Printable View
Here's something to talk about :
You are not allowed to force another driver off track if they are wheel to wheel with you going into the corner .
You must leave a car width .
But , you are not off track until your inside tire completely crosses the line , which is considerably less than a car's width .
Fuzzy .
Jeez , bagwan , you're right .
It is kinda fuzzy , isn't it ?
Leaving a car width implies that you are off the track as soon as your car crosses the line , but you're not off track , technically , until you all four tires outside that same line .
That is , indeed , "fuzzy" as you call it , and I can't believe you've had 109 views before this one with no replies .
Views are easy to come by, responses not so much. Go figure!
Track limits themselves don't seem to have a lot of gray area when it comes to the rule, it's just there when it comes to enforcement. I personally think more track should be built so that if you exceed track limits you will end up in the gravel, on a curb, or in some way suffer a time penalty at your own doing.
Though changes have been made at some tracks other still allow the cars off track, and the penalty may or may not apply. I think they need to climb down on this and ensure a penalty applies every time.
When the governing body announces pre-race that track limits will be strictly followed at certain corners, it's essentially saying that it will be ignored at others. And despite the claim of certain corners not giving advantage, not having set corner limits always gives an advantage. If nothing else it allows drivers to have a break in concentration to go through the corner. And when it's intentional then really the fact is they wouldn't be out there unless it gave them some type of advantage, even if it isn't necessarily immediate time.
I totally agree on the gravel aspect , although , much of that effort to design tracks with paved runoff was a push for safety , so , a touchy subject .
We have not seen a car go sliding into the gravel with that halo on it yet . I imagine a "cheese grater" effect , drawing the gravel into the drivers face .
But , all dark talk aside , you're right that they will take the fastest course of action that they can to get there first .
It's the wheel to wheel aspect of leaving space that gets under my skin in a lot of cases .
When the guy on the outside has to dive off to avoid contact , it should be obvious that the inside guy either hasn't the grip to take a tighter arc to avoid it , or that he's intentionally running the other out of road .
When they say in the rules that you must leave a car's width if he gets far enough alongside , i think it might help to have a sort of "Monaco" rule , where you assume a wall is right there at each corner , making someone inside actually keep that lane open until corner exit , which doesn't at all seem to be the case right now .
They could race that way all the time , but fuzzy seems to be the choice they've made .
I suppose it makes for more lines of press when there's controversy , but I'm sure they wouldn't be so cynical as to have that agenda .
And , thanks for the reply .
If it wasn't for you and bagwan , I might not have gotten any responses at all .
If anyone was truly serious about fixing the issue, then the real rule should say: "Any car with a full wheel over the white line anywhere on course will be assessed a five second penalty for each and every violation unless forced off by another competitor in which case the other competitor will be assessed the penalty."
Starter , thanks for chiming in .Quote:
Originally Posted by Used to be Starter
I like it .
It's clear and simple .
There is a difference between the concept of being "Off Track" from that of exceeding "Track Limits". When a car is said to "Exceed Track Limits", the stewards are considering whether the driver is attempting to gain an unfair advantage while being on track. In this case, the wheels closer to the boundary of the track are used to make that judgment. This may be either the inside or outside wheels, depending on the nature of the chicane involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
With regards to whether a car is considered to be "Off Track" or not, the stewards consider that at least part of the wheels of the car is touching the inner boundary of the track. This is important because overtaking while most of the car is outside the boundary of the track but having at least one tire touching the inner tarmac would not be ruled as gaining a position while being off track or unfairly gaining an advantage while being off track if you like.
Of course, completing an overtaking maneuver with all four wheels cleanly outside the boundary of the track is illegal and the driver would be asked to give the place back or suffer a time penalty. Hence, the "Off Track" rule greatly assists drivers needing to force an overtake if they can get their car alongside the car in front. Which is important. They have to be at least 2/3rd {75%} alongside the car ahead for this rule to be applied, l think.
They are also used in quite different situations of course. Whether a driver is "Off Track" is only relevant during the race in wheel-to-wheel battle situations. Track limits are only significant during qualifying when the driver is chasing the provisional pole time current at the time in question. Or when the fastest lap is being set during the race.
When it comes to the question of "Leaving A Cars Width", this is the inverse of the "Off Track". In this situation, the stewards are looking at the aggressiveness of the defending driver. If the attacking driver is severely disadvantaged enough for the attacking car to come into contact with the defending car causing clear damage, then the "Leaving a car's width" is critically looked at. In this case, it would not matter if the attacking car was forced completely off the track or not. Where the defending driver squeezes the attacking driver in a manner that does not cause a damaging collision, it is usually considered fair racing. If the attacking driver is forced off track, they may look at how reasonable the defending was. Such as how punishing the effect of the attacking driver being off track was to the attacking driver. Did they lose positions or have consequential damage as a result of going off track etc?
Where the squeezed driver voluntarily goes off track, either to avoid the sausage kerbs or damaging raised kerbs, is at the discretion of the stewards and usually results in very grey area decisions.
Well , gosh , thanks for that .Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
That was a very long winded post , but you finally got close to what get's my goat here , in your last four words .
"very grey area decisions" are what ensues with "fuzzy" rules .
Unfortunately, that would not make a lot of sense, since they also would be punishing drivers when they are not gaining any advantage. Worst still, when they have lost some advantage by venturing off track. I think they should only be punished if they gain some level of advantage by going off track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Used to be Starter
Besides, this sort of rule would severely restrict the drivers from pushing as hard as possible for fear of a five-second penalty. The track limit rule is a very recent thing in F1. In my view, it exposes the inefficiency of the design of the track as the layout failed to trace the fastest line for the shape of the track. Hence, drivers must compensate for this defect in the track. That said, this aspect is what makes the difference between a naturally fast driver from the rest of the field on the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
And really it should be that simple. Or a line on the outside, and any overlap of a tire is "off track".Quote:
Originally Posted by Used to be Starter
The way I see it Austria was a great example of how gravel traps, even when small, give the drivers a solid deterrent to stay on the track. Since we know they will always take what they can get, if we quit giving them an out it makes life more simple.
And as much as I'd like either rule to work, we also know that quite a few drivers are good at acting when they go off track, and they try to act as if they were pushed off when they weren't. Long term the solution might be to use sensors the way Indycar has done. That way with or without a "Wall of Champions" or cameras on the lines, they will know for sure who pushed the limits too far. Combined with the thinking of Starters rule it would be even better. If someone goes off track, either them or the person that forced them off pays a penalty. That would still allow for safe runoff areas and/or less gravel traps.
Actually they are gaining an advantage because they have either over driven the corner or can go faster by using more than the track itself. Either should be a penalty since both contribute to enhancing your lap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
Yes , kids , the limits become much less fuzzy if we imagine that wall is there , all around the track .
I think it would , indeed , require that line of sensors around the perimeter , as it would dispense with the "judgement call" , and keep the safety of the runoffs while at the same time slowing them down .
One issue that might cause trouble during the implementation of such a rule might be that we could see a comical start to it as drivers get used to driving between the lines .
Off-topic , but related , is another issue I think contributes to the problem of leaving enough space for a car beside you that has bugged me for a long time .
The problem is the lack of peripheral vision designed into these machines . I hear "I didn't see him" far too many times for my liking .
They have the halo now , so they need to drop the height of those bolsters on either side , as it is , it's lucky if you get any glimpse of a car inside until they are wheel to wheel with you .
That seems crazy to me , and contributes greatly to the problem .
If you could see that guys wheel beside you , you'd know he's in place to flip your wheel over his if they were to touch .
That's some pretty good incentive to have you leave him some space to race , since you know he won't want to exit the track at the risk of that 5 second penalty .
I get your point of view, they are the best drivers in the world so they should do their racing strictly between the lines of the track or get punished. On a street track, they get punished if they stray into the barrier with car damage, etc. On a normal track, this is not the case. But one thing is certain, drivers do make mistakes. When they do, l think they should only be punished if it can be shown that they gained some level of advantage. Straying off track on the straights would gain nobody any advantages, so punishing them for it is daft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Used to be Starter
The mirrors are so skinny, they can hardly see much through it. The Halo creates a blindspot also, which is why the two-thirds rule exists. The attacking car has to be far up the side for the defending driver to see it. This was why the Verstappen-Hamilton incident in Hungary was not punished. Diving into the inside at speed does not give the other driver much time to react.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
That particular example isn't a good one as Lewis said plainly in interviews afterwards that he saw him coming from a long way back .Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
A slight lift , or a quick dab of the brakes would have kept the wheels from touching , which is why he was found partly responsible in the incident .
Yes , the mirrors are tiny , and often vibrate madly , but they do not restrict peripheral vision .
The halo is not in the way , either .
It is the bolsters , which were enlarged before the halo was introduced , that get in the way of seeing a rival .
I suppose what you are trying to say is the mirrors have limited peripheral view, which was my point. Even without the halo, peripheral vision was limited by the rollbar and cockpit shoulders. It is just the nature of the beast if you like. When those mirrors vibrate, l am sure the drivers can see very little through it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
The roll bar is behind your head .Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
It does not limit peripheral vision .
The mirrors are for looking behind you . and thus , do not limit peripheral vision , either .
And the halo doesn't block the peripherals , again , either .
The "cockpit shoulders" as you have called them are protected by bolsters , which , in my opinion are too high , as they do , and greatly so , restrict peripheral vision .
Am I being clear enough ?
They could always bring back those tyre puncturing kerbs . . . . . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
You clearly have not sat in an F1 car, strapped in and trying to take a look at what is going on over your shoulders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
So , rather than try to understand a simple point I made , you chose to try to belittle me ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
That's fine , then .
They can't see what is beside them and that's not good .
Have a nice day .
Hey Baggy, that was not an attempt to belittle you, l was just stating a fact. I have sat in one, hence l am speaking from that experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan