planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:19 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Opinion on Max's overtake of Kimi
Poll ended at Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:31 pm
Completely legal - should not have received penalty 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
Technically illegal - should not have received penalty 24%  24%  [ 23 ]
Mostly illegal - penalty was justified 12%  12%  [ 12 ]
Completely Illegal - penalty was justified 63%  63%  [ 61 ]
Total votes : 97
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
Fiki wrote:
Was Andretti shown that Max went off track? I didn't get to see many races in 1978, but I doubt drivers overtook through the scenery then.

Lauda is easier to prove wrong; just show him the Dutch (how appropriate) Grand Prix of 1985.

As for Kimi not leaving a car's width worth of space going into the corner; see my post above. I still can't understand why people, including Lamo, believe he should have.


Playing devils advocate. If a car cannot remain entirely on the track then by definition it has been pushed outside the track. Say for example there is a wall on the inside of that corner and Kimi has someone on the inside of him. Do you still consider it ok to leave a half/quarter of a track width even though that means pushing your competitor into the wall?

Using turn 1 at Spa as an example here - If you have someone 3/4 alongside of you on the inside is it ok to only leave a meter of space on the inside even though that will result in you crushing your oponenent to the inside rule?

For that reason I can't see your interpretation of the rules as accurate. Nowhere does it specify if you have to leave space for the whole car or part of it but surely you can see how a rule saying you only have to leave space for a tiny fraction of the car next to you on track is unworkable as not all tracks actually give the attacking driver the option of having a portion of their car outside of the track?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
mikeyg123 wrote:
Using turn 1 at Spa as an example here - If you have someone 3/4 alongside of you on the inside is it ok to only leave a meter of space on the inside even though that will result in you crushing your oponenent to the inside rule?


Spa T1 is a bad example really as last year there was discussion about whether or not Verstappen had left the track by going too much on the curbs :)

I get your point though. There are various places at Monaco that would fit as example. But I don't really agree. Because on those places where there aren't walls, overtaking drivers will make use of the fact there isn't a wall and they will cut to the inside as much as possible if they see benefit in it. So if you allow allow overtakers to do that, then you should be OK with a defending driver to leave less then a car's width.

Earlier in the thread I formulated my opinion this way: Raikkonen left enough space for Verstappen to safely and legally go through the corner, or back out of it altogether. So I think Raikkonen is 100% OK.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6430
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Playing devils advocate. If a car cannot remain entirely on the track then by definition it has been pushed outside the track. Say for example there is a wall on the inside of that corner and Kimi has someone on the inside of him. Do you still consider it ok to leave a half/quarter of a track width even though that means pushing your competitor into the wall?


The other side of that question is that it is highly unlikely that even Max would have tried that move were there a wall there. So it is a rather mute point.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6671
Fiki wrote:
Was Andretti shown that Max went off track? I didn't get to see many races in 1978, but I doubt drivers overtook through the scenery then.

Lauda is easier to prove wrong; just show him the Dutch (how appropriate) Grand Prix of 1985.

As for Kimi not leaving a car's width worth of space going into the corner; see my post above. I still can't understand why people, including Lamo, believe he should have.


Can you remind me of the GP of '85? What happened there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
The only argument that can be made for Verstappen is that Kimi forced him off the track, I don't see the evidence for that, Verstappen anticipating he was going to be forced off the track and he was avoiding a collision is not valid either.

I'm also disappointed when I see some ex drivers say that Verstappen did nothing wrong, I'm also disappointed when Verstappen's popularity is brought into the debate when it's said that it's not good for the sport.

I believe in rules and I'm not happy when all I see is a free for all and I would agree that the stewards sometimes ignore drivers abusing track limits when passing other cars although this is always when drivers leave the track on the outside of corners, corner cutting is something else again when passing another car and that should definitely not be allowed unless the driver has been forced off the track.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1804
Verstappen33 wrote:
Kimi was not passing but of course gains an advantage in staying in front of Max by this way of driving.

