FIA 2012 Technical & Sporting Regulation Changes

[Galahad]

If a driver is two laps (or more) down and the safety car comes out, I assume he only regains one lap and doesn't return to the lead lap?

Just more showbiz over sport for me, I'm afraid. Basically a free lap - not much use to an HRT, but potentially a championship decider for a pitstop delayed Ferrari, McLaren or Red Bull.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

If a driver is two laps (or more) down and the safety car comes out, I assume he only regains one lap and doesn't return to the lead lap?

I took it to mean that they would be completely unlapped, whether they had been lapped once or more. Did drivers return to the lead lap when they had been lapped more than once on the old rules?

 

[Galahad]

Did drivers return to the lead lap when they had been lapped more than once on the old rules?

No.

 

[Galahad]

Having gone through the Sporting Regs, it isn't made explicitly clear, however since every lap behind the SC still counts as a race lap, I assume lapped cars will only regain one lap through this process. I guess that may be easier to implement with the timing systems, assuming that they still log each car's transponder across the line and log a lap that way - and is fairer (or rather, less unfair) too.

 

[Josephiah]

it isn't made explicitly clear

They've always got to leave some wriggle room, eh?

 

[Road of Bones]

Re: lapped cars being able to "un-lap" themselves, providing they have crossed the first SC line on the second lap after the SC's deployment ...

...(nonsensical legal-speak notwithstanding)...all it seems to me is that by allowing them to overtake the queue and whisk round the track to catch up to the back of the queue again will mean that the SC spends an extra 2 laps out? What's wrong with having them pull off the Racing line on the pit straight and dropping back behind the last of the cars on the lead lap? They're going to be lapped again anyway, so why extend the agony of the SC? And why risk another incident by allowing them to whizz round unhindered to catch back up to the queue?

It is, frankly, poorly thought-out and hideously-described. Did the translator only have a French-Hungarian and a Hungarian-English dictionary perhaps?

 

[Bill Boddy]

When defending a position, drivers will not be allowed to move back onto the racing line after moving off-line

The why wasn't Rosberg penalised?

 

[The Artist.....]

Because the rule was refined to say that if you make a second move, you need to leave at least a car width between your car and the edge of the circuit....

 

[sportsman]

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8683/fia.html
0.3 More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off‐line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

 

[The Artist.....]

It's just a shame that that rule contradicts itself!

You're only allowed to make one move to defend, but then you can make a second move to move back to the outside of the track!

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Bill Boddy

Well technically the racing line in that incident is on the opposite side to where Rosberg pushed Hamilton off. Although the stewards seem to think that what he did was ok because he started to move before Hamilton was alongside. However this brings the question of if Hamilton wasn't alongside then why wasn't he penalised for overtaking outisde the tracks limits? Very inconsistent.

Personally at the time I thought Rosberg was incredibly stupid to swerve that far across and so fast when Hamilton was that close, for me he would have recieved a penalty and the actions that Hamilton took were in attempt to avoid the collision.

How Rosberg escaped punishment for a very similar incident later on with Alonso, I simply don't know.

 

[Bill Boddy]

The speed of the swerves Rosberg made in both cases looked very dangerous to me. I realise that the long length of the lens used foreshortens things but it really was excessive.

From the FIA Sporting Regulations:

"20.4 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."

I would submit that those changes of direction would contravene this rule.

 

[johnnoble1990]

To be honest, I've just about had enough with stewarding in F1. I don't even bother to think about it anymore. Like the weather, I just see it as an unpredictable variable.

 

[Fenderman]

Just think what it must be like for the teams and their drivers. They don't whether they are coming or going. Just imagine the tension and stress when their driver has done something iffy and they're waiting first, for the infamous "incident involving Car X and Car Y will be investigated by the Stewards ..." and then for the "... drive through penalty for Car ..." Or worse, when it's the followed by the "... investigated after the race" variety. As you say johnnoble1990 it's all too often "an unpredictable variable."

 

[johnnoble1990]

It is far too geared towards retribution over prevention. The rules should be set up to stop collisions happening, not assign blame when they do. Far too many collisions at the moment are the result of one driver thinking he has the right of way over another.