Sir Jackie Stewart on overtaking

[beelsebob]

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.

+1 spot on. Once they're there, it's both's responsibility to give each other room. Once the attacker has his cockpit beyond the defender's front wing it's the defender's responsibility 100%.

[Richard]

I sort of agree with Ringo on this.

Charging up the inside can force a driver off track on a tight corner, because the driver has nowhere to go other than off track. That's what happened to Hamilton and Maldonardo in Monaco, Maldonardo was faced with a crash (barrier) or a crash (Hamilton), hence Hamilton forcing an avoidable crash.

Similarly, charging up the inside after the leading driver has already turned results in a T bone, hence a valid penalty.

However, getting alongside in the braking zone and hence forcing the leading driver to go around the outside should be OK. We saw Hamilton do that with spectacular results in 07 & 08.

When I say "alongside" I'd base that on peripheral vision, ie wheel alongside cockpit.

Anyhow, that's all IMHO should I ever be able influence the stewards, I'm not saying it is what actually happens.... although it does seem to fit the penalties given to Hamilton this year.

[beelsebob]

I sort of agree with Ringo on this.

Charging up the inside can force a driver off track on a tight corner, because the driver has nowhere to go other than off track. That's what happened to Hamilton and Maldonardo in Monaco, Maldonardo was faced with a crash (barrier) or a crash (Hamilton), hence Hamilton forcing an avoidable crash.

Not really – Maldonado could have done exactly the same thing Schumacher did. In fact, the only reason he hit the barrier was because he dived straight for the apex despite knowing Hamilton was there, and made contact with Hamilton.

Similarly, charging up the inside after the leading driver has already turned results in a T bone, hence a valid penalty.

Agreed – if they've already turned in, you're too late, get into a good slip stream for the next corner.

However, getting alongside in the braking zone and hence forcing the leading driver to go around the outside should be OK. We saw Hamilton do that with spectacular results in 07 & 08.

When I say "alongside" I'd base that on peripheral vision, ie wheel alongside cockpit.

Anyhow, that's all IMHO should I ever be able influence the stewards, I'm not saying it is what actually happens.... although it does seem to fit the penalties given to Hamilton this year.

I disagree about Hamilton/Maldonado in Monaco, since Hamilton was sufficiently past Maldonado to be seen when Maldonado turned in.

ps - this would only apply if there was enough space for two cars side by side at racing speed. Hence it was OK for Alonso to hold his line at Monza and Vettel to go off track because Alonso couldn't give Vettel room and stay on track through the chicane.

Yep, this is the one time that it's always down to the attacker – he must attack in a corner where it's possible for the defender to give room. By this I don't mean "wha wha wha, Massa would have lost time by going round the outside at India, therefore it wasn't possible", I mean if the other driver would have to go off track because of the move you initiated, you did it rong.

[Richard]

I was working on the basis that Maldonardo would have gone into the barrier if he swerved to avoid Hamilton. You'd agree with me if that was the case. That's a big "if"!!

What are your thoughts on Massa-Hamilton?

[beelsebob]

I was working on the basis that Maldonardo would have gone into the barrier if he swerved to avoid Hamilton. You'd agree with me if that was the case. That's a big "if"!!

Yes, absolutely.

What are your thoughts on Massa-Hamilton?

At Monaco? All Hamilton's fault – he was no where near far enough along side to expect Massa to avoid him... Also, that corner is tighter than a tight thing, you need to get to full lock to get round it even without someone beside you, I don't really see how he expected either of them to make the corner.

At India, all Massa's fault – he knew he was there, and turned in anyway.

[Richard]

So we are agreed.

... and we appear to agree with the stewards.

[beelsebob]

So we are agreed.

... and we appear to agree with the stewards.

Excellent, hopefully we can stop with the "zomg, he had the racing line" bollocks that keeps coming up in race threads.

[ringo]

The way how i see it.
If we are going to say a car needs to be 2 meters, 10cm, 1 mm and 50 microns from the defender's front wheel, then it better be written in the regulations.
Such opinions are not absolute and are debatable.

As the regulations are, i will work with what is stated. This is why i have such an open stance on overtaking. It is the nature of F1 to use every inch of the rule and go to the limit.

I see nothing about racing line, nothing about coming up to a discrete distance allong another cars cockpit. Nothing of the sort.

Therefore it is my understanding that hammer drilling your car into a wedge is legal. Nothing in the rules can counter that.
As long as it isn't done to intersect the heading of the defending car it is safe as any other overtake.
Maldonado Hamiton was mentioned. This is a good exampe.
Hamilton occupied an open space, which did not belong to maldonado; a car can only occupy 1 space on the track and that's right where it is.

By doing this Hamilton has erased any chance of Maldonado driving on the apex.
It's like using a chess piece to pin another. You simply take away your opponent's freedom to make his move.
The opportunity is lost and Maldonado simply must drive elsewhere to make the turn.
It's either he accepts this fact, or he does the imposible and drive through Hamilton in hopes that the mistake can be undone.

It was his fault for allowing Hamilton to position himself. Just like it is in a chess game. Your opponent fails to see what you are up to until it is too late. He cannot tell you to undo your move; you worked hard for that move!
Or dash the board to the ground, he has to play with what he is dealt.

Therefore if another car goes for a gap, it's simply your fault for giving him that gap. You have no right to a "racing line" because it doesn't exist. You only have a right to the space you occupy between the white lines.

The best defense if an oponent wedges in a gap, is to give him a gap that can only result in a poor exit.
Hamilton has done this many times. He gives the opponent a fruitless gap and he overtakes them right after they get past.

The cotton bud, fluffy pillow stance of owning a racing line has greatly taken the edge off overtaking. We no longer see surprise attacks and dive bombs.

[flynfrog]

We no longer see surprise attacks and dive bombs.

That's because you are not watching amateur hour in a junior formula.

We have what is called causing an avoidable collision. This prevents most of the banzai senna passes you like.

[beelsebob]

The way how i see it.
If we are going to say a car needs to be 2 meters, 10cm, 1 mm and 50 microns from the defender's front wheel, then it better be written in the regulations.
Such opinions are not absolute and are debatable.

As the regulations are, i will work with what is stated. This is why i have such an open stance on overtaking. It is the nature of F1 to use every inch of the rule and go to the limit.

I see nothing about racing line, nothing about coming up to a discrete distance allong another cars cockpit. Nothing of the sort.

Agreed – The discrete distance along side that we're talking about is derived from the rules though – the rules put the onus on the driver to not cause avoidable collisions. If they can't see where the other driver is the collision isn't really avoidable, if the other driver makes it into their peripheral vision, it is.

Therefore it is my understanding that hammer drilling your car into a wedge is legal. Nothing in the rules can counter that.

But... If you do it in such a way that the other driver couldn't see you coming, and then you collide, that collision is clearly your fault, and was clearly avoidable.

[Richard]

Maldonado Hamiton was mentioned. This is a good exampe.
Hamilton occupied an open space, which did not belong to maldonado; a car can only occupy 1 space on the track and that's right where it is.

By doing this Hamilton has erased any chance of Maldonado driving on the apex.
It's like using a chess piece to pin another. You simply take away your opponent's freedom to make his move.
The opportunity is lost and Maldonado simply must drive elsewhere to make the turn.

I'd say there are 3 potential scenarios

1 - Maldonardo has the time and space to avoid Hamilton and stay on track
2 - Maldonardo's car has already turned for the apex and cannot avoid the collision.
3 - Maldonardo is able to avoid a collision but that means he crashes into a barrier.

Scenarios 2 & 3 are avoidable collisions caused by the attacking car diving into a move that couldn't be completed.

[lebesset]

Maldonado Hamiton was mentioned. This is a good exampe.
Hamilton occupied an open space, which did not belong to maldonado; a car can only occupy 1 space on the track and that's right where it is.

By doing this Hamilton has erased any chance of Maldonado driving on the apex.
It's like using a chess piece to pin another. You simply take away your opponent's freedom to make his move.
The opportunity is lost and Maldonado simply must drive elsewhere to make the turn.

I'd say there are 3 potential scenarios

1 - Maldonardo has the time and space to avoid Hamilton and stay on track
2 - Maldonardo's car has already turned for the apex and cannot avoid the collision.
3 - Maldonardo is able to avoid a collision but that means he crashes into a barrier.

Scenarios 2 & 3 are avoidable collisions caused by the attacking car diving into a move that couldn't be completed.

there is clearly space at that corner as hamilton an schumacher both got through together
if maldonardo had taken the apex hamilton could not have got there

schumacher was able to avoid the barrier having made the error of letting hamilton get up the inside

I have just been reading elsewhere a discussion about whether or not alonso could have beaten hamilton last sunday [ following statement from ferrari that he could have with better pit stops ]
the truth is that had he got ahead at the final pit stop , although the ferrari was clearly easier on the soft tyres , McLaren were faster on the hard ones , and hamilton would just have DRSsed past him with ease

what has F1 come to

[Richard]

lebesset - I was trying to set out how the scenario could be assessed in the context of ringo's proposal.

If ringo's proposition of "take away your opponent's freedom to make his move" causes your opponent to go into the barrier, then is that a fair move?

Note that there is a "if" in that question!

[lebesset]

richard ,

in my view defending is as much one of the arts of racing as is overtaking ; if you can't stop the following driver from getting up the inside by correct defence then I am afraid you have to take the consequences of not giving way

it is not just a matter of the correct line , but also the correct speed ; maybe nobody else noticed but hamilton gave a master class in defending not long ago , against webber if I remember correctly ; no blocking , just precise positioning and accurate speed control , 100% fair , absolutely no complaint from webber because he is not a whinger [ another comment from jackie...webber is one of the 5 best drivers on the grid ]

I am afraid that many of the drivers haven't mastered the art of defence , they seem to think speed is the solution but if the car/driver in the car behind is faster it rarely is , only better driving does the job ; you may be aware of the old poker adage ...you have to know when to hold 'em , and know when to fold 'em ; expecting your opponent to show you his cards is hardly realistic

[ringo]

Agreed – The discrete distance along side that we're talking about is derived from the rules though – the rules put the onus on the driver to not cause avoidable collisions. If they can't see where the other driver is the collision isn't really avoidable, if the other driver makes it into their peripheral vision, it is.

But there is no given distance in the regulations. when i say discrete i mean a stated value that each driver should use as his judgement.
The idea of peripheral vission is also subjective.
Look on how specific the rear view mirror test is, notice it has stated distances, and objects that must be seen.
If you want to bring in vission and distance into what makes an overtake legal, then you must state all the variables and standards in black and white for them to be followed.
Anything else is our opion, and no one can be more right than the other.

But... If you do it in such a way that the other driver couldn't see you coming, and then you collide, that collision is clearly your fault, and was clearly avoidable.

What if he could see me but his eyes winked at the exact moment i made my move?
Is it still my fault even though the defender could see me had his eyes been open.

It situations like these why i say that the rules must have stated standards for what is out of view and what distance is along the side.