Are the Sporting Rules in F1 correct (Overtaking)
Discussion
After reading a lot of news articles, and replies on the Canada/Monaco GP Thread, it got me thinking.
Are the rules/penalties on F1 drivers for overtaking only incorrect.
My question really is should the rules automatically assume that the attacking driver is as fault? As the present rules allow the defending driver to defend very aggressively, where by the overtaking driver is the one most likely the one to get the blame for any incident.
Should this rule be re-written in the favour of the overtaker? (Possibly the faster driver?)
Failing that how can the FIA and Stewards update the rule that it can be applied on a more consistent basis.
Are the rules/penalties on F1 drivers for overtaking only incorrect.
My question really is should the rules automatically assume that the attacking driver is as fault? As the present rules allow the defending driver to defend very aggressively, where by the overtaking driver is the one most likely the one to get the blame for any incident.
Should this rule be re-written in the favour of the overtaker? (Possibly the faster driver?)
Failing that how can the FIA and Stewards update the rule that it can be applied on a more consistent basis.
I'm not sure your assertion about only attacking drivers being penalised is right?
Wasn't Schumacher penalised last year for nearly putting Barrichello into the wall? Hasn't Hamilton been reprimanded/penalised for excessive weaving this year?
Generally the person overtaking is the one committing to an action and instigating a situation, so it stands to reason they are most likely to be penalised if it goes wrong.
Wasn't Schumacher penalised last year for nearly putting Barrichello into the wall? Hasn't Hamilton been reprimanded/penalised for excessive weaving this year?
Generally the person overtaking is the one committing to an action and instigating a situation, so it stands to reason they are most likely to be penalised if it goes wrong.
10 Pence Short said:
I'm not sure your assertion about only attacking drivers being penalised is right?
Wasn't Schumacher penalised last year for nearly putting Barrichello into the wall? Hasn't Hamilton been reprimanded/penalised for excessive weaving this year?
Generally the person overtaking is the one committing to an action and instigating a situation, so it stands to reason they are most likely to be penalised if it goes wrong.
I am trying to say that the attacking driver seems to be assumed to be at fault until proven otherwise.. Wasn't Schumacher penalised last year for nearly putting Barrichello into the wall? Hasn't Hamilton been reprimanded/penalised for excessive weaving this year?
Generally the person overtaking is the one committing to an action and instigating a situation, so it stands to reason they are most likely to be penalised if it goes wrong.
Secondly, As races go uy the Stewards seem to be inconsistant with how they apply the rule. I.e It is dependent on with F1 Personality is assisting the stewards in the decision. The F1 drivers insight has provided a valuable insight for th stewards. But does there own experiences bias there view of what was a valid overtaking manouver?
This is not a discussion of specific incidents it is a discussion on the Rule and how the stewards apply this and are they consistent?
stevieb said:
Should this rule be re-written in the favour of the overtaker?
Absolutely. I've been thinking this for years.It's a bit like the offside rule in football - it's crucial and paramount to the sporting part of the sport itself and governs how the game is played.
IMO the onus should always be given to the attacking driver. If he goes down the inside or outside, the defender should always provide room for his car and should not run them off the track/into a wall or an automatic penalty (like an off-side freekick) is applied.
^ This userd to happen automatically anyway. It was when the sport was unsafe. People used to die if they ignored the attacker...
For this to work that dumb unspiritual one-move rule should be banished to the dustbin it always belonged. <- This should be so that the is a skill to defending/outsmarting and generally, "duelling" on the track, also, just how things used to be.
Edited by mattikake on Friday 17th June 16:01
IndyCar rules favour the overtaker, in fact you can't defend the inside line at all if you're being overtaken... Yeah.
Being that the primary action of any overtake is going to be instigated by the overtaker, the responsibility for them is to do it safely and know when to back out. The FIA allows drivers to make one move although from memory it's a loose definition.
The stewards have no access to the operations room during a race, they're meant to only work off the facts as reported to them by the FIA and can only act upon those. Hence why decisions might not always be totally clear to us.
