|
andyb66
Original Poster
99 posts
38 months
|
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101147Just interested in thoughts on this. I am not sure about this definition of a "significant portion". Does not seem very "significant" to me  "For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a 'significant portion'." (Dare I mention.....) but it seems that this may have happened in the background to the PM and LH 'incident'
|
|
|
stinkysteve
731 posts
66 months
|
andyb66 said: "For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a 'significant portion'."
Hang on! "any part" of the front wing means the first inch of it. And the Rear wheel of the person being overtaken is the rearmost part of the car. Surely this insinuates that if the merest millimeter of overlap is apparent, the car in front must treat it as if it was fully alongside and leave space?? Am i reading this right? It's unenforceable and just plain wrong... shirley?
|
|
|
andyb66
Original Poster
99 posts
38 months
|
stinkysteve said: Am i reading this right? It's unenforceable and just plain wrong... shirley? That's kinda what I was asking However, I assume that they need two 'fixed' points. For instance let's say it was centre of front wheel level with or beyond the leading edge of the side pod. Side pods are different shape and within the rules slightly differently located. Perhaps it would have been better to say front wheel wholey beyond the rear wheel (shrug)
|
|
|
joe_90
3,361 posts
100 months
|
|
|
Life Saab Itch
34,076 posts
57 months
|
Complete b  ks. Needs to be a clearly defined part of the car. Why not front axle line and rear axle line?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
angrymoby
104 posts
47 months
|
andyb66 said: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101147Just interested in thoughts on this. I am not sure about this definition of a "significant portion". Does not seem very "significant" to me "For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a 'significant portion'." (Dare I mention.....) but it seems that this may have happened in the background to the PM and LH 'incident' You missed this bit... "any driver defending his position on a straight and before any braking area" So wouldn't have made any difference to the stewards decision re: LH/ PM or SP/ PM incidents
|
|
|
FourWheelDrift
56,478 posts
153 months
|
Will they be introducing larger rear view mirrors so the driver can see this? Or perhaps mandating spotters to tell the driver there is a car alongside just like NASCAR and Indycar.
How about a system like parking sensors where the beep gets quicker the closer the car is to another, when it's alongside close enough it's a continuous beep.
Or perhaps they just stop changing the rules and instead apply appropriate action to stupid moves in a race so that they won't be repeated.
|
|
|
The Wookie
9,330 posts
97 months
|
I think it's a good idea. I've been banging on for ages about the safety of the overtake being the responsibility of the car being overtaken, which is effectively the implication of this.
It means more commitment (the lack of which is what usually causes the shunt) from the overtaking car, and generally people giving eachother more space.
|
|
|
FourWheelDrift
56,478 posts
153 months
|
In tin tops it can be done, but in F1 where visibility is very restricted and things happen a lot quicker I think it will be handled messily.
|
|
|
Adrian W
8,127 posts
97 months
|
The Wookie said: I think it's a good idea. I've been banging on for ages about the safety of the overtake being the responsibility of the car being overtaken, which is effectively the implication of this.
It means more commitment (the lack of which is what usually causes the shunt) from the overtaking car, and generally people giving eachother more space. I could actually understand it in BTTC(where I think a touch should be a drive through) but in F1 what does the driver do, it seems that all he can do is put his foot on the throttle, anything else will be considered a move.
|
|
|
The Wookie
9,330 posts
97 months
|
Adrian W said: I could actually understand it in BTTC(where I think a touch should be a drive through) but in F1 what does the driver do, it seems that all he can do is put his foot on the throttle, anything else will be considered a move. There's no mention of how many moves the driver can take, as far as I'm aware that stays the same, the implication of this is that it prevents the driver being overtaken from turning across the overtaking car. It's a very common occurrence, is usually dangerous as it often results in a car being vaulted, and always ends up being adjudicated as either a racing incident or the overtaking driver being penalised when in reality once he was committed he had nowhere to go as the overtakee was too aggressive. I personally think this will improve safety, force drivers to give each other more space and increase overtaking? I'd welcome it in BTCC
|
|
|
Allyc85
3,702 posts
55 months
|
The Wookie said: I'd welcome it in BTCC How stern a word did you BTCC drivers get after Oulton? There seems to be loads of penalties being given out now!
|
|
|
Fire99
8,092 posts
98 months
|
Sounds like the F1 drivers will need a lawyer to 'proof-read' every overtake before they consider it.
|
|
|
Jasandjules
45,434 posts
98 months
|
How the heck are they meant to race!??!
