Track Limits - No Track Limits - Hybrid Track Limits

[hUirEYExbN]

It is remarkable how many people seem to know what exactly has been said at the drivers briefing.

The world has been told by officials and drivers present. So, yes, we know.

[Tizz]

It is remarkable how many people seem to know what exactly has been said at the drivers briefing.

The world has been told by officials and drivers present. So, yes, we know.

And yet I've seen a lot of different opinions about what exactly has been said and how.

[subcritical71]

When a rule is subject to the discretion of the race director and the actions are allowed by the race director -> by definition it is not cheating. This is what I don't like. Anything with the word discretion in it is just ripe for controversy.

Nonsense. By that line of arguing a bankrobbery is not a crime if you don't get caught. The definiton of cheating is according to Merriam-Webster "violating the rules dishonestly". I don't see any race-director or any other form of judge in that definition.

Well, if the law was the police had discretion over it and deemed it as ok, then yes your analogy works. Otherwise I don't know any country in the world where bank robbing is legal.

Which paragraph of the rules are you thinking has been violated?

[Tizz]

When a rule is subject to the discretion of the race director and the actions are allowed by the race director -> by definition it is not cheating. This is what I don't like. Anything with the word discretion in it is just ripe for controversy.

Nonsense. By that line of arguing a bankrobbery is not a crime if you don't get caught. The definiton of cheating is according to Merriam-Webster "violating the rules dishonestly". I don't see any race-director or any other form of judge in that definition.

Well, if the law was the police had discretion over it and deemed it as ok, then yes your analogy works. Otherwise I don't know any country in the world where bank robbing is legal.

Which paragraph of the rules are you thinking has been violated?

You realise that you are arguing against your own initial comment ?

[subcritical71]

It is remarkable how many people seem to know what exactly has been said at the drivers briefing.

Probably similar to the race directors notes for the event;

21) Track Limits
21.1 Practice Sessions
a) A lap time achieved during any practice session by leaving the track and cutting behind the
red and white kerb on the exit of Turn 4, will result in that lap time being invalidated by the
stewards.
21.2 Race
a) The track limits at the exit of Turn 4 will not be monitored with regard to setting a lap time, as
the defining limits are the artificial grass and the gravel trap in that location.
b) In all cases during the race, Drivers are reminded of the provisions of Article 27.3 of the
Sporting Regulations.

[subcritical71]

Nonsense. By that line of arguing a bankrobbery is not a crime if you don't get caught. The definiton of cheating is according to Merriam-Webster "violating the rules dishonestly". I don't see any race-director or any other form of judge in that definition.

Well, if the law was the police had discretion over it and deemed it as ok, then yes your analogy works. Otherwise I don't know any country in the world where bank robbing is legal.

Which paragraph of the rules are you thinking has been violated?

You realise that you are arguing against your own initial comment ?

I don't think so. I maintain that the rules should be enforced as written in the F1 Tech and Sporting regulations. They are very clear. Where the issue comes in is the 'race directors discretion' and changing it race to race (and now session to session). Its either an advantage or not.

[dans79]

Well, if the law was the police had discretion over it and deemed it as ok, then yes your analogy works. Otherwise I don't know any country in the world where bank robbing is legal.

Which paragraph of the rules are you thinking has been violated?

You realise that you are arguing against your own initial comment ?

I don't think so. I maintain that the rules should be enforced as written in the F1 Tech and Sporting regulations. They are very clear. Where the issue comes in is the 'race directors discretion' and changing it race to race (and now session to session). Its either an advantage or not.

They have done session to session before for example when they have made alterations to the track, or because of weather conditions etc. What they have never done before as far as i can remember, is change their mind mid session.

[dans79]

Probably similar to the race directors notes for the event;

Here's the actual document for those interested.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... on_2_0.pdf

it's also worth noting several drivers mentioned it was discussed in the drivers meeting before the race!

[Phil]

Again: " the race director was very clear prior to the race that that corner would not be policed" is the part I have a problem with. All corners should be policed. Otherwise, you can just as well get rid of the lines.

The race director decided, not because it would favor one driver over another, but because they deemed it to be not a substantial or relevant factor. Given they explicitly made this decision, i tend to believe them and their intentions.

You want all lines to be policed. At what cost? Per breach a penalty? Care to guess how many incidents there are of cars leave the track during the course of a race? Only because Horner made a comment does not mean it was only hamilton that did it. If you want consistancy - be prepared to turn races upside down, as you would have to start penalizing every single off, regardless of intent and if in error/accident.

[Zynerji]

Again: " the race director was very clear prior to the race that that corner would not be policed" is the part I have a problem with. All corners should be policed. Otherwise, you can just as well get rid of the lines.

The race director decided, not because it would favor one driver over another, but because they deemed it to be not a substantial or relevant factor. Given they explicitly made this decision, i tend to believe them and their intentions.

You want all lines to be policed. At what cost? Per breach a penalty? Care to guess how many incidents there are of cars leave the track during the course of a race? Only because Horner made a comment does not mean it was only hamilton that did it. If you want consistancy - be prepared to turn races upside down, as you would have to start penalizing every single off, regardless of intent and if in error/accident.

Sounds like the 90s with gravel traps and
close walls. Give the drivers an inch, and they will take the mile.

[DChemTech]

Again: " the race director was very clear prior to the race that that corner would not be policed" is the part I have a problem with. All corners should be policed. Otherwise, you can just as well get rid of the lines.

The race director decided, not because it would favor one driver over another, but because they deemed it to be not a substantial or relevant factor. Given they explicitly made this decision, i tend to believe them and their intentions.

I am not saying the race director was explicitly deciding in favor of one driver or another, right? That's not the issue. Why is everyone continuously putting up the strawman "if you want to see a change in rules, that's just because you favor max over lewis". Is it so hard to just get across that I want a change in rules simply for the sake of the rules not making sense?

You want all lines to be policed. At what cost? Per breach a penalty? Care to guess how many incidents there are of cars leave the track during the course of a race? Only because Horner made a comment does not mean it was only hamilton that did it. If you want consistancy - be prepared to turn races upside down, as you would have to start penalizing every single off, regardless of intent and if in error/accident.

I want all lines to be policed, yes. The lines are there for a reason, and once you start deciding on a per-race basis where they'll be enforced, you're opening up a shitshow. And drivers -are- quite capable of staying within the lines, if needed. So capable even that if you allow two digressions, they will take two.
Now, do I want it on a "per breach penalty"? Of course not, I've said several times to keep two warnings in place before penalizing (but then cumulative on the track, not per-corner), and that accidents and pushing-off should be excluded. So once again, you are trying to strawman me. Why?

And yeah, I'd rather see races being 'turned upside down' to make it fair, than to see them being influenced by odd stewards decisions and ambiguous rules. Even better would be just to have gravel or other 'natural penalties' in place - that ends the whole discussion (and yeah, gets rid of the 'warnings' too). But that would be a considerably larger effort to arrange.

[hollus]

I get it that a grass patch or a gravel trap, while maybe being perfect solutions for an F1 race, are a problem for other races and events at the same track and can also be a safety hazard.
My favorite solution would be a "smooth in, sharp out" kerb. One that guides the car smoothly when sliding out, but then has a sharp drop after you run out of kerb. Extend such a kerb enough, and a driver cutting back across it will meet the sharp end first, bye bye tires. Simple, effective... and unfortunately quite unsafe. So not doable.

So, for something more practical, F1 specific and that does not ruin other events:



Even monitoring crossing a line can be tricky, did the bulge of the side of the tire stay on through all those 25 meters? Amazingly FIA can make a mess even out of something like that. So let's simplify:

What about something as simple as painting a fat red dot on the ground, say 50 cm in diameter, in the place where the cars would maybe like to take some freedoms with racing lines. Make 2 or even 3 such dots in the corner if you must. Then, if your car, for any reason, any reason at all, fails to stay in the dot or inside the dot, you must drive over another green dot 100 meters in front. This "back to legal" green dot (outside the track) is out of line forcing you into a slow corner entry, thus costing time. Say it costs 1 second, even 0.5 seconds. Did you miss the corner? Effective 1 second penalty (fair). Did you get pushed out and moved to avoid a collision? One second effective penalty (unfair, but likely no position lost). And if you fail to notice, as in any other sport, your problem. You miss the line, then the referee whistles foul (5 second penalty). If in doubt, take that green dot.
Job done: Taking advantage discouraged, other categories spared, easy removal, easy monitoring (2-3 cameras), and even the possibility of improvising and either creating or moving those dots on the fly as the situation might require (but not mid-race).

They already do this with white lines or kerbs and styrofoam chicanes at many tracks.

[Phil]

If you look at it realistically, on a track with say 20 corners and 20 cars, it's just not feasible. Sure, you can argue, only the corners that allow you to gain an advantage are relevant - but then every corner that lets you leave it and regain it with minimal time loss could be argued to be "an unfair advantage". And it goes against your argument of wanting *all the lines being policed*.

In my opinion - and this has nothing to do with driver preference - the sport should be simpler, not more complicated. I don't want more frequent warnings, black/white flags, time penalty here, time penalty there, because every time this happens, you will have discussions between the fans of driver A arguing against the fans of driver B over how a race was influenced. I don't want to explain to my GF why driver C got a 5s time penalty for frequently leaving the track on corner Z due to driving errors and gets punished effectively twice. What if he made an error? What if he was pushed wide by another driver? When do you make that call and when don't you?

If you leave the track, you are taking a risk. You are traversing different surfaces, bumps that could lead to a mechanical fault in your car. You risk losing traction. There's almost certainly more dust out there, so you are also taking a gamble on getting dirty tires too. It's not all out advantage.

And in corners where there is a clear advantage, sure, it shouldn't be exploited, thus my point, that these corners should be changed either by adding sausage kerbs or something to increase the risk of going off. Then you don't need to police them.

In Sunday's race, I heard that the race director decided against policing T4 in the race because the data showed that it's not quicker to go wide there vs someone who sticks to the line. Obviously I can't judge the correctness of that assessment, but they had their reasons to not wanting to police it after they clearly did in QF.

[ispano6]

Gravel traps are the worst things they can add to enforce track limits. It unnecessarily puts other following cars at risk of pierced radiators from rocks that are flung at high speeds at following drivers. It ought to be banned. Instead, the limits should be covered with the abrasive material used in Paul Ricard that slow cars down as well as wears down the tires. If you're forced off track by another driver that driver should get a stop and go penalty. The penalty should be harsh enough for a driver to think twice of doing it.

[Just_a_fan]

So, for something more practical, F1 specific and that does not ruin other events:
https://cdn.realsport101.com/images/nca ... uto=format
https://cdn0-porsche.overtake.gg/storage/4000/4146.jpg

The problem for Bahrain is that Turn 4 of the GP track is also part of another track layout. Very difficult to put something physical in place on that corner without risking damage to the other track layout. Some other circuits have similar problems, of course. But not all do.