FIA clarifies defensive driving guidelines in Formula 1
Discussion
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101147
Just 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'
Just 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'
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?
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)
andyb66 said:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101147
Just 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...Just 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'
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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 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
Edited by The Wookie on Friday 13th July 11:33
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'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]
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.
- 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.
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?- 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.
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.
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:
bks.
Hi Mr. Plato. Do you have anything more to add?...Didn't think so...ks.Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff