2015 Hungarian Grand Prix - 24-26 July

[Andres125sx]

Pierce, we got that idea when someone wrote in the rules there´s a difference between earned position and not earned position

[Phil]

I think in this instance, it's a lot more relevant to contemplate who was in which position to avoid a collision. You can't expect to drive on the "racing line" without caring what happens around you, especially not when there's a huge area of empty tarmac to your right and a car that is in your path on the left side of the track...

The fact that Ricciardo was at some point "ahead" (he crossed Rosbergs path, remember?) puts up a dispute to who had which right. If anything, by the point Ricciardo shot ahead of Rosberg, I'd say the corner and track position was at that point owned by no one (if there is such a thing).

[Andres125sx]

I think that´s the reason he didn´t get a penalty, it´s not that clear what was their real position related to the other, but to reply your point about Ricciardo was at some point ahead, he was because he went way too long in the braking, so he inevitably will be ahead at some point, but that doesn´t mean he really was ahead.

They did so different lines they never were in parallel, Ricciado was forced to do a much tighter turn so even when he was ahead he was almost stopped, while Rosberg came much faster and judging who was ahead was difficult

[Phil]

I think that´s the reason he didn´t get a penalty, it´s not that clear what was their real position related to the other, but to reply your point about Ricciardo was at some point ahead, he was because he went way too long in the braking, so he inevitably will be ahead at some point, but that doesn´t mean he really was ahead.

They did so different lines they never were in parallel, Ricciado was forced to do a much tighter turn so even when he was ahead he was almost stopped, while Rosberg came much faster and judging who was ahead was difficult

I think you are being fooled by the fact that Ricciardo locked up. That makes it seem as if he was out of control. Had he not locked up, it would have been a perfectly valid move, by anyone who attempts to overtake another car on the "inside of a corner" vs someone "napping" and sticking to the racing line. The car going for the inside of the corner will *always* compromise his line - e.g. go in steeper, have to brake to a lower speed, turn in sharper vs a car on the racing line that will simply take the widest radius into a corner. Pulling off this kind of move precisely is all about putting your car on the inside corner so that the car you are overtaking can no longer take the 'ideal line', not reach the apex because your car is there and to finish off the move and stop the momentum of the other car, the width of your vehicle together with the track position advantage will block the other car from using its higher momentum.

The move didn't pan out 'by the book' because he did lock up slightly, so he couldn't block off the apex, lost more momentum and found himself too far on the outside of the corner when he started to turn in.

This has however no bearing at all that the position was up for grabs at that point. If Rosberg had defended the inside corner to stop any "last attempt of Ricciardo sticking his nose in" (as happens often in racing in general), he should have simply blocked the inside line and therefore force his opponent on trying to overtake on the outside.

If Ricciardo had left the track, fair enough - the onus would have been entirely on him to join the track in a safe manner - any collision resulting then would have been entirely his fault. He never left it though, so had every right of being there.

[Andres125sx]

No I´m not fooled by the lock at all.

Locking up brakes is not the cause, but the consequence. He hitted the brakes too late trying to overtake from too far (that´s the reason Rosberg didn´t cover the inside), but he knew it was too late, so trying to stop the car as soon as posible, he did a bit more pressure in the pedal than recommended and locked the brakes.

Even so he went too long. The move didn´t pan out by the book because he hitted the brakes too late and went too long, not because of the lock up. I must say he didn´t go as long as I thought after watching the point he hitted the brakes (compared to Rosberg) tough, but even so, too long.

[Tim.Wright]

As much as I hate these debates on driver standards - some common sense needs to be applied.

1. What is too late? The fact that he a: got track position on the entry and b: never left the track on the exit suggests it was timed correctly. This is how outbraking maneuvers work. You sacrifice overall corner speed for gaining track position on the turn entry and this is exactly what happened.

2. Where is it specified or implied in any place in the rules that braking "too late" revokes your right to choose your trajectory on the corner exit. It isn't - and that's why no penalty was applied. This is something even drivers struggle to get their heads around:

"I assumed that it was my corner as I took the ideal line and he went straight on because he braked too late. But he still had his front wing there and didn't back out of it. But the FIA decided not to take any action so I guess no-one was at fault then."

[komninosm]

Rosberg-Ricciardo is no different to these imo - ignore the dive up the inside, the collision was nothing to do with that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qZKH3P7X4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPd7NJ2StRE

Skip to 1:16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6GLT5VdWH8

Now, on the basis that Ricciardo is wrong, Stevens, Kobayashi and Button are all wrong and should have braked.

Those vids show collisions in the breaking zone, not on the turn exit, which is totally different...

So what about the rule where you must leave a cars width, as per Vettel getting penalised for pushing Alonso round the outside at Monza?

People blaming ricciardo have no consistency and seem to be pulling their reasons out of thin air and then ignoring everything when I challenge it.

Then link a video of Monza and not these irrelevant videos. It's not my job to make your point for you buddy. Are you trolling me?

[ChrisF1]

Those videos are only irrelevant to you, and when I am posting from mobile I don't always have the ability to grab links from Youtube.

Here you go though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73HG73bHE3c

[Andres125sx]

As much as I hate these debates on driver standards - some common sense needs to be applied.

1. What is too late? The fact that he a: got track position on the entry and b: never left the track on the exit suggests it was timed correctly. This is how outbraking maneuvers work. You sacrifice overall corner speed for gaining track position on the turn entry and this is exactly what happened.

2. Where is it specified or implied in any place in the rules that braking "too late" revokes your right to choose your trajectory on the corner exit. It isn't - and that's why no penalty was applied. This is something even drivers struggle to get their heads around:

"I assumed that it was my corner as I took the ideal line and he went straight on because he braked too late. But he still had his front wing there and didn't back out of it. But the FIA decided not to take any action so I guess no-one was at fault then."

To me too long is when you can´t take a line to block you rival and he recover the position. If Rosberg would have left some space, since he was going faster (better line) and he was in front, even so Ricciardo wouldn´t have overtook.

[Tim.Wright]

My point is, it doesn't really matter what you consider to be "too long"since it's not relevant to the rules in any way.

If you want any discussion about the sporting behaviour to go anywhere besides a pointless argument - you need to be referring every point you make back to specific articles in the sporting regulations.

[iotar__]

My point is, it doesn't really matter what you consider to be "too long"since it's not relevant to the rules in any way.

If you want any discussion about the sporting behaviour to go anywhere besides a pointless argument - you need to be referring every point you make back to specific articles in the sporting regulations.

On the contrary your point of view is rather pointless and detached from reality because said articles are not specific enough and interpretations of those articles (practical application of rules known as reality) vary in such a random and broad fashion that just pointing to them means nothing in F1 world. Examples:
- infamous track limits with literally dozens of examples, you can point to them all day and one day it means nothing and on the other day everything
- driving aids modification that happened without changing a single letter of the rules, one day according to the same rules radio communication about certain subject is permitted and the next day it is not. Same with FRIC (very broad movable aero device rules) and many, many others.

This point of view is only applicable to the world where technical directives are not considered the law and as we learned it is a rather theoretical world. F1 law does not end at written sporting regulation, there is also a matter of interpretation which in F1 is sadly as inconsistent as it gets but that is a different story.

As for Ricciardo - Rosberg rules about causing avoidable collision and one sided blame of this collision (Ricciardo's) that includes descriptions of object moving in time and space (back - front, behind - in front) including braking points, racing and non racing lines and timing of these events ("too late" would be a connection of time and space). Why on earth would you want to call any of these irrelevant in discussion about it and replace it with pointing to paragraphs? Some rules are strict and some rules are flexible and up to interpretation and discussion, it's quite normal.

[Moose]

My point is, it doesn't really matter what you consider to be "too long"since it's not relevant to the rules in any way.

If you want any discussion about the sporting behaviour to go anywhere besides a pointless argument - you need to be referring every point you make back to specific articles in the sporting regulations.

On the contrary your point of view is rather pointless and detached from reality because said articles are not specific enough and interpretations of those articles (practical application of rules known as reality) vary in such a random and broad fashion that just pointing to them means nothing in F1 world.

And... you've hit on the one thing that I think is the single biggest problem in F1.

Hamilton cuts inside Massa and his front wing is removed by their rear wheel (incurring a puncture in the process)...

Hamilton is punished... is that because he's black? Is that because he's too popular? Is that because he's too successful today? Is that because Nelson Piquet (today's driver steward) doesn't like him?

No one is quite sure.

Massa is punished... is that because he is Brazilian? Is that because he's normally careful and misjudged it? Is that because he's not an A-list driver? Is that because Damon Hill (today's driver steward) doesn't like him?

No one is quite sure.

What F1 needs is some better written rules about exactly who's at fault when. We have plenty of people who think that if you're forced off track, the other driver is at fault. We have plenty of people who think that if you drive into a narrowing wedge, you're at fault. We have plenty of people who think that if you were out of control, you shouldn't reasonably be punished. We have plenty of people who think that being out of control is exactly what should be punished.

Ultimately, we have no nice clear definition of when someone is at fault, because the stewards refuse to follow what the rules say about who's at fault.

If you follow the rules, Rosberg was clearly at fault (he forced another driver off track while they were along side). But the FIA stewards haven't followed the rules in a long long time.

[Phil]

I think the most important rule (that is sort of an unwritten rule), is - you shall not crash into another driver. E.g. if two drivers approach a corner and the overtaker puts himself on the inside of the corner and blocks the car being overtaken, the car being overtaken can't simply stick to the racing line and drive into him. If the defending driver wanted to avoid this, he could have covered the inside of the corner before the overtaker attempted any move, forcing him to go around the outside and therefore take a longer route.

In any case; Not crashing is everything. If a crash does happen, I as a steward would determine who was in which position and who could avoid the collision. Due to limited peripheral vision, the car in front can only see so much. If a car behind sticks his nose in places, like a closing gap without being adequately alongside (to the point the front driving car can reasonably see) and causes a puncture or a collision, the overtaker is punishable IMO. On the other hand, if two drivers are alongside each other (and aware of it), you shall not push one another outside the confinements of the track. Although this rule is difficult to assess, since a driver committed to a corner at a certain speed and a certain line. The overtaking driver should be perfectly aware of that, which is why overtaking on the "outside" is always dangerous (the inside car will usually drift towards the outside after hitting the apex). If you overtake on the outside, you need to be aware of this and either have the speed and the grip to pull of the move cleanly. Overtaking on the inside is easier, because the defensive driver simply bails out of his apex if another car is there.

A non-punishable collision or event, like a 'racing incident' occurs then when circumstance plays a role, or both drivers end up together through other circumstances. The relevant point is "to what degree could it have been avoidable by either driver?". If both drivers suffer from it and both are to or not to blame, you might choose not to punish either.

Now put this into a written rule...

[Andres125sx]

My point is, it doesn't really matter what you consider to be "too long"since it's not relevant to the rules in any way.

If you want any discussion about the sporting behaviour to go anywhere besides a pointless argument - you need to be referring every point you make back to specific articles in the sporting regulations.

That´s first thing I did when joining the discussion about Ric-Ros

You must leave a cars width... when the car trying to overtake has earned the position, not when the car is still clearly behind. Earned position is when the front wing of the car trying to overtake reach driver´s cockpit of the other car if my memory serve me

In this case Ricciardo had not earned the position, so he should have released the throttle because his front wing was only side by side with Rosberg´s rear wheel, as the puncture prove.

[Moose]

You must leave a cars width... when the car trying to overtake has earned the position, not when the car is still clearly behind. Earned position is when the front wing of the car trying to overtake reach driver´s cockpit of the other car if my memory serve me

In this case Ricciardo had not earned the position, so he should have released the throttle because his front wing was only side by side with Rosberg´s rear wheel, as the puncture prove.

The problem is that this definition of "earned position" doesn't appear anywhere in the rules.

What does appear in the rules is that a driver is "along side" when his front wing is beside the other car's rear wheel:

For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’.