Leaving Circuit to Gain Advantage

[bill shoe]

This means passing someone or defending against someone by leaving the circuit, i.e. running wide, cutting a corner, etc.

There are two philosophies for how race stewards should control this situation--
1. “Judgment”. Decide each situation independently and make the most reasonable decision for that context.
2. “Rule of Law”. Decide in advance what is and is not OK, then consistently enforce this.

Over the winter the FIA added new rules that defined leaving the circuit, so it seemed F1 was moving more towards Rule of Law. However, during the Australia race Vettel and Buemi left the circuit to pass people without punishment. It turns out that Charlie Whiting overturned the new rules for one or two corners:

“In fact, Buemi and Vettel both took advantage of a little dispensation offered by Charlie Whiting in the drivers’ briefing. The FIA decided that it wouldn’t punish drivers who ran wide in that spot, where there was plenty of room for them to get safely back on the track. Whether that should have been turned into a ‘license to pass’ by certain drivers is another story.”

--Adam Cooper http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... ity-of-rb7 (“Taking an Advantage” toward bottom)

The lack of public transparency from Charlie and the FIA didn’t help this situation. Also, I’m not comfortable with an onsite person at the drivers’ briefing verbally overriding explicit written rules.

I think the consistent F1 rules confusion in recent years (both sporting and technical rules) is caused by the FIA being unsure if they are a Judgment organization or a Rule of Law organization.

[nae]

its suites the FIA to be both a Judgment organization and a Rule of Law set up.
it can then choose which tack to take that suites its own ends best.

it also appears to reserve the right to 'make it up as it goes along'

its likes it cake and yours and mine and will eat it or shoot itself in the foot with it as it see fit.

it also cannot fall foul of its own rules and as such has never brought the sport in to disrepute.

in short the FIA is dictatorship nirvana.

[Pandamasque]

I would take Buemi out of this equation as he was basically pushed out of the track by Sutil. No harm no foul I guess, but had there been a wall, grass or gravel trap, Sutil should have been given a penalty. Heck, Irvine was given a 3 race ban for pushing an opponent out of the track in '94 (I think). And then a certain driver was allowed to do that regularly throughout the late 90-s with no penalties whatsoever. Talk about consistency.

[mep]

There are two philosophies for how race stewards should control this situation--
1. “Judgment”. Decide each situation independently and make the most reasonable decision for that context.
2. “Rule of Law”. Decide in advance what is and is not OK, then consistently enforce this.

I think there is a third philosophie.
3. "circuit design" Build the circuit in a way that drivers don't get an advantage by not following the given track. For example by adding curbs, grass, gravel.

[Jon]

Heck, Irvine was given a 3 race ban for pushing an opponent out of the track in '94 (I think). And then a certain driver was allowed to do that regularly throughout the late 90-s with no penalties whatsoever. Talk about consistency.

Please mate, a bit more objectivity: Irvine was given a 1 race ban for causing a crash involving 4 cars at high speed. The debris from the crash hitting a driver in the head. If you have not watched the video of that crash, I suggest you do. It's not nice. After Jordan appealed, the suspension was raised to 3 races. Sorry, I don't know the details about it.

Anyway, what Irvine did was much, much more dangerous than simply pushing an opponent out of the track.

[Shrieker]

Sorry, I don't know the details about it.

AFAIK, in the appeal when asked why he did not look in the mirror Irvine replied "why do I have to ?" or something like that. After that the ban was increased to 3 races. Gotta love the guy lol.

[manchild]

A friend of mine told me that he read an interview with Kubica, where he said that touching fences (without damaging the car) on circuit Gilles Villeneuve gives you 3 tenths per lap.

[Pandamasque]

Please mate, a bit more objectivity: Irvine was given a 1 race ban for causing a crash involving 4 cars at high speed. The debris from the crash hitting a driver in the head. If you have not watched the video of that crash, I suggest you do. It's not nice. After Jordan appealed, the suspension was raised to 3 races. Sorry, I don't know the details about it.

Anyway, what Irvine did was much, much more dangerous than simply pushing an opponent out of the track.

I watched it just recently. 3 race ban is a fact, I didn't say stewards did that. The way the crash happened was a coincidence. Pushing an opponent out of the track can results in nothing one day, or in a career ending accident anther (google Marcel Tiemann) if you're unlucky. But drivers should be penalized hard for tempting luck is such a way, regardless if someone's simply ends up doing an off track excursion or dies.

[Gerhard Berger]

I would take Buemi out of this equation as he was basically pushed out of the track by Sutil. No harm no foul I guess, but had there been a wall, grass or gravel trap, Sutil should have been given a penalty. Heck, Irvine was given a 3 race ban for pushing an opponent out of the track in '94 (I think). And then a certain driver was allowed to do that regularly throughout the late 90-s with no penalties whatsoever. Talk about consistency.

who?

[Jon]

I watched it just recently. 3 race ban is a fact, I didn't say stewards did that. The way the crash happened was a coincidence. Pushing an opponent out of the track can results in nothing one day, or in a career ending accident anther (google Marcel Tiemann) if you're unlucky. But drivers should be penalized hard for tempting luck is such a way, regardless if someone's simply ends up doing an off track excursion or dies.

I don't know if I'm missing something here, so I'll ask: Are you suggesting that causing a 4 car crash and/or shamelessly putting someone in the wall is the same as what happened between Sutil and Buemi and all should be equally punished?

Is this what you are suggesting?

[beelsebob]

I watched it just recently. 3 race ban is a fact, I didn't say stewards did that. The way the crash happened was a coincidence. Pushing an opponent out of the track can results in nothing one day, or in a career ending accident anther (google Marcel Tiemann) if you're unlucky. But drivers should be penalized hard for tempting luck is such a way, regardless if someone's simply ends up doing an off track excursion or dies.

I don't know if I'm missing something here, so I'll ask: Are you suggesting that causing a 4 car crash and/or shamelessly putting someone in the wall is the same as what happened between Sutil and Buemi and all should be equally punished?

Is this what you are suggesting?

He's suggesting that Sutil's actions could just as easily have produced a nasty crash, and thus sutil should be punished for pushing the driver off track too. I'm not sure I agree, but I did want to clarify.

[Just_a_fan]

I would take Buemi out of this equation as he was basically pushed out of the track by Sutil. No harm no foul I guess, but had there been a wall, grass or gravel trap, Sutil should have been given a penalty. Heck, Irvine was given a 3 race ban for pushing an opponent out of the track in '94 (I think). And then a certain driver was allowed to do that regularly throughout the late 90-s with no penalties whatsoever. Talk about consistency.

who?

Schumacher...?

[Pandamasque]

@beelsebob, yes, that's pretty much my point. Maybe the penalties shouldn't be equal regardless of the consequences, but it's a shame that a offences are being ignored until something serious happens. The message about what's allowed and not should be clear and consistent. There seem to be a few generations of drivers now who think they're invincible the car.

[bill shoe]

I think there is a third philosophie.
3. "circuit design" Build the circuit in a way that drivers don't get an advantage by not following the given track. For example by adding curbs, grass, gravel.

Good point. You don't have many cutting-the-circuit issues on street courses lined with concrete.

The interesting thing with your philosophy 3 is that it functions exactly like philosophy 2, IF 2 was consistently applied. The advantage of 3 is that it does not depend on humans who will always be tempted to stray away from Rule of Law and make a Judgment.

[bill shoe]

I would take Buemi out of this equation as he was basically pushed out of the track by Sutil. No harm no foul I guess, but had there been a wall, grass or gravel trap, Sutil should have been given a penalty.

I have no problem with Buemi's actions there, but Button was also ahead of Massa and was pushed wide in the same way, and of course Button was penalized.

The FIA and stewards used a Judgment approach to this situation because it was OK in some corners but not others. Or did the FIA and stewards turn the different rules for different corners into a Rule of Law situation by announcing the changes at the driver's briefing? Hmmm... I would argue no, it's still a Judgment philosophy because Rule of Law must be in writing.