'Let Them Race' - Changes in Race Stewarding Philosophy
Discussion
angrymoby said:
because a driver is supposedly on/ over the limit of adhesion at the apex & exit of a corner ...let alone that they'll be fully focusing on hitting the apex, so wont be looking in their mirrors
what you're suggesting would require drivers not taking corners at 10/10ths when being followed, which imo isn't racing ...it's a glorified time trial
I agree, I also agree with other points made in this thread.what you're suggesting would require drivers not taking corners at 10/10ths when being followed, which imo isn't racing ...it's a glorified time trial
You can't win - you let them race and people worry about crashes, so you then introduce rules about leaving car widths here there and everywhere and then people moan that there are too many rules and drivers should be able to race.
AllyBassman said:
I agree, I also agree with other points made in this thread.
You can't win - you let them race and people worry about crashes, so you then introduce rules about leaving car widths here there and everywhere and then people moan that there are too many rules and drivers should be able to race.
There are really not that many rules for drivers. You can't win - you let them race and people worry about crashes, so you then introduce rules about leaving car widths here there and everywhere and then people moan that there are too many rules and drivers should be able to race.
I think that leaving one cars width under braking at the turn in for a corner is reasonable. Forcing an opponent off the track instead of leaving a cars width is unsporting. It’s not really that complicated for drivers and fans to understand - a lot easier than offside rule in football but fans seem to get that.
Cutting a chicane and gaining a lasting advantage is also pretty damn simple, but that’s now become complicated.
This weekend, at the drivers briefing, drivers were told that they would lose 2-lap times if the ran wide in the Parabolica. The drivers understood it, and there were not many problems. Apart from when a Ferrari seemingly did it, but did not lose his time.
The big difference comparing most sports with F1 is that you have professional referees trained to enforce rules evenhandedly and consistently. In F1 it depends on who turns up on the day, so fans, understandably, become confused.
ash73 said:
As well as no movement in braking zones, I think they should be required to leave a car width on entry AND on exit if there's an overlap. I don't like the inside car running the outside car off the track on the exit, claiming he "took the racing line". I'd rather see them side by side through the corner and exit.
But if you're on the outside at corner exit, you've already lost the corner. You've decided to prioritise corner speed over defending. If you don't want to get pushed off the track at corner exit, defend the inside rather than leaving the door open.ash73 said:
As well as no movement in braking zones, I think they should be required to leave a car width on entry AND on exit if there's an overlap. I don't like the inside car running the outside car off the track on the exit, claiming he "took the racing line". I'd rather see them side by side through the corner and exit.
Have to agree with this - although it won't be popular around these parts as it's the Hamilton default overtake these days. He just drives people off the circuit on corner exit. I've never really understood how that has been allowed. If you're not allowed to chop someone's nose on entry, then why are you allowed to run them out of road on exit?Poppiecock said:
Have to agree with this - although it won't be popular around these parts as it's the Hamilton default overtake these days. He just drives people off the circuit on corner exit. I've never really understood how that has been allowed. If you're not allowed to chop someone's nose on entry, then why are you allowed to run them out of road on exit?
Because closing speeds in the braking zone make weaving dangerous, mean the car behind essentially has zero chance of overtaking and can result in a collision that the chasing car has little chance of avoiding. Whereas, if you're able to run someone out of road on exit, it's because you've won the corner - and if you touch, it's because your victim chose not to back out.HardtopManual said:
Because closing speeds in the braking zone make weaving dangerous, mean the car behind essentially has zero chance of overtaking and can result in a collision that the chasing car has little chance of avoiding. Whereas, if you're able to run someone out of road on exit, it's because you've won the corner - and if you touch, it's because your victim chose not to back out.
If they’re having to back out to avoid a collision, then you’ve not ‘won’ the corner. It’s 50/50 with the one on the inside forcing the other off track even if they have compromised corner speed to do it.If you didn’t allow it, the driver on the outside may well get the upper hand on exit.
Drivers deliberately straighten the steering to drive opponents off the track with no penalty as things stand.
Ive noticed all through this season, F1 has adopted a different rule set to every other form of motorsport, Even on a big sim racing forum (which a few of the f1 drivers have been using) people have commented on the last race about the poor racing style they have adopted. If online sim racers who are known for crashing into each other are lamenting the pro's something is going awry.
Sainz vs albon early on at monzo was evidence of this, Sainz pressured by albon takes the inside line, Fair enough, Albon goes round the outside, To me if you are feel pressured enough to defend the inside line, That is the compromise you make for defending and you sacrifice the exit unless you can clear the attacking driver.
Sainz had albon still on the ouside as they passed the apex, but sainz just drove right out as per normal racing line and albon had to drive off track into the gravel.
If you go into the corner on the inside shallower line to defend against a car that is looking to go around the outside, Surely you must anticipate that same car being there on the exit unless you can carry enough speed to clear the front of the following car. but its become the norm for a driver to defend the outside line, Then once past the apex to just drive out to the edge of the track on a normal racing line, So if a car is on the outside, carrying more speed due to turning a shallower angle has to back off or crash as the car on inside had created a move or crash scenario which is what alot of F1 overtakes are becoming.
Then you have martin brundle on the commentary saying its on albon to back out of it and not try and overtake the outside, Cementing the fact that even if you try and race fair, and expect room to be on the exit, Many higher ups think its the attacking drivers remit to back out if the defending car wildly drives them off the track. Im nor fan of BTCC but anyone that tried to drive like that and just block a cars exit from a corner, will suddenly find their rear quarter getting a light tap and spin. So its in the defending cars interest to leave room on the exit if the attacking car manages to keep along side. Obviously in F1 any contact is likely to damage both cars and ultimately their race, Hence there seems to be a big game of chicken in the back out or crash moves. Verstappen hasnt quite figure this game out to well yet though.
I remeber Norris vs Stroll at spain, Slightly different as it was norris outside then inside of T1 and T2 but the same principle.
https://youtu.be/md3cMNQsIEc?t=342
Stroll, fearing being overtaken on the inside, moves over to defend the inside and at this point and has to compromise his corner entry, He takes a tighter line requiring more steering but covering less distance, Norris goes outside line, Shallower arc but more distance. This to me is racing, Both drivers have compromises to the ideal racing line and its who can manage theirs the best. Norris brakes later, Gets his front wheels approximately halfway alonside Stroll, Then they have to switch to the left hander of T2.
To me Norris is successfully enough alongside and it was then on Stroll to leave a cars width to the inside of T2. Instead Stroll cut straight across to the apex of T2, Completely ignoring the car that was along side him and as such, The move or crash game ended in a crash. If you go into a left right hander sequence, And there is a car along side the first part, You must anticipate that same car is going to be there on the second unless you are sure youve beaten the car to the next corner, Thats racing. But stroll drove straight across T2 even though he had the inside of long T3 and should of been easily able to stay ahead and then even had the inside line to T4.
Good racing to me would of been Norris outside and stroll inside T1, They made it through and norris made significatn ground, Then its reversed in T2, Norris has the shorter distance but tigher turning angle and Stroll has the outside, Longer distance arc but can open the steering and apply more throttle to carry more speed, He could even the squeeze norris on exit, He must leave a cars width of room, if he on the outside wishes to, Can neglect to drive out to the edge of the track and instead stay in the middle, making Norris's exit of T2 even harder for him while entering turn T3.
this was the stewards reply though:
"After reviewing video evidence and talking to both drivers, stewards deemed Norris had not completed an overtake in Turn 1, because he was not completely alongside Stroll and that he “could have backed out of the attempted overtake into Turn 2”."
Not that stroll left no room on the inside for a car already alongside, but that as he wasnt perfectly level, Its the defending drivers responsibility to get out of the way of a car that is going to cut across your front wing any second.
Ramble over, But I have been enjoying Indy car recently and the racing sportsmanship seems currently higher than F1, but discount portland, that was a clown show.
p.s Verstappen punted leclerc off at hungary, Will not be told otherwise.