Being that the primary action of any overtake is going to be instigated by the overtaker, the responsibility for them is to do it safely and know when to back out. The FIA allows drivers to make one move although from memory it's a loose definition.
The stewards have no access to the operations room during a race, they're meant to only work off the facts as reported to them by the FIA and can only act upon those. Hence why decisions might not always be totally clear to us.
But however they did it, favouring one driver, over another, be they defending, or attacking, will come in for critisism. A driver need not be penalised for simply attacking to hard, in the same way, a driver should not be forced to give up a position too easily either.
I don;t agree that the attacker is presumed to be guilty either.
I don;t agree that the attacker is presumed to be guilty either.
Bedazzled said:
What actually are the official rules in F1, regards overtaking and defending? Might be worth getting a consensus on that, first.
The official version is herehttp://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regula...
It's not the F1 rules that are the problem. It's just a convention in motor-racing generally that the driver with the most control of the risk of an overtake is the overtaker. It is therefore up to the overtaker to ensure their attack is reasonably safe, up to the point when the balance of control becomes even between the overtaker and overtakee or shifts entirely to the overtakee. That point arises when the overtaker cannot "back out" from his/her move, the overtakee should be fully aware of the overtaker's position, and the overtakee is capable of avoiding a collision.
To illustrate: before approaching the braking point of a corner, it is entirely up to the overtaker to judge whether a move down the inside line is viable. There are a couple of factors to consider in making this judgment:
1. Am I able to gain sufficient overlap BEFORE the turn-in point for the overtakee to be aware of my position?
2. If I am able to gain that sufficient overlap, am I reasonably able to complete the turn while avoiding a collision?
But at the point of turn-in and during the turn, the overtakee needs to consider:
1. Do I know where the overtaker is?
2. If "yes" to 1, am I able to take a normal driving line without collision?
3. If "yes" to 1 and "no" to 2, am I able to avoid a collision?
Sometimes the answer to 3 may be "no", especially if the track is lined by grass or concrete barriers. If the driver simply doesn't know where the overtaker is, there is no responsibility on his/her part.
The overtaker also needs to consider whether it's possible to back out of the move if the overtakee decides -- for whatever reason -- to take a normal line.
To illustrate: before approaching the braking point of a corner, it is entirely up to the overtaker to judge whether a move down the inside line is viable. There are a couple of factors to consider in making this judgment:
1. Am I able to gain sufficient overlap BEFORE the turn-in point for the overtakee to be aware of my position?
2. If I am able to gain that sufficient overlap, am I reasonably able to complete the turn while avoiding a collision?
But at the point of turn-in and during the turn, the overtakee needs to consider:
1. Do I know where the overtaker is?
2. If "yes" to 1, am I able to take a normal driving line without collision?
3. If "yes" to 1 and "no" to 2, am I able to avoid a collision?
Sometimes the answer to 3 may be "no", especially if the track is lined by grass or concrete barriers. If the driver simply doesn't know where the overtaker is, there is no responsibility on his/her part.
The overtaker also needs to consider whether it's possible to back out of the move if the overtakee decides -- for whatever reason -- to take a normal line.
I believe that the current rules / understandings are inappropriate for F1, in the DRS / KERS era. At the moment it is too fine a line between hero, if the overtake is successful, and zero, if there is a consequential shunt.
It is inherent that a following / overtaking driver is likely to be put alongside the overtakee. All teams have masses of data on sector times, GPS etc and two-way radio so drivers can be warned of likely overtakes. When the DRS activation light is illuminated in the following car, another light could be triggered in the overtakee’s car warning the driver to anticipate another car being alongside. The leading driver should not automatically expect to be able to turn into the racing line with impunity. Both drivers will be stood on the brakes at similar points and so it is often impossible for the overtaker to just “back out” of the manoeuvre.
Similar two-way communication is expected to take place during qualifying when a car on an out lap, has to be warned of a car on a fast lap.