|
|
|
The Wookie
9,330 posts
97 months
|
Allyc85 said: How stern a word did you BTCC drivers get after Oulton? There seems to be loads of penalties being given out now! They basically didn't fine me because I'm usually a good boy and it was just a mistake rather than a deliberate act, but to be honest I got fired off twice and ran off the track during the day and the offending drivers weren't penalised because it wasn't on the TV, so I was more than a little disappointed! They made it clear they are keen to dish out the penalties though, so expect it to increase further. ETA - Just realised I didn't actually answer your question directly, I was talking about what happened at Croft specifically
|
|
|
emicen
5,693 posts
87 months
|
The Wookie said: Allyc85 said: How stern a word did you BTCC drivers get after Oulton? There seems to be loads of penalties being given out now! They basically didn't fine me because I'm usually a good boy and it was just a mistake rather than a deliberate act, but to be honest I got fired off twice and ran off the track during the day and the offending drivers weren't penalised because it wasn't on the TV, so I was more than a little disappointed! They made it clear they are keen to dish out the penalties though, so expect it to increase further. I'll be honest, that interests me more than F1. I've been run off the track umpteen times this year and I'm sick fed up of it. Its a simple rule, car along side has their front wheels at the B pillar, make room. At no point does it say, any f ker gets along side, run them wide or just turn in as if they aren't there. If the top tier starts clamping down on it, it can only be a good thing. [thats not casting aspertions on you Ollie, as stated, you're usually a good boy]
|
|
|
28jaguar
197 posts
24 months
|
Should be...
- In the event of a collison, the driver attempting to overtake is at fault.
This would mean that any driver attempting to pass will only attempt to pass unless they were certain they could pull it off. No banzai jobs. This would encourage a higher standard of driving.
- In the interests of safety, no driver is allowed to make sudden movements at any part of the circuit.
Adding the "interests of safety" means that drivers under attack will be more careful with their defensive driving and you can't dispute that sudden movement is not dangerous.
Pretty easy to interpret.
|
|
|
emicen
5,693 posts
87 months
|
28jaguar said: Should be...
- In the event of a collison, the driver attempting to overtake is at fault.
This would mean that any driver attempting to pass will only attempt to pass unless they were certain they could pull it off. No banzai jobs. This would encourage a higher standard of driving.
- In the interests of safety, no driver is allowed to make sudden movements at any part of the circuit.
Adding the "interests of safety" means that drivers under attack will be more careful with their defensive driving and you can't dispute that sudden movement is not dangerous.
Pretty easy to interpret. Have you ever raced a car? Know the person trying to overtake has their front wheels along side your rears, turn in as normal - not a sudden movement, just normal turn in therefore its the following car's fault. Following the car in front down the straight, drift to the outside as if lining up to try the cut back, dive inside under braking. Car in front turns in to the side of you courtesy of not paying attention to their mirors. Sudden dive to instigate the pass, you are at blame. So with your easy to interpret rules, you have successfully made it easier to get away with just turning in on people and removed the ability to use one of the all time classic overtaking moves.
|
|
|
mrmr96
11,958 posts
73 months
|
28jaguar said: Should be...
- In the event of a collison, the driver attempting to overtake is at fault. b ks.
|
|
|
28jaguar
197 posts
24 months
|
emicen said: Have you ever raced a car? A car? No. emicen said: Know the person trying to overtake has their front wheels along side your rears, turn in as normal - not a sudden movement, just normal turn in therefore its the following car's fault. Firstly, if I were aware of the guys front wheels being there, I would not just take the normal line as if he wasn't there. The guy in front is in a position of power, he is at the front, that's the point of racing. However, if you continuously don't do what I stated, you will get a reputation as a dummy. In a decent series, that reputation will hurt you more in the long run. Secondly, how can a guy who just has his front wheels alongside my/your rear wheels be in any postion of authority to overtake? What the **** is he doing there in the first place? It's like sticking your fingers a little bit inside the open mouth of a crocodile, then saying it's their fault for biting you fingers off. emicen said: Following the car in front down the straight, drift to the outside as if lining up to try the cut back, dive inside under braking. Car in front turns in to the side of you courtesy of not paying attention to their mirors. Sudden dive to instigate the pass, you are at blame. What, like Mansell on Piquet at Silverstone? Your picking that specific moment? who, of the current lot in F1, let alone the whole of motorsport, are good enough to do that? Ok, no worries. Under my interpretation, Mansell would've chosen to just roll around the outside of Stowe. Piquet also moved suddenly attempting to defend, he would've been punished accordingly. But Piquet may not have even bothered with his shot tyres. But a key word in your quote is "sudden", this could be interpreted as "banzai". A good driver, is able to pull a move without having to be so desperate and without leaving himself vulnerable to be taken out. The characteristics of current cars make it harder nowadays. But what specs the cars should be is another story. I'm speaking generally. emicen said: So with your easy to interpret rules, you have successfully made it easier to [/b]get away with just turning in on people[/b] and removed the ability to use one of the all time classic overtaking moves. Mate, under any circumstance, no one ever gets away with turning in on people. mrmr96 said: b ks. Hi Mr. Plato. Do you have anything more to add?...Didn't think so...
|
|
