New overtaking rules from FIA

[Dragonfly]

Wasn't it the same until now if there is a car alongside? Although not officially put on paper. It seems to me Hamilton - Koba and Hamilton - Massa incidents lie beneath this rule. In both cases Ham neglected the presence of another car alongside.

[WhiteBlue]

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.

The rule does not specifically mentions a gap requirement to the outside. The way it is written you must also leave a one car wide gap to the inside, and that is the much more likely overtaking scenario. In the future you cannot close the door on a driver if you have left the racing line between the last corner and the one you are negotiating now. It is also important to note that there is no requirement where the overtaking driver is in terms of being behind or ahead. If there is a collision following a defensive move the onus is on the defending driver to leave a wide enough gap between his car and the edge of the track. If he does not do this he will end in front of the stewards for causing an avoidable collision. The only situation the attacking driver will be blamed is when the gap was actually a car wide and they collided because the attacker did not use the space properly.

I still see a problem of interpretation when they collide behind the apex because the attacking driver braked too late and ran into the defender. The stewards will need to look at the telemetry in such cases.

[Mr.S]

The rule is not terrible.
In fact it doesn't even sound like it's new. It's basically a clarification on what was already implied by the previous rules.
I was saying this all the time, and i was thought to be a fan boy for making up stuff to suit a specific driver.
Now drivers have think more when they defend. Now they have to make their car wide by choosing a single line.
That is what true defending is about. Check Hamilton defending Vettel in Germany.
Or defending Webber in Korea.

Shumacher's moves are cheap and require no real skill to pull off.

Defending is not over guys, it just got a little bit more harder.

But fret not. I don't think overtaking is going to be much easier with this rule.
The attacker still has to get pass and be in a position to enter and exit the upcoming turn faster than the defender.

In fact i don't think it will change the racing much. Remember most passess nowadays are with big speed differentials, meaning they happen on the straights long before the braking zone. It is only in a case like shumacher/hamilton where overtaking is being attempted in the braking zone.

How about Hamilton defending in Korea last year against Alonso last year. Yea 1 Time Nobody who gets eaten by Button in his prime & who will be Button's No.2 from now on is the ideal driver to learn defending.

The guy who was hooning around the track defending Petrov??? Or who rammed into Maldonado?? Monaco was by far the worst move in the last 2 years & Hamilton should have been black flagged anyway. Anyways the crash kid who just crashed into people was never the Ideal racer,never is & never will be.

Will always be a 1 Time Champion Nobody like a Farina or a Hill & nobody cares about them now.

[beelsebob]

Wasn't it the same until now if there is a car alongside? Although not officially put on paper. It seems to me Hamilton - Koba and Hamilton - Massa incidents lie beneath this rule. In both cases Ham neglected the presence of another car alongside.

Which Hamilton - Massa incident are we discussing:
• Monaco - this rule doesn't really apply, Massa moved once.
• Silverstone - Doesn't apply, Hamilton moved once.
• Japan - Would apply, and be deemed to be Hamilton's fault if the collision had been serious enough for anyone to give a crap.
• India - Would apply, and be deemed to be Massa's fault for moving off the racing line, back on, and then back off.

[Just_a_fan]

Mr.S - is that chip on your shoulder very heavy? If Hamilton wins another title will he become "2 Time Champion Nobody"?

[Dragonfly]

Which Hamilton - Massa incident are we discussing:
• Monaco - this rule doesn't really apply, Massa moved once.
• Silverstone - Doesn't apply, Hamilton moved once.
• Japan - Would apply, and be deemed to be Hamilton's fault if the collision had been serious enough for anyone to give a crap.
• India - Would apply, and be deemed to be Massa's fault for moving off the racing line, back on, and then back off.

You somehow missed the one I had in mind. IIRC (pardon if my memory fails) - Korea, Lewis slowly drifting left to outer edge (like at Spa) this time Massa being alongside. After that I remember some people put under question Hamilton's left side peripheral sight.

[beelsebob]

Which Hamilton - Massa incident are we discussing:
• Monaco - this rule doesn't really apply, Massa moved once.
• Silverstone - Doesn't apply, Hamilton moved once.
• Japan - Would apply, and be deemed to be Hamilton's fault if the collision had been serious enough for anyone to give a crap.
• India - Would apply, and be deemed to be Massa's fault for moving off the racing line, back on, and then back off.

You somehow missed the one I had in mind. IIRC (pardon if my memory fails) - Korea, Lewis slowly drifting left to outer edge (like at Spa) this time Massa being alongside. After that I remember some people put under question Hamilton's left side peripheral sight.

I don't remember it, nor does YouTube seem to, are you sure you're not referring to Japan?

[Dragonfly]

As I pointed out, I am not sure which race. But I am sure the incident took place and the stewards explained not handing a penalty with Hamilton aiming to get back to the racing line. Which by itself is a bright example of inconsistency in stewarding.

Reading the wording of the new rule, even after the clarification, it seems still too moot to be a solid rule rather than an instrument in the hands of the FIA to stage and direct the championship.

[beelsebob]

As I pointed out, I am not sure which race. But I am sure the incident took place and the stewards explained not handing a penalty with Hamilton aiming to get back to the racing line. Which by itself is a bright example of inconsistency in stewarding.

Reading the wording of the new rule, even after the clarification, it seems still too moot to be a solid rule rather than an instrument in the hands of the FIA to stage and direct the championship.

I'm pretty sure what you're referring to is Japan last year where Hamilton squeezed Massa over at the entry to the chicane and knocked a small bit of front wing off. As far as I can tell the new rule would penalise Hamilton, not even for the collision, but for moving twice, once to defend the inside, and again to get back to the racing line on the entrance.

[Dragonfly]

Then it's Japan, right.
But I think eventual penalty applying the new rule will be for not leaving at least one car width space.
Also, the way it's worded it is not clear relative to which side of the track a space must be left, or both. Because there's no mention of the presence and position of another car. It's implied but unclear. I'm afraid it will be used as a punishing stick and discouraging defending at all.
Take a situation for example. Driver A initiates an attack, driver B moves to defend. Driver A then spins off the track by his own error, driver B moves to the racing line not leaving a car width gap. How is the situation assessed by the letter of the rule?

[strad]

I don't remember it, nor does YouTube seem to, are you sure you're not referring to Japan?

Like they can host it with the FOM breathing down their neck

[beelsebob]

I don't remember it, nor does YouTube seem to, are you sure you're not referring to Japan?

Like they can host it with the FOM breathing down their neck

They absolutely can, all it takes is a few minor tweaks to the video (commonly flipping it horizontally). Search for pretty much any crash on youtube and you'll find a video up there.

[Just_a_fan]

The whole question of moving to defend opens up some areas in which drivers can be clever. For example, on approach to an obvious overtaking zone, drivers might decide to move across the track and then back on line on a large number of laps when no cars are near them, particularly during practice but perhaps also during the race.

If they do this, perhaps they have a genuine defence of "I wasn't moving to defend, I always take a funny line there". After all, if I move left when there's no one there and left when there is someone there, am I moving to defend the line on the occasions when there is a car nearby? Could be argued that I am not. If that is the case, then I can legitmately move all the way back to the edge of the track rather than leave 1 car's width.

After all, the racing line is a preference, not a requirement...

[WhiteBlue]

After all, the racing line is a preference, not a requirement...

I think you would have a problem with the stewards. The official racing line is actually painted in white in the track plan FiA issues.

[bhall]

I've got to believe that's for informational purposes only. There's no way the FIA sanctions an "official" racing line, if for no other reason than that the wet and dry lines are often different.

Right?