A new aggressive driving rule for F1: A Modest Proposal

[Gary Corby]

Every time there's a dubious racing incident, the forum ends up in acrimonious debate. It occurs to me there's a rule change they could impose that would make the drivers better balance the risks and turn this into an objectively measurable system. Simply this:

In any contact, the driver making the transverse movement is considered at fault. (This is almost but not quite the same as saying the driver who changes his racing line, but as expressed is objectively measurable. You'd need an escape clause for the stewards to rule otherwise in exceptional circumstances. If both drivers make transverse movements then it's a no-fault incident.)

The offending driver in a contact may finish no better than immediately behind the car he hit. (In addition to any other penalties the stewards think up.)

What this means is, drivers can do all the risky overtakes they like, but if it goes wrong, the person it hurts the most is guaranteed to be them. It also obviates the bizarre rule about only one defensive move allowed, by punishing overly aggressive defence. If a faster car is cruising past a slower, and if the lead car moves to block which results in contact, then it was the defender making the transverse movement who's going to suffer.

Hamilton fanboys will instantly object because these rules clearly would have brutalized him this season; but keep in mind they would also have got him past Schumacher. What they do is reward clean driving and successsful​ risk taking.

 

[Kyle Puttifer]

LOOPHOLE: what happens if Hamilton's victim retires? (a la Maldonado in Monaco)

 

[Péter Bártfai]

DQ? I know it's a harsh penalty, but that's what I do to myself if I accidentally put someone out of race in a club event (thankfully that doesn't happen too often, I'm usually very careful).
Well, I'm sure however that a lot of people would say that it discourages people of passing, and that it kills the action in F1. Though I'm absolutely against that statement, it's not all about having as many passes in a race as possible, I enjoy watching 2 drivers chasing each other for 10 laps waiting for the right place to pass, it's much more exciting than watching a driver catching someone, then pushing the magic button in next lap and shoveling him off the track...

 

[Gary Corby]

By these rules Hamilton at Monaco this year would have been black flagged when Massa crashed after their contact, with Hamilton's name appearing after Massa's in the finish order. The Maldonado incident would never have happened and Maldonado would probably have survived to finish the race in the points.

All of which would deliver the message that running into your competitor is not a good idea.

This doesn't stop aggressive overtaking, but does cause the guy behind to evaluate the risks, and think whether there might not be a better place to do it. Keep in mind too, if Hamilton genuinely believes he's faster, which he probably was in this case, then all he needed to do was wait for what passes for a straight at Monaco and accelerate by. If a slower car moved sideways to block a faster car, and there was contact, then by these rules the lead would be the one in trouble.

 

[Ryan Sylvester]

LOOPHOLE: what happens if Hamilton's victim retires? (a la Maldonado in Monaco)

obviously, he must drive into the wall at full speed and retire himself.. what a silly idea that is!!

A Fromula 1 race is a far too unpredicatable thing to implement a rule like this, which is why it hasn't been.. other than the fact that you're would probably destroy any chance of any driver having a historic race driving through the field, which is ultimately what we want to see (and i dont mean Hamilton, but i wonder how many times one of the great has crashed with another in the past, and then gone on to produce a stunning drive?)

Massa moaned about how his race was ruined.. but how does hamilton stop one more time than him, and finish so far in front of him.. its because he is not fast.. Hamilton rightly got on with the race, and has not really criticised the decision, maybe Massa should do the same.

He needs to be worrying about his own seat rather than talking about other drivers in my opinion.

Another thing i will say is, i see some drivers are alot more friendly (alonso with Webber/Vettel, and Massa is very friendly when it comes to Alonso :tongue: LOL) when other drivers try to pass them, but Massa in Particular does have an issue with Hamilton passing him. Funny how Schuey drives like a maniac, yet Hamilton says nothing about it compared to everybody else, yet when Hamilton makes a mistake and locks a wheel and creates contact, and suddenly a rule should be put in place to stop him ever trying to pass people.

just think there is bad blood between Hamilton and Massa and it is something that probably would happen alot more if Massa was more competitve if im honest, and i dont think it would be only Hamilton doing the crashing.


and also, last year when Hamilton and Webber collided, under this rule above. Webber would have been at fault as technically, Hamilton was on the racing line even though he cut across Webber, although to me it looked a bit more like a race incident, Hamilton retired, but no way should Webber have to stop his race, just because contact forced another to retire.. These are grown men (apart from Massa it seems) and will normally just go and speak about it afterwards like adults.

 

[Ryan Sylvester]

just to add regarding my point about drivers being more friendly towards others when it comes to overtaking, i dont for a second believe that they should be nice for Hamilton, as he hasn't helped himself. just merely stating a fact that is all.

Go Button!! lol

 

[Robert Walker]

Silly idea. People would be to scared to do anything. People would no longer be going for those gaps, and we all know what a certain someone said about that.

As for it helping Hamilton against Schumacher, your rule wouldn't. As the stewards did not penalise Schumacher as they didn't see it as blocking. Yet people have been punished with drive through penalties for less.

Get rid of DRS, and change the rules of aero design so that cars aren't hurt as much when behind a car. (Sarcasm mode on) Or they can install grooves onto all circuits and the cars can only go on the groove in the track. That way we can all watch cars following each other in an orderly fashion. There will be no accidents and it will be great entertainment, and inspire some amazing racers to come through the ranks....

 

[John Robertson]

I wouldn't say these are grown men. most of them are around my age ~25.

I've got a lot of friends that are around my age that go to bars and drink every night and wake up at 4 in the afternoon. Hardly the sign of a grown man.

Alter that statement to "I've got people looking after my health and my life and I have no worries in the world and someone gave me this 100 million dollar car to go play with" and I think it ends up being a very similar result. you behave like a child.

 

[Ryan Sylvester]

so what exactly do you believe is the age where you become a man the John? Just because your friends do that doesn't mean everybody does? I myself am 26, live with my partner and have 3 children,work a job and would say i've grown up enough to call myself a 'grown man'.

and to be honest, we see a minimal amount of their lives, and as such, dont know much about these people at all, although I am speculating here, but going out till 4 in the morning drinking and then staying in bed till 4 in the afternoon is not something that a formula 1 driver would be advised to do a lot, so for you to say that they are not grown men because you friends are 25 and go out and get drunk is a rather harsh accusation and quite derrogatory towards them, as the truth is you dont know them well wnough to say.

My comment on the grown men, is in reference to the times i have seen the drivers talking after events and making up e.g. Pastor Maldonado and Hamilton @ Spa and really a whole host of incidents with many drivers through the history of Formula 1.

Oh, Lewis Hamilton is 26, Massa is 30.

 

[Chris Jenkins]

By these rules Hamilton at Monaco this year would have been black flagged when Massa crashed after their contact, with Hamilton's name appearing after Massa's in the finish order. The Maldonado incident would never have happened and Maldonado would probably have survived to finish the race in the points.

All of which would deliver the message that running into your competitor is not a good idea.

This doesn't stop aggressive overtaking, but does cause the guy behind to evaluate the risks, and think whether there might not be a better place to do it. Keep in mind too, if Hamilton genuinely believes he's faster, which he probably was in this case, then all he needed to do was wait for what passes for a straight at Monaco and accelerate by. If a slower car moved sideways to block a faster car, and there was contact, then by these rules the lead would be the one in trouble.

If you follow the rule to the letter then it was Massa and Maldonaldo that actually turned in to create the impact.
Not waiving Hamilton of blame in real life, because he shouldnt of stuck his car there, but he was going forwards in both occasions. So with this new made up rule, if followed word-for-word, Hamilton would be clear.

And Hamilton didn't cause Massa's crash in Monaco. Massa lost it on the marbles in the tunnel.

 

[Ryan Sylvester]

Agree with you Chris, just a silly rule as it would always be open to interpretation really. there are more clever people than us making the rules for F1, which is why this one is not in there..

 

[William Levesque]

Hamilton should go in Touring cars

 

[John Robertson]

I'm just saying I've observed some very childish things. Just because these guys get paid a lot and because they're above 18 doesn't make them any more adult than any of us, infact probably less.

And no matter what maldonado and hamilton said after the race, when their press advisers told them how to handle it, they acted like idiots on the track.

As did Schumacher in the last couple of races. and he's ancient in F1 terms.

 

[Alberto Casado]

Every time there's a dubious racing incident, the forum ends up in acrimonious debate. It occurs to me there's a rule change they could impose that would make the drivers better balance the risks and turn this into an objectively measurable system. Simply this:

In any contact, the driver making the transverse movement is considered at fault. (This is almost but not quite the same as saying the driver who changes his racing line, but as expressed is objectively measurable. You'd need an escape clause for the stewards to rule otherwise in exceptional circumstances. If both drivers make transverse movements then it's a no-fault incident.)

You say that you can measure "transverse" movement, how?

 

[Diego Lopez]

imo. Agressive driving should not be punish unless it endangers other drivers around.

 

[Myles Thomas]

scrap all the driving penaltys(drive thoughs, grid place drops etc). everytime a driver breaks a driving rule, Bernie gets fined 1 million pounds and that money goes to the child cancer foundation.

 

[Fredrik Arbegard]

scrap all the driving penaltys(drive thoughs, grid place drops etc). everytime a driver breaks a driving rule, Bernie gets fined 1 million pounds and that money goes to the child cancer foundation.

Then Bernie would be bankrupt in the first GP

 

[John Robertson]

Then Bernie would be bankrupt in the first GP

but think of the CHILDREN

xD

 

[Fredrik Arbegard]

but think of the CHILDREN

xD

Hmm, with that penelty we might cure cancer

 

[Yann Laprevotte]

The offending driver in a contact may finish no better than immediately behind the car he hit. (In addition to any other penalties the stewards think up.)

Ok, so basically, here is what you'd get in two concrete situation, with that rule.

Case n°1: [insert top driver name here] else has to start from the back for whatever reason. [insert top-driver name here] nudges D'Ambrosio's Virgin at T1 and half-spins it. No major damage to any of the car, but D'Ambrosio is sent to an half-spin, loses a few seconds, and drops at the back. D'Ambrosio's race isn't really affected, but due to the Virgin's enormous lack of pace, the Belgian finishes 3 laps down in 21st. Meanwhile, [top driver] makes the race of his life, passes everyone, and wins the race. But due to the minor T1 incident, [top driver] goes from 1st to 21st in the official standings, to appear 3 laps down, behind D'Ambrosio.

Case n°2: [top driver 1] tangles with fellow front row starter [top driver 2] at T1. [top driver 2] is sent to an half-spin, and loses 3 positions. No damage to any of the car. 10 laps later, [top driver 2] blows his engine(unrelated to the previous incident), which forces him to retire. [top driver 1] wins the race, but appears as DNF in the final standings, due to the minor T1 incident.

Is that fair, really?