No wheels off...
Discussion
The rule change is pretty simple. It changes how far off the track a car is allowed to go. Last year a car needed to have some part of it (usually a wheel) actually on the track inside the white line. So you could run wide provided some part of your car was still n the circuit.
This year, none of the car is allowed over the white line, unless there is a curb. You are allowed to run over the white line onto the curb, but not part may go past the outside edge of the curb.
This is all a bit arbitrary and now different to the rest of the racing world.
The other thing that has changed is the enforcement regime. The powers that be (vaguely a mixture of MSA and circuit owner) have decided to put in place a rigorous enforcement of this rule.
As the person with "I started this thread so it's mine" rights, I assert that the circuit limits didn't need changing, but the rules needed to be consistently and properly enforced.
HTH
BErt
This year, none of the car is allowed over the white line, unless there is a curb. You are allowed to run over the white line onto the curb, but not part may go past the outside edge of the curb.
This is all a bit arbitrary and now different to the rest of the racing world.
The other thing that has changed is the enforcement regime. The powers that be (vaguely a mixture of MSA and circuit owner) have decided to put in place a rigorous enforcement of this rule.
As the person with "I started this thread so it's mine" rights, I assert that the circuit limits didn't need changing, but the rules needed to be consistently and properly enforced.
HTH
BErt
Having the rule isn't a real issue. However the previous rule that allowed you to run 2 wheels off without a penalty was more than acceptable. 4 wheels off was a penalty offence but only applied at some circuits. It's worth mentioning that it's only where there's grass creep that you would ever really consider doing it and more often than not it's because of a mistake, your racing hard and run a little wide. Generally it's not for gaining an advantage. In short - nothing was wrong with the previous rule.
The penalties are severe.
First offence - no action
Next report: warning flag (difficult to spot)
Next report: 5 sec penalty
Next report: Drive-through penalty
Next report: Black flag.
The same penalties apply whether it's a 15min race or a 6hr race and regardless of the track.
Brands Indy - 5 corners
Rockingham - 12 corners
Snetterton 300 - 10 corners
It's almost impossible to protest any penalty as it's been worded in a way that you can only protest it at the MSA which costs a lot of time and money
Jonathan Palmer pushed through a rule this year to stop people running wide at all and under circumstance. His own reason is to save money on grassing. It's that simple. He owns 4 circuits and it's a business and he wants to save money.
The issues are:
Inconsistent application of the ruling. Most of the time it relies on an observer (a judge of fact ) to spot something going wide that might be 30-50m away from the incident. Having watched my race on Sunday I saw one driver run wide 3 times on a lap, without any penalty
Bad communication during the race of the warnings/penalty
It's not always possible to see the warning boards on the start line - the warning flag was out for just one lap. I couldn't see the number and never saw a 5 sec penalty board ( in fact - it was never held out )
This goes totally against international regulations and the FIA's own rules. It's bad for young racers and club racers looking to step up.
And it's simply doesn't improve the racing. All it does is make life for officials and racers more difficult.
It's also probably not easy for a spectator to understand. You see the winning car battle a long race and then gets a penalty for accidently going wide a couple of times during a race.
The penalties are severe.
First offence - no action
Next report: warning flag (difficult to spot)
Next report: 5 sec penalty
Next report: Drive-through penalty
Next report: Black flag.
The same penalties apply whether it's a 15min race or a 6hr race and regardless of the track.
Brands Indy - 5 corners
Rockingham - 12 corners
Snetterton 300 - 10 corners
It's almost impossible to protest any penalty as it's been worded in a way that you can only protest it at the MSA which costs a lot of time and money
Jonathan Palmer pushed through a rule this year to stop people running wide at all and under circumstance. His own reason is to save money on grassing. It's that simple. He owns 4 circuits and it's a business and he wants to save money.
The issues are:
Inconsistent application of the ruling. Most of the time it relies on an observer (a judge of fact ) to spot something going wide that might be 30-50m away from the incident. Having watched my race on Sunday I saw one driver run wide 3 times on a lap, without any penalty
Bad communication during the race of the warnings/penalty
It's not always possible to see the warning boards on the start line - the warning flag was out for just one lap. I couldn't see the number and never saw a 5 sec penalty board ( in fact - it was never held out )
This goes totally against international regulations and the FIA's own rules. It's bad for young racers and club racers looking to step up.
And it's simply doesn't improve the racing. All it does is make life for officials and racers more difficult.
It's also probably not easy for a spectator to understand. You see the winning car battle a long race and then gets a penalty for accidently going wide a couple of times during a race.
Edited by woof on Wednesday 16th April 13:38
Edited by woof on Wednesday 16th April 13:42
The penalties are the same this year as last year.
woof said:
The penalties are severe.
First offence - no action
Next report: warning flag (difficult to spot)
Next report: 5 sec penalty
Next report: Drive-through penalty
Next report: Black flag.
And it's simply doesn't improve the racing. All it does is make life for officials and racers more difficult.
First offence - no action
Next report: warning flag (difficult to spot)
Next report: 5 sec penalty
Next report: Drive-through penalty
Next report: Black flag.
And it's simply doesn't improve the racing. All it does is make life for officials and racers more difficult.
BertBert said:
The rule change is pretty simple. It changes how far off the track a car is allowed to go. Last year a car needed to have some part of it (usually a wheel) actually on the track inside the white line. So you could run wide provided some part of your car was still n the circuit.
This year, none of the car is allowed over the white line, unless there is a curb. You are allowed to run over the white line onto the curb, but not part may go past the outside edge of the curb.
This is all a bit arbitrary and now different to the rest of the racing world.
The other thing that has changed is the enforcement regime. The powers that be (vaguely a mixture of MSA and circuit owner) have decided to put in place a rigorous enforcement of this rule.
As the person with "I started this thread so it's mine" rights, I assert that the circuit limits didn't need changing, but the rules needed to be consistently and properly enforced.
HTH
BErt
I don't think the circuit limits have changed really. Just what's considered legal car positioning has.This year, none of the car is allowed over the white line, unless there is a curb. You are allowed to run over the white line onto the curb, but not part may go past the outside edge of the curb.
This is all a bit arbitrary and now different to the rest of the racing world.
The other thing that has changed is the enforcement regime. The powers that be (vaguely a mixture of MSA and circuit owner) have decided to put in place a rigorous enforcement of this rule.
As the person with "I started this thread so it's mine" rights, I assert that the circuit limits didn't need changing, but the rules needed to be consistently and properly enforced.
HTH
BErt
When it suits drivers (crossing the finish line), then any part of the car over the line is considered right. When it doesn't suit drivers (cutting corners/running wide to carry speed), any part not over the line is right.
So it's not made it arbitrary at all. It's now far more in line with what a general person would consider within or outside of the track limits. For the old rule not to be arbitrary, the winner of a race would be the person where the rear of their car crossed the finish line 1st.
As it is now the driver can aim to stay inside the lines, and the kirb is their legal safety margin because nobody is inch perfect every lap. 1st nose across the line wins. Much less arbitrary to my eyes.
or you could read the thread fully and see what the real reasons are 
Have a look at Dave Stewart`s post for example or many of mine you might get a better view of the reasons behind it .
The old rule was more difficult to judge whereas the new rule is very clear and with the application of reasonable technology hard to wriggle out of which is why the less able drivers don`t like it!
How can I say that ? my own observations of those penalised (they don`t tend to be the fastest guys but those over driving the cars).
And not surprisingly the clerks seam to like it as it produces a clear picture(s) time stamped to the second of the car showing a clear transgression . And yes the grass is already recovering well.
Have a look at Dave Stewart`s post for example or many of mine you might get a better view of the reasons behind it .
The old rule was more difficult to judge whereas the new rule is very clear and with the application of reasonable technology hard to wriggle out of which is why the less able drivers don`t like it!
