Shrieker wrote: ↑21 Sep 2017, 03:29
In all fairness, I did not use the word sensor in any of my posts. I used the term transponder. Commercial aircraft for example have transponders working in conjunction with one another to avoid mid air collisions, called the TCAS. It not only warns the pilots of each plane that they are on a collision course, but also instructs one of the planes to ascend, and the other to descend. This has precedent over anything else, including the ground based instructions. That shows how much faith and emphasis the aviation industry places onto this system.
There was a plane crash, not too many years ago, in Switzerland where the TCAS should have avoided an airplane collision from happening, but didn't, because the plane received conflicting instructions by the air traffic controller, whom the pilot decided to trust and follow. As you say, the TCAS has precedent over anything else, but on this occasion, the pilot clearly didn't follow it.
This brings me to the point that even if F1 cars were equipped with a similar technology (lets assume it to be possible), the faith of the car would still rest in the sanity of the driver. If we look at what happened at Singapore (which I assume prompted this topic in the first place), well, Vettel, it seemed, was going to chop to the left no matter what. Some would refer to this being a bullying tactic: "I am going to chop off your path - if you fail to back out, we will both crash". The whole point of such a maneuver is to force the other car at a disadvantageous position to yield.
I am fairly confident that even if Vettel had the mental awareness or a tool such a system like the TCAS to see Kimi coming up from the inside, he still would have attempted to close the door. His trajectory was too aggressive for that and it was sending a very clear signal: "I am moving to the inside at all costs". In his mind, it was Max's responsibility to back out in time (which he was in the process of doing, if Kimi wasn't there to close the gap to the other side).
I'd also go on to say that the feasibility of such a system like the TCAS for F1 would be an impossibility. Why? Because the system is primitive. It can not know who is in the right or wrong etc. The cars and drivers are also too erratic. At speeds of 200kmh+ you are traveling at 55+ meters per second. Every two tenths, a meter. Sudden direction changes have a huge bearing on where your car will be half a second later on a track that is so narrow that it barely fits 4 cars side-by-side (best case).
Even if we have very simple proximity warning sensors or something; either they'd be so sensitive that they'd already be warning a driver if a car is sufficiently far away, or it only starts warning when it's too late. It just can't work. And why should it? The TCAS (in aerospace) is designed as a system that communicates with the TCAS of another plane, sorting out who is to do what. It just ain't possible in motorsport, not as long as these things happen within split seconds at high speeds on a very narrow track and every millimeter can determine the outcome between hero and fail.
Post Singapore, there was some discussion on the Channel 5 (4?) broadcast with some people from Nascar that perhaps F1 should look into the idea of using spotters for drivers. But what may work on an oval, would probably not work on a normal F1 track and certainly not at the start where everything is rather unpredictable.
F1 is good as it is. The drivers have side-mirrors that give them a reasonable understanding on what is happening around them. Generally, I'd say the car doing a direction change has some responsibility to know if a car is along-side (or partially) and under no circumstances should crowd that car off the track. There are a few exceptions to this rule, namely corner exit because a driver may already be committed to a certain entry/exit speed and his trajectory given by those factors. This makes him more or less a "by-passenger", even in the event that an overtaking driver attempts to put his car in the closing space on corner exit. I'd also explicitly point out that in any circumstance, usually the car behind has a certain responsibility as a result of better coverage. You can't expect the car slightly ahead to have a perfect awareness of what is happening behind him. It's easier for the car behind to see what is happening before putting himself at risk. This however, as mentioned above, does not allow the "leading car" to do any kind of maneuver, especially when doing direction changes.
But apart from that? What more do you want to do? Micro managing every part of the sport will only lead to dull and predictable races.
And then decide whether it's worth trying on a real F1 car or not.