In the 2nd picture Kimi is taking the normal racing line through the corner. Literally every driver leaves the circuit at that turn.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1804
Siao7 wrote:
-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Apparently Lauda and Andretti have backed the Verstappens. So they are not alone.

Of course their defence was along the lines "a driver should be racing, you are destroying the sport like that".

Max himself said more or less that others have done this and the fans got robbed by him not being on the podium, it's not good for the sport. He hopes also that the fans will not attend next year! Great attitude.

Can't find that Hamilton quote about Silverstone and cutting corners now, checked my history but there are hundreds of pages since Tuesday!


Andretti, I don't know. Lauda has been known to speak nonsense or directly offensive and wrong statements with a frequency that perfectly simulates random chance.

The Verstappens are much better in silent mode.

All this complaining and insulting is uncalled for, uncivilised, uneducated, bordering on a mental pathological condition.

I hope he MV gets a considerable penalty for bringing the sport into disrepute for his insults to the steward. Would not mind a weekend off work for him next race...


http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autos ... o-Andretti

Andretti basically said that he got robbed and the argument could be that Kimi forced him there.

Which ignores the fact that there was space left for Max, albeit not an entire car's width.

I'd like to see a reprimand for Max, whatever the issue is they can solve it internally. Calling the steward names on public is bad taste and has to stop there. Vettel narrowly escaped a penalty by a formal apology to Whiting last year. Whatever mistakes the FIA makes, swearing at them solves nothing.

If the pass had been allowed to stand then Raikkonen would have been robbed having given a masterclass in defensive driving throughout the 3rd sector.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
GingerFurball wrote:
If the pass had been allowed to stand then Raikkonen would have been robbed having given a masterclass in defensive driving throughout the 3rd sector.


I don't really agree - he had the good fortune of having been able to draw DRS off Vettel to not get passed on the straight, then he had the good fortune of Max cutting the corner a bit too much when it wasn't really necessary. A good defense would have never let Max get on the inside there.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Playing devils advocate. If a car cannot remain entirely on the track then by definition it has been pushed outside the track. Say for example there is a wall on the inside of that corner and Kimi has someone on the inside of him. Do you still consider it ok to leave a half/quarter of a track width even though that means pushing your competitor into the wall?


The other side of that question is that it is highly unlikely that even Max would have tried that move were there a wall there. So it is a rather mute point.


Yeah, I'm not saying Max's position should have been allowed to stand. He clearly broke the rules. I'm just pointing out that Fiki's interpretation of the rules cannot be as cut and dry as he thinks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Using turn 1 at Spa as an example here - If you have someone 3/4 alongside of you on the inside is it ok to only leave a meter of space on the inside even though that will result in you crushing your oponenent to the inside rule?


Spa T1 is a bad example really as last year there was discussion about whether or not Verstappen had left the track by going too much on the curbs :)

I get your point though. There are various places at Monaco that would fit as example. But I don't really agree. Because on those places where there aren't walls, overtaking drivers will make use of the fact there isn't a wall and they will cut to the inside as much as possible if they see benefit in it. So if you allow allow overtakers to do that, then you should be OK with a defending driver to leave less then a car's width.


Earlier in the thread I formulated my opinion this way: Raikkonen left enough space for Verstappen to safely and legally go through the corner, or back out of it altogether. So I think Raikkonen is 100% OK.


Yes, I agree and I think that is a good interpretation of the situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1050
An "advantage" isn't really quantified. Going off track might result in a gain, it might not. Even cutting a corner doesn't necessarily result in an advantage. Going off track and passing a car, irrespective of the time lost/gained is clearly a gain for the driver.

Max could not have made that same pass at that stage in the race whilst staying within the track limits. Therefore, as ballsy, opportunistic and skilled as the move was, it was illegal.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:02 am
Posts: 846
Location: India
lamo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I thought we all agreed Kimi left room for Max to have at least two wheels on track.


No I don't agree.

Track limits are well defined, by the white lines. The rules do not allow for what is the other side of the white line. The white line is the end of the track, racing space must be left within the white lines.

