New overtaking rules from FIA

[lebesset]

it i possible to make a car wide enough at Monaco but not at Monza or India or many other race tracks

The race craft of a driver is being able to position the car in such a way his rival is not able to get alongside.
Schumacher, Senna, Mansell were all very good at keeping their rivals behind their rear axle.

If any of you have sat in a modern F1 car you will realise the mirrors are optional extra's. They're useless. By the time a driver sees a car in the mirrors and reacts the opposing driver is very likely nearly alongside, hence you see battles like Schumacher Hamilton and Hamilton (insert rearward drivers name here).

These silly rules are not the answer, better driver visibility is.

as we have seen this year , even when the driver in front has seen the car behind he has been allowed to shut the door most of the time ...that's what ruins racing ; the best drivers don't do it because they know how to defend running an opponent off the track [ a la vettel or schu ] is a different matter because it can be done without a collision normally

better mirrors is a separate issue

[Pandamasque]

as we have seen this year , even when the driver in front has seen the car behind he has been allowed to shut the door most of the time ...that's what ruins racing ; the best drivers don't do it because they know how to defend running an opponent off the track [ a la vettel or schu ] is a different matter because it can be done without a collision normally

better mirrors is a separate issue

That's against rules too (and often must result in exclusion from the race at least, imo).

It's incredible how illegal defensive techniques that ruin actual racing are tolerated, while artificial gimmicks are being created to facilitate passing

[Just_a_fan]

It's basically a clarification on what was already implied by the previous rules.

Wrong...Just as was said earlier..You could move to block then move back on line,,,and thats the way it should be...this is stupid and NOT racing.

Really? Let's get the facts straight, shall we?
“Maneuvers liable to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.”

That's ONE, Not 'one and another one to go back to the racing line' not 'two'. One. Uno. 1.

Well, it says "move once to defend the position". So I move right to cover you as you move right and then as we get to the corner I move back to the left to the racing line. That is one move to defend the position. However, if I move right to cover you and you then move quickly left to try to go around the outside, I can not then move back to the left again because that is two moves to defend the position. All I can do is hope to outbrake you in to the corner on your inside.

A subtle but very important difference.

[strad]

These silly rules are not the answer, better driver visibility is.

Valid point.

[lebesset]

as we have seen this year , even when the driver in front has seen the car behind he has been allowed to shut the door most of the time ...that's what ruins racing ; the best drivers don't do it because they know how to defend running an opponent off the track [ a la vettel or schu ] is a different matter because it can be done without a collision normally

better mirrors is a separate issue

That's against rules too (and often must result in exclusion from the race at least, imo).

It's incredible how illegal defensive techniques that ruin actual racing are tolerated, while artificial gimmicks are being created to facilitate passing

sorry , when I said running an opponent off the track was a different matter , I didn't mean it was acceptable ...for me that is a black flag offence

[sbradley]

I have to agree, they might be taking the safety of the drivers into consideration but I think that takes away much of defending your position from an attack. I agree that might as well be equal to letting them pass considering the momentum brought about by DRS. It is a little too much way of giving in my opinion and would almost secure a gained position every single time while taking some value of racing out of it.

[vall]

this how the rule is now worded:

Article 20.3 of the 2012 FIA Sporting Regulations now reads: "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."

http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/4037 ... e_details/

[Just_a_fan]

@strad

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable rule. So the driver is allowed to move back to towards the racing line although he won't be fully on it because on the approach to the corner he must be one car width in from the track's edge. And that car width is roughly the racing line.

It's not quite as bad as was being suggested by some that the defending driver couldn't move back at all.

[N12ck]

I think they will slaughter battles and the art of defending personally

[Florio]

9.8.2 At the race start and at pit stops, first gear must be used until the car is travelling 100kmh
May make an eventful start in wet races this year.

[N12ck]

9.8.2 At the race start and at pit stops, first gear must be used until the car is travelling 100kmh
May make an eventful start in wet races this year.

Another ridiculous rule, why dont we just rename f1 as indycar, and stop any overtaking whatsoever, they might aswell

[ajdavison2]

What's the reason for this rule regarding 1st gear?

[Florio]

What's the reason for this rule regarding 1st gear?

No idea, but it's comepletely stupid!

[vall]

What's the reason for this rule regarding 1st gear?

No idea, but it's comepletely stupid!

The start is often one of the most trilling parts of the race and I hope this will not spoil it too much.

[beelsebob]

Okay, so the rule has been clarified that you can move back... just you must leave a 1 car width gap for someone to go down your outside.

That seems more reasonable to me, it means that people can't shut off a move down the outside, but they can get (nearly) the correct entry to the corner.