2024 Austrian Grand Prix - Spielberg, June 28 - 30

[AR3-GP]

Personally, Norris did the right thing in giving it back, he didn't make the corner at all.

I'm not so sure about the second attempt. Norris made the corner and Max DID have the option to not go off track, but he didn't take it.

Hulkenberg made the corner in the sprint race (passing Alonso) but they gave him a penalty for forcing Alonso off. What making a corner means doesn't seem to be well defined or consistently judged. I have no comment on whether Hulkenberg should have gotten a penalty or not, but only note that it's different to how they viewed incidents on Sunday.

Hulkenberg was a bit more out of control compared to Lando dive number 2 but pretty similar, as you said 10s for Hulk.

Another incident i saw compared to this second dive was Verstappen on Hamilton Abu Dhabi 21 lap 1(just lap 1), Verstappen dives and gets infront, doesn't leave the track but leaves no room for Hamilton on the outside of the corner, his options are to stop the car or take the exit road.
In both cases the driver that was ahead took the exit road and remained ahead.
No penalty for either driver, the one who took the exit road or the one who forced him into the exit road, both times.

I agree, it's similar. I could suggest a preferred way to handle it, but I think the most important thing would just be consistency, so all drivers know what they allowed to get away with. If it's judged differently every time, then some drivers are getting a benefit where others are getting screwed. Unfair.

[Sevach]

I agree, it's similar. I could suggest a preferred way to handle it, but I think the most important thing would just be consistency, so all drivers know what they allowed to get away with. If it's judged differently every time, then some drivers are getting a benefit where others are getting screwed. Unfair.

There's nothing that is judged more on results than what the driver actually did than "divebombs", divebomb happens defending driver takes exit road and stays ahead=not even an investigation(Lead change? Return the position or take a penalty).

Same move but with small touch=10s
Same move but with big touch=drive through

[FW17]

Separate to this debate, What happed to the DRS in Austria?

They had 3 at the track, one followed by the next but in none of them the cars were able to do regular over speed on the DRS zone and had to depend on lunges. I was surprised that the cars could not even get part of it side by side of the car in front before the braking zone that would have led to normal overtaking

[TFSA]

So just out of interest, i decided to get the telemetry from Max on Turn 3 on Lap 55, as well as the lap 64 crash and recorded it on his onboard at 1/8x speed. Lap 55, his onboard was unfortunately facing backwards, but i think it's still telling. The videos are on IMGUR, so sadly can't embed them here.

Lap 55 (VIDEO LINK): Max is completely on the outside of the track, and then suddenly sweeps across to the inside line while braking, passing pretty much 70-80% of the track. That's clearly moving under braking to me, and should have been acted upon by the stewards

Lap 64 (VIDEO LINK): The crash. Max is more or less in the middle of the track (about 45% from the left), makes a small correction to the left before the braking zone, and then brakes with the steering wheel straigth, going from the 45% mark to about the 20% mark to the left, meaning he moved about 25% across the track.

I'm still gonna argue that Lap 64 is a racing incident. It was a bit naugthy, but he only moves about 25% across the track, it was very gradual, he corrected before he braked (steering wheel straigth while he braked), and it was absolutely avoidable by Lando by taking a bit of kerb. But it's expected that people are gonna have differing opinions on that one.

Separate to this debate, What happed to the DRS in Austria?

They had 3 at the track, one followed by the next but in none of them the cars were able to do regular over speed on the DRS zone and had to depend on lunges. I was surprised that the cars could not even get part of it side by side of the car in front before the braking zone that would have led to normal overtaking

It's a combination of the corners being a bit too narrow for the size of the current cars, and the straigths which are DRS zones - even if they are in succession to each other - being a bit too short. It's only really the T1-T3 straigths which is somewhat long, but it goes uphill.

[venkyhere]

Separate to this debate, What happed to the DRS in Austria?