How can I say that ? my own observations of those penalised (they don`t tend to be the fastest guys but those over driving the cars).
And not surprisingly the clerks seam to like it as it produces a clear picture(s) time stamped to the second of the car showing a clear transgression . And yes the grass is already recovering well.
mad4amanda said:
or you could read the thread fully and see what the real reasons are
Have a look at Dave Stewart`s post for example or many of mine you might get a better view of the reasons behind it .
The old rule was more difficult to judge whereas the new rule is very clear and with the application of reasonable technology hard to wriggle out of which is why the less able drivers don`t like it!
How can I say that ? my own observations of those penalised (they don`t tend to be the fastest guys but those over driving the cars).
And not surprisingly the clerks seam to like it as it produces a clear picture(s) time stamped to the second of the car showing a clear transgression . And yes the grass is already recovering well.
It's also worth pointing out that mad4amanda works or is associated with MSV/Jonathan Palmer and it's a racer. And for the record I was the fastest in both races (and walked away with i think 4 trophies from last weekend) one race when I received a penalty and the other I didn't get any warnings. Have a look at Dave Stewart`s post for example or many of mine you might get a better view of the reasons behind it .
The old rule was more difficult to judge whereas the new rule is very clear and with the application of reasonable technology hard to wriggle out of which is why the less able drivers don`t like it!
How can I say that ? my own observations of those penalised (they don`t tend to be the fastest guys but those over driving the cars).
And not surprisingly the clerks seam to like it as it produces a clear picture(s) time stamped to the second of the car showing a clear transgression . And yes the grass is already recovering well.
Munter said:
I don't think the circuit limits have changed really. Just what's considered legal car positioning has.
When it suits drivers (crossing the finish line), then any part of the car over the line is considered right. When it doesn't suit drivers (cutting corners/running wide to carry speed), any part not over the line is right.
So it's not made it arbitrary at all. It's now far more in line with what a general person would consider within or outside of the track limits. For the old rule not to be arbitrary, the winner of a race would be the person where the rear of their car crossed the finish line 1st.
As it is now the driver can aim to stay inside the lines, and the kirb is their legal safety margin because nobody is inch perfect every lap. 1st nose across the line wins. Much less arbitrary to my eyes.
That's just daft talk.When it suits drivers (crossing the finish line), then any part of the car over the line is considered right. When it doesn't suit drivers (cutting corners/running wide to carry speed), any part not over the line is right.
So it's not made it arbitrary at all. It's now far more in line with what a general person would consider within or outside of the track limits. For the old rule not to be arbitrary, the winner of a race would be the person where the rear of their car crossed the finish line 1st.
As it is now the driver can aim to stay inside the lines, and the kirb is their legal safety margin because nobody is inch perfect every lap. 1st nose across the line wins. Much less arbitrary to my eyes.
The limits have changed. Read them on page 1 of the thread.
Crossing the line to finish is completely irrelevant.
It mostly suits drivers to do all they can to win the race. That's what racing is. This involves driving within the rules and maximising what you can do under them. Anything else is daft. It involves cheating to the extent you can get away with it if you are so minded. That's what rule enforcement is about.
This all has absolutely nothing to do with what a general person thinks. It is to do with how the rules are written.
I didn't say the new rule was arbitrary, I said the change was fairly arbitrary.
HTH
Bert
Dave Brand said:
No they are not - last year the black & white flag was not shown until the third infringement.
You could well be right, my mistake - I never saw any for me last year.Apparently I got loads, I'm so short-sighted, I could hardly see the black and white flag and certainly couldn't see the number
Bert
BertBert said:
That's just daft talk.
The limits have changed. Read them on page 1 of the thread.
Crossing the line to finish is completely irrelevant.
It mostly suits drivers to do all they can to win the race. That's what racing is. This involves driving within the rules and maximising what you can do under them. Anything else is daft. It involves cheating to the extent you can get away with it if you are so minded. That's what rule enforcement is about.
This all has absolutely nothing to do with what a general person thinks. It is to do with how the rules are written.
