Track limits, rule enforcements, good sportsmanship etc

[Tim.Wright]

Competitively, there's no difference between the result of striking a wall and the result of a rule that would disqualify drivers for off-track excursions. No one argues with walls about the non-negotiable consequences they impose. Why should the rules be any different?

I agree, which is why I earlier stated that the talk about walls is nonsense. Everyone who say that they want a wall, really want any driver who leaves the track to be out of the race and this can be achieved by simply enforcing the rule of Article 27.4 in the sporting regulations. An immediate drive-through would probably be enough of an incentive to keep the drivers on the track and then exceptions can be made in those cases where the driver is clearly not at fault.

The wall vs penalty discussion is interesting, but I think it's absolutely wrong to say that "Everyone who say that they want a wall, really want any driver who leaves the track to be out of the race ".

In my subjective opinion, black flagging a driver for transgressing track limits is the most contrived cop-out I can think of. Motorsport is an activity that takes place in the midst of the physical world. The result should be dictated by driver input, the vehicle's response (F=ma) and that's it. Every time you start adding 'administrative sanctions' like time penalties for sporting transgressions you are moving the sport away from the laws of physics and towards a contrived 'result by committee' type activity.

Think for a moment of all the administrative gotchas of black flagging a driver for track limits. What if he was pushed out by another car? Do you take into account who was at fault for that previous incident before ruling on the track limits? What if a driver was avoiding debris? What if the driver claims he had a vehicle malfunction? What if the driver claims he was letting by lapped traffic? Are you going to penalise drivers in these cases or are you going to write up the necessary 10-20 extra rules detailing all the exceptions?

Motorsport, like any sport, is just a form of entertainment and nothing else. It isn't the United Nations commission on human rights so introducing even more rules which need to be decided by committees which in turn create loopholes (listed above) which need to be closed by even more rules is a step in the fundamentally wrong direction.

There is a reason why, as it is now (or was until a couple of months ago), the drivers agreed upfront with race direction which corners will be monitored for track limits and which ones won't. In many places leaving the track is absolutely no advantage at all and being forced to park a perfectly intact racecar because of one of these absolutely inconsequential track limits transgression has no sense from a logical point of view and is a huge anti-climax from a spectacle point of view. As dumb as everyone think the FIA are - they obviously saw this and dealt with it.

A wall completely removes any aspect of the sporting regulations, stewarding and general bureaucracy from the situation. Leave the track and the only laws you need to deal with are the laws of physics (which make non-negotiable real-time decisions without a committee). It throws out a load of bureaucracy and reintroduces the physical element of the sport.

I imagine that anyone who is against walls from a safety point of view should also be contrary to continuing to race on tracks such as Monaco, Suzuka, Spa, Brazil, Silverstone, Montreal all of which have had significant accidents against immovable walls in the last couple of years:







Anyway, if you implement a sliding wall like I've proposed above, it can potentially be even safer than tarmac runoffs if it's done right.

EDIT: The image link for my diagram didn't work on the previous page so I've put it here again:

[GitanesBlondes]

If you really want to have enforceable track limits, you have to start adding gravel traps and grass back to the circuits.

In spite of the fact that I do like the idea of raised curbs quite a bit since they worked very well in the 70s, depending on the circuit, they have to also try and satisfy FIM requirements for WSBK and MotoGP. So it's not a viable option in quite a few instances.

The track limits became a problem when it was determined (incorrectly) that runoff areas should be paved tarmac. The fear of drivers not finishing a race due to their own mistake helped pave the way for the tarmac runoff area, which in turn was exploited quite quickly by the drivers. The stewards and FIA have no real recourse since when they tried to enforce it, they were quickly shouted down. Putting up walls is silliness, but revamping the circuits so they have a real out of bounds comprised of gravel will do wonders since being beached becomes a possibility. It also satisfies the FIM requirements as mentioned. And frankly, if I am racing motorcycles, I'd rather go down where there is a gravel trap to slow me down when I am sliding, rather than have tarmac that can keep me sliding for much greater distances.

[turbof1]

If you really want to have enforceable track limits, you have to start adding gravel traps and grass back to the circuits.

In spite of the fact that I do like the idea of raised curbs quite a bit since they worked very well in the 70s, depending on the circuit, they have to also try and satisfy FIM requirements for WSBK and MotoGP. So it's not a viable option in quite a few instances.

The track limits became a problem when it was determined (incorrectly) that runoff areas should be paved tarmac. The fear of drivers not finishing a race due to their own mistake helped pave the way for the tarmac runoff area, which in turn was exploited quite quickly by the drivers. The stewards and FIA have no real recourse since when they tried to enforce it, they were quickly shouted down. Putting up walls is silliness, but revamping the circuits so they have a real out of bounds comprised of gravel will do wonders since being beached becomes a possibility. It also satisfies the FIM requirements as mentioned. And frankly, if I am racing motorcycles, I'd rather go down where there is a gravel trap to slow me down when I am sliding, rather than have tarmac that can keep me sliding for much greater distances.

2 years ago, I spoke with a track Marshall at the circuit of Heusden-Zolder, a circuit which had around 10 years ago a refurbishment to meet FIA standard Grade 2 (Grade 1 is F1 standard and the highest one). One of the condtions were to implement much larger asphalt run-offs. Tarmac is actually the safer option generally over gravel. Most off-track excursions are due driving errors. Asphalt provides in those case the best grip to slow the car down. Gravel is only better when the driver is unable to use his/her brakes. It's a different case of course for motorcycle riders. I often watch motogp, and gravel works very well for fallen/high sided riders who are skidding over the ground with their bodies without any means of reducing their velocity. Gravel pulls them to a halt quickly. It's however different for a F1 car, where the driver in most cases still can operate his/her brakes.

Of course, it will lead to moral hazards: drivers are not being punished for mistakes. Even with gravel you might actually be able to continue if you have enough momentum to go through it cutting the corner. Even though Ben think it does not work, a solution like the red zones on Paul Ricard still seem to be appealing. If it works, of course, as I can't find any specific examples where a driver went off track, had his tyres ruined and had to change tyres. We did saw this weekend that even though Hamilton only very slightly locked up before almost inmediately releasing the brakes and going off track, he damaged his tyre quite harsh, to the point Mercedes feared suspension damage. If it is possible to get a similar result by designing such an abrasive off track asphalt, you might have the best of both worlds.

I don't see grade 1 circuits, with a couple of exceptions, getting licensed without asphalt run offs as the FIA incooperated it into its standards. And the FIA is very stubborn on those.

[FW17]

Rumble strip the entire runoff

[GitanesBlondes]

2 years ago, I spoke with a track Marshall at the circuit of Heusden-Zolder, a circuit which had around 10 years ago a refurbishment to meet FIA standard Grade 2 (Grade 1 is F1 standard and the highest one). One of the condtions were to implement much larger asphalt run-offs. Tarmac is actually the safer option generally over gravel. Most off-track excursions are due driving errors. Asphalt provides in those case the best grip to slow the car down. Gravel is only better when the driver is unable to use his/her brakes. It's a different case of course for motorcycle riders. I often watch motogp, and gravel works very well for fallen/high sided riders who are skidding over the ground with their bodies without any means of reducing their velocity. Gravel pulls them to a halt quickly. It's however different for a F1 car, where the driver in most cases still can operate his/her brakes.

Of course, it will lead to moral hazards: drivers are not being punished for mistakes. Even with gravel you might actually be able to continue if you have enough momentum to go through it cutting the corner. Even though Ben think it does not work, a solution like the red zones on Paul Ricard still seem to be appealing. If it works, of course, as I can't find any specific examples where a driver went off track, had his tyres ruined and had to change tyres. We did saw this weekend that even though Hamilton only very slightly locked up before almost inmediately releasing the brakes and going off track, he damaged his tyre quite harsh, to the point Mercedes feared suspension damage. If it is possible to get a similar result by designing such an abrasive off track asphalt, you might have the best of both worlds.

I don't see grade 1 circuits, with a couple of exceptions, getting licensed without asphalt run offs as the FIA incooperated it into its standards. And the FIA is very stubborn on those.

Tarmac is definitely the safer choice between that and gravel traps. Gravel traps have generally been a non-issue for as long as I can remember. The worst gravel trap related accident I can recall did not even involve F1. It was Wayne Rainey at Misano 1993 when he low-sided his YZR-500 and went into the gravel trap which hadn't been properly raked, and the way he hit severed his spinal cord. Sad day that was.

I do agree with you that depending on the spot, you can still cut a gravel trap if you've got the momentum with the car. But for those instances, that's when the stewards have to step in right away and tell the driver to cede position to the guy behind him if it was done in the middle of a battle. I'm not a fan of Paul Ricard's strips. I've never seen them work, but then again there's not much in the way of pro races I see from Paul Ricard any longer. Aesthetics are what I find more bothersome with Paul Ricard's approach. I'd rather see circuits have a more natural look than the Paul Ricard or Yas Marina look. Also, given the nature of how poorly the Pirelli tires are designed --not sure if 2017 will be any better in spite of claims to the contrary-- abrasive strips could easily facilitate tire structural damage that could result in delaminations and the like, depending on how much compound gets ripped off.

[graham.reeds]

The driving I don't mind too much but Vettel should be heavily penalised for criticising Charlie. Claiming adrenaline was flowing does not excuse him - you can't say adrenaline isn't pumping in football and if you criticise an official you get fined heavily, possibly miss matches (3 match ban when Vardy verbally abused a ref who thought he dived).

Vettel was talking to his team, they didn't have to broadcast it

All are broadcast. Teams aren't allowed to encrypt transmission. I don't use the app (usually as I am running a few minutes behind real-time) but apparently you can hear all team broadcasts.

Ted Kravitz sometimes comments on ones he's heard but was not picked for TV broadcast by FOM.

[tomazy]

Whay can't they just make it harder for the drivers to get back on the circuit in convinent places? If there was a tire wall at the beginig of the second streight in Mexico (from the apex of turn 2 till the end of the run off), Hamilton and Verstappen should break to a stop and go back to take turn 2. And I don't think that wall at this place would be of any safety concern?

It would be like buss stop chicane in Spa, if a driver misses the breaking point, he can't just go on to a start finish streight there.

[turbof1]

I do agree with you that depending on the spot, you can still cut a gravel trap if you've got the momentum with the car. But for those instances, that's when the stewards have to step in right away and tell the driver to cede position to the guy behind him if it was done in the middle of a battle. I'm not a fan of Paul Ricard's strips. I've never seen them work, but then again there's not much in the way of pro races I see from Paul Ricard any longer. Aesthetics are what I find more bothersome with Paul Ricard's approach. I'd rather see circuits have a more natural look than the Paul Ricard or Yas Marina look. Also, given the nature of how poorly the Pirelli tires are designed --not sure if 2017 will be any better in spite of claims to the contrary-- abrasive strips could easily facilitate tire structural damage that could result in delaminations and the like, depending on how much compound gets ripped off.

Fair points.
I'm neither fan of the colour variations, although I guess you could make them colourless (that will leave drivers clueless from where it becomes abrasive, which might be negative or positive). I also did not consider you could go too far with it to the point of delaminations. That would create safety issues on its own.

Gravel traps are on that regard a rather known quantity. Now that I think of it, even if the cars are not sufficiently slowed down and crash into barriers, it should not be that much of a problem since these cars have amazing crash structures keeping the driver safe.

[PlatinumZealot]

Hamilton slowed and allowed the pack to catch up with like three corners. Did no one else see this?.

Nopes, he did not- not atleast within the next 3 corners...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCLq51aScQ

The cars bunched up as VSC and SC were deployed

.

What? I only transcribed Charlie's own words on why Hamilton was not penalized... why do some of you see red anytime HAM is involved?

Lewis Hamilton escaped a penalty for cutting across the track at Turn 1 of the Mexican Grand Prix because telemetry showed he backed off immediately afterwards to lose the advantage he had gained.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/revea ... on-845383/

[bhall II]

In my subjective opinion, black flagging a driver for transgressing track limits is the most contrived cop-out I can think of. Motorsport is an activity that takes place in the midst of the physical world. The result should be dictated by driver input, the vehicle's response (F=ma) and that's it. Every time you start adding 'administrative sanctions' like time penalties for sporting transgressions you are moving the sport away from the laws of physics and towards a contrived 'result by committee' type activity.

Think for a moment of all the administrative gotchas of black flagging a driver for track limits. What if he was pushed out by another car? Do you take into account who was at fault for that previous incident before ruling on the track limits? What if a driver was avoiding debris? What if the driver claims he had a vehicle malfunction? What if the driver claims he was letting by lapped traffic? Are you going to penalise drivers in these cases or are you going to write up the necessary 10-20 extra rules detailing all the exceptions?

C'mon, man. I've explicitly addressed those concerns. There should be little mystery about where I stand.

Also, I've not said that black-flagging drivers is a desirable goal. The point of drawing parallels between the stalwart impermeability of concrete walls and the potential to realize identical results through boilerplate language was to demonstrate how arbitrary outcomes aren't always obvious at first sight.

Circuit racing is inherently unnatural, because literally (literally) every aspect of it is the result of decisions made by people who simply thought that's how it all ought be. Understanding that reality opens the door to a myriad exciting possibilities that are no less authentic than what virtually everyone has already come to accept. Example: electronic monitoring of track boundaries, combined with a reptilian vigilance for enforcement, makes it possible for run-off areas to be dedicated solely to the preservation of life and limb, which means cars can potentially be unreasonably quick with little added risk. In fact, that's precisely why the GPDA is pushing for added cockpit protection...

I think that could actually lead to a scenario where, if we know the cars are safe and we know we don’t expose the helmets, we can go way more aggressive with track design, we can race on much wilder city tracks, we can race with higher speeds, we can make them even more aggressive to drive, because we don’t have consequences which could jeopardise the future of the sport and the involvement of sponsors.

So, do you want walls or do you want 300mph cars? As far as I'm concerned, nothing embodies the essence of Formula 1 more than a relentless pursuit of higher speeds. The only question is how do we get there?

EDIT: And for the record, I actually like the mayo idea, dammit.

[strad]

how about just enforcing the rule ... on every corner not just one or two?
Bout time they start getting real penalties for going all four off the will drive in a more circumspect manner.
They need to have it impressed upon them that this is F1 not some back woods go kart race and that we expect better from those that are supposed to be the best drivers in the world.
And that's not to mention we can expect them to be role models for up and coming drivers.

[Tim.Wright]

You really think parking someone for running 1cm outside the track on a corner which gave absolutely no performance advantage whatsoever is a reasonable solution?

[turbof1]

I'm neither for more imposed penalties. You'll get even more discussion whether the driver got an advantage or not. There is little discussion when a driver runs his car into a wall, ruins his tyres over high-abrasive asphalt or gets stuck in gravel.

[bhall II]

I think the exact nature of potential consequences is a secondary concern, and I've proposed several. What's paramount is hyper-consistent enforcement.

Otherwise, I think the penalty needs to be significant enough to hurt, especially if accumulated over time (like Super License points), but limited enough to make them relatively easy to accept on occasion (like the automatic addition of 1s to a driver's time for every infraction not caused by the prospect of certain death). It also has to happen regardless of track position (including the backmarker who goes off with no one else around) and with no regard for technical failures of any kind (so you better keep those tire pressures up).

The idea is less about punishment and more about behavior modification.

[SectorOne]

Hamilton slowed and allowed the pack to catch up with like three corners.

Well it´s quite interesting when we think about this.
Right now the question is "did he gain an advantage" rather then "did he just erase a disadvantage"

Sure he arguably did not gain an advantage but he sure as hell secured first place by strolling over the grass rather then having a DNF from a wall or in some crazy way managed to stop the car before the obstacle and subsequently lost out to Rosberg and even one or two Red Bulls who managed to take the corner properly.