Sir Jackie Stewart on overtaking

[mx_tifoso]

...

and MX ..isn't the turn signal comment uncalled for following shriekers serious suggestion ?

It was meant with the intention of comparing it to other driver aids on road cars that are unnecessary on race cars; I personally don't agree with a proximity sensor that tells you to give the guy behind you some space so he could overtake. These guys are the top of top in terms of racing, some more courteous than others, but they're definitely not 'gentlemen' races from spec series.

So from my point of view it would just be another artificial ploy in the overtaking saga. Let them race as naturally as can be given the technical (aero) regulations that sometimes hinder them (rw/diffuser wake).

[ringo]

My view is that we follow the sporting code exactly as it is now.
You don't force drivers off track. That rule is all that needs to be adhered to avoid all the what ifs.
Also i belive any attacker can shove his car in any gap. This "he has the racing line" this is BS. Racing should be like chess. You put your competitor in compromising positions but you do it by the conventions of the game.

Drivers need only respect the space another car occupies, and make sure the other car can go ahead or around a corner without having to go off track.

Everything else is fair game. Massa in India is a perfect example of disrespecting another driver's location on track. This is born from this racing line ownership mentality, which isn't part of the rules.
Webber vs Hamilton in Korea is where we see the opposite. Drives can force each other anywhere as long as it's not over the white lines. You race in your space.

If you want to shove one up the inside no problem. The other guy has to accept the inside is occupied by another car and he cannot squeeze it off track.

[SiLo]

I think running people out of road is OK in certain circumstances, like exiting a corner when someone is trying to go round the outside, which we see a lot, and most of the time the guy gets the idea and backs off. However, doing it on a straight should not be allowed because it's just plain dirty.

And moving back across in the braking zone should be outlawed too.
/rant

[flynfrog]

so if a driver is dumb enough to shove one up the middle where he cant finish the corner its the lead cars job to make sure he doesn't crash. So who has to respect who's space?

If you cant make the pass clean you cant make the pass. If you have to put another driver in a position in a position where he can either let you by or you both crash you cant make the pass.

If you lose your wing almost every race you probably shouldn't be putting it there.

[strad]

flynfrog

[Shrieker]

'Let him by' or 'crash' thingy only happens when the attacker makes an out of control lunge and understeers into his rival. Other than that it's almost never a case of 'let him go' or 'crash' for the defending driver. It's not black and white.

I personally don't agree with a proximity sensor that tells you to give the guy behind you some space so he could overtake.

Give the guy behind space ? That's taking the idea well out of context...

Let me quote that part;

If another driver's front axle gets passed your rear axle, a beep sounds meaning, "If you go that way there'll be a collision".

So if a driver can actually can get his front wheel past your rear wheel, he is entitled to some space. And no it's not called behind, if a car is behind you, going either way won't cause a crash. If a driver has parts of his car past the rear parts of your car, that's not called behind, it's called somewhat alongside. And yes, going towards him might cause a crash, especially if he has no more space on the other side of the road.

The only downside i see with a proximty warning is attackers geting over-zealous in a bid to make it sound for the defending driver, trying to force him wide. I think that could be addressed easily.

[raymondu999]

Just thought this was rather appropriate to be posted here. Not for the montage value, but rather the way the ex-drivers see each incident. Mods if you feel this is too dicy and might instigate fanboy banter feel free to remove it

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gQ-5p1NWak[/youtube]

[ringo]

so if a driver is dumb enough to shove one up the middle where he cant finish the corner its the lead cars job to make sure he doesn't crash. So who has to respect who's space?

You dont violate another drivers space by shoving it up the middle. He never owned that space to begin with. A driver's space is where his car is and where it's heading is.
Any corner can be taken at any line, even "a shove one where the sun dont shine" line.
It's just that the exit speed will be compromsised. But exit speed is secondary when overtaking. Button on Webber in India is a mild example of a compromised entry, but screening the other car makes up for the slow exit.

Shoving it up the middle is not a "if you dont ease up we crash" situation.
It's a " i have compromised your line, you can no longer touch the apex, stay outside as i have the apex now". You dig?

If you cant make the pass clean you cant make the pass.

That is just cowardice. Webber wasn't thinking like that at Spa. Alonso knew Webber won the chess game and Alonso respected webbers space. Racing line is an imaginary thing, occupied space is not however.
If you can get beside and see the apex you can pass.

If you lose your wing almost every race you probably shouldn't be putting it there.

No it means the other guy's being a spoil sport and putting everything on the line, pun intended.

[strad]

One begins to see how it's gone so terribly wrong.

[beelsebob]

As far as I'm concerned ringo isn't wrong... except again for that one crucial fact. THE DEFENDER MUST BE ABLE TO SEE YOU. If the defender can't see you when they turn in, they have absolutely every right to do so. This should be sufficient to prevent ridiculous lunges up the inside that are never going to come off, simply because they come from too far back for the defender to see you in his periphery before they turn in.

The attitude of some people here though that it's the attacker's responsibility to avoid the accident right up until he's got his nose in front though is ridiculous and allows for many forms of dangerous defence, like Schumacher on Barrichello in Hungary. That being dangerous was not anything to do with being on a straight being a special case. It was purely and simply, Schumacher could see he was there, and deliberately ran him out of road. That is not legal in a corner or on a straight.

[Pierce89]

My view is that we follow the sporting code exactly as it is now.
You don't force drivers off track. That rule is all that needs to be adhered to avoid all the what ifs.
Also i belive any attacker can shove his car in any gap. This "he has the racing line" this is BS. Racing should be like chess. You put your competitor in compromising positions but you do it by the conventions of the game.

Drivers need only respect the space another car occupies, and make sure the other car can go ahead or around a corner without having to go off track.

Everything else is fair game. Massa in India is a perfect example of disrespecting another driver's location on track. This is born from this racing line ownership mentality, which isn't part of the rules.
Webber vs Hamilton in Korea is where we see the opposite. Drives can force each other anywhere as long as it's not over the white lines. You race in your space.

If you want to shove one up the inside no problem. The other guy has to accept the inside is occupied by another car and he cannot squeeze it off track.

I personally believe your attitude would lead to more drivers diving for a space that was never there.

[Pierce89]

As far as I'm concerned ringo isn't wrong... except again for that one crucial fact. THE DEFENDER MUST BE ABLE TO SEE YOU. If the defender can't see you when they turn in, they have absolutely every right to do so. This should be sufficient to prevent ridiculous lunges up the inside that are never going to come off, simply because they come from too far back for the defender to see you in his periphery before they turn in.

The attitude of some people here though that it's the attacker's responsibility to avoid the accident right up until he's got his nose in front though is ridiculous and allows for many forms of dangerous defence, like Schumacher on Barrichello in Hungary. That being dangerous was not anything to do with being on a straight being a special case. It was purely and simply, Schumacher could see he was there, and deliberately ran him out of road. That is not legal in a corner or on a straight.

+1. let's set out when it;s which drivers responsibilty.

Until a following driver has his front wheel to the lead drivers cockpit, i feel it's the overtaker's responsibility to avoid a crash. After that they have an equal responsibility. I don't feel the overtakee solely has sole responsibility for avoidance, UNTIL the overtaker is down the inside with his nose out front. Other than the situations I wrote I generally put the responsibility on the overtaker more than overtakee.

[ringo]

I personally believe your attitude would lead to more drivers diving for a space that was never there.

Yep.
But i have to point out that you are using the "who owns the racing line" mentality.
I don't prescribe to that because it's not in the regulations.

If you shove it up the middle and you can see the apex and can make the turn, then the space is there.
The only case i see this not working is in a tight chicane.

[flynfrog]

so how is a driver cutting to the apex any different than shoving it up the middle. I just compromised the racing line.

[strad]

Until a following driver has his front wheel to the lead drivers cockpit, i feel it's the overtaker's responsibility to avoid a crash.

Perfect classic explanation. =D>