I didn't say the new rule was arbitrary, I said the change was fairly arbitrary.
HTH
Bert
The limits have changed to now include the kirb. As I said. What is considered on the track is the big change. Not the track itself.The limits have changed. Read them on page 1 of the thread.
Crossing the line to finish is completely irrelevant.
It mostly suits drivers to do all they can to win the race. That's what racing is. This involves driving within the rules and maximising what you can do under them. Anything else is daft. It involves cheating to the extent you can get away with it if you are so minded. That's what rule enforcement is about.
This all has absolutely nothing to do with what a general person thinks. It is to do with how the rules are written.
I didn't say the new rule was arbitrary, I said the change was fairly arbitrary.
HTH
Bert
And it does relate to what the general population considers crossing a line. Because that's what the rules have changed to match. Maybe not for that reason. But the rules. And what is generally considered to be meant by crossing a line. Now match.
I used the finish line as an example of that. If the car is considered to have crossed the finish line, when any part of the car reaches the far side of that line. Then it makes perfect sense that if any part of the car is on the far side the line marking the edge of the track, that the car has crossed that line. They have chosen the tyres as they are the part in contact with the line. Thus easiest to judge. And given the width of the tyre and the kirb as sensible margins for error.
If you told me not to get in your car. And I sat in it but left one foot on the floor outside. Would you consider me to be outside the car?
I'm not saying the rule is better or worse. But it makes a damn sight more sense as a rule, if the sport is based around driving on a fixed course. If the sport is based around driving somewhere near to a fixed course, then the old rule makes more sense. But I believe it's supposed to be the former.
Edited by Munter on Wednesday 16th April 17:35
Well I can certainly see your point. But what about the curbs then? And do you think it was really done to fall in line with what the public would think makes more sense?
I think the general race watching public are completely at home with the old definition. They don't get confused by formula 1.
Hey ho, interesting debate!
Bert
I think the general race watching public are completely at home with the old definition. They don't get confused by formula 1.
Hey ho, interesting debate!
Bert
Thanks - that does clear it up quite nicely.
As a spectator (mainly TV, but sometimes at Snetterton & Brands), the change to 'no part of the car to leave the track' does make a lot more sense that the previous rule. I can understand that enforcement is difficult, but it would seem this change doesn't make that any more difficult.
Your point about race length makes sense too - I'm surprised it's not either proportional to race length, or even more than x times in the last y laps.
As a spectator (mainly TV, but sometimes at Snetterton & Brands), the change to 'no part of the car to leave the track' does make a lot more sense that the previous rule. I can understand that enforcement is difficult, but it would seem this change doesn't make that any more difficult.
Your point about race length makes sense too - I'm surprised it's not either proportional to race length, or even more than x times in the last y laps.
I just don't think that rule "no part of a car can leave the track, unless it's a curb or unless the driver has a justifiable reason" has any more logic than "the driver may not deliberately take all 4 wheels over the white line".
I'd argue the second is no better than the first and certainly it doesn't bring any benefits to the driver or the spectator that justify the bother of the change. Cost/benefit if non-existant.
But I'm just going round and round on this one
Bert
I'd argue the second is no better than the first and certainly it doesn't bring any benefits to the driver or the spectator that justify the bother of the change. Cost/benefit if non-existant.
But I'm just going round and round on this one
Bert
BertBert said:
Well I can certainly see your point. But what about the curbs then? And do you think it was really done to fall in line with what the public would think makes more sense?
I think the general race watching public are completely at home with the old definition. They don't get confused by formula 1.
Hey ho, interesting debate!
Bert
I didn't say it was done to match. I pointed that out specifically in my 2nd post. It does match. It might not have been done so it matches. But it does.I think the general race watching public are completely at home with the old definition. They don't get confused by formula 1.
Hey ho, interesting debate!
Bert
The way I see it curbs are the MSA accepting (as was pointed out earlier in the thread by woof I think), that nobody is inch perfect every lap. So if you aim to be driving on the line. You have the curb as your safety margin before you invoke the wrath to the judge of fact/overly expensive camera setup. Sure drivers will take that as "I can use all the curb", but then they were doing that before, just with the other side of the car, and it's their choice.
I'm sure the public were happy with the old rule. But that in it self doesn't make the new rule bad, any more than the "but now I have to go slower through corners" argument.
Consistency (which we didn't have before either), and how the punishments affect races appear to be more of an issue, than the rule defining the offence.
Woof and Bert,
I understand the "I made a mistake" argument on the EXITS of corners. That is why I think the three strike system is in place and you are not excluded for a first offence.
HOWEVER, how do you explain the corner cutting at every single inside apex? We ran an event at Donington Park this weekend and every single kerb had to be infilled because drivers had not stayed on track during the preceeding weeks activities.
Inside Redgate was bad, inside the Old Hairpin was nearly a 4 inch drop-off, inside Starkeys(lhs) and inside Coppice were both dangerous.
The only corners that weren't cut were those through the Esses.
Why?
Because at the Esses they have the much hated "Hot Dog" kerbs and if you cut those corners, you damage the car.
So drivers CAN drive within the limits, they just don't want to.
I'm not talking about occasional transgressions, I mean every corner of every lap and on the Friday it was Racing School........ is that what the instructors are supposed to be teaching the drivers?
I understand both sides of the argument (I raced cars from 1984-1989 before I raced bikes). However this is a change that has to be accepted (much like facing up to noise issues), some won't like it, but it has to be done.
Just consider this before touching your keyboard:-
If there was a 200 foot sheer drop on the outside of the white line, would you cross it?
No you wouldn't. It would affect your lap time for sure, but it would be the same for everyone. So you COULD drive within the limits if the penalty for not doing so was harsh enough.
Berts point earlier is the one that is absolutely vital - EQUAL AND CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT - as drivers you have a right to demand that much of the MSA and the clubs that you pay your money to. Money pours into the MSA like a waterfall of cash, most of it comes from you and you have a right to expect fairness. If these rules make it clearer and simpler, demand that they be applied equally - everywhere.
On a point of enforcement, I also think that observers must find it easier to look at the outside of the car (in theory nearest to him) to judge whether or not it is off the track, rather than trying to see the other side of the vehicle to see whether the whole car is off the track or not.
If the observer can't observe clearly, they have no chance of being consistent. If a driver sees another car getting away without a warning for going off track because the observer is unsighted, guess what? Next lap you'll have both cars going beyond the limits.
You've all signed up to the rules when you applied for your licences. Just because the rules say something you don't like, you can't just opt out of that part of the book. You wouldn't run an oversized engine just because you didn't agree with the cc limits would you?
By nature we are all competitive people. Competitive people don't like anything that slows them down. Sometimes we just have to accept that change is needed and just get on with it. You can help make that acceptance happen by using peer pressure on non-compliant drivers to make it fairer.
I hope everyone in the 4-wheeled world has a safe and successful season.
I understand the "I made a mistake" argument on the EXITS of corners. That is why I think the three strike system is in place and you are not excluded for a first offence.
HOWEVER, how do you explain the corner cutting at every single inside apex? We ran an event at Donington Park this weekend and every single kerb had to be infilled because drivers had not stayed on track during the preceeding weeks activities.
Inside Redgate was bad, inside the Old Hairpin was nearly a 4 inch drop-off, inside Starkeys(lhs) and inside Coppice were both dangerous.
The only corners that weren't cut were those through the Esses.
Why?
Because at the Esses they have the much hated "Hot Dog" kerbs and if you cut those corners, you damage the car.
So drivers CAN drive within the limits, they just don't want to.
I'm not talking about occasional transgressions, I mean every corner of every lap and on the Friday it was Racing School........ is that what the instructors are supposed to be teaching the drivers?
I understand both sides of the argument (I raced cars from 1984-1989 before I raced bikes). However this is a change that has to be accepted (much like facing up to noise issues), some won't like it, but it has to be done.
