Asphalt run offs - abused as race track extension

[kilcoo316]

You just cannot have random rev cuts. It is dangerous.

Motorsport is inherently dangerous. The sooner people realise that, the better.





Out of track boundaries = cut revs until you are back within track boundaries.

[CMSMJ1]

The speed difference when you rejoin could be such that you get rear ended...not cool

It is dangerous you are right..but cutting revs is not the way.

saying that...perhaps you could enforce a whole lap of 1k less top end...

[RH1300S]

It's a nice idea to have track sensors (or GPS) - in some compueter games you get cut warnings during races. 3 cut warnings = a stop/go penalty, no debate (obviously as the game drives you into the 'box ).

It works well, you can have a couple of 'incidents', but after two you get very careful about even becoming a victim of someone else's trouble.

What they should do is - 3x small 'cuts' (which includes running around the outside of corners too) = 1x stop/go (or drive through), but a big cut (like missing a chicane completely) should be an instant stop/go(or drive through.

I'm sure that if you mix this with Stewards to investigate incidents, they could have a 're-set' button if there were mitigating circumstance.

I would suggest, that generally there is 'no mitigation' even if you are 'forced' off. Perhaps the only mitigation is in having something like spin, you trip the cut warning but are so clearly disadvantaged any way that it doesn't matter.

[kilcoo316]

The speed difference when you rejoin could be such that you get rear ended...not cool

meh...


Just means you'll think twice before cutting corners.



There has to be penalties and risk - otherwise there is no deterrant to the drivers doing it.

[Giblet]

You just cannot have random rev cuts. It is dangerous.

Motorsport is inherently dangerous. The sooner people realise that, the better.





Out of track boundaries = cut revs until you are back within track boundaries.

Just because something is inherantly dangerous, bringing it's danger to a higher degree is asinine, and the GPDA will never go for it.

I think everyone agrees motorsport is dangerous, but an engine suddenly cutting power when a car is in an under or oversteer state, as it is in a corner, is about the dumbest idea imaginable.

[kilcoo316]

Just because something is inherantly dangerous, bringing it's danger to a higher degree is asinine, and the GPDA will never go for it.

The GPDA have ZERO testicular fortitude.

I have zero respect for them.

There are far more dangerous occupations than F1 drivers have, yet they just get on with it.

I think everyone agrees motorsport is dangerous, but an engine suddenly cutting power when a car is in an under or oversteer state, as it is in a corner, is about the dumbest idea imaginable.

Why would cutting power in an under/oversteer state be dangerous? In such a situation, if the driver is at full throttle, they are spinning out anyway.

BTW, the car is not in the corner, the car is off the track when its power is cut.

[Giblet]

Why?

Common sense.

They chose to not drive at Indy, because it was dangerous. If the GPDA fell endangered, they won't drive. There is precedent, but as usual everyone forgets recent history.

You respect of lack of it for these groups has nothing to do with the fact they choose to drive or not, every race.

My career is dangerous as well, but if you ask me to walk out on a 6 inch beam 30 stories up without a harness, I tell you what every union member has the RIGHT to say "I have the right to refuse unsafe work".

A driver is not spinning out at full under or oversteer. Have you ever driven a car at anger? These are controlled conditions for race drivers with steering and throttle inputs. Mild counter steering is part of race driving.

So yes, cutting power in a corner can lead to snap conditions of all kinds. These drivers don't coast around corners. It is full on, full brake, full on.

The power getting cut does not hold a single good idea to it that has been said yet. Besides, who came up with 12k? You? Why 12k? Is that a safe speed? Could not a driver just upshift and continue accellerating at a reduced rate?

This idea has been though through about as well as, um, well it hasn't been thought out.

And what about cost? Is that something that can also be glanced over without thought?

[WhiteBlue]

My question is kind of related to this topic so i thought I'd do some forum archeology.

I failed to find the answer in the forum or in those few FIA PDFs I looked through. What is the FIA definition as to the track boundaries and when is the car is considered on/off course? I suppose that it's all about staying between the white lines, but I'm looking for the exact definition and the link to the document in question. I thought it's to be found in the Sporting Code, but I couldn't. Any ides? Thanx.

Lately the FIA race control has taken the view that a car needs to have both wheels of one side on track to be legally on track. That is significantly different to what used to be the practise. I would say that as recent as four years ago putting one wheel over the line was considered off track. It could take your traction away and get you beached on a curb. So I thought it made more sense.

[Pandamasque]

Lately the FIA race control has taken the view that a car needs to have both wheels of one side on track to be legally on track. That is significantly different to what used to be the practise. I would say that as recent as four years ago putting one wheel over the line was considered off track. It could take your traction away and get you beached on a curb. So I thought it made more sense.

Are you saying that FIA lacks a document maintaining this vital definition? What Charlie wants Charlie gets?

[kilcoo316]

Why?

Common sense.

They chose to not drive at Indy, because it was dangerous. If the GPDA fell endangered, they won't drive. There is precedent, but as usual everyone forgets recent history.

You respect of lack of it for these groups has nothing to do with the fact they choose to drive or not, every race.

My lack of respect for this particular group is due to them lacking the courage to do anything 99% of us would love to do for free.

By lack of courage, I mean ABSOLUTE lack of courage. Too many great corners have been butchered by these imposters in the name of "safety".

My career is dangerous as well, but if you ask me to walk out on a 6 inch beam 30 stories up without a harness, I tell you what every union member has the RIGHT to say "I have the right to refuse unsafe work".

F1 is not unsafe.

It is not even remotely unsafe compared to some other jobs where the workers are not paid a fraction of what F1 drivers "earn".

A driver is not spinning out at full under or oversteer. Have you ever driven a car at anger? These are controlled conditions for race drivers with steering and throttle inputs. Mild counter steering is part of race driving.

So yes, cutting power in a corner can lead to snap conditions of all kinds. These drivers don't coast around corners. It is full on, full brake, full on.

Obviously with statement you've never driven a car on or over the limit.

It is not full on, full brake, full on. You do that in a binary mode, and you're in the wall.


You might also want to take more care reading. Where did I say a driver was spinning out at "full under or oversteer"?

Note, that full under or oversteer is when full steering lock is engaged in corrective action. If that happens, it usually is a precursor to an off-track excursion.


Note also, again, that the revs would not be cut when the driver is in a corner. Rather, they would already be off-track.

Who is going to hit them while they are off track?


It is up to the driver to safely return to the track after an off-track excursion, much like now, only they have to beware of a larger speed differential.



I would also be most interested in you explaining how cutting revs leads to "snap conditions"... bearing in mind that "snap conditions" implies unstable conditions.

I could see a potential point if exhausts still "blew" the diffusers, but that has not been the case for years.

Besides, who came up with 12k? You? Why 12k? Is that a safe speed? Could not a driver just upshift and continue accellerating at a reduced rate?

I came up with 12K.

Simply because it is not too low and not too high.

12K rpm is not a ground speed, as different gears will produce different speeds at engine revs of 12K rpm .


Yes the driver could continue to upshift, and accelerate. However, they definitely would not gain any advantage in going off track as their momentum would be significantly reduced compared to the other cars that remained on-track. Which is the entire point of the exersize.

[WhiteBlue]

Lately the FIA race control has taken the view that a car needs to have both wheels of one side on track to be legally on track. That is significantly different to what used to be the practise. I would say that as recent as four years ago putting one wheel over the line was considered off track. It could take your traction away and get you beached on a curb. So I thought it made more sense.

Are you saying that FIA lacks a document maintaining this vital definition? What Charlie wants Charlie gets?

I guess it did not matter much in the times of grass and gravel.

[Giblet]

Dissambling posts to argue is pointless. Try to argue for your idea instead of nitpicking every sentence.

If you are oversteering your car with throttle, away from a wall, and the throttle is cut, you are now heading towards the wall. That would be a snap, just lime I said.

I have more reasons off the top of my head as well. A Marshall at every corner with a magic device to watch and stop any car and the reaction time needed? Or maybe youthink that they shoul just sit and watch the video screens, hoping the race director shows the right shot?

You seem like a smart guy who is more interested in arguing than actually explaining how this could actually be accomplished for a reasonable cost.

Tell me how this could actually work in the real world.

[axle]

IMO (and not picking on any other posts) Penalties after the fact are pointless...and elctronic interference is more dangerous than helpful...if our road cars where speed limited by electronics around town how dangerous would that be?! You must let the driver have control of the car at all times, or otherwise he is merely a passenger...

I believe that runoffs should just be made trickier to navigate, the big ones like at Spa should exit over something rough or traction limiting... the entrance should always be open and stable for cars that are out of control to be safely recovered.

[ESPImperium]

What needs to happen is that run off areas are made a little more slippery. A little less traction is whats needed. So surface material should be looked at, something where theres a definate penalty for using them.

What id do is use more grass-crete about a meter or so off the white line, then have that for a metre or so, enough for a real, but present penalty, then back to the tar run off areas.

Those areas may look a little bit like Paul Ricard, but if it makes the drivers think about not using those areas, im all for it. That would be a good balance between saftey and time penalty.

[TheMinister]

I agree that something needs to be done about the current situation- it is far too easy to run wide on exits and cut some chicanes at the moment. La Source (turn 1) at Spa is the worst offender off the top of my head; every single race drivers deliberately drive across the run off with no attempt to stay on track.

I think the key is to find the part of the corner where obstacles can be placed or grip can be reduced without endangering drivers who get the entry or exit wrong- for example, at la source a car is never going to be able to carry a huge amount of speed onto the runoff 3/4 of the way round, and is also never going to have built up enough speed to be dangerous by that point. So that is where an obstacle should be placed- maybe a strip of gravel or a dip filled with water or a speedbump or whatever.

Obviously this wouldn't work so well for chicanes or faster corners, but something definately could be done about slower corners and hairpins.