F1: Resolution sought on track limit abuse

[the_sigman]

Try going up a blind twenty story hill at better than 195 mph and see if you can hit the 'marks' each and every time.

If I get paid to do it, I will hit them. If I am supposed to be one of the best of the world, I will hit them. And most importantly, if I know I will not get away with it I will hit them. Oh, and I have not seen many people crash in street circuits because "they could not hit the marks"

 

[Enzo Fazzi]

Try going up a blind twenty story hill at better than 195 mph and see if you can hit the 'marks' each and every time.
In the case of A1-Ring's last corner prior to the straight...try going downhill into a blind off-camber right-hand turn to get up to speed for a potential pass.
You guys have got to make up your mind.
Do you want to see racing or do you want to continue to over-regulate every single aspect of F1?
If a driver gains an obvious advantage by cutting the track to pass a competitor (short-cutting the chicane at Monaco after tunnel exit comes to mind)...that's one thing.
Penalizing guys for pushing the car and occasionally putting tires over the limit is just another race 'killing' regulation.

I do want to see racing, but I think racing involves sticking to the track, otherwise they might as well start running on a parking lot or airfield.

 

[Tal]

Do you want to see racing or do you want to continue to over-regulate every single aspect of F1?

If I could sum up my point of view on this matter, this line would be perfect.
This guy gets it.

 

[Kevin Ascher]

How about they choose not to race on tracks that are better suited for airplanes, instead?
Bring back gravel traps and grass and everything will be fine.

 

[Reik Major]

If you want to get rid of this debate the tracks have to be self-regulating in this manner. City circuits are the best example. So even when I agree with the huge tarmac runoff areas for safety reasons, there should be an area between it and the track which decreases grip on the outside very much, so a driver would risk a spin if he goes too wide.

When it comes to cutting like at Radillon, I think there also should be something to make the car somehow unstable and potentially spin (not to send them airborne). If you say spinning at Eau Rouge is dangerous then I say driving through this corner is always dangerous and a spin could always happen.

Professional race drivers know the boarders very well and they're used to calculate the risks. So I'm sure you won't see cuttings at Radillon if the track wouldn't forgive it.

 

[Peter Hooper]

Try going up a blind twenty story hill at better than 195 mph and see if you can hit the 'marks' each and every time.
In the case of A1-Ring's last corner prior to the straight...try going downhill into a blind off-camber right-hand turn to get up to speed for a potential pass.
You guys have got to make up your mind.
Do you want to see racing or do you want to continue to over-regulate every single aspect of F1?
If a driver gains an obvious advantage by cutting the track to pass a competitor (short-cutting the chicane at Monaco after tunnel exit comes to mind)...that's one thing.
Penalizing guys for pushing the car and occasionally putting tires over the limit is just another race 'killing' regulation.

Depends what you call occasional. We saw it happening time and time again at Spa and other tracks this season. They are supposed to be among the best in the world so should be more than capable of keeping to the track and not needing to go beyond the boundaries.

 

[Calum McLure]

How about these

They could just get brought up on random laps during the race

 

[Iain McKenzie]

Stop paving everything over. Otherwise you're essentially putting lines in the center of the track not the edge.

 

[Blotto]

simple they get one warning, next time it is stop and go penalty third time the race is over.
Cheating is cheating and using more of the track than you are allowed is cheating. Give those that follow the rules a fair chance.

 

[Turk]

Why not adding a small time penalty (say 0.5 s) to your pit stop or final race time each time you overstep? It will negate the advantage of cutting without crushing too much pilot aggression.

I'd agree with this. Automate the system and four wheels off track adds a 1 second penalty at the next pit stop or at the end of the race.

This shouldn't be an issue, the rule is there all the officials have to do is enforce it.

 

[Reik Major]

Im not a fan of such time penalties because if a cut most likely leads to an overtake the driver will happily accept a 0,5 sec penalty because it'll be worth it. I don't want time penalties to be a strategical factor in the race. The track itself should penalize "mistakes". Otherwise we're more and more moving away from real racing.

 

[paracletus]

fit a system to all of the cars that constantly tracks its position with GPS; there would be no need for interpretation, and the technology to do this already exists.
penalties could be time added / drive through for repeated infringement, or whatever - as long as they just make it consistent.
they've already got the rule covered for gaining an advantage (overtaking etc) by going outside track limits -- the "handing the place back" works well as it is and doesn't need to change.

 

[Apatride]

While GPS is very accurate, it might not be accurate enough for that. It is still pretty easy, though to check the position via sensors or lasers. The cars engines being controlled by computers, it would be pretty easy to alter their behaviour immediately. You cut the track, you temporarily lose V x C bhp. C being a defined constant, V depending on the proximity to other vehicles which should discourage abuse and "playing the rules".

 

[Reik Major]

How shall such a system make a difference between cutting to gain an advantage and cutting (or going wide) to avoid an accident or because of being forced off the track by another car? I mean the system might be able to detect a car leaving the track but how shall the system know at all, if "leaving" the track creats an advantage or not in this particular situation.

As I said before, in my eyes this goes in the wrong direction. The tracks need to have physical borders no artifical ones. Otherwise we could paint the greatest layout ever on a huge tarmac area and check each millimeter of the borders via sensors. Not my favorit imagination...

 

[Turk]

How shall such a system make a difference between cutting to gain an advantage and cutting (or going wide) to avoid an accident or because of being forced off the track by another car? I mean the system might be able to detect a car leaving the track but how shall the system know at all, if "leaving" the track creats an advantage or not in this particular situation.

Well you still have people watching over, this system is just a no quibble way of implementing penalties. Go outside the track and you get penalised, no judgements needed.

I was wondering could they just make the curbs more abrasive so every time you ride the curb you end up taking a lap off your tires lifespan.

 

[Apatride]

I was thinking the same about tires but then it would become free for all at the end of the race...

As for physical limits vs captors, at least captors don't represent a danger. If you add physical limits, drivers will complain it is dangerous and might kill them if they get pushed off track. The option I suggest is not perfect but still safer.

 

[paracletus]

yeah, still need stewards for sure. But, having real-time data about cars leaving the tracks will be very useful to them - obviously they can check video evidence of the time & positions to review the nature of the infringements.

 

[Rob]

Remove all the corners, problem solved.

Yea, I think that's what they pretty much did at COTA. Looks pretty from the helicopter though. And boy is it safe!

 

[Rob]

They are supposed to be among the best in the world so should be more than capable of keeping to the track....

lol. Keep telling yourself that. You have it backwards.

If we suppose they are "among the best in the world" (a big "if" in my book) then that is precisely *why* they go off track about 200 times a weekend. And if Vettel does it more than any other driver, good for him. Last I checked, he had a few World Championships. That's how you get them. You push. Racing has, and always will, be about pushing the limit and sometimes when you do that you exceed it. Only in F1 would we be even having this insane discussion as it applies to races. I can see it very easily in qualifying, though.

I like the British rule, as that both promotes safety and at least recognizes racing is not a radio controlled car event. In fact, in most of the world, pushing these track limits is not only routine, but expected. Of course, F1 is way above all that petty nonsense.

 

[Chris]

If we suppose they are "among the best in the world" (a big "if" in my book) then that is precisely *why* they go off track about 200 times a weekend.

They're the best because they break the rules?

I can understand that they may exceed track limits because of how hard they may be pushing, but they're also breaking the rules. Plain and simple. It's literally a black and white situation. There is no grey area. This is why I love Monaco so much, because if a driver tries to run wide to gain an advantage, he's in the wall.

If they're the best then they should be able to follow the rules. However, I don't blame them either because of how relaxed the FIA stewards are on the subject. Why should they care about track limits when they almost never get penalised for it?