness" is important:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/h...tails/6634384/

But, what's crucial to understand when it comes to defining the right of corners, is that a driver on the inside does not necessarily need to be fully alongside.
For, when it comes to attempting a pass down the inside, a driver is believed to only need to be 'significantly' alongside ahead of the corner to lay claim to be given room.
This is something that Mercedes has made reference to, and it is understood to have been part of the communication that Wolff emailed to Masi and gave to the stewards during their investigation into the crash.
While there are no officially published rules that tell the public exactly at what point a driver trying to overtake a rival must be given room, there are guidelines given to stewards about this.
While these are not in the wider domain, it is understood that they indicate a driver passing on the inside does have a right to the corner – as long as he gets through it 'cleanly' - if there is 'significant overlap' with the car ahead.

So their are guidelines given the stewards, but those can only be very broadly defined, since there are so many different variables and different context.

So broadly defined to the stewards, very hard to accurately asses in a split second by drivers and unknown by the fans. Well, at least it's an excellent recipe for continuos controversy and publicity. Which is never bad right?


I wish they would give the "always give another driver racing room if any part of their car is next to yours" rule a chance and see how racing would develop. It allows better wheel to wheel racing and is much easier to understand for stewards, drivers and fans. Who knows, perhaps you could ditch DRS on half of the tracks!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I wish they would give the "always give another driver racing room if any part of their car is next to yours" rule a chance and see how racing would develop. It allows better wheel to wheel racing and is much easier to understand for stewards, drivers and fans. Who knows, perhaps you could ditch DRS on half of the tracks!

With you much of the way there, but it doesn't cater for the wholly speculative (and probably hopeless) dive for a 'gap' or a quickly disappearing gap into which you can just get your front wheels....

[Penword]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Third, a red flag allowing Merc to fix a car that would otherwise have been retired. Again, an unusual situation. I personally (as said on the other thread) don't think repairing under red flag should be allowed.

I think this point is particularly relevant. Had it not been for the red flag Hamilton would have suffered his own setbacks due to this incident and I was surprised he was allowed to undergo repairs under the red (sorry, I'm not really up on the rules!)

I often consider the deterrent to "marginal" passing attempts is the risk to your own car if it goes wrong, and for Hamilton, essentially, it did -- except there was a red flag.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Penword

I think this point is particularly relevant. Had it not been for the red flag Hamilton would have suffered his own setbacks due to this incident and I was surprised he was allowed to undergo repairs under the red (sorry, I'm not really up on the rules!)

I often consider the deterrent to "marginal" passing attempts is the risk to your own car if it goes wrong, and for Hamilton, essentially, it did -- except there was a red flag.

I dont disagree, the repairing...and being able to change tyres under red has always confused me.

Of course, it works both ways and has won drivers and cost drivers a race win...thinking Gasly/ Stroll at Monza last year? ...also Max on the warm up lap in Hungary

I think a lot of this has to do with the number of red flags weve seen of late.

The rule has been there for a while, but until recently its not really reared its ugly head becuase races have been dealt with under safety car. Maybe its a carry over rule that will be changed next year.

[S griffin]

I can understand why they do it on safety grounds and let's face it red flags aren't that common an occurrence for it to matter too much

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I can understand why they do it on safety grounds and let's face it red flags aren't that common an occurrence for it to matter too much

and i suppose that where the issue is. If we rewrote the rules

Driver A can replace a front wing because its hanging off and therefore a safety hazard

Driver B cant replace a front wing because a flap is missing.

Firstly, while 1 is done for safety, it will also gain performance, secondly how do you know that Driver Bs front wing isnt damaged internally or have stress fractures.

Theres no fair or unfair way of doing this...just whats the lesser of evils.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

and i suppose that where the issue is. If we rewrote the rules

Driver A can replace a front wing because its hanging off and therefore a safety hazard

Driver B cant replace a front wing because a flap is missing.

Firstly, while 1 is done for safety, it will also gain performance, secondly how do you know that Driver Bs front wing isnt damaged internally or have stress fractures.

Theres no fair or unfair way of doing this...just whats the lesser of evils.

One thought I had - if safety is taken as the priority, not racing 'fairness'.

If under a red flag, cars are to form up at the pit entry (not exit). Then. only when the green flag is out can work be carried out.

That way, if the safety stoppages was because of conditions - all teams would go straight to box and make changes. If there are just a few cars needing repairs, they 'suffer' in the same way as when racing under a green flag.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

One thought I had - if safety is taken as the priority, not racing 'fairness'.

If under a red flag, cars are to form up at the pit entry (not exit). Then. only when the green flag is out can work be carried out.

That way, if the safety stoppages was because of conditions - all teams would go straight to box and make changes. If there are just a few cars needing repairs, they 'suffer' in the same way as when racing under a green flag.

yeh not a bad shout that, which would weed out the safety concerns Vs performance advantages.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

One thought I had - if safety is taken as the priority, not racing 'fairness'.

If under a red flag, cars are to form up at the pit entry (not exit). Then. only when the green flag is out can work be carried out.

That way, if the safety stoppages was because of conditions - all teams would go straight to box and make changes. If there are just a few cars needing repairs, they 'suffer' in the same way as when racing under a green flag.

Good thinking, great idea.

[Adam43]

Of course that is the approach in other series. In F1 it isn’t. I’m fine with that.

You catch the breaks or you don’t. Sometimes it could be for someone who was a completely innocent party to something. Say damaged by debris on the track. Or a different incident. Then they get a free fix. Might be thought of as a good thing in that case.

Although probably depend who you were a fan of.

[Casper]

I se Marko & Horner have thrown their toys out of the pram and are threatening lawyers at 20 paces. I always wonder if stuff like this would happen if the team who felt wronged in stuff like this were in a reversed position and what their response would then be.