Rosberg left enough room for Hamilton to have 2 wheels on track in Spain in 2016 and we all know what happened there. The track is what is within the white lines only, regardless of what is outside of those white lines.


TBH at first I thought Kimi messed it up. I would have liked if Kimi was more aggressive and had forced him out of track. Something like this who have been good for a change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkzEGJ00log

But in the end it was simply poor judgement and IMO premeditated move. It could have been worst as Kimi was really slowing down so a crash was also on cards. Definitely he would have got more severe penalty had that happen.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9-GK3MeLI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7405
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Was Andretti shown that Max went off track? I didn't get to see many races in 1978, but I doubt drivers overtook through the scenery then.

Lauda is easier to prove wrong; just show him the Dutch (how appropriate) Grand Prix of 1985.

As for Kimi not leaving a car's width worth of space going into the corner; see my post above. I still can't understand why people, including Lamo, believe he should have.


Playing devils advocate. If a car cannot remain entirely on the track then by definition it has been pushed outside the track. Say for example there is a wall on the inside of that corner and Kimi has someone on the inside of him. Do you still consider it ok to leave a half/quarter of a track width even though that means pushing your competitor into the wall?
About your first point, if a car alone on track, cannot remain entirely on the track, surely we cannot say it has been pushed outside the track, can we? This happened time and time again last Sunday.
If that car is alongside another car, but suffers from the same problem as a car alone, we can still not say it has been pushed outside, can we?

Thirdly, as far as I know, there is no rule that states that a car has to remain entirely on the track, to be considered "on track". On the contrary, there is a rule that states that as long as one of the tyres remains in contact with one of the white lines marking the edge of the track, the car is still "on track".

Now for the problem; if a driver pushes another driver towards those white lines, and does not break any rules in doing so, then, according to the above rule, the driver limiting the other driver to having make do with minimal contact with the track, is operating perfectly within the rules. This means that your definition is wrong, if indeed you mean there is less than the entire car's width remaining within the lines. Agreed?

Your example: the corner where Kimi and Max had their little adventure last Sunday now has a wall on the inside of that corner, and the same situation develops. Max is unable to overtake before that corner, and Kimi has not left the racing line in defence. Then, according to the rule - which both drivers are supposed to know and understand - there is no reason for Kimi to leave the racing line, at all. This, however, doesn't mean Max is automatically going to hit the wall you have constructed there.

Since Max had succeeded to come partially alongside, and since it is always forbidden to crowd a competitor off the track, there is only the obligation for Kimi to leave Max the room to remain in contact with the track, i.e. the white line. Knowing Kimi hasn't left the racing line in defence, Max knows Kimi will turn in for the apex, and will have to lift and slot in behind, if there is not enough room between the white line and the wall to fit a car.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Using turn 1 at Spa as an example here - If you have someone 3/4 alongside of you on the inside is it ok to only leave a meter of space on the inside even though that will result in you crushing your oponenent to the inside rule?
See above. If the attacking driver knows there isn't a gap that will fit his car, and if the driver under attack has not left the racing line in defence, on the straight leading up to the corner, then the attacking driver will have caused an accident to himself, and potentially to the driver he was attacking.

Note that the rule specifies that "if a driver has moved off the racing line while defending their position, they may move back but must ensure there is at least one car’s width between their own car and the edge of the track". In other words, in your example, that would mean defending towards the wall, and then leaving at least one car's width of space on the outside. After which the same problem as above comes up.

mikeyg123 wrote:
For that reason I can't see your interpretation of the rules as accurate. Nowhere does it specify if you have to leave space for the whole car or part of it but surely you can see how a rule saying you only have to leave space for a tiny fraction of the car next to you on track is unworkable as not all tracks actually give the attacking driver the option of having a portion of their car outside of the track?
As I wrote above, there is one rule which does state you need to leave at least a car's width. But in your first example, the action to be followed is clear; the attacking driver needs to recognise he is wrong in keeping his foot down and causing an accident to himself and possibly to the defending driver. He would be 100% in the wrong. This is what some fans and commentators describe as a driver jumping into a whole that was never there. Not the best of expressions to use. It's better for commentators to explain why the driver behind was wrong to call the steward names.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7405
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Was Andretti shown that Max went off track? I didn't get to see many races in 1978, but I doubt drivers overtook through the scenery then.

Lauda is easier to prove wrong; just show him the Dutch (how appropriate) Grand Prix of 1985.

As for Kimi not leaving a car's width worth of space going into the corner; see my post above. I still can't understand why people, including Lamo, believe he should have.


Can you remind me of the GP of '85? What happened there?
Lauda finally has no car issues for the first time that season, is ahead of Prost, who is quicker than him, and gives us a master class of defensive driving. This results in his very last race win. You might compare it to Schumacher-Alonso at Imola 2005 and 2006. Something very much like it had happened twenty years earlier, but may not be known by younger race fans.

Why Lauda suddenly promotes leaving the track and overtaking by cutting a corner, is something I cannot understand. I can only think he must have forgotten the rules in force in 2017.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1325
The inconsistent application of the regulations places Formula One in disrepute.

It's not self-discipline, because I think we know quite well what to do and what not to do," said Verstappen on the situation. But they [officials] never told us anything. Already from lap one, in practice one, everybody was running wide, and it was all fine."

https://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/360309/f1-drivers-call-for-track-limits-guidelines/

So who was in the wrong? Raikkonen did right. Verstappen believed he was not in the wrong. The race officials made everything as clear as a foggy day.

My opinion? The FIA should relinquish ownership and control of Formula One if they can not clean up their act. Sincerely, what a bunch of clowns.

Image
https://media.giphy.com/media/yq9gXFnlF0DG8/giphy.gif

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6430
Location: Nebraska, USA
I disagree, Blinky. It has been quite clear for a long time that cutting a corner for advantage was against the rules. That is why so often drivers have given the place back when they have done that. Max's comments about "running wide" is not relevant in this scenario. Max did wrong, and I suspect he damn well knows he did wrong. Now he needs to grow up and own it, then move on.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:41 am
Posts: 753
Location: Toronto, Canada
I don’t even see how this is a discussion. All 4 wheels outside the white lines is a penalty. The only issue is how it’s not applied consistently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6224
Location: Michigan, USA
Bentrovato wrote:
I don’t even see how this is a discussion. All 4 wheels outside the white lines is a penalty. The only issue is how it’s not applied consistently.

It's a discussion because some people will support their favorite driver even when he's clearly in the wrong. I can't see any other reason anyone would think Max didn't deserve a penalty.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:53 pm
Posts: 65
Bentrovato wrote:
I don’t even see how this is a discussion. All 4 wheels outside the white lines is a penalty. The only issue is how it’s not applied consistently.


Well said. That is the only thing a lot of people have a problem with.

Exediron wrote:
It's a discussion because some people will support their favorite driver even when he's clearly in the wrong. I can't see any other reason anyone would think Max didn't deserve a penalty.



Yes that is always the case with some fans but there are also fans who like racing and other drivers besides their own favorites. It really is like Bentrovato said: penalties not being applied consitently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 893
Location: UK
Exediron wrote:
It's a discussion because some people will support their favorite driver even when he's clearly in the wrong.


I don't suppose this comment could be framed or made a 'sticky' at the top of every post by any chance? Well said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6671
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Was Andretti shown that Max went off track? I didn't get to see many races in 1978, but I doubt drivers overtook through the scenery then.

Lauda is easier to prove wrong; just show him the Dutch (how appropriate) Grand Prix of 1985.

As for Kimi not leaving a car's width worth of space going into the corner; see my post above. I still can't understand why people, including Lamo, believe he should have.


Can you remind me of the GP of '85? What happened there?
Lauda finally has no car issues for the first time that season, is ahead of Prost, who is quicker than him, and gives us a master class of defensive driving. This results in his very last race win. You might compare it to Schumacher-Alonso at Imola 2005 and 2006. Something very much like it had happened twenty years earlier, but may not be known by younger race fans.

