Get rid of the 'no-defense' rule.

[Shifter]

This no-defense rule has to go, and if it went, Indycar would have much better racing. The problem is this, and you saw it many times at the new Edmonton with the hairpins -- drivers know they're not going to be defended to the inside, so the temptation to dive bomb is big. Problem is, if the timing isn't right, they can't back out of it which always results in contact.

Compare what you saw at Edmonton's hairpins with what you saw at the hairpin Turn 1 a the Nurburgring with the German Grand Prix. Drivers defended the inside line, and two things happened: 1) The passing driver continues to dive-bomb the inside, to which the defending driver responds by going back wide, safely allowing the passing driver the opportunity to outbrake themselves and swap positions back on corner exit. In this case the defending driver has room to alter the line back to a wider entry. 2) The passing driver goes to the outside, attempting to use the wider line to get underneath on exit, and with more speed. The overtaking driver might outbrake himself here, but doing so will cause him to run wide without hitting the driver he was trying to overtake.

Fact is, the 'no-defense' rule runs contrary to driver instinct, and actually causes more wheel-to-wheel impacts. With defensive lines, it's much clearer when a driver does have position to dive-bomb inside; if the driver isn't close enough to make the move, the battle shifts to corner-exit, with speed variances between the cars due to the different lines.

Every major road-racing motorsport allows defensive lines, and it works just fine for them!

[chuck34]

Well said. The "no-defense" rule is just plain stupid. And it isn't racing. By having that rule, the race is now just a parade. Defensive driving is part of racing, end of story.

[Hoop-98]

The first time I saw this type of rule was at San Jose 2, where they actually painted a line. This was because there were no passing zones to speak of at that track.

I like the one move too, as long as it isn't one of those M. Schumacher grass to grass moves!

rh

[bblocker68]

Count me in. One move is defending, two is blocking. Too many rules is asking for trouble.

[DBell]

The first time I saw this type of rule was at San Jose 2, where they actually painted a line. This was because there were no passing zones to speak of at that track.

I like the one move too, as long as it isn't one of those M. Schumacher grass to grass moves!

rh

That was a little different than the currant IndyCar rule. The driver had to choose which lane he was going to take and not cross the line once he choose. The line was essentially the braking zone area. I like one move before the braking zone and holding it in the braking zone

[markabilly]

the "no-move rule" rule would be best.

[wedge]

Count me in. One move is defending, two is blocking. Too many rules is asking for trouble.

For superspeedways there's a case for but I'm not a huge of this kind of rule. Is trying to disrupt the tow a form of blocking? If it isn't, where do you draw the line - not just metaphorically but literally if it goes that far and copy Edmonton/San Jose?

[call_me_andrew]

I'm partial to Champ Car's white line rule. The one move rule doesn't take breaking the draft into account (Lewis Hamilton can tell you all about that).

[Dr. Krogshöj]

I'm partial to Champ Car's white line rule. The one move rule doesn't take breaking the draft into account (Lewis Hamilton can tell you all about that).

It does. You cannot break the draft.

[Marbles]

Maintain the line that you assumed from the previous exit. I'm all for it but apparently it's virtually impossible to enforce. I heard Coulthard today explain that (in F1) you stick to the line you assume at the braking zone. Wow! That's the rule in F1? The bottom line is the officials don't want to stink up a good battle with a drive-thru penalty and to be honest, I hate it when the refs decide the outcome of a race.

So how should it be done? They have to enforce the rule (one move is my preference) without bias or exception from positions one through infinite and start doing it from here to eternity and without prejudice. That's the only way it can be done... and the drivers will learn because they will realize they didn't get away with it last time.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

You can if you can do it with the "one move". You just can't change your line again - as in weave back and forth across the track.

Yes. What I wanted to say is that the rule doesn't differentiate between breaking the draft and outright blocking. The only thing that counts is the number of direction changes made by the defending the driver.