They had 3 at the track, one followed by the next but in none of them the cars were able to do regular over speed on the DRS zone and had to depend on lunges. I was surprised that the cars could not even get part of it side by side of the car in front before the braking zone that would have led to normal overtaking

T3-T4 straight comes after mega braking for T3 (the car is still going uphill during the turn), so we are talking about 2 digit exit speed from the corner. WIthout serious pace difference, DRS delta wont yield much, since some distance will be wasted for the cars to build speed that is fast enough for rear wing drag to matter.

T1-T3 is steep uphill, so the AoA of the rear wing is lowered naturally, that means even the car in front, has lesser drag than it would have had otherwise, in a 'plain' straight.

T10-T1
I can't think of a reason.
Air density as such being lower, perhaps, considering the elevation of the RedbullRing location ?

[Just_a_fan]

T1-T3 is steep uphill, so the AoA of the rear wing is lowered naturally, that means even the car in front, has lesser drag than it would have had otherwise, in a 'plain' straight.

Er, no.

[Vanja #66]

T3-T4 straight comes after mega braking for T3 (the car is still going uphill during the turn), so we are talking about 2 digit exit speed from the corner. WIthout serious pace difference, DRS delta wont yield much, since some distance will be wasted for the cars to build speed that is fast enough for rear wing drag to matter.

T1-T3 is steep uphill, so the AoA of the rear wing is lowered naturally, that means even the car in front, has lesser drag than it would have had otherwise, in a 'plain' straight.

T10-T1
I can't think of a reason.
Air density as such being lower, perhaps, considering the elevation of the RedbullRing location ?

There are a couple of reasons that always apply:

- the following car is always getting hurt on exit before DRS zone unless the driver is particularly focused on good exit and selected the appropriate deployment mode, this point is particularly important in fast and delicate corners such as T10
- inappropriate harvesting mode will introduce clipping too soon while DRS is still on, this was present quite often with Norris and seemed to sometimes coincide with his overtaking attempts
- overall Top Speed capabilities, which were again not so good for McLaren in Q this weekend

Going up or downhill has no effect on aero with regards to ground's coordinate system, if there's no wind it does not matter.

[SiLo]

The best thing the FIA could do is get rid of this stupid "ahead at the apex" nonsense. It's really warped overtaking because it doesn't seem to even consider actually being able to make the corner properly.

[90feet]

It's really weird and a bit strange how many F1 fans online have arbitrarily decided to hate Lando and McLaren and pretend that Max wasn't constantly weaving and moving in the braking zone prior to the last incident that produced contact. Every discussion now focuses only on that incident and Lando's dive bomb prior to it, not the lap after lap of dirty driving that preceded it. If the stewards had enforced those rules promptly then it's likely none of this would've happened. That's like the entire point: it is illegal to defend how Max did and he is the only one for whom those rules get conveniently forgotten.

I don't understand why anyone would want to watch an F1 where the leading driver can effectively crash anyone trying to pass him with impunity. What's the point? NASCAR had 40 races a year of that nonsense if that's what you're into.

[101FlyingDutchman]

The best thing the FIA could do is get rid of this stupid "ahead at the apex" nonsense. It's really warped overtaking because it doesn't seem to even consider actually being able to make the corner properly.

Totally agree with that. It’s a big reason why the divebombs have become so typical. It also then promotes running anyone on the outside out of road.

Problem is, there is no way to tie down a black and white version. Every single case is pretty much unique.

I simply utterly abhor the “make no attempt to take a racing line that allows side by side racing, back out or we shall crash attitude”

[SiLo]

The best thing the FIA could do is get rid of this stupid "ahead at the apex" nonsense. It's really warped overtaking because it doesn't seem to even consider actually being able to make the corner properly.

Totally agree with that. It’s a big reason why the divebombs have become so typical. It also then promotes running anyone on the outside out of road.

Problem is, there is no way to tie down a black and white version. Every single case is pretty much unique.

I simply utterly abhor the “make no attempt to take a racing line that allows side by side racing, back out or we shall crash attitude”

1. Always leave a cars width (attacking and defending cars).
2. Both cars must be able to make the corner without requiring avoiding action.
3. No moving in the braking zone, pick a line and stick to it.
4. Defending car cannot make multiple defensive moves in a single overtake attempt.

[venkyhere]

My Q is, what do the rules say, in terms of what happened in lap 63. Should Max have given the position back ? (because had he done so, what happened in lap 64 would've been entirely different). I saw posts which said "Lando gave back position after driving around outside the corner, but Max did not". Hence want to know whether the rules are different in each case since in one case (lap 58/59) it was the attacker who went outside and came out in the lead, in the other case (lap 63) it's the defender who went outside and came out in the lead.

Ans 1 :

That's what it is. Attacker vs defender will always lead to different decisions from the stewards (can't remember if the rules explicitly say this but it's the de facto standard). See Canada 2014 (Ham attacking Rosb) for an extreme example.

Ans 2 :

In Lap 63, T3, Norris dives inside, makes the corner but still puts his outside wheels in the white line, meaning that literally there is no space for Verstappen not to leave the track while not colliding. The only reason he is briefly ahead for a tenth of a second in the apex is by denying any track to his rival. What others call attacking vs defending, I guess.
So still no oranges to oranges comparison.

Ans 3 :

I think it’s clear that Verstappen is right to stay ahead by driving off track. The divebomb move creates a problem here that seems to be hard even for drivers to understand fully. Yes, you are alongside at the apex, and when you are, you are normally allowed to dictate the corner. But the problem is how you got there in the first place and where you ended up. The divebomber is only alongside at the apex due to an abnormal entry speed which most often means he overshoots the apex and takes the defending driver with him/makes him take evasive action. The defending driver HAS the right to be able to stay on track all through the corner in this situation, since he is clearly ahead at the braking when the divebomber starts his move. Hence Verstappen did the right thing, just as Hamilton in AD21 and none of them were penalized.

All three above answers seem to indicate that if the defending car is forced outside the track by the inside 'attacker' car. and the defending car retains the lead when rejoining after the corner, the defedcer needn't concede position to the attacker, since the onus falls on the attacker, because he was the one who wanted to change the status quo.


However, Jolyon Palmer thinks otherwise, and doesn't differentiate between the two situations :
skip to 3:24 and watch until 8:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER4_6N86M_U

[SiLo]

However, Jolyon Palmer thinks otherwise, and doesn't differentiate between the two situations :
skip to 3:24 and watch until 8:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER4_6N86M_U

That's some very good analysis from Palmer there.

[hollus]

However, Jolyon Palmer thinks otherwise, and doesn't differentiate between the two situations

Just for the record, Joylon does differentiate between the two situations.

This below was your original question, and the one we tried to answer.

What do FIA rules say, does driver B have to give the position back or incur a penalty ?
Does the answer to above Q depend upon who was the 'overtaker' and who was the 'defender' ?

So, since you chose to single out those answers, I just want to clarify:
The answers were to "does the answer to above Q depend..." (https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 3#p1228063)
And that is still not oranges to oranges.
Then Joylon is anlyzing something different.

Nice piece by Palmer, though. Very clearly argued.

[Farnborough]

Seemed a very thorough overview by JP, measured, factual and clear.

Ultimately, with automation of gears changing, arrangement of energy deployment etc, etc coming out of corner one, then not much advantage is available until the drag from slipstream and DRS effect finally accumulate at just about the braking point to the corner !

This all naturally compresses any overspeed straight into that contentious area of behaviour, aided by track topography in rising that allows every driver to "bury" the kinetic output into that braking zone.

There's a very, very compressed action zone to sort it all out. No wonder that this corner often brings this type of outcome, likely at every future GP there too.

With Spa, China, Baku etc, the combined overspeed always has time to develop into reasonable space as it accumulates much before the brake point, generally less combat is the result.

Shorter tracks, then the DRS never reaches its effectiveness before braking is imperative.