Why Lauda suddenly promotes leaving the track and overtaking by cutting a corner, is something I cannot understand. I can only think he must have forgotten the rules in force in 2017.


Ok thanks, I was thinking that someone did it to him or something... I remember this as his last win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6671
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Was Andretti shown that Max went off track? I didn't get to see many races in 1978, but I doubt drivers overtook through the scenery then.

Lauda is easier to prove wrong; just show him the Dutch (how appropriate) Grand Prix of 1985.

As for Kimi not leaving a car's width worth of space going into the corner; see my post above. I still can't understand why people, including Lamo, believe he should have.


Playing devils advocate. If a car cannot remain entirely on the track then by definition it has been pushed outside the track. Say for example there is a wall on the inside of that corner and Kimi has someone on the inside of him. Do you still consider it ok to leave a half/quarter of a track width even though that means pushing your competitor into the wall?
About your first point, if a car alone on track, cannot remain entirely on the track, surely we cannot say it has been pushed outside the track, can we? This happened time and time again last Sunday.
If that car is alongside another car, but suffers from the same problem as a car alone, we can still not say it has been pushed outside, can we?

Thirdly, as far as I know, there is no rule that states that a car has to remain entirely on the track, to be considered "on track". On the contrary, there is a rule that states that as long as one of the tyres remains in contact with one of the white lines marking the edge of the track, the car is still "on track".

Now for the problem; if a driver pushes another driver towards those white lines, and does not break any rules in doing so, then, according to the above rule, the driver limiting the other driver to having make do with minimal contact with the track, is operating perfectly within the rules. This means that your definition is wrong, if indeed you mean there is less than the entire car's width remaining within the lines. Agreed?

Your example: the corner where Kimi and Max had their little adventure last Sunday now has a wall on the inside of that corner, and the same situation develops. Max is unable to overtake before that corner, and Kimi has not left the racing line in defence. Then, according to the rule - which both drivers are supposed to know and understand - there is no reason for Kimi to leave the racing line, at all. This, however, doesn't mean Max is automatically going to hit the wall you have constructed there.

Since Max had succeeded to come partially alongside, and since it is always forbidden to crowd a competitor off the track, there is only the obligation for Kimi to leave Max the room to remain in contact with the track, i.e. the white line. Knowing Kimi hasn't left the racing line in defence, Max knows Kimi will turn in for the apex, and will have to lift and slot in behind, if there is not enough room between the white line and the wall to fit a car.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Using turn 1 at Spa as an example here - If you have someone 3/4 alongside of you on the inside is it ok to only leave a meter of space on the inside even though that will result in you crushing your oponenent to the inside rule?
See above. If the attacking driver knows there isn't a gap that will fit his car, and if the driver under attack has not left the racing line in defence, on the straight leading up to the corner, then the attacking driver will have caused an accident to himself, and potentially to the driver he was attacking.

Note that the rule specifies that "if a driver has moved off the racing line while defending their position, they may move back but must ensure there is at least one car’s width between their own car and the edge of the track". In other words, in your example, that would mean defending towards the wall, and then leaving at least one car's width of space on the outside. After which the same problem as above comes up.

mikeyg123 wrote:
For that reason I can't see your interpretation of the rules as accurate. Nowhere does it specify if you have to leave space for the whole car or part of it but surely you can see how a rule saying you only have to leave space for a tiny fraction of the car next to you on track is unworkable as not all tracks actually give the attacking driver the option of having a portion of their car outside of the track?
As I wrote above, there is one rule which does state you need to leave at least a car's width. But in your first example, the action to be followed is clear; the attacking driver needs to recognise he is wrong in keeping his foot down and causing an accident to himself and possibly to the defending driver. He would be 100% in the wrong. This is what some fans and commentators describe as a driver jumping into a whole that was never there. Not the best of expressions to use. It's better for commentators to explain why the driver behind was wrong to call the steward names.


But this is only referring to a specific situation, after defending on a straight and leaving the racing line. Not for being half way through the apex. Does it really apply here?

Apart from the common sense that a driver shouldn't crowd someone else, I don't think this rule would be much use here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6671
Also, can't wait to see the driver's briefing/Charlie roasting video at Mexico


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1983
Charlie Whiting: Accusations of inconsistent stewarding unfounded

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/211 ... -unfounded

Max's overtake was actually quite a good one and he just went outside the boundaries of the track to do it. Next time he just has to keep a wheel on track and it will be fine. Hopefully he learns the lesson for next year as this write-off year just doesn't count anymore for him. Frankly I'm just pleased he's colliding less recently. One step at a time ;).

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 25
I don't really understand the accusations of inconsistency. Decisions regarding track limits are inconsistent because the incidents are inconsistent, there are a lot of variables at play and each incident is different from the last. If we're saying we penalise every time a driver leaves the track then fine, I don't actually mind being a bit more flexible with it, but a driver completely cutting a corner is a whole different kettle of fish that should be penalised every time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6671
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
I don't really understand the accusations of inconsistency. Decisions regarding track limits are inconsistent because the incidents are inconsistent, there are a lot of variables at play and each incident is different from the last. If we're saying we penalise every time a driver leaves the track then fine, I don't actually mind being a bit more flexible with it, but a driver completely cutting a corner is a whole different kettle of fish that should be penalised every time.


I agree. There is a rule book to go by, but not all situations are the same. This is what makes it difficult for the FIA, so I cut them some slack with this personally.

It would be a case of inconsistency if another car overtook illegally like that and didn't get a penalty. Then I'd agree. But Max was the only one and hence there is no grounds for calling it inconsistent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 127
FIA’s overtake of the year 2015 (Verstappen on Nasr):
(can you spot the white line?)

Image

Mexico 2016; Lewis locks up at the start, goes lawn mowing and gains 4 seconds advantage. No further action.

Image

Ironically, in that same GP, Verstappen cuts the exact same corner, locking up in a fight against Vettel. Max receives a 5 second penalty and is stripped from podium.


Last edited by Knuppel1983 on Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6224
Location: Michigan, USA
Knuppel1983 wrote:
Lewis locks up at the start, goes lawn mowing and gains 4 seconds advantage. No further action.

Ironically, in that same GP, Verstappen cuts the exact same corner, locking up in a fight against Vettel. Max receives a 5 second penalty and is stripped from podium.

What you (and other Max fans I've talked to) don't seem to be realizing is that it's the first of your two statements that's the problem. Max deserved his penalty, it's just that Lewis deserved one too. That doesn't mean Max fans should complain about him getting a penalty that he deserved.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 127
This is exactly what i’m trying to show here. I’m a Verstappen fan, but I’m not blind. Max deserved his penalty rule-wise, but Lewis deserved one also. However, Lewis was a title contender. This is a perfect example because they both do exactly the same thing (lock up, cut corner, and keep position).

To a Dutch reporter, Charlie Whiting said had Verstappen been fighting Kimi for P7 in Austin, no penalty would be applied. In the official interview with Charlie he asked that same question, where Charlie answered it would not make a difference. Ludacris.


Last edited by Knuppel1983 on Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7405
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Was Andretti shown that Max went off track? I didn't get to see many races in 1978, but I doubt drivers overtook through the scenery then.

Lauda is easier to prove wrong; just show him the Dutch (how appropriate) Grand Prix of 1985.

As for Kimi not leaving a car's width worth of space going into the corner; see my post above. I still can't understand why people, including Lamo, believe he should have.


Playing devils advocate. If a car cannot remain entirely on the track then by definition it has been pushed outside the track. Say for example there is a wall on the inside of that corner and Kimi has someone on the inside of him. Do you still consider it ok to leave a half/quarter of a track width even though that means pushing your competitor into the wall?
About your first point, if a car alone on track, cannot remain entirely on the track, surely we cannot say it has been pushed outside the track, can we? This happened time and time again last Sunday.
If that car is alongside another car, but suffers from the same problem as a car alone, we can still not say it has been pushed outside, can we?

