Track Limits - No Track Limits - Hybrid Track Limits

[KeiKo403]

I just wish that the FIA would take a stance as the rules makers and enforce their own rules. Either that or ditch them entirely, which shouldn't even be an option really. But there can't be an in-between.

Drivers complain during briefings saying things like "We can't stay inside the white lines at corner x"....now I understand what they mean but to say that they can't is ridiculous, they just can't do it at speed they're going. These are labeled the top 20 racing drivers in the world, 1/2 the grid are GP winners.

I get the whole risk vs reward on normal tracks vs tracks like Singapore & Monaco where you can't go outside the lines without damaging the car and I don't want drivers who push to the limit to damage their car, but there should be a deterrent.
T4 @ Bahrain vs T2 @ Russia vs T10/T11 @ Canada...DRS straight, breaking zone, turn right, accelerate. Very crude, over simplification but why does only Canada and Russia have a designated, 'You've exceeded track limits and therefore must navigate through cones x, y & z before rejoining the track'?

I don't like it...can you tell? hahaha

[Phil]

How about less micro management during races? Track limits can be auto policed in most cases; You go off, you lose time, you got punished.

In corners where an advantage could be had, punish during QF by deleting the lap time in question (already done - check), for the race - forget about it (as was the case in Bahrain 2021).

Imagine the following; Driver goes severely off, loses time and gets an automatic 5s penalty. Race result altered post race. Worst case, multiple drivers all have artificial punishments and the order of the cars on the race track is not the order of the post race result. That would make things very confusing.

In my opinion, it's all counter productive. Keep it simple, have most situations police itself. Going off track is not always an inherent advantage anyway - you'll likely get more dirt on the tires and there's a risk of loss of control. If a corner is badly designed that would yield a big advantage, it should be changed rather than finding technical gadgets to punish every breach.

[V12-POWER]

the solution to this is so, so simple it’s actually hard to understand why it’s not implemented already

1 meter wide gravel/grass strip at the exit of every corner in which exceeding track limits ‘gains an advantage’

no cars can beach there and no extreme loss of control is caused by that, at the same time the punishment is there too

[El Scorchio]

Could they just put something on the outside that's either ultra abrasive, or will degrade tyres faster if they drive over it? Don't know if that's possible or not.

We don't want slippy as cars will just spin off, or huge kerbs as they'll cause a lot of damage, but something there which will affect tyre performance somewhat worse than staying on the track.
As a counter to that- would such surfaces just end up rubbering in a race if cars do pass over them and become less effective? Even if they did, at least the limit would be the same for everyone at a given point in the race. If you want to go beyond it, your choice, but you will pay for it in tyre wear. it effectively removes the need to police it at all.

[jjn9128]

How about less micro management during races? Track limits can be auto policed in most cases; You go off, you lose time, you got punished.

In corners where an advantage could be had, punish during QF by deleting the lap time in question (already done - check), for the race - forget about it (as was the case in Bahrain 2021).

Imagine the following; Driver goes severely off, loses time and gets an automatic 5s penalty. Race result altered post race. Worst case, multiple drivers all have artificial punishments and the order of the cars on the race track is not the order of the post race result. That would make things very confusing.

In my opinion, it's all counter productive. Keep it simple, have most situations police itself. Going off track is not always an inherent advantage anyway - you'll likely get more dirt on the tires and there's a risk of loss of control. If a corner is badly designed that would yield a big advantage, it should be changed rather than finding technical gadgets to punish every breach.

Because it’s cheating. The lines delineate the circuit. Going wide allows them to overspeed the apex. If sometimes it’s policed and others not it’s a confusing issue. We don’t allow cutting (shortening the track) so why allow going wide?

Also we’re only talking about corners where it’s an advantage to go wide.

[Phil]

I think calling it cheating is taking it a bit far. I'd call it operating within the grey areas of the rules. Sometimes people leave the track because they misjudged the corner/speed/grip, sometimes, it's deliberate. That distinction should be made by a steward, but can't always be.

My point however is that more micro management (even if it were deliberate gaining an advantage, aka "cheating") is bad. The solution shouldn't be worse than the problem. If you start automatically applying penalties by using a sensor, then you will end up with the effective positions on the track not reflecting the true state of the race. I can't see how that is a good solution.

Better solution; Make corners be self policed. Either change the corner, add a sausage kerb or something. It's really that easy. Then 'the penalty' is enforced by itself. Leave the track, you'll suffer damage, lose time etc.

I take it that since yesterdays race people find the need to point fingers again, but in reality; it wasn't confusing at all to the drivers. The race director made it clear it was policed and sanctioned during QF (deleting of laptimes), but would not be during the race because they deemed it not to be a huge lasting advantage. Feel free to disagree, but those were the words of the race director.

In the end, I doubt that small infringement made a difference to the outcome of the race, except in the case when an overtake was used outside the track, which is a different ruleset and is very clearly defined as not being allowed.

[Tizz]

If sometimes it’s policed and others not it’s a confusing issue.

Especially if you punish one driver but not the other.

[BrunoH]

Verstappen got stolen and thats it! its a double standard, if he was to keep it inside hamilton wold push him wide andcrash into him

[SiLo]

I think calling it cheating is taking it a bit far. I'd call it operating within the grey areas of the rules. Sometimes people leave the track because they misjudged the corner/speed/grip, sometimes, it's deliberate. That distinction should be made by a steward, but can't always be.

My point however is that more micro management (even if it were deliberate gaining an advantage, aka "cheating") is bad. The solution shouldn't be worse than the problem. If you start automatically applying penalties by using a sensor, then you will end up with the effective positions on the track not reflecting the true state of the race. I can't see how that is a good solution.

Better solution; Make corners be self policed. Either change the corner, add a sausage kerb or something. It's really that easy. Then 'the penalty' is enforced by itself. Leave the track, you'll suffer damage, lose time etc.

I take it that since yesterdays race people find the need to point fingers again, but in reality; it wasn't confusing at all to the drivers. The race director made it clear it was policed and sanctioned during QF (deleting of laptimes), but would not be during the race because they deemed it not to be a huge lasting advantage. Feel free to disagree, but those were the words of the race director.

In the end, I doubt that small infringement made a difference to the outcome of the race, except in the case when an overtake was used outside the track, which is a different ruleset and is very clearly defined as not being allowed.

It's hard to physically add things to the outside of the corners because of moto gp. It's just not safe for them. I agree though something could be added that gets removed after the weekend to go back to normal.

[Stu]

Reigniting this thread.

What about using the transponder with off track sensors, like the formula e attack boost activation. Next year there’s meant to be a light panel on the wheel covers so you could have a visual flash to show fans when a driver’s gone off. 3x and a penalty is applied.

This idea has already been floated on here (by me), with a progressive penalty system:
1st infringement - no DRS for 1 lap
2nd infringement - no ERS deployment for 1 lap
3rd infringement - stop/go penalty
With sensors being fitted to the cars centreline AND using current lap timing infrastructure it should be possible to automate the penalty system (with protests being viewed by the stewards - much better than the current system of ‘driver whines about ‘X’ exceeding track limits, then investigated by stewards).
The only other alternative is no run-off on any corners (tyre wall 1.5m from track edge) which would really punish any transgressions!!

[DChemTech]

Reigniting this thread.

What about using the transponder with off track sensors, like the formula e attack boost activation. Next year there’s meant to be a light panel on the wheel covers so you could have a visual flash to show fans when a driver’s gone off. 3x and a penalty is applied.

Absolutely agree. In essence I would say
- Warning each time you cross the white line on all 4's. 3x warning = penalty.
- of course being pushed off-track, avoiding accidents, etc. should be excluded.
- There should be consistency about what is an 'overtaking situation', if you are going to treat that differently. Is it when you are in a zone of +/- 1 car length? +/- 0.3s?
- Other 'exceptions' could be possible, but should be defined as general rules and not defined on a per-race basis. E.g. there was some race years ago where hamilton or bottas missed a corner, went through the grass, and actually gained a second or so. Don't remember if there was a warning, but no direct consequence. But then the question is again, how to quantify - where to draw the line. Any exceptions invite subjectivity.

[Tizz]

Verstappen got stolen and thats it! its a double standard, if he was to keep it inside hamilton wold push him wide andcrash into him

If they just would have warned Hammi, no cheating would have taken place and no penalty necessary. It is such a horrible management.

[nokivasara]

How about less micro management during races? Track limits can be auto policed in most cases; You go off, you lose time, you got punished.

Those corners are not what people are so upset about and you know it. The drivers tend to keep the car inside the track limits when they lose time if they don't, and vice versa.

[El Scorchio]

But then the question is again, how to quantify - where to draw the line. Any exceptions invite subjectivity.

This is 100% the crux of it. There are always exceptions that need the human eye to judge it given the myriad of situations that occur in a race.
Any sort of sensor will just register a car too wide, but offer no context for why it's there. At the end of the day, flashing light or no flashing light and all the technology in the world, it will always have to come down to steward/race director's judgement.

[DChemTech]

But then the question is again, how to quantify - where to draw the line. Any exceptions invite subjectivity.

This is 100% the crux of it. There are always exceptions that need the human eye to judge it given the myriad of situations that occur in a race.
Any sort of sensor will just register a car too wide, but offer no context for why it's there. At the end of the day, flashing light or no flashing light and all the technology in the world, it will always have to come down to steward/race director's judgement.

well, yes, but that's why I would go for 'take the sensor unless there is a reason not to' (such as avoiding an accident). That would remove more controversy than the other way around - most of the discussions are "driver X was going consistently wide in turn Y" - and there the sensor data should be just fine.