Fuzzy limits

[Used to be Starter]

Unfortunately, that would not make a lot of sense, since they also 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.

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.

[Bagwan]

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 .

[Nitrodaze]

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.

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.

[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 .

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.

[Bagwan]

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.

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 .
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 .

[Nitrodaze]

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 .
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.

[Bagwan]

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.

The roll bar is behind your head .
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 ?

[Steve Boyd]

Yes , kids , the limits become much less fuzzy if we imagine that wall is there , all around the track

They could always bring back those tyre puncturing kerbs . . . . . . . .

[Nitrodaze]

The roll bar is behind your head .
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 ?

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.

[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.

So , rather than try to understand a simple point I made , you chose to try to belittle me ?
That's fine , then .

They can't see what is beside them and that's not good .

Have a nice day .