Sainz vs albon early on at monzo was evidence of this, Sainz pressured by albon takes the inside line, Fair enough, Albon goes round the outside, To me if you are feel pressured enough to defend the inside line, That is the compromise you make for defending and you sacrifice the exit unless you can clear the attacking driver.
Sainz had albon still on the ouside as they passed the apex, but sainz just drove right out as per normal racing line and albon had to drive off track into the gravel.
If you go into the corner on the inside shallower line to defend against a car that is looking to go around the outside, Surely you must anticipate that same car being there on the exit unless you can carry enough speed to clear the front of the following car. but its become the norm for a driver to defend the outside line, Then once past the apex to just drive out to the edge of the track on a normal racing line, So if a car is on the outside, carrying more speed due to turning a shallower angle has to back off or crash as the car on inside had created a move or crash scenario which is what alot of F1 overtakes are becoming.
Then you have martin brundle on the commentary saying its on albon to back out of it and not try and overtake the outside, Cementing the fact that even if you try and race fair, and expect room to be on the exit, Many higher ups think its the attacking drivers remit to back out if the defending car wildly drives them off the track. Im nor fan of BTCC but anyone that tried to drive like that and just block a cars exit from a corner, will suddenly find their rear quarter getting a light tap and spin. So its in the defending cars interest to leave room on the exit if the attacking car manages to keep along side. Obviously in F1 any contact is likely to damage both cars and ultimately their race, Hence there seems to be a big game of chicken in the back out or crash moves. Verstappen hasnt quite figure this game out to well yet though.
I remeber Norris vs Stroll at spain, Slightly different as it was norris outside then inside of T1 and T2 but the same principle.
https://youtu.be/md3cMNQsIEc?t=342
Stroll, fearing being overtaken on the inside, moves over to defend the inside and at this point and has to compromise his corner entry, He takes a tighter line requiring more steering but covering less distance, Norris goes outside line, Shallower arc but more distance. This to me is racing, Both drivers have compromises to the ideal racing line and its who can manage theirs the best. Norris brakes later, Gets his front wheels approximately halfway alonside Stroll, Then they have to switch to the left hander of T2.
To me Norris is successfully enough alongside and it was then on Stroll to leave a cars width to the inside of T2. Instead Stroll cut straight across to the apex of T2, Completely ignoring the car that was along side him and as such, The move or crash game ended in a crash. If you go into a left right hander sequence, And there is a car along side the first part, You must anticipate that same car is going to be there on the second unless you are sure youve beaten the car to the next corner, Thats racing. But stroll drove straight across T2 even though he had the inside of long T3 and should of been easily able to stay ahead and then even had the inside line to T4.
Good racing to me would of been Norris outside and stroll inside T1, They made it through and norris made significatn ground, Then its reversed in T2, Norris has the shorter distance but tigher turning angle and Stroll has the outside, Longer distance arc but can open the steering and apply more throttle to carry more speed, He could even the squeeze norris on exit, He must leave a cars width of room, if he on the outside wishes to, Can neglect to drive out to the edge of the track and instead stay in the middle, making Norris's exit of T2 even harder for him while entering turn T3.
this was the stewards reply though:
"After reviewing video evidence and talking to both drivers, stewards deemed Norris had not completed an overtake in Turn 1, because he was not completely alongside Stroll and that he “could have backed out of the attempted overtake into Turn 2”."
Not that stroll left no room on the inside for a car already alongside, but that as he wasnt perfectly level, Its the defending drivers responsibility to get out of the way of a car that is going to cut across your front wing any second.
Ramble over, But I have been enjoying Indy car recently and the racing sportsmanship seems currently higher than F1, but discount portland, that was a clown show.
p.s Verstappen punted leclerc off at hungary, Will not be told otherwise.
Edited by paulwoof on Thursday 12th September 22:48
F1 is a unique sport in which the tools of play, and the rules change every season. This throws up a particular problem when it comes to enforcing those rules, as the changes each season lead to people interpreting and/or trying to bend the rules in different ways. Also the stewards differ at each track, which further messes up any hope of consistency. All in all, it's a bit of ball-ache trying to get it right.
So at the moment, they're trying to prioritise racing over trivial rule breaking attracting penalties. Naturally Liberty will want that to work out. In reality, it's more likely to result in infractions either being 'ignored' if it's obviously not a big deal or dangerous, but at the same time if an identical infraction occurred where the result could have been dangerous, it will probably be treated more seriously, because they have to be seen to be controlling danger. I therefore expect that we will see contradictory assessment of similar infractions for the rest of this season, and that come the end of the season they will have time to decide what worked in the new approach and what needs tweaking - all of which will be pointless because the following season, the rules will change again in some way and the teams will also have had time to work out how to better break the rules which remain the same
It's like a perpetual mess. It will never be tidied up - because as fast as they tidy it, it's being messed up again! I prefer to see the decisions following infractions as a 'known to be aware of' lottery. If any team/driver wants a predictable and dependable result, avoid anything that could risk investigation. If they do decide to take such risks, then they enter the lottery and introduce a random factor in to their race day.
So at the moment, they're trying to prioritise racing over trivial rule breaking attracting penalties. Naturally Liberty will want that to work out. In reality, it's more likely to result in infractions either being 'ignored' if it's obviously not a big deal or dangerous, but at the same time if an identical infraction occurred where the result could have been dangerous, it will probably be treated more seriously, because they have to be seen to be controlling danger. I therefore expect that we will see contradictory assessment of similar infractions for the rest of this season, and that come the end of the season they will have time to decide what worked in the new approach and what needs tweaking - all of which will be pointless because the following season, the rules will change again in some way and the teams will also have had time to work out how to better break the rules which remain the same
It's like a perpetual mess. It will never be tidied up - because as fast as they tidy it, it's being messed up again! I prefer to see the decisions following infractions as a 'known to be aware of' lottery. If any team/driver wants a predictable and dependable result, avoid anything that could risk investigation. If they do decide to take such risks, then they enter the lottery and introduce a random factor in to their race day.
Bo_apex said:
Let them race. Let them crash.
They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
I guess you don't mind them killing each other or even somebody else or maybe the crowd!!!They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
We're not playing Death race you know???
If Hamilton had clipped CLC ferrari wheels, Hamilton could have taken off into the concrete barrier or over the barrier!!!
But that's racing
Oh by the way computer games are not real life
M4CK 1 said:
Bo_apex said:
Let them race. Let them crash.
They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
I guess you don't mind them killing each other or even somebody else or maybe the crowd!!!They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
We're not playing Death race you know???
If Hamilton had clipped CLC ferrari wheels, Hamilton could have taken off into the concrete barrier or over the barrier!!!
But that's racing
Oh by the way computer games are not real life
The world today doesn't work like that I know. But I also think the world has become so risk averse that problems will start to arise and not just in F1. It is a problem in all walks of life when avoiding risk diminishes joy. After-all, what is it we seek to protect life for, if not to live and have joy? The drivers would be safest of all if the races were cancelled - no one wants that. The very fact that races do still happen is proof that driver safety is NOT the number one priority, racing is. The only question is, where the line should be drawn.
Thing which comes over from reading a lot of these comments is that people seem to forget that cars have brake pedals as well as accelerator pedals. A driver is perfectly capable of pulling out of a move if the gap is closing. If there was a wall, a gravel trap or wet grass I guarantee they would be pulling out and no-one would even mention the "incident".
TheDeuce said:
All depends on whether you think the driver should be forced to be safe, or simply protected from obvious danger. Most drivers would I think choose to be released from 'the rules' if doing so would give them an advantage in the heat of battle. Most would independently choose to create more danger than they're allowed to get away with now, if they could.
The world today doesn't work like that I know. But I also think the world has become so risk averse that problems will start to arise and not just in F1. It is a problem in all walks of life when avoiding risk diminishes joy. After-all, what is it we seek to protect life for, if not to live and have joy? The drivers would be safest of all if the races were cancelled - no one wants that. The very fact that races do still happen is proof that driver safety is NOT the number one priority, racing is. The only question is, where the line should be drawn.
When it comes to racing in the heat of battle, the line was drawn just fine before the recent relaxation.The world today doesn't work like that I know. But I also think the world has become so risk averse that problems will start to arise and not just in F1. It is a problem in all walks of life when avoiding risk diminishes joy. After-all, what is it we seek to protect life for, if not to live and have joy? The drivers would be safest of all if the races were cancelled - no one wants that. The very fact that races do still happen is proof that driver safety is NOT the number one priority, racing is. The only question is, where the line should be drawn.
The previous rule about racing room and not moving under braking increased the joy and spectacle of racing because it encouraged close racing. It is this rule that has given Ricciardo many memorable overtakes and wins. Non-adherence by his team mate sent them crashing off at Baku a a few years back.
As much as I enjoyed LeClerc’s win at Monza for many reasons, it is absurd that he was allowed to force another driver off the track under braking just because there wasn’t contact. What if Hamilton had ended up the barrier or worse? Would LeClerc have got a penalty then?
You can't just release the brake and steer out of the way when you are at the edge of the track and heading towards the barriers at 200mph. A clean path for completing your braking is the only realistic option.
Maybe what’s needed is a dotted line each side of the track, a car’s width in from the existing lines?
If there’s a car within 10m of your behind you can’t go over that line. Easily policed electronically, no arguments.
If you’re inside the dotted line you can change line as often as you like.
Or just go racing?
If there’s a car within 10m of your behind you can’t go over that line. Easily policed electronically, no arguments.
If you’re inside the dotted line you can change line as often as you like.
Or just go racing?
Bo_apex said:
Let them race. Let them crash.
They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
I can only assume you've never been at a race where a driver's been killed. I have (Allan Simonsen at Le Mans, 2013) and it really changes your view of the risks these guys take, in no small part for our amusement. Very different to the more distant, almost video game feeling of watching someone crash on TV.They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
Kraken said:
Thing which comes over from reading a lot of these comments is that people seem to forget that cars have brake pedals as well as accelerator pedals. A driver is perfectly capable of pulling out of a move if the gap is closing. If there was a wall, a gravel trap or wet grass I guarantee they would be pulling out and no-one would even mention the "incident".
Okay then so by your logic the driver infront can just constantly weave around the track and not get overtaken. Sounds like good racing TheDeuce said:
M4CK 1 said:
Bo_apex said:
Let them race. Let them crash.
They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
I guess you don't mind them killing each other or even somebody else or maybe the crowd!!!They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
We're not playing Death race you know???
If Hamilton had clipped CLC ferrari wheels, Hamilton could have taken off into the concrete barrier or over the barrier!!!
But that's racing
Oh by the way computer games are not real life
The world today doesn't work like that I know. But I also think the world has become so risk averse that problems will start to arise and not just in F1. It is a problem in all walks of life when avoiding risk diminishes joy. After-all, what is it we seek to protect life for, if not to live and have joy? The drivers would be safest of all if the races were cancelled - no one wants that. The very fact that races do still happen is proof that driver safety is NOT the number one priority, racing is. The only question is, where the line should be drawn.
Did we not see another young driver launch into a marshals area
These cars aren't infallible, Yes they are safer, but that racers should end there life for your entertainment is seriously warped!!!
Unfortunately kids of today, just like you and Bo Apex have warped minds from playing vi. deo games!!!
Grow up!!!!
Poppiecock said:
Have to agree with this - although it won't be popular around these parts as it's the Hamilton default overtake these days. He just drives people off the circuit on corner exit. I've never really understood how that has been allowed. If you're not allowed to chop someone's nose on entry, then why are you allowed to run them out of road on exit?
Because it's the basic fundamental concept of all motorsport racing ...you get to the apex first, you're deemed to have 'won' the right to the corner & racing line (till the next straight)it's a pretty simple concept
//j17 said:
Bo_apex said:
Let them race. Let them crash.
They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
I can only assume you've never been at a race where a driver's been killed. I have (Allan Simonsen at Le Mans, 2013) and it really changes your view of the risks these guys take, in no small part for our amusement. Very different to the more distant, almost video game feeling of watching someone crash on TV.They know the risks, although the risk today is far less than previous decades.
It remains an inherent part of motorsport.
All racers know the risks.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff