2014 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal

[mertol]

20.3 More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving
back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least
one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

This was his first time off the racing line. Racing line is quite blurry on this straight since people can drive staight out of the chicane for the shortest path or can go on the left to straighten their braking phase. The same rule also mentions you must leave a car width to the edge of the track, which is exactly what Perez did. And this is not the rule cited in the stewards' decision:

[Phil]

It IS entirely true - watch the onboard his wheel is never turned to the left.

I don't need to, the overhead view presented in the GIF shows that the car changed direction. Even so, at the speeds these cars are traveling, even a very small movement that might not be that noticable on camera will have a large(r) impact. At 200kmh, these cars are doing 55 meters per second. Even the slightest steering movement can cause a big change of direction.

EDIT: Just watched the onboard - Perez's movement on the steering wheel is anything *but* steady. Compare these with Massa's and you'll immediately spot the difference.

Anyway, if Perez suffered a malfunction or if the car didn't do what he intended, then I'm sure this evidence was submitted to the stewards when they made their decision. However if the claim is "he did not see Massa", then that unfortunately does not help his cause, hence the penalty I suspect.

[mertol]

The claim is he didn't do anything illegal. He doesn't even need to defend himself since he didn't brake any rules. The real question is what is Massa's claim on why he didn't react to Perez changing his line. Did he not see him?

[beelsebob]

The claim is he didn't do anything illegal.

The illegal thing he did was breach regulation 16.1 d - he caused a collision.

[mertol]

Massa caused the collision by running into his rear. 16.1 is more of a definition of what is an incident and must be resolved during the race. It is not resolving the issue of whose fault it is. You need another rule to determine that.

[WaikeCU]

The claim is he didn't do anything illegal. He doesn't even need to defend himself since he didn't brake any rules. The real question is what is Massa's claim on why he didn't react to Perez changing his line. Did he not see him?

He couldn't because Perez braked so early, Massa just wasn't at the stage yet to start braking for the corner.

Same like Australian GP 2002 when Ralf Schumacher ran in the back of Rubens Barrichello. Barrichello braked earlier than expected. Ralf couldn't avoid the Ferrari because he was following it so closely.

A F1 car decelerating under braking is beyond any road going car.

[thomin]

At first, I totally blamed Massa, but after looking at it more closely, Perez probably has a larger share of the blame. Still, I don't think I would have penalized him. I think the penalty is rather a result of the consequences, which shouldn't play into this. Had the same thing happened at a slow corner, I doubt any penalties would have been handed out.

[mertol]

So it is Massa nad Ralf's fault because they didn't react fast enough/followed too closely. Braking is legal.

[Phil]

I think the general point is; a collision happened that could have been very severe, so the incident was investigated (just as usually any other collision is during a race). The investigation mainly deals with the question could it have been avoided?

If you look at the overhead footage which I linked in my post, you'll see that the 'cause' of the incident was Perez erratic movement. If Perez (or his team) has evidence that the car changed direction on braking without his doing, then I'm sure it would be deemed a (very) unfortunate racing incident. However the on-board footage from Perez shows that he is quite erratic on the steering, hence why the car changed direction.

Here are the relevant passages from the sporting regulations:

16.1
"Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted bythe stewards and subsequently investigated) which :

a) Necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41.
b) Constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code.
c) Caused a false start by one or more cars.
d) Caused a collision.
e) Forced a driver off the track.
f) Illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver.
g) Illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.

20.4
Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.
For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’.

20.5
Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.

What you are suggesting would mean that any car defending his position is free to ram another as long as he doesn't do it over the entire width of the track. If this were the case, we would have a lot more dangerous incidents, thus why it is not allowed and why it was deemed to be dangerous and penalized.


EDIT: Bob beat me on regulation 16d.

[beelsebob]

Massa caused the collision by running into his rear. 16.1 is more of a definition of what is an incident and must be resolved during the race. It is not resolving the issue of whose fault it is. You need another rule to determine that.

You don't need any rule to determine who's fault it was, you need the judgement of the stewards when presented with all the evidence. They have judged - Perez caused the collision by deviating from the racing line when Massa was coming along side him.

[mertol]

It is up to Massa to avoid the avoidable collision he is the one following and seeing the other car.
Perez drove in a straight line hard to call that erratic.
20.4 doesn't apply none of the conditions of the rule are fulfilled
20.5 defending your position isn't abnormal, having space for 3 more cars on your left isn't crowding or hindering.

[beelsebob]

It is up to Massa to avoid the avoidable collision he is the one following and seeing the other car.

Where in the rulebook is it mentioned that it is the sole responsibility of the following driver to not be involved in a collision?

Perez drove in a straight line hard to call that erratic.

No he didn't. He drove in a curved line following the edge of the track, and then changed to drive in a straight line as Massa got along side. That's easy to call erratic.

[WaikeCU]

It's called spatial awareness. Something Perez clearly lacks.

[mertol]

Where in the rule book does it mention that it is the sole responsibility of the leading driver to not be involved in a collision?
The trailing driver always has the more responsibility it is common sense.
The picture of the heli view also mentions it was 1.2 secs time for Massa to react and he didn't it is obviously his fault.

[beelsebob]

Where in the rule book does it mention that it is the sole responsibility of the leading driver to not be involved in a collision?

It doesn't - that's the point. The onus is on both of them to avoid a collision. Massa did so by driving a line that would not cause a collision. Perez did not do so by changing his line at the last second to one that would collide with another driver.

The trailing driver always has the more responsibility it is common sense.

1) I don't see any reasonable argument that makes that true on a race track.
2) common sense doesn't come into this - what's in the rule book comes into this. What's in the rulebook is that all drivers must not cause collisions.

The picture of the heli view also mentions it was 1.2 secs time for Massa to react and he didn't it is obviously his fault.

Go and watch the video again - Massa has significantly less than a second to avoid contact. Not only that, but they are already in the braking zone at this point, meaning that sudden changes of direction (either to make, or avoid contact) are likely to cause a loss of control.