The “rules” stated by Bedazlled and Jungles work fine for lower formulae and club racing, but not all formulae. In the current F1 era, more thought is needed.
It is inherent that a following / overtaking driver is likely to be put alongside the overtakee. All teams have masses of data on sector times, GPS etc and two-way radio so drivers can be warned of likely overtakes. When the DRS activation light is illuminated in the following car, another light could be triggered in the overtakee’s car warning the driver to anticipate another car being alongside. The leading driver should not automatically expect to be able to turn into the racing line with impunity. Both drivers will be stood on the brakes at similar points and so it is often impossible for the overtaker to just “back out” of the manoeuvre.
Similar two-way communication is expected to take place during qualifying when a car on an out lap, has to be warned of a car on a fast lap.
The “rules” stated by Bedazlled and Jungles work fine for lower formulae and club racing, but not all formulae. In the current F1 era, more thought is needed.
In the "How far alongside you have to be for a legit overtake" thread, What was intersting for me is that there were so many interpretations of the same point of view (even amongst those that race, or have raced) I wondered if it were possible to even define a rule. Even if Alain Prost and Nigel Mansell were to get together, would they come up with a satisfactory interpretation? Personally, I'm stunned whenever someone (on this thread, other threads, other websites, letters to a magazine, "expert" opinion) thinks a passing move is the responsibilty of the driver being overtaken (or that it should be), and wonder if they get the concept of motor racing (even if they were a professional driver).
over
-verb (used with object)
50. to go or get over; leap over. (In motorsport "around" instead of "over")
take
-verb (used with object)
1. to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action.
3. to get into one's hands, possesion, control, etc., by force or artiface.
force
-noun
2. strength or power exerted upon an object.
-verb (used with object)
19. to drive or propel against resistance.
artiface
-noun
1. a clever trick or strategem.
2. ...guile; craftiness.
3. cunning; ingenuity; inventiveness.
None of these meanings would give anyone the interpretation that an overtake is an act that the driver being overtaken is in any way responsible for the safe and successful attempt of a pass being performed on them. I would also include - at least two wheels of the four have to be in the confines of the circuit and touching the road surface.
It is called "overtake" not "allowthrough" not "overmyfrontwheelsarepartiallyalongsideyourrearwheelssoyou'llhavetoletmepast".
stevieb said:
My question really is should the rules automatically assume that the attacking driver is as fault?
I would replace the word "fault" with "responsibility", and yes.stevieb said:
As the present rules allow the defending driver to defend very aggressively, where by the overtaking driver is the one most likely the one to get the blame for any incident.
Yeah!...As others have already alluded, regardless of how certain or desperate a move may appear, it is the driver who is attempting to pass that has put both drivers and cars in a vulnerable position. stevieb said:
Should this rule be re-written in the favour of the overtaker? (Possibly the faster driver?)
Absolutely no way! You change the nature of motor "racing" if you did. The idea is to "overtake" not be "allowed through". The rules, or etiquette, shouldn't favour the driver behind and always the driver in front. The driver in front has to take precedence, they're in front, that's what it's all about. It is a race on a track, not a hillclimb, time trial or a drag, being attacking or fastest is insignificant, hence in F1, pole and fastest lap don't score points and there are no points for passing a car. Also, by allowing the driver behind to take precedence, even if they're faster than the driver in front, it could excuse banzai attempts at overtaking. Banzai/half-hearted/unconvincing attempts at overtaking equals bad driving and racing, therefore, those drivers shouldn't be protected by the rules.stevieb said:
Failing that how can the FIA and Stewards update the rule that it can be applied on a more consistent basis.
I suggest replacing the rule book with the use of a dictionary. Accorinding to Dictionary.com...over
-verb (used with object)
50. to go or get over; leap over. (In motorsport "around" instead of "over")
take
-verb (used with object)
1. to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action.
3. to get into one's hands, possesion, control, etc., by force or artiface.
force
-noun
2. strength or power exerted upon an object.
-verb (used with object)
19. to drive or propel against resistance.
artiface
-noun
1. a clever trick or strategem.
2. ...guile; craftiness.
3. cunning; ingenuity; inventiveness.
None of these meanings would give anyone the interpretation that an overtake is an act that the driver being overtaken is in any way responsible for the safe and successful attempt of a pass being performed on them. I would also include - at least two wheels of the four have to be in the confines of the circuit and touching the road surface.
It is called "overtake" not "allowthrough" not "overmyfrontwheelsarepartiallyalongsideyourrearwheelssoyou'llhavetoletmepast".
To use the 2 Hamilton moves in Monaco as examples.
In the Massa / Hairpin incident. Massa DELIBERATELY turned in to the Hairpin EARLIER than he had on the previous laps to block Hamilton (as we know hitting Webber in the process) Personally, I think Massa was at fault. He should have taken the overview that it's better to move over and then repass LH later rather than have the collision. As we saw with a similar move with MSC. MSC saw what was happening, realised he'd been had and avoided the accident. However, FM played to the rules and made LH guilty of causing the avoidable accident. The stewards and in particular the Driver steward SHOULD be able to interpret that incident better than just "Lewis crashed into Massa" which is how they viewed it. Massa crashing out 2 corners later IMO wasn't related, he was just being his usual crappy self
For the Maldonado incident. Lewis should have realised the risk of throiwing it up the inside of a pay driver. And he should have also left himself the option to take to the escape road if necessary. Again, the fact PM went out of the race, just compounded the incident and the punishment.
In the Massa / Hairpin incident. Massa DELIBERATELY turned in to the Hairpin EARLIER than he had on the previous laps to block Hamilton (as we know hitting Webber in the process) Personally, I think Massa was at fault. He should have taken the overview that it's better to move over and then repass LH later rather than have the collision. As we saw with a similar move with MSC. MSC saw what was happening, realised he'd been had and avoided the accident. However, FM played to the rules and made LH guilty of causing the avoidable accident. The stewards and in particular the Driver steward SHOULD be able to interpret that incident better than just "Lewis crashed into Massa" which is how they viewed it. Massa crashing out 2 corners later IMO wasn't related, he was just being his usual crappy self
For the Maldonado incident. Lewis should have realised the risk of throiwing it up the inside of a pay driver. And he should have also left himself the option to take to the escape road if necessary. Again, the fact PM went out of the race, just compounded the incident and the punishment.
Well, I saw the LH and FM incident a bit differently. Both are racing drivers, and both were going for what they perceived to be the gap. Mass a was going to the gap Webber had on his left, and LH was going for the gap he thought would be there from the previous lap. racing incident entirely. I don't think anyone deliberately drove into anyone, especially as they had nothing to gain from it. It wouldn't improve their table standing, it wouldn't hand them a championship, and it was a risk to their own car. I just think the deliberate talk is a bit far fetched.
ChiChoAndy said:
Well, I saw the LH and FM incident a bit differently. Both are racing drivers, and both were going for what they perceived to be the gap. Mass a was going to the gap Webber had on his left, and LH was going for the gap he thought would be there from the previous lap. racing incident entirely. I don't think anyone deliberately drove into anyone, especially as they had nothing to gain from it. It wouldn't improve their table standing, it wouldn't hand them a championship, and it was a risk to their own car. I just think the deliberate talk is a bit far fetched.
I think you're wrong 
For a long time people gave Massa grief for never defending himself against overtakes. I guess it got to him, so he changed and we've seen Massa defend lost causes so wildly in the past that he's either crashed or gone off track in the process. I don't think it's pre meditated. I think it's "oh s
t, ive screwed it up, i better do something about it, if he crashes into me, next time he won't think im a pussy"Did anyone think MSC was stupid for giving LH space. Same goes for the move on NR? No, of course not. But to use an anaolgy FM is the guy bimbling along in the middle lane doing 60 and then when you pass him at 70~ in the outside lane he puts his foot down to prove how manly he is. Low self esteem I guess
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff