Track limit sensors

[airshifter]

Max was complaining that Kimi was also going off the track... But as one of the commentators pointed out it wasn't the corner with the sensors...

So what happens now?
Will this be implemented on whole circuits or just corners that Charlie doesn't like?

From my understanding the rule is enforced on corners where the driver can gain a time advantage by exceeding limits. These were the corners that had the sensors installed at Hungary as well.

Personally to me it should be an all or nothing rule. Exceeding track limits is exceeding track limits.

[Nitrodaze]

Vettel's point , though , is that if there wasn't a mall parking lot's worth of tarmac on the outside of every corner , they wouldn't be driving on it .
They tried to solve the issue of extra paving with curbing , and with little bollards you must drive behind , and now with electronic sensors .

Maybe it's astro-turf , or another less than grippy coating before you run into the parking lot that could fix it , but electronics sensing cars going off during the race seems like an endless argument after every race .

Think about it .
Every transgression recorded , and perhaps grounds for gripe .
Perhaps simple enough for qually , where every off will , or should , nullify a lap .

But , take it to the race , and you'll now have race control informed on every time it occurs , instead of when they see it on camera , or when a complaint comes in .
Will they now be obligated to investigate whether a driver was forced off or not in every case ?
If so , they are going to be busy .

The electronic barrier is interesting for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it persuades drivers to make an effort to control themselves without the need for a hard deterrent. The track limit is clearly marked. With the electronic sensors, no driver would gain unfair advantage over another, the outcome would be the same for all drivers. That there is a parking lot space outside the track limit does not warrant that it should be abused. Hence, l do not think Vettel has a valid point. It's like saying, because there is a hard shoulder on the motorway, it is ok to overtake slower vehicle using the hard shoulder. Or use the hard shoulder to get ahead when there is a traffic jam on the motorway.

Secondly, astor tuff and grass are not ideal for all conditions. In the wet they are quite useless at slowing the cars down. This is one of the contributing factors to Bianchi's accident as his speed was not retarded by the grass hence why he carriered into the barriers at higher speed than anticipated. The grassy bit along the track at Spain, resulted in Hamilton spinning into Rosberg. Hence you can see why an electronic barrier coupled with a hard surface that drastically reduces speed may be an ideal option.

Thirdly, you cannot argue with the electronic sensor and computers. If a driver strays of the track, he is detected and punished instantly. Kind of like being caught by a speeding camera and getting your ticket instantly to your mobile phone.

I suppose the real issue is the inconsistency of how the system is applied. The idea that drivers can stray at some corners and not at others, is confusing. Also it does not assist the drivers to comply with the rules. They stray at one corner it is fine but not fine at the next corner. It is fair to say, that the electronic approach would appear agreeable, if it is applied to all corners. Or corners where drivers are likely to gain unfair advantage should have a special kerbing to deter such abuse. Maybe, this is where a variant of the sausage kerb is required. Whichever way you look at it, this problem is not an easy one to solve.