'Gaining an advantage' - chicane cutting.

[Ranger]

I am curious.

After today's race and the apparent inaction of the stewards to even investigate Hulkenberg... where is the line drawn?

[Koz]

This isn't surprising. Just proves that the stewards have no idea what they are doing.
BS as always.

Almost every decision is inconsistent from one before it and one after it. There's almost no point in even having the.

[ioan]

Fact is that you can not say if he gained or not an advantage as long as the positions stayed the same.

If you win a position by doing it then it is obvious, if not it is impossible to prove anything.

Who says that if he didn't cut the chicane Webber would have overtaken him?
Even worse, who says they wouldn't have crashed?

[Koz]

In the same way, if a driver thinks he can defend a position by cutting a chicane, he would do it every time.
It's not like it was a one off for him, he did it several times.

[Ranger]

Fact is that you can not say if he gained or not an advantage as long as the positions stayed the same.

He didn't lose any advantage he had either.

If this isn't at least investigated, then what stops any driver cutting chicanes any time they please, as long as they don't gain a position?

[ioan]

In the same way, if a driver thinks he can defend a position by cutting a chicane, he would do it every time.
It's not like it was a one off for him, he did it several times.

Did he do it on purpose or did he outbrake himself?

[ioan]

He didn't lose any advantage he had either.

That is not a reason to be penalized.

Or maybe driver nationalities have something to do with this thread?

[Koz]

He didn't lose any advantage he had either.

If this isn't at least investigated, then what stops any driver cutting chicanes any time they please, as long as they don't gain a position?

That.

Nationalities? What does that have to do with anything?
I'm sure as hell not an Aussie. :)

[truefan72]

to me it was a bit of a non issue. Yeah Hulk was ragged but webber was nowhere near close enough to have been affected by it. If anything it got him closer to Hulk and therefore benefited him. But instead of taking full advantage of that opportunity he actually lost ground to hulk and proceeded to whine over the radio before figuring out that you got to earn your position by out-driving the other guy. Those few laps might have cost him 5th position

[ArrowsFA1]

Part of the problem is that the tarmac run off gives drivers the option to cut the corner.

[ioan]

I'm sure as hell not an Aussie. :)

That wasn't a reply to you, sorry if you misunderstood it.

[Koz]

That wasn't a reply to you, sorry if you misunderstood it.

:)

[steveaki13]

Gravel on the inside of chicanes and no discussions about this. :p

[ioan]

Gravel on the inside of chicanes and no discussions about this. :p

:up:

[motetarip]

On the corners I saw NH cut he had outbraked himself, and MW was not close enough to overtake. I do think he gained a time advantage at least once though.

[Ranger]

That is not a reason to be penalized.

Or maybe driver nationalities have something to do with this thread?

To you, yes.

To me, it is a legitimate question.



Gravel on the inside of chicanes and no discussions about this.

That's true.

Did anyone know exactly why Alguersuari got a chicane-cutting penalty?

[steveaki13]

Did anyone know exactly why Alguersuari got a chicane-cutting penalty?

No I didn't see the incident.

Maybe he gained a few places in the 1st 2 chicanes. Because his penalty was very early in the race.

[N4D13]

Did anyone know exactly why Alguersuari got a chicane-cutting penalty?
He told La Sexta reporters right after the race that he didn't have a clue about it. Not only didn't he overtake anyone doing that, but he also said that there were other cars in front of him which did exactly the same, yet they weren't penalized. And there was Hulkenberg as well.

There must be a reason why he was penalized, but I can't see it because I don't have any footage of his start. Maybe it was because he didn't lose much time there, but if would be still absurd that Hulk didn't get a penalty and Alguersuari did.

[ioan]

He told La Sexta reporters right after the race that he didn't have a clue about it. Not only didn't he overtake anyone doing that, but he also said that there were other cars in front of him which did exactly the same, yet they weren't penalized. And there was Hulkenberg as well.

There must be a reason why he was penalized, but I can't see it because I don't have any footage of his start. Maybe it was because he didn't lose much time there, but if would be still absurd that Hulk didn't get a penalty and Alguersuari did.

Typical FIA reaction. Don't try to understand them.

[Ranger]

He told La Sexta reporters right after the race that he didn't have a clue about it. Not only didn't he overtake anyone doing that, but he also said that there were other cars in front of him which did exactly the same, yet they weren't penalized. And there was Hulkenberg as well.

There must be a reason why he was penalized, but I can't see it because I don't have any footage of his start. Maybe it was because he didn't lose much time there, but if would be still absurd that Hulk didn't get a penalty and Alguersuari did.

Sums up the #1 problem with the FIA for as long as I can remember.

Inconsistency.

[truefan72]

He told La Sexta reporters right after the race that he didn't have a clue about it. Not only didn't he overtake anyone doing that, but he also said that there were other cars in front of him which did exactly the same, yet they weren't penalized. And there was Hulkenberg as well.

There must be a reason why he was penalized, but I can't see it because I don't have any footage of his start. Maybe it was because he didn't lose much time there, but if would be still absurd that Hulk didn't get a penalty and Alguersuari did.

that I agree with. Seemed like a phantom call by the stewards. Maybe they were bored and decided to pick on a lower car to show the folks that they were vigilant. But I certainly did not see anything from JA and no replays of the infraction were shown either.

[markabilly]

He told La Sexta reporters right after the race that he didn't have a clue about it. Not only didn't he overtake anyone doing that, but he also said that there were other cars in front of him which did exactly the same, yet they weren't penalized. And there was Hulkenberg as well.

There must be a reason why he was penalized, but I can't see it because I don't have any footage of his start. Maybe it was because he didn't lose much time there, but if would be still absurd that Hulk didn't get a penalty and Alguersuari did.
Logic,truth and justice got nothing to do with it.

Never has and never will have.

Just the FIA and stewards being FIA and stewards.

:rolleyes:

[Sonic]

Part of the problem is that the tarmac run off gives drivers the option to cut the corner.

Indeed - there needs to be a penalty for running off track (and not a FIA imposed one). Once upon a time this thing called gravel traps did that job nicely but now they are consigned to history so we need artificial rules to force the drivers to swap places.

Saftey wise I can see the benefits of Tarmac but surely we could have Tarmac run off to slow a spinning vehicle followed by a 10m strip of gravel (or in my ideal world a 10m wide pool of crocodile infested waters) to hinder their route back to the track. Just a thought.

[ShiftingGears]

Never liked tarmac run-off.

[Retro Formula 1]

The problem with a lot of todays tracks is that there is no real penalty for going off track.

There are tracks that drivers generally make sure they don't go off track like Monaco. It's the old arguement about putting a sharp spike fixed to the middle of the steering wheel.

I like the idea of imagining there is a wall there. That way, if a driver cuts a chicane, technically he is out of the race but instead of that, we give them an automatic drive through, they are getting off lightly.

None of this 3 lap business either. If you go off track, you do a drive through or get black flagged.

If another driver barges you off track then give them a 10 sec stop go.

Would soon sort this nonsense out.

[Sonic]

Never liked tarmac run-off.

I can see it's benefits from a safety point of view but in general i agree with you; as a driver you are always going to be searching for any advantage, so you are gonna use it as many times as you can het away with it.

From my own experience Paddock Hill at brands had a massive exit run off (the old track) so we all used it. Then they cut most of the tarmac away, leaving only a single car width on the exit - we still all used it. Even under the threat of dsq of times in qually. It was just too much of an advantage to give away.

Now Mr Palmer owns the gaff he's painted that area green and produced these nice little diagrams of how much track we are permitted to use - at least two wheels on the track - do we listen? Do we hell!

[CNR]

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3422/5554046/Drivers-warned-against-cutting-Monza-chicanes
last year

Other than to avoid an accident, if a driver cuts or misses a chicane three times during the race a drive-through penalty will automatically be imposed.


Whiting even went as far to as explain that cutting chicane meant having four wheels on the wrong side of the kerb.

this year FU i don't fen care what you do
with this and massa last race it looks like they are trying to control the outcome of this year's championship

[Mark]

Part of the problem is that the tarmac run off gives drivers the option to cut the corner.

Yes. What we'd ideally have in those situations is a surface such that it will drastically slow the car down, but unlike gravel will also allow the car to be driven away again. Such that if you outbrake yourself and have to cut across the chicane you will lose a lot of time and like be overtaken, but it won't be the end of your race.

Monza chicanes have always been a problem and they've yet to find a decent solution. At least it's not like the tyres they had up there in 1996 which prevented Damon Hill from taking the championship that weekend.

[Z926A12]

simple solution could be to paint a bright blue (why not) line in the run off and just say "if you touch it, you get a drive through". Job done.

[Retro Formula 1]

What is the problem with penalising drivers who stray off track?

In the old days, you might have been injured or worse. It gave drivers a healthy respect for the circuit and what was or wasn't acceptable.

My 8 year old asked why there were drivers cheating on Sunday. I explained that they shouldn't cut the chicane and they would get penalised. How bloody stupid did I look.

If you can cut a chicane twice without penalty and still keep your position, what's the point?

Oh year, because Webber speaks English, the Stewards must favour him. I forgot :rolleyes:

[V12]

Bring back gravel traps.

[steveaki13]

Bring back gravel traps.

I agree

Simple and effective and stops debates about chicane cutting.

[SGWilko]

Gravel on the inside of chicanes and no discussions about this. :p

I agree with the idea, but think about the implications;

A driver goes off and is trapped on the inside of the chicane - this means marshalls and trucks etc on the track, so is a yellow flag enough.

You risk interrupting races this way.

I think the solution they put in place at Monza for 2010 - humps on the run off, means that a driver is penalised if he goes off, but can get back on track.

MHO, of course!!

[Mark]

Yep, we want to see a driver penalised for going off track, but ideally not by putting them out of the race completely, and importantly not such that it interrupts the race.

[Valve Bounce]

We just need a better impediment off the chicane so that anyone running off will lose more time than going on track. The way things are at Monza, a driver gains by running off the track at the chicane. But I do not favor gravel here becaus ehte gravel would be spread onto the track and cause more problems for other cars.

[ShiftingGears]

Just run Monza without chicanes :p :

[markabilly]

Just run Monza without chicanes :p :
great Idea.....why has someone not thought of this until now :D

But is was clearly an issue at Monza, and I thought very unfairly applied


of course there are always such things "tire deflation devices" which would allow the driver to continue on a short distance to get off the track.....and say add a 20 grid penalty should he not do so for next race....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/US_Army_spike_strip.jpg/220px-

[V12]

I agree with the idea, but think about the implications;

A driver goes off and is trapped on the inside of the chicane - this means marshalls and trucks etc on the track, so is a yellow flag enough.

You risk interrupting races this way.

I think the solution they put in place at Monza for 2010 - humps on the run off, means that a driver is penalised if he goes off, but can get back on track.

MHO, of course!!

Yeah, maybe something like speed bumps (that either make you take a longer diversion or bugger up your car) would be a cleaner (literally) solution than having gravel sprayed everywhere, but either way there needs to be a natural deterrent, rather than relying on the stewards to apply an artificial penalty.

[maxter]

Yeah, maybe something like speed bumps (that either make you take a longer diversion or bugger up your car) would be a cleaner (literally) solution than having gravel sprayed everywhere, but either way there needs to be a natural deterrent, rather than relying on the stewards to apply an artificial penalty.
Totally agree, makes for better and more comprehensive racing from the fans point of view, especially considering the stewards' decisions are about as consistent as a teenage boy's singing voice.

[wedge]

Gravel on the inside of chicanes and no discussions about this. :p

Which is why I don't like the GPDA these days. They tend to want their day jobs to be easier.

[ArrowsFA1]

Which is why I don't like the GPDA these days. They tend to want their day jobs to be easier.
I'm not so sure it's the GPDA asking for more and more tarmac run-off. Adrian Sutil's comments suggest the opposite is true in most cases:

“Abu Dhabi was one of the most perfect circuits I have driven on, and the most boring as well. It was just straight and really, really boring – but I probably cannot say anything bad about it for it's safe, like all modern circuits should be.

“I think it's time to involve more drivers in this work, because we want fast corners as that's where F1 cars are so good. The majority of the drivers feel this way. Of course there are a few who like it the way it is, safe. There will always be different opinions about it, but most of them would say there can be some changes in the circuits.

“Everyone loves driving because there is thrill in it. If it was not dangerous, maybe not so many drivers would be doing it. Maybe there are certain risks in it, but if you don't take those risks, it would get boring. Circuits are getting too safe and driving is not so nice anymore. Personally speaking, I'm just not getting that thrill.

“There is a wall in the corner and you have got to take it easy or you would ram into it. Formula 1 is dangerously fast and is all about speed; that's why it's interesting, and we should keep it like that. Of course it is good to be safe and you need to look for improvement in drivers' safety, but F1 did so much for safety that these cars are highly-developed and I feel really safe.”

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/155904/1/sutil_safety_push_has_made_modern_f1_circuits_bori ng.html

[Garry Walker]

If you outbrake yourelf and cut the chicane to hold position, then you in my view it is gaining an advantage and you should give up your place.

[Mark]

I do agree with him in some respects. F1 should be dangerous, but, dangerous in terms of if you make a mistake then you're out of the race. We can have a situation such that, mistakes are severely punished, and yet there is no danger to the driver.

[ArrowsFA1]

As Sir Stirling Moss has said (http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/4802.html):
"Getting into an old Formula One car you knew you were really vulnerable. To use a straightforward analogy, if a tightrope was only one foot above the ground anyone would try it, if its 50 feet in the air not many would and without a safety net even fewer. That was the appeal of racing to me."
That vulnerability has all but gone, which of course is a good thing in terms of saving drivers from serious injury or death, but the nature of the sport has changed enormously as a result.

[Firstgear]

If you outbrake yourelf and cut the chicane to hold position, then you in my view it is gaining an advantage and you should give up your place.

I agree, "gaining an advantage" is not the same as gaining a position. Gaining an advantage can be gaining a second or two by cutting the chicane.

But giving up your place can't always be the answer either. If you outbreak yourself and cut the chicane but you're, say, 5 or 10 seconds ahead of the car behind, losing the position is too harsh.

Maybe speed traps could be put in the chicanes. If you go through, you need to slow down to X kph (whatever the pit lane speed is, for example) before carrying on.

[wedge]

I'm not so sure it's the GPDA asking for more and more tarmac run-off. Adrian Sutil's comments suggest the opposite is true in most cases:

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/155904/1/sutil_safety_push_has_made_modern_f1_circuits_bori ng.html

GPDA have worked with the FIA for safety.

It wasn't that long ago drivers were complaining Monza needed to safer and yet Brundle thought they were talking rubbish.

It seems in Sutil's opinion the safety aspect have been pushed too far.

[ioan]

I agree, "gaining an advantage" is not the same as gaining a position. Gaining an advantage can be gaining a second or two by cutting the chicane.

But giving up your place can't always be the answer either. If you outbreak yourself and cut the chicane but you're, say, 5 or 10 seconds ahead of the car behind, losing the position is too harsh.

Maybe speed traps could be put in the chicanes. If you go through, you need to slow down to X kph (whatever the pit lane speed is, for example) before carrying on.

Lap times are a very good indicator for gaining advantages (or not( by cutting chicanes.

[Sonic]

Lap times are a very good indicator for gaining advantages (or not( by cutting chicanes.

Indeed. The simple answers are normally the best.

[Valve Bounce]

Just make it a rule: any driver who misses a chicane no matter whether he supposedly gains an advantage or otherwise is given an automatic drive through; problem solved.

[CNR]

Just make it a rule: any driver who misses a chicane no matter whether he supposedly gains an advantage or otherwise is given an automatic drive through; problem solved.

would it work when last year on the same track cut a chaine 3 time and they got a drive thru

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3422/5554046/Drivers-warned-against-cutting-Monza-chicanes

[gloomyDAY]

Did he do it on purpose or did he outbrake himself?Doesn't matter if Hülkenberg outbraked himself or not. The point of the matter is that he cut a chicane three times and was not penalized, which is what I find wrong with the stewards' decisions at Monza. Those are the rules which were stipulated to the drivers but were not adhered to during the course of the race.

[edv]

Maybe there could be an alternative to gravel traps at chicanes...something that penalises the drivers without damaging cars or spitting debris on the racing surface - say some kind of 'slippery' coating which induces wheel spin.
It's gimmicky for sure, but it would be passive (no steward's intervention) and it would help solve the problem. Very simple.

[ioan]

Doesn't matter if Hülkenberg outbraked himself or not. The point of the matter is that he cut a chicane three times and was not penalized,...