Just consider this before touching your keyboard:-
If there was a 200 foot sheer drop on the outside of the white line, would you cross it?
No you wouldn't. It would affect your lap time for sure, but it would be the same for everyone. So you COULD drive within the limits if the penalty for not doing so was harsh enough.
Berts point earlier is the one that is absolutely vital - EQUAL AND CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT - as drivers you have a right to demand that much of the MSA and the clubs that you pay your money to. Money pours into the MSA like a waterfall of cash, most of it comes from you and you have a right to expect fairness. If these rules make it clearer and simpler, demand that they be applied equally - everywhere.
On a point of enforcement, I also think that observers must find it easier to look at the outside of the car (in theory nearest to him) to judge whether or not it is off the track, rather than trying to see the other side of the vehicle to see whether the whole car is off the track or not.
If the observer can't observe clearly, they have no chance of being consistent. If a driver sees another car getting away without a warning for going off track because the observer is unsighted, guess what? Next lap you'll have both cars going beyond the limits.
You've all signed up to the rules when you applied for your licences. Just because the rules say something you don't like, you can't just opt out of that part of the book. You wouldn't run an oversized engine just because you didn't agree with the cc limits would you?
By nature we are all competitive people. Competitive people don't like anything that slows them down. Sometimes we just have to accept that change is needed and just get on with it. You can help make that acceptance happen by using peer pressure on non-compliant drivers to make it fairer.
I hope everyone in the 4-wheeled world has a safe and successful season.
Edited by Dave Stewart on Thursday 17th April 09:27
Dave Stewart said:
On a point of enforcement, I also think that observers must find it easier to look at the outside of the car (in theory nearest to him) to judge whether or not it is off the track, rather than trying to see the other side of the vehicle to see whether the whole car is off the track or not.
If the observer can't observe clearly, they have no chance of being consistent. If a driver sees another car getting away without a warning for going off track because the observer is unsighted, guess what? Next lap you'll have both cars going beyond the limits.
In my opinion it is easier. Under the old "four wheels off" rules it was often difficult to judge conclusively whether all four were off; different wheel track front to rear, understeer/oversteer etc., mean that the rear wheels don't necessarily follow the same line as the front. One wheel off is more of a "yes/no" decision.If the observer can't observe clearly, they have no chance of being consistent. If a driver sees another car getting away without a warning for going off track because the observer is unsighted, guess what? Next lap you'll have both cars going beyond the limits.
The regulations require that track limit offences are reported by a Judge of Fact - a Post Chief (observer) is not a Judge of Fact unless specifically appointed as such. I don't know how they are doing it elsewhere, but at Oulton Judges of Fact are stationed at various points around the circuit - their remit is solely to observe track limit offences, leaving the normal running of the post to the Post Chief. This means that the Judge of Fact can be in the best place to observe track limits & is not distracted by the other myriad activities involved in running a post.
Unfortunately as observers we are reliant on the most unreliable sighting device ever invented, the Mk1 Human Eyeball; until evolution comes up with something better we're stuck with that!
I can understand the enforcement of this rule when it comes to cutting the apex of corners, as of course it is easier to argue that an advantage may be given in this circumstance, however why do they not have a slightly more lenient rule over the exit of corners? How on earth can you gain an advantage by running wide?
What happens if you receive a nice nudge from behind which sends you wide? Do you get a penalty for exceeding track limits?
What happens if you receive a nice nudge from behind which sends you wide? Do you get a penalty for exceeding track limits?
ols said:
How on earth can you gain an advantage by running wide?
What happens if you receive a nice nudge from behind which sends you wide? Do you get a penalty for exceeding track limits?
By running wide on the exit you can carry more speed through the corner.What happens if you receive a nice nudge from behind which sends you wide? Do you get a penalty for exceeding track limits?
If a car is nudged from behind it will be reported as contact; a driver will not be penalised for being the victim of another driver's error.
Gassing Station | UK Club Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff