Strategy Group Meeting 07-28-2016

[turbof1]

I am creating a separate thread because this particular meeting had a lot of topics covered:

-Introduction of the Halo in 2017
-Track Limits
-Radio Communications
-Wet standing Starts

I'll be writing an article on it to cover the topics in depth.

[dans79]

• No halo till 2018.
• Almost a complete reversal on the radio rules!

[Vettel Maggot]

So does Rosberg get his radio penalty overturned and his points back?

[Phil]

It's really extraordinary how in F1, it's seemingly impossible to find a good middle ground. It seems, they work in extremes. Either ridiculous full ban of everything, then a complete turnaround back to what we had before (that prompted them to clamp down on the rules in the first place). I think everyone agreed that driver couching was frowned upon and pretty much lead to these somewhat over-exaggerated rules in the first place. Now instead of simply sitting together and coming up with a good compromise, it's all out the window again?

Seems to be they are all just a bunch of monkey locked in a cell with a box full of bananas outside waiting for them, and the quicker they can agree on something, the quicker they can get to the bananas.

IMO a good way to solve the radio issues would be to allow all communications (since on some level, they think they can't prevent coded messages anyway), but limit the amount of telemetry between car on track and the pit. I mean, how hard can it be? Sometimes I feel F1 is just too big and complex for it's own good and people are unable to think small because they always feel the need to build up on what they already have, hence the sport becomes more complex (and in the end difficult to understand from a spectators point of view).

I have to say, I've really started enjoying Formula-E. It's so rudimentary on so many levels, but it still works. Even the cars bumping into each other like complete amateurs. But it works.

[iotar__]

The Strategy Group also discussed putting a stop to track limit penalties, on the basis that it is hard to judge if an advantage has been gained.

What a hell is that? A. That's not the reason at all. B. No, sometimes it's very clear, sometimes it's not like with most sport issues. You cut corners for a reason: shortest way and time gained, you go off to keep more speed, you go off to give yourself more margin for errors (more speed time gain on average), you overtake off because you can't do it on track, not enough skills (Verstappen Austria recently), to gain places, to avoid traffic at starts and gain unfair advantage. There are all kind of differences, effort to keep it on track, possibility of an overtakes without going off, pushing off, amount and time. "It's hard"? You want to cheat that's all.

Where is your god, your sensors and your common sense now [-o< ? Marketing circus with headless chicken management, village idiot Ecclestone and so called professionals fronting his nonsense. I think that was the trade: less of one nonsense more of the other.

[toraabe]

They just understood that the "Button case" was completely stupidity.
Also the crash of Sergio Perez ( Austria )was a result of this, and it was proven to be dangerous...

At least some used their brain, and changed the rules

[pob]

I expect them to flipflop again on the standing start after safety car start, like they did when it was going to be after every safety car.

One of the outcomes of the meeting not already mentioned is that from next season they will no longer be able to work on cars during a red flag period. This doesn't seem very sensible to me. Will they be able to change tyres if there is a change in conditions? Will the cars be allowed to go through their normal cold start procedure if it's a long break?

[rscsr]

I'm for the "drive where you want" proposal. But the problem is that they pretty much drive on glorified parking lots nowadays.

And the radio ban was always a stupid compromise in my opinion. Just punish everything the driver is told with a drive through in the same lap.
But that is now moot anyway.

[ian_s]

i like the idea of the radio ban, but not to the extent that it ruins the racing. i dont see a problem with the teams telling the driver how to fix/avoid a problem with his car, be it engine modes, gearbox issues, or hydraulic issues. this isn't coaching, this is an engineer doing his job.

what i dont like is the instructions to brake later, change gear at different times, fuel saving methods. this is coaching.

[cooken]

FIA / Strat Group showing themselves to be utter bumbling fools.

Barring silly things like the qualy format, they should set the rules and stick to them for a season. All of this wishy washy nonsense, not only the rules but their interpretation and enforcement constantly in flux. They are essentially inviting exploitation and are nowhere close to achieving safety.

[ChrisDanger]

No official word of any change to the tolerance of track limits.
https://twitter.com/MBrundleF1/status/7 ... 0392851456

[turbof1]

A lesser discussed point on the meeting: the defence of Max Verstappen vs. Kimi Raikkonen in the race. It now has appeared that the matter was actually looked at by the stewards on 2 occasions: during and after the race. Charlie Whiting defended the decision to leave Max Verstappen unpunished, stating they actually don't have rules that are applicable in the braking zone.

I feel there are some politics in ploy here. Both these regulations could have been used:

20.3 More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted.

20.5 Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.

There's nowhere stated 20.3 only applies outside braking zones, and 20.5 is a catch-all rule. Whiting's comments are just not making sense. "we felt he did not move twice" "there are actually no rules for moving under braking". This comments make for very dangerous precedents! I'd rather have drivers weaving across the track at a straight or in a fast corner, then under braking.

[dans79]

This comments make for very dangerous precedents! I'd rather have drivers weaving across the track at a straight or in a fast corner, then under braking.

He and the stewards seem to be stuck in the 50's & 60's "Gentlemen drivers" mindset. By that I mean they think the drivers are all gentlemen and would never do anything negative intentionally. Thus no one gets penalized unless they do something so blatant even a child can tell it was intentional. They don't seem to realize that all the drivers are ruthless now, and are constantly pushing, testing & breaking the rules to gain any advantage.

[hollus]

I'll say it again: What Max did might have been dangerous and unsportsmanlike, but:
a) he moved once, then back to the racing line, then into the apex. Stupid rule, maybe, but it is written like that. Explicitly written like that.
b) He did not crowd RAI out. There was plenty of tarmac to his left and to his right at all times. RAI chose to change side the second time, he might have thought that he was about to be pushed out, but in reality he wasn't.
He might have played the rules, but he did it within the rules.
The problem is in the way the rules are written, but the ones we have, he did not break. Only in spirit.

[strad]

Totally agree hollus
If people don't like the rule I guess they could lobby the F.I.A. to change it, but I don't think that will get them very far.