FIA Thread

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
organic
1014
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:24 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Wouter wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2023 2:58 pm
F1 venues could lose races over track limit problems, says FIA

FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem says venues like Losail and the Red Bull Ring must address track limits problems, or risk losing slots on the Formula 1 calendar.

Asked by Motorsport.com what he was going to do about the track limits problem after the sometimes farcical scenes in Qatar, Ben Sulayem said: "You're absolutely right about it, we had the same issue in Austria, it was 1200 [offences there].

"And I have to say, congratulations to the stewards because they spotted it. But is that the solution? No.

"The solution is to improve the track itself. I know some are resistant to it, but to tell you the truth, if they don't, there is no race.
It is as simple as this. We can't afford this."
.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-v ... /10531032/
Another W for Sulayem after approving Andretti. He is on a roll recently after a rocky start with the jewelry rules Re: Hamilton

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Should FOM invest on a Hawk-Eye system that they can move from event to event?

Will a Hawk-Eye system work to track a fast car to check for track limit? Hawk-eye apparently has been used in Super Car Australia in 2019 to help stewards with their decisions, not sure if it was for track limits. Also not sure of its current usage.

Image
Image
Image

Supercars Driving Standards Advisor Craig Baird says the full rollout of Hawk-Eye technology at the Superloop Adelaide 500 was "extremely successful".


The system, well known in tennis and cricket for ball-tracking animation, is being adopted as a new judicial tool in 2019 following a handful of trials last year.

It is being incorporated as part of efforts to resolve judicial matters in-race, rather than having fans waiting on results into the following hours or even day.

"We will continue to invest to ensure our fans get the best possible experience," Supercars CEO Sean Seamer said.

"We believe that the more a penalty fits the breach, and the more those penalties are applied in race, the easier it is to understand and enjoy Supercars.

"Our ambition is to handle everything in-race for our fans."

Hawk-Eye can collate all relevant vision of an incident in an instant, giving Baird evidence to pair with existing data accessed directly from cars.

Adelaide's season opener was what Baird describes as "the first full run" Supercars has had with the technology, and pointed to the absence of post-race investigations as a key indicator of its influence.

A crew of four Hawk-Eye personnel were in Adelaide, helping deliver a significant step up for the resources on offer.

How it works

On-demand vision compliments Baird's existing view of the broadcast and around-circuit CCTV cameras, but speeds up the process of looking at incidents.

Specific vision to analyse previously had to be sought via Supercars' TV department producing the concurrent live telecast.

"What we have now, let's just say there's 40 cameras filming the circuit," Baird told Supercars.com.

"When we timestamp something, I can within one frame put all 40 cameras back up and I can go through them all at the same time.

'"They collate every camera that's got an angle of that incident recorded, there might be three, there might be seven.

"I just work through those and say, 'I want to look backwards through that one and forwards through that one, there's the point of contact' and then I take over.

"I have the ability to wind forward, backward, pause, ask for more, ask for less and come up with a decision.

"At that time, I will talk through my explanation of why I think someone's guilty or why I think someone's innocent and the stewards would look at that at the same time.

"I'm not just firing something down to the stewards saying 'he's guilty, give him a pitlane penalty', they need to understand my process of getting to that decision."

Baird says that marks a genuine step forward as he looks to deliver verdicts on clashes, and has already led to more in-race calls.

Teams routinely lodge requests for incidents to be analysed, ranging from drivers being impeded in qualifying to race-ending collisions, not all of which makes broadcasts.

Additional vision can now be accessed by referring to the time of day, and/or lap number of a race, and the corner within Hawk-Eye.

"You just can't be in modern sport without technology," Baird adds.

"The teams and the players are so professional, everyone's got to go with it.

"I was very old-school in my decision-making. I kind of didn't want to pull a trap door on someone and then realise I was wrong later.

"There were times I could have gone 'right, the proportion of blame's on that driver, there's the small, medium or large penalty, but if I wasn't 100 percent sure, I was 'I think I'll just post-race it'.

"Like any sport, it should be played between the whistles."

Hawk-Eye helps settle Adelaide flashpoints

The system was used in a range of deliberations throughout the Adelaide opener.

In Sunday ARMOR ALL Qualifying, three requests were made by teams to review drivers being impeded, and utilising Hawk-Eye technology, all were resolved within the 20-minute session.

That had two cases of 'no further action', while James Golding was handed a three-place grid penalty for a run-in with James Courtney at Turn 8.

Later in the day, Hawk-Eye was used to determine the wheels of Cameron Waters' Mustang and David Reynolds' Commodore interlocked at Turn 9 on the opening lap.

It was also crucial in assessing the controversial pitlane clash between Chaz Mostert and Rick Kelly.

Mostert was handed a drive-through penalty for an unsafe release from his Tickford Racing pitbay into the path of Kelly, during the scramble of Safety Car pitstops.

Baird also used the instant delivery of vision to determine that no blame should be apportioned to Kelly.

"It gave us different angles immediately," Baird explained.

Advertisement
"I looked at the data, I could see the onboard, I could see the throttle, I could see the brake; he had a very high brake pressure on before the impact.

"It gave me the ability to look at it, 'was Rick at fault somewhere in there? Could he avoid something?' The answer was no.

"What people didn't see was just the momentum and element of surprise for Rick that created it. The last thing Rick wanted to do was break his car or Chaz's.

"From onboard with Rick, it happens so fast and he's off the throttle and onto the brake, but it's all over.

"You've got interlocked wheels and all sorts of stuff going on. And, again, I couldn't proportion blame to Rick.

"Hawk-Eye helped me with that. It showed me the angle of Chaz's car when he pulled into his pitbay.

"He was on a red angle. Obviously he couldn't get into his pitbox square so there was no way he was going to get out of his pitbox when a car was parked in the one in front.

"There were all these elements of things I could look at and say 'am I proportioning blame to Rick Kelly? No way'."

That tied in with the existing streams of live telemetry collected by Supercars' motorsport department.

"This is the biggest thing people don't realise at home; we've got a technical crew that can get data from any car at any time," Baird said.

"But with Hawk-Eye, I also had four different angles of that incident in pitlane.

"I took into account how Chaz was parked, how Chaz had to leave, the positioning of the tyres from DJR Team Penske [in the pitbay ahead], there were all sorts of things.

"Chaz and Tickford put their hand up and said it was 100 percent their fault, but of course you still have people who say it's avoidable from Rick's point of view.

"I'll back Rick 100 percent on it, he was certainly on the brake and had no intent of trying to just continue through the accident."

'Nobody likes a rugby ref either'

Even with more technology, Baird still has to make decisions that are, at times, not popular with drivers, teams or fans.

As Hawk-Eye staff build familiarity with Supercars drivers, cars and circuits, though, the efficiency of collating the vision that shapes his calls will only improve.

"Hawk-Eye are very committed to the program," Baird, above with CAMS Supercars steward Trevor Neumann says.

"They understand that in this era of any sport, accuracy is so important. It doesn't take out that some people agree with the penalty and some people don't.

"But if half are whinging and half aren't, then you've probably got it right, because half wear one hat, half wear the other.

"I've seen people look at tennis and Hawk-Eye doesn't lie but people still question whether the ball was in or out, and that's always going to happen. That's human nature."

The former Supercars and British Touring Car Championship racer and prolific GT ace took on the DSA role with Supercars in 2017.

He admits that before that even he would form his own opinions on incidents purely from broadcasts, without the tools now at his disposal.

"I honestly used to sit on the couch if I was watching a Supercar race and say 'oh, that's wrong' and blab on in-front of my mates," he said.

"But at the end of the day, if I was wrong, no-one really knew, it was only two or three of us on the couch.

"When you're doing it publicly and everyone wants to say you've got it wrong, it's very different.

"There's a very different pressure on a ref that's standing in the middle of a field to the experts sitting in his own armchair.

"No-one likes a rugby ref either. But a rugby ref's watching one ball.

"We have 24 balls running around the track and you might have 14 corners for 78 laps, there's a lot of things going on that we may or may not see.

"And even if something does go wrong, you can't blow the whistle. That's the biggest thing.

"You can't say 'hang on a second, the ref's not sure, he's blown the whistle, everybody stop and give Bairdo a little bit of time to come up with a decision, with some other people', and then when I'm happy with my decision, blow the whistle again and say 'OK, play on'.

"It happens so fast. There's so much going on and so many people. I'm scanning radios, I've got data, I've got vision.

"You've got teams communicating up through race control because their driver probably just got a bump and run but it's not on television, asking if I can find that.

"I've often said to people, I never knew what went on up there until I got up there. I just used to abuse them all and think they were sleeping and having a cup of coffee.

"There's that much stuff going on, it's quite mind-blowing.

"Hawk-Eye gives us the ability to – very quickly and without taking our eye off the rest of the game – get the vision required to make those decisions."

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Football also tried out LPS (local positioning system) and had great results with them. The infrastructure required for such a system is even lesser.

Image

https://kinexon.com/blog/gps-lps-team-sports/

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
341
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 10:03 am
Should FOM invest on a Hawk-Eye system that they can move from event to event?

One problem with it is visibility when 1 car obscures another.

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:05 pm
FW17 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 10:03 am
Should FOM invest on a Hawk-Eye system that they can move from event to event?

One problem with it is visibility when 1 car obscures another.
The system has multiple cameras

Image

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
341
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:52 pm
AR3-GP wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:05 pm
FW17 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 10:03 am
Should FOM invest on a Hawk-Eye system that they can move from event to event?

One problem with it is visibility when 1 car obscures another.
The system has multiple cameras

https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gu ... ec-012.jpg
Good point. It will still be a unique challenge. Perhaps they can install the cameras on utility poles just behind the barriers.

Rodak
Rodak
35
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:02 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:05 pm
FW17 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 10:03 am
Should FOM invest on a Hawk-Eye system that they can move from event to event?

One problem with it is visibility when 1 car obscures another.
A system like this won't solve the problem, it will just make it more visible (and worse) by detecting more offs. The real issue is modifying tracks that have this issue; at most tracks if you go past track limits there is a consequence so the drivers don't go off; how many track limits violations were there at Monaco (joke!)? Grass, IMHO, is great.

ThijsMuis
ThijsMuis
5
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2023 9:53 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Ok on FIA thread?


User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Rodak wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 8:35 pm
AR3-GP wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:05 pm
FW17 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 10:03 am
Should FOM invest on a Hawk-Eye system that they can move from event to event?

One problem with it is visibility when 1 car obscures another.
A system like this won't solve the problem, it will just make it more visible (and worse) by detecting more offs. The real issue is modifying tracks that have this issue; at most tracks if you go past track limits there is a consequence so the drivers don't go off; how many track limits violations were there at Monaco (joke!)? Grass, IMHO, is great.
Reason for having hard runoff areas is to have uninterrupted races and more cars finishing races without damage. Tracks need not change, as they were carefully made by professional designers to meet a certain set of requirements.

F1 has taken a stance to race within the white lines, we can debate the need for that separately, but with all the mourning over the years on track limits, policing white line is the best way forward.

Today policing is being done manually, reviewing multiple camera angles of every car by a few people. This is because there is no budget for technology or more personal.

Cannot shy away from policing your own rules just because you are scare of the outcome. That is just wrong on many levels.

browney
browney
2
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:13 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Rodak wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 8:35 pm
AR3-GP wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:05 pm
FW17 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 10:03 am
Should FOM invest on a Hawk-Eye system that they can move from event to event?

One problem with it is visibility when 1 car obscures another.
A system like this won't solve the problem, it will just make it more visible (and worse) by detecting more offs. The real issue is modifying tracks that have this issue; at most tracks if you go past track limits there is a consequence so the drivers don't go off; how many track limits violations were there at Monaco (joke!)? Grass, IMHO, is great.
This is true but I think the instant feedback would be good. A light or warning could go off, so the driver would just about their qually lap. There is also the iRacing slowdown option.

I think that tarmac run offs are probably here to stay.

User avatar
Wouter
110
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

ThijsMuis wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2023 10:09 am
Ok on FIA thread?

.
Ecclestone agrees to settlement for €755 million

Former Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone has reached a settlement and will not end up behind bars.
The wealthy Briton will pay 755 million euros (652 million £) to avoid ending up in jail.
Officially, his three daughters were listed as the beneficiaries of his trust fund, but according to the tax investigation service,
daddy Ecclestone did benefit himself.
.
Sky Sports F1
@SkySportsF1
Ex-F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone has been sentenced to 17 months in prison, suspended for two years, after pleading guilty to fraud.
Last edited by Wouter on Thu Oct 12, 2023 12:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Power of Dreams!

User avatar
Madhouse
0
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:46 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Simple solution is place microchips in the wheel rims and sensors in the white lines of the trouble corner - when the rim goes past the line, system sends a signal to race control and times are deleted in Q1-3 on the spot and during race three strikes and a time penalty.
Drivers will soon stick within the lines.

User avatar
void
4
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Rodak wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 8:35 pm
AR3-GP wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:05 pm
FW17 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2023 10:03 am
Should FOM invest on a Hawk-Eye system that they can move from event to event?

One problem with it is visibility when 1 car obscures another.
A system like this won't solve the problem, it will just make it more visible (and worse) by detecting more offs. The real issue is modifying tracks that have this issue; at most tracks if you go past track limits there is a consequence so the drivers don't go off; how many track limits violations were there at Monaco (joke!)? Grass, IMHO, is great.
I don't thing this kind of system can solve anything, a half meter wide gravel or other slippery surface would be a better solution making drivers avoid running over this surface.
.

User avatar
void
4
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Madhouse wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2023 12:17 pm
Simple solution is place microchips in the wheel rims and sensors in the white lines of the trouble corner - when the rim goes past the line, system sends a signal to race control and times are deleted in Q1-3 on the spot and during race three strikes and a time penalty.
Drivers will soon stick within the lines.
All I want is have races decided on track not on marshall's room.

User avatar
Madhouse
0
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:46 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

void wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2023 12:24 pm
Madhouse wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2023 12:17 pm
Simple solution is place microchips in the wheel rims and sensors in the white lines of the trouble corner - when the rim goes past the line, system sends a signal to race control and times are deleted in Q1-3 on the spot and during race three strikes and a time penalty.
Drivers will soon stick within the lines.
All I want is have races decided on track not on marshall's room.
Same - but if track limits are not enforced, it will look completely nuts with drivers pushing cars out super wide, completely off the marked track. I can think of a number of tracks were this would be done by all drivers if they could.