Thirdly, as far as I know, there is no rule that states that a car has to remain entirely on the track, to be considered "on track". On the contrary, there is a rule that states that as long as one of the tyres remains in contact with one of the white lines marking the edge of the track, the car is still "on track".

Now for the problem; if a driver pushes another driver towards those white lines, and does not break any rules in doing so, then, according to the above rule, the driver limiting the other driver to having make do with minimal contact with the track, is operating perfectly within the rules. This means that your definition is wrong, if indeed you mean there is less than the entire car's width remaining within the lines. Agreed?

Your example: the corner where Kimi and Max had their little adventure last Sunday now has a wall on the inside of that corner, and the same situation develops. Max is unable to overtake before that corner, and Kimi has not left the racing line in defence. Then, according to the rule - which both drivers are supposed to know and understand - there is no reason for Kimi to leave the racing line, at all. This, however, doesn't mean Max is automatically going to hit the wall you have constructed there.

Since Max had succeeded to come partially alongside, and since it is always forbidden to crowd a competitor off the track, there is only the obligation for Kimi to leave Max the room to remain in contact with the track, i.e. the white line. Knowing Kimi hasn't left the racing line in defence, Max knows Kimi will turn in for the apex, and will have to lift and slot in behind, if there is not enough room between the white line and the wall to fit a car.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Using turn 1 at Spa as an example here - If you have someone 3/4 alongside of you on the inside is it ok to only leave a meter of space on the inside even though that will result in you crushing your oponenent to the inside rule?
See above. If the attacking driver knows there isn't a gap that will fit his car, and if the driver under attack has not left the racing line in defence, on the straight leading up to the corner, then the attacking driver will have caused an accident to himself, and potentially to the driver he was attacking.

Note that the rule specifies that "if a driver has moved off the racing line while defending their position, they may move back but must ensure there is at least one car’s width between their own car and the edge of the track". In other words, in your example, that would mean defending towards the wall, and then leaving at least one car's width of space on the outside. After which the same problem as above comes up.

mikeyg123 wrote:
For that reason I can't see your interpretation of the rules as accurate. Nowhere does it specify if you have to leave space for the whole car or part of it but surely you can see how a rule saying you only have to leave space for a tiny fraction of the car next to you on track is unworkable as not all tracks actually give the attacking driver the option of having a portion of their car outside of the track?
As I wrote above, there is one rule which does state you need to leave at least a car's width. But in your first example, the action to be followed is clear; the attacking driver needs to recognise he is wrong in keeping his foot down and causing an accident to himself and possibly to the defending driver. He would be 100% in the wrong. This is what some fans and commentators describe as a driver jumping into a whole that was never there. Not the best of expressions to use. It's better for commentators to explain why the driver behind was wrong to call the steward names.


But this is only referring to a specific situation, after defending on a straight and leaving the racing line. Not for being half way through the apex. Does it really apply here?

Apart from the common sense that a driver shouldn't crowd someone else, I don't think this rule would be much use here.
Of course it applies, or perhaps I should say I had to bring it up, since Lamo was claiming Kimi had to leave a car's width of space to Max. This is contradicted by the rules.
Look at the space left throughout the corner, and at the apex in isolation, and Kimi was driving perfectly according the rules. He didn't need to leave a car's width of space at any point in Max's approach or overtake attempt. He was not allowed to crowd Max off the track, which he didn't. His defensive driving had done the job. Max could not find a way past the Ferrari, which is why he decided to cut the corner and cop a penalty.

Edit: remember a few years ago at Monza? Drivers were cutting corners everywhere they could. I believe times were taken away and possibly penalties handed out. Which is only fair.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7405
Location: Belgium
Knuppel1983 wrote:
This is exactly what i’m trying to show here. I’m a Verstappen fan, but I’m not blind. Max deserved his penalty rule-wise, but Lewis deserved one also. However, Lewis was a title contender. This is a perfect example because they both do exactly the same thing (lock up, cut corner, and keep position).

To a Dutch reporter, Charlie Whiting said had Verstappen been fighting Kimi for P7 in Austin, no penalty would be applied. In the official interview with Charlie he asked that same question, where Charlie answered it would not make a difference. Ludacris.
Knuppel, is that interview available somewhere? Because every finishing position matters. Even those not awarded points.

Knuppel1983 wrote:
FIA’s overtake of the year 2015 (Verstappen on Nasr):
(can you spot the white line?)

Image
Nitpicking first ;) is it the FIA's overtake of the year, of F1's? I wasn't aware there was such a thing, but would be surprised if the FIA would have one. About the overtake itself, Nasr leaves Max enough room to remain in contact with the track, so Max had no reason to leave the track. He was allowed to rejoin the track when it was safe to so, so perhaps Nasr should have kept him off the track and let Max rejoin behind him.
I don't remember if this was investigated, but I can't see why the overtake was allowed to stand. Perhaps the stewards felt Max had not gained an advantage because of the longer distance covered, but regaining an advantageous track position this way, does seem worthy of a penalty to me. He had the inside line into the next corner, and he had gained/retained it by going off-track.
In fact, the FIA were being too lenient at times like this, and I would be interested to know whether their leniency was ever explained.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 127
No that interview was without camera’s unfortunately. He sat down with Charlie before the official interview, to discuss a new timing technique where a computer automatically add seconds when drivers go beyond the white lines. It’s just something the reporter wanted to point out, because it annoyed him.

The video with top 10 overtakes is from Formula1.com.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1050
Knuppel1983 wrote:
FIA’s overtake of the year 2015 (Verstappen on Nasr):
(can you spot the white line?)

Image
[/b]


point well made, but watching the clip , that's not where ha actually makes the pass, it's under braking at the following corner.

Basically this all comes down to what Horner said - there shouldn' be an option to deliberatly go off track and come back on with an advantage. Bring back some nasty kerbs or even shallow gravel.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7405
Location: Belgium
DOLOMITE wrote:
Basically this all comes down to what Horner said - there shouldn' be an option to deliberatly go off track and come back on with an advantage. Bring back some nasty kerbs or even shallow gravel.
If he said that, and we know he criticised the Austin penalty this year, then who is being inconsistent?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2027
Fiki wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Basically this all comes down to what Horner said - there shouldn' be an option to deliberatly go off track and come back on with an advantage. Bring back some nasty kerbs or even shallow gravel.
If he said that, and we know he criticised the Austin penalty this year, then who is being inconsistent?


He said both in the press conference last night. Practically contradicted himself in two sentences.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1522
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUilBmplw7c

Just seen this video. It does seem like Verstappen does collect penalties more often than other drivers for doing these things. That is 3 times at least during the race that he's gained an advantage by cutting the corner that has resulted in a penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1804
mds wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
If the pass had been allowed to stand then Raikkonen would have been robbed having given a masterclass in defensive driving throughout the 3rd sector.


I don't really agree - he had the good fortune of having been able to draw DRS off Vettel to not get passed on the straight, then he had the good fortune of Max cutting the corner a bit too much when it wasn't really necessary. A good defense would have never let Max get on the inside there.


Raikkonen didn't have DRS on the last lap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7405
Location: Belgium
Herb wrote:
Fiki wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Basically this all comes down to what Horner said - there shouldn' be an option to deliberatly go off track and come back on with an advantage. Bring back some nasty kerbs or even shallow gravel.
If he said that, and we know he criticised the Austin penalty this year, then who is being inconsistent?


He said both in the press conference last night. Practically contradicted himself in two sentences.
The man is so talented... :D

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1050
love that 99% of the voters feel it was illegal yet we still have 4 pages of discussion.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7405
Location: Belgium
DOLOMITE wrote:
love that 99% of the voters feel it was illegal yet we still have 4 pages of discussion.
I think the clue is in the fact that 1 in every 4 voters think no penalty was needed. Perhaps I should reread the thread, because I don't understand how they say it is illegal, yet the result should stand... 8O

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, the-guru and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group