The rules do not mention anything about three or more or less times. It's about gaining an advantage and you must be able to quantify the advantage in order to impose a penalty based on the rule.

[gloomyDAY]

The rules do not mention anything about three or more or less times. It's about gaining an advantage and you must be able to quantify the advantage in order to impose a penalty based on the rule.Nico H. cut the chicane more than 3 times! How much more evidence do you need?

Also, Nico H. gained an advantage on turns 1 and 2. Every time Mark got on his tow down the main straight, Nico H. would forget how to brake and turn.

[ioan]

Nico H. cut the chicane more than 3 times! How much more evidence do you need?

Also, Nico H. gained an advantage on turns 1 and 2. Every time Mark got on his tow down the main straight, Nico H. would forget how to brake and turn.

Please quantify that advantage. I'm looking forward to it.

[V12]

Please quantify that advantage. I'm looking forward to it.

You can't quantify it - that's the point. That's why we need to revert run off design to the days when going off the designated track penalised you without the need for stewards intervention.

[gloomyDAY]

Please quantify that advantage. I'm looking forward to it.Well, missing an entire chicane gives you a time advantage.

[AndyL]

Maybe there could be an alternative to gravel traps at chicanes...something that penalises the drivers without damaging cars or spitting debris on the racing surface - say some kind of 'slippery' coating which induces wheel spin.

Grass?

[Firstgear]

Grass?

Do like they do in golf - Put in a water hazard. :p

Half a foot deep ought to do it.

[ioan]

You can't quantify it - that's the point.

Exactly. That's why a stupid rule can not apply and it's funny how many people do not understand this situation.

[ioan]

Well, missing an entire chicane gives you a time advantage.

Even with the bumps and the braking?!
Lap times tell the story of gaining a time advantage or not, it's the only way to quantify an advantage gained without a change of places.

[steveaki13]

Grass?

Where could we find some of this grass you speak of? :p

[Ari]

What is the problem with penalising drivers who stray off track?

In the old days, you might have been injured or worse. It gave drivers a healthy respect for the circuit and what was or wasn't acceptable.

My 8 year old asked why there were drivers cheating on Sunday. I explained that they shouldn't cut the chicane and they would get penalised. How bloody stupid did I look.

If you can cut a chicane twice without penalty and still keep your position, what's the point?

Oh year, because Webber speaks English, the Stewards must favour him. I forgot :rolleyes:

Agreed.

The Hulk did what he did because he was outdriving himself driving to hold position against a faster car.

If you need to go off circuit 3 or 4 times to defend position then it's probably not yours.

The worst was probably the last one when he cut right back across in front of Webber almost causing a collision.

It SHOULD have been a drive through but wasn't. Poor and inconsistent governing from the FIA and Emmo. Probably cost Webber a position or two.

That said, Webber should have balls'd up earlier and instead of whining on the radio had an earlier go at the Hulk.

All said and done Webber finished 6th instead of 5th or 4th and the Hulk got away with one. Let's hope those points don't effect the championship.

We move on.

[Ari]

Lap times are a very good indicator for gaining advantages (or not( by cutting chicanes.

Completely disagree.

If you run off the track then cut back across in front of the guy behind you, your lap time may be very much the same as it would have been to continue on the racing line.

The query here is that the position which you did not lose, you probably should have. Poor driving followed by cheating across the circuit may even be slower than just taking the correct line but does not show on the timing screens really.

[Ari]

Doesn't matter if Hülkenberg outbraked himself or not. The point of the matter is that he cut a chicane three times and was not penalized, which is what I find wrong with the stewards' decisions at Monza. Those are the rules which were stipulated to the drivers but were not adhered to during the course of the race.

Simple and spot on.

Charlie even made serious mention of it the year before. It's one thing to do it once and maybe that can be excused.... but when it happens 3 or 4 times then there's a problem.

[Ari]

Exactly. That's why a stupid rule can not apply and it's funny how many people do not understand this situation.

If you lose half a second by stuffing up on the way in but gain half a second by cutting the corner on the way out what has the lap time told us? Nothing.

[Ari]

You can't quantify it - that's the point. That's why we need to revert run off design to the days when going off the designated track penalised you without the need for stewards intervention.

Agree with this, but I think it would be very difficult to do. A very wise idea though. These days the tracks are soooo accommodating, I guess for safety reasons.

[ioan]

The rules state that the driver gets a penalty if he gains an advantage.
As long as the advantage can not be objectively proved there are no grounds for a penalty.
Or do we want to live in a world where you can be convicted based on hearsay, or other lunacies?

I am not a Hulkenberg nor a Webber fan, just for the record. Still I appreciate it when rules are enforced on an objective basis.

[motetarip]

The rules state that the driver gets a penalty if he gains an advantage.
As long as the advantage can not be objectively proved there are no grounds for a penalty.
Or do we want to live in a world where you can be convicted based on hearsay, or other lunacies?

I am not a Hulkenberg nor a Webber fan, just for the record. Still I appreciate it when rules are enforced on an objective basis.
:up:

I didn't see if NH's lap times were significantly less when he did cut the chicane than when he didn't, but that's the only real way of measuring the advantage

[motetarip]

If you lose half a second by stuffing up on the way in but gain half a second by cutting the corner on the way out what has the lap time told us? Nothing.

The lap time tells us that no advantage has been gained, which it hasn't. Same time through the corner overall.

[emporer_k]

How about having a "penalty chicane" for want of a better word, that a driver must go through if they cut another chicane somewhere on the circuit.

[gloomyDAY]

Holy cow! This is getting really complicated for cutting a chicane.

Just put something in place to stop the drivers from doing it in the first place.
We don't need anymore sissy tracks that accommodates drivers' every whim.

[motetarip]

Just put something in place to stop the drivers from doing it in the first place.

Like gravel.

Or a wall...

[maxter]

Proper bumps would do it I'd say, maybe placed in a manner so that you can zig-zag your way past them (to avoid damage to the car) but with a notable time loss.

Well, I guess grass would do just fine as well. Not that the FIA would approve of a simple and logic solution.

[gloomyDAY]

Proper bumps would do it I'd say, maybe placed in a manner so that you can zig-zag your way past them (to avoid damage to the car) but with a notable time loss.

Well, I guess grass would do just fine as well. Not that the FIA would approve of a simple and logic solution.Yeah, they'll probably use landmines.

[Saint Devote]

No action was the good move by the stewards because it was like years ago. Mark got by in a great move.

And afterwards he might have "spoken" to Hulkenberg in the way that Senna, Jones, Scheckter or AJ and so many others would have - guaranteed Hulkenberg would not be doing that nonsense again.

Complaining over the radio is a specialty of Webber's.

[truefan72]

Holy cow! This is getting really complicated for cutting a chicane.

Just put something in place to stop the drivers from doing it in the first place.
We don't need anymore sissy tracks that accommodates drivers' every whim.


Like gravel.

Or a wall...

and then when a driver dies or gets seriously hurt from running into these impediments, we will all cry for softer chicanes and bigger runoff areas.

Listen, the reasons why these tracks are the way they are, are to accommodate the modern f1 car that is faster, more aerodynamic, more able to pull higher G-loads and, better on the braking than cars in the past, thus making the margin of error that much smaller than in the past.

Whereas the danger in the past came from less secure tracks and perhaps poorer safety measures, in today's F1, the car itself and its abilities along with drivers taking them to the very edge, more than warrant the necessary measures on the track. Now couple that with the money involved in the sport and it makes no sense to have a crash derby every week and drivers being hurt so that a few can get nostalgic.

Hulkenberg was braking within 60 meters from the chicane from a speed of over 330 kmh, hate to see his car launched in the air, smashed against a wall or uncontrollable in a gravel trap if something were to go wrong.

[Valve Bounce]

and then when a driver dies or gets seriously hurt from running into these impediments, we will all cry for softer chicanes and bigger runoff areas.

Listen, the reasons why these tracks are the way they are, are to accommodate the modern f1 car that is faster, more aerodynamic, more able to pull higher G-loads and, better on the braking than cars in the past, thus making the margin of error that much smaller than in the past.

Whereas the danger in the past came from less secure tracks and perhaps poorer safety measures, in today's F1, the car itself and its abilities along with drivers taking them to the very edge, more than warrant the necessary measures on the track. Now couple that with the money involved in the sport and it makes no sense to have a crash derby every week and drivers being hurt so that a few can get nostalgic.

Hulkenberg was braking within 60 meters from the chicane from a speed of over 330 kmh, hate to see his car launched in the air, smashed against a wall or uncontrollable in a gravel trap if something were to go wrong.

I fully agree with you. Sound reasoning here. :up:

However, I think it is silly to expect drivers to sort things out afterwards. :down:

It cannot be that difficult to re-design the runoffs at the chicanes so that once a driver leaves the track by cutting a chicane, their access back onto the track could be via a longer and more time consuming access track. That way, they not only lose time but have to give way to cars going past on the circuit.

[Saint Devote]

and then when a driver dies or gets seriously hurt from running into these impediments, we will all cry for softer chicanes and bigger runoff areas.

Listen, the reasons why these tracks are the way they are, are to accommodate the modern f1 car that is faster, more aerodynamic, more able to pull higher G-loads and, better on the braking than cars in the past, thus making the margin of error that much smaller than in the past.

Whereas the danger in the past came from less secure tracks and perhaps poorer safety measures, in today's F1, the car itself and its abilities along with drivers taking them to the very edge, more than warrant the necessary measures on the track. Now couple that with the money involved in the sport and it makes no sense to have a crash derby every week and drivers being hurt so that a few can get nostalgic.

Hulkenberg was braking within 60 meters from the chicane from a speed of over 330 kmh, hate to see his car launched in the air, smashed against a wall or uncontrollable in a gravel trap if something were to go wrong.

Hulkenberg came into f1 with a performance that equalled that of Hamilton - problem is that he is no Lewis.

And that Williams is delaying signing him for 2011 and it is already past Monza speaks volumes.

He should not be making such basic errors of judgement in an f1 car - repeatedly although it is Monza.

But it is likely he will be given one more year because given the ridiculous no testing regulation, the year of a debutant in f1 can be written off to learning and experience - exactly WHERE is the saving?

Pandering to less financed teams does not belong in f1.

[Valve Bounce]

Hulkenberg came into f1 with a performance that equalled that of Hamilton - problem is that he is no Lewis.

.

:p : :D :rotflmao:

[schmenke]

Nico's advantage was not necessarily an improved lap time, but the fact that he did manage to stay in front of Webber. IMO he should have been penalized.
Besides, I thought there was something in the sporting regulations about keeping all four wheels between the white racing lines...? :mark:

[truefan72]

It cannot be that difficult to re-design the runoffs at the chicanes so that once a driver leaves the track by cutting a chicane, their access back onto the track could be via a longer and more time consuming access track. That way, they not only lose time but have to give way to cars going past on the circuit.

I agree with you, the question is what type of redesign is needed, maybe higher bumpers on the inside apex past turn 2, where most cut back into the track might do the trick

[ioan]

Nico's advantage was not necessarily an improved lap time, but the fact that he did manage to stay in front of Webber.

I guess you can prove that if it wasn't for Hulkenberg outbraking himself Webber would have overtaken him on one of those 3 occassions?
Just a question.

[ioan]

I agree with you, the question is what type of redesign is needed, maybe higher bumpers on the inside apex past turn 2, where most cut back into the track might do the trick

Get rid of the chicanes is the answer. Unless you put a wall or a water a deep trap people will eventually outbrake themselves and the opposition will whine about the 'advantage gained'

What's the use of chicanes anyway?
Attempting to create overtaking possibilities that are not there because of the stupid aero technical regulations?!

[motetarip]

Walls don't have to be made of concrete. I remember a certain Mr Webber hitting the tyres quite hard this season and walking away with only a bruised ego.

[gloomyDAY]

Walls don't have to be made of concrete. I remember a certain Mr Webber hitting the tyres quite hard this season and walking away with only a bruised ego.This!

[Bagwan]

Well , we can't have them whack the wall , or tire barriers for that matter .
It's not good for the show .

Those sleeping policemen work pretty well , and placed properly , so a driver may avoid damage by slowing down and taking the policemen escape route makes a lot of sense .

But , I like those big blocks of styrofoam . Big enough chunks to take out a few bits of aerodynamic carbon fibre off those front wings .
They could cut them into some pretty interesting shapes like sea monsters for races on the ocean , or sleeping camels in the desert venues , or roos in Oz .
They could make sleeping policemen that look like sleeping policemen .

[motetarip]

They could make sleeping policemen that look like sleeping policemen .

Better still, REAL policemen!

[Ari]

3 pages later and we're still not there yet!? :p

Well, the fact there are 3 pages of discussion pretty much means it was a questionable decision, or non-decision more so.

There is a GP this weekend though guys! Singapore under lights, in the wet.... I can categorically tell you the chatter of next week is going to be a little more exciting than chicane cutting! :o

[airshifter]

I guess you can prove that if it wasn't for Hulkenberg outbraking himself Webber would have overtaken him on one of those 3 occassions?
Just a question.

Would Webber have passed the Hulk if there was gravel on the inside of the chicane? You're posing a question while not considering the other view. As for lap times, it was stated his time didn't improve so he gained no advantage. But in reality if he outbraked himself to the point of going off track, his lap time should have suffered.

I can think of a number of times when a driver was cutting chicanes to the point of all four wheels outside of the white racing line, and to the point where it would seem obvious they were gaining advantage by doing so. Felipe at Monaco a couple years back is a good example, and he was doing it when nobody was attempting to overtake.

[truefan72]

Well , we can't have them whack the wall , or tire barriers for that matter .
It's not good for the show .

Those sleeping policemen work pretty well , and placed properly , so a driver may avoid damage by slowing down and taking the policemen escape route makes a lot of sense .

But , I like those big blocks of styrofoam . Big enough chunks to take out a few bits of aerodynamic carbon fibre off those front wings .
They could cut them into some pretty interesting shapes like sea monsters for races on the ocean , or sleeping camels in the desert venues , or roos in Oz .
They could make sleeping policemen that look like sleeping policemen .

the only problem is that if a car hits it in the right place a bunch of it gets on the track and a SC will have to be brought out to clean the mess and ensure other cars don't get bits of it damaging their cars

[ioan]

Would Webber have passed the Hulk if there was gravel on the inside of the chicane? You're posing a question while not considering the other view.

So, would he?!
You don't know it for sure, so why penalize Hulkenberg then?

Is it the drivers fault for taking advantage of what the track offers in case he absolutely needs it? I don't think so. Then why penalize the driver for the FIA's stupidity?

[Valve Bounce]

So, would he?!
You don't know it for sure, so why penalize Hulkenberg then?

Is it the drivers fault for taking advantage of what the track offers in case he absolutely needs it? I don't think so. Then why penalize the driver for the FIA's stupidity?

Now, now!! insulting the FIA is not going to solve this issue. If we want drivers to be disadvantaged when cutting a chicane, then the chicanes have to be designed so that the runoffs are more isolated from the track, and returning to the track will cause some delay.

[airshifter]

Now, now!! insulting the FIA is not going to solve this issue. If we want drivers to be disadvantaged when cutting a chicane, then the chicanes have to be designed so that the runoffs are more isolated from the track, and returning to the track will cause some delay.

Exactly. As it stands now the run off areas are often used on a regular basis, something that doesn't happen nearly as often as when going off the circuit causes a real slow down in performance.

[Tazio]

I think the changes made to the track have made it worse – and the chicane is now very tricky.

You approach it at 170mph – and if something goes wrong, and you hit one of those kerbs, then you could have a nasty accident.
Lewis Hamilton
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/09/24/hamilton-slams-singapore-chicane/

I tend to agree with The Boss on this one. The walls and fences provide enough persuasion to stay on the only line there is through this turn. The way Sutil got launched off that curb and ended his practice makes me inclined to believe this may be a solution for Monza :)
It is a bit of a whine however as everyone seemed to navigate it except Sutil :bigcry: ;)

[Retro Formula 1]

OK, where we have all these big run off areas and corners that people are cutting or abusing, lets just make them re-enter the track at a set point.

If they accidentally cut a corner for example, make them turn offline and follow some painted lines to a re-entry point.

This will ensure they lose a couple of seconds and if by cutting the chicane they would have retained a place, now they will lose it.

However, if they are sufficiently ahead, they will just lose a couple of seconds and keep their place rather than lose 30 seconds with a drive through.

If they don't make a concerted effort to take the detour, they will get an automatic drive through.

I will be even more fair and say that if you miss a corner but don't have time to react, you can do the next one.