The Racing Line and avoidable accidents

I'm not accusing you of bias. In that particular incident you're referring to Alonso had space to give Button room so technically Button didn't 'force a driver off track' which is I guess what you are referring to when shifting someone from the racing line (and in this case they collided and Alonso wound up off the track)

Alonso maintained his position on the racing line and found another driver in it, but both within the confines of the white lines. This is why I still question this racing line argument.
 
I'm not accusing you of bias. In that particular incident you're referring to Alonso had space to give Button room so technically Button didn't 'force a driver off track' which is I guess what you are referring to when shifting someone from the racing line (and in this case they collided and Alonso wound up off the track)

Alonso maintained his position on the racing line and found another driver in it, but both within the confines of the white lines. This is why I still question this racing line argument.

I may be wrong and I don't profess to be a know it all, but by having the line you are not entitled to move out the way because someone wants to pass, nor in that instance if the race line congests the path of another again you are not obligated to move a little over, they way I see that instance if he moves more outside(left) he doesn't make the left apex and hits the wall like Kobiyashi in free practise as his drive approach would be way to steep, I think in this instance he is the defender and he did the job well, maybe but for the weather Button would have slowed down in time and the whole incident would be academic, though in this instance I think Button was in the wrong.
 
I may be wrong and I don't profess to be a know it all, but by having the line you are not entitled to move out the way because someone wants to pass, nor in that instance if the race line congests the path of another again you are not obligated to move a little over, they way I see that instance if he moves more outside(left) he doesn't make the left apex and hits the wall like Kobiyashi in free practise as his drive approach would be way to steep, I think in this instance he is the defender and he did the job well, maybe but for the weather Button would have slowed down in time and the whole incident would be academic, though in this instance I think Button was in the wrong.
Ok so that's kind of agreeing with my OP then, if one or both of the drivers were unable to make it through an altered line then it's a punishable collision.

This thread actually isn't about Alonso/Button - it's an example but the question was a general one.
 
I think and I know at 200+ it really is tough to think of everything mechanically but in certain instances, if another driver just has the better drive in and out, let him go and try where the risk is less and the reward is higher, this season has though been littered with decisions that ought to have, and those that shouldn't have been punished.

There is no parity in the rules and as I have rather naively stated ill fatedly, the FIA and F1 in particular have a duty to fix the discrepency, there must be a set guideline or precedent to follow in these cases, rather than going around supporting utilitarian and drug related policies. Correct the ship then venture out.
 
The driver in front is always going to have the better drive in an out though unless they've made a mistake, which means under your preference the only place a driver can legitimately overtake without forcing the driver in front into an error, is on a straight and having got onto the racing line before the corner?
 
Yes, I did wonder whether or not my post just now was better suited to the gag dump. I apologise if my post was too light hearted. However, behind the smiles is a serious point. That being my concern with regard to the assumption that a racing line is somehow the guiding principle to who owns a paricular piece of tarmac. I have already posted earlier in this thread an explanation, which is not just my own view but shared also by the likes of Sterling Moss from whom I learned that little nugget many years ago. In Sterlings day drivers did give way in response to being shown a wheel because not to do so often resulted in serious injury and sometimes death. Driver etiquette has faded as safety standards have improved. Many drivers seem now to have a sense of invincibility where surviving a prang that looks more like an airplane crash has become the norm.

It's one thing to look for a solution in the rule book but that will never solve the root of the problem. That will only come through supporting what is in the rule book by improvements in driver education. I also feel that there needs to be some way for the sports governing body to assess driver's spacial awareness and setting a standard for driver's to meet prior to the granting of a superlicense as there seem to be drivers out there who somehow lack a sense or understanding of what is happening around them. I dare say that by saying that I may cause a can of worms to be opened and implore readers of my post not to get carried away with focussing on different drivers as examples and further derailing this thread. As I fear i may have strayed more than enough already.:)

You and me both...:)
 
It only gets exhausted when silly or off topic comments creep in Axle. I really wanted to hear the views of the likes of Galahad, FB, Jenov, Fat Jez etc but I fear they can't be bothered when certain people try to turn it into a chat room. Sorry but it's frustrating.
Bless you Hamberg for ever valuing my opinion.

I fear that I am of the old school that believed the racing line was sacrosanct and there was a degree of etiquette involved - in days of yore it made sense because it meant more racers survived.

In the modern day, it's not quite so clear cut. My personal opinion correlates with some who have stated that the guy behind has the better view and is therefore in control of the situation, but only as long as he has read the situation right - which, at best, is gainsay.

When a corner is involved, the only sensible option is to go on the outside - which is a little less obvious but stops the guy in front from shutting the door if you try for the fastest route.

This really is a conundrum. Racing lines, yes, but there are other parts of the track available so always an option; avoidable collisions, again, yes all are avoidable - but then that might deny the guys we love to watch their basic instincts which is to win.

There will always be these moments, if it happens it's a brilliant overtake; if it doesn't the stewards are involved.

However, I am a strong believer in 'racing incidents' and feel that most of the current crop of 'avoidable accidents' should come into this category.

Edit - spelling mistake - now reads stewards not stewarts - thanks Chad
 
Nice post jenov. :thumbsup:

I have to take issue with you on one point though:
When a corner is involved, the only sensible option is to go on the outside - which is a little less obvious but stops the guy in front from shutting the door if you try for the fastest route.

Hamilton tried the outside route around Schumacher at the hairpin last Sunday, but that didn't work either as he was unceremoniously dumped onto the run-off area by the old 'Rainmeister', consequently losing his place to Button.
Also, at a chicane or other complex, the 'outside line' can quickly turn into the inside line. As you say, there is no easy answer. But isn't that why we all love motor racing? Easy would be boring, n'est-ce pas?

In the end, there are really only two ways to overtake; either get far enough ahead so that you can get back onto the racing line before the corner or, if you can't do that, get your nose in front in any way you can and challenge the other driver to give you room (or not as the case may be).
 
I am about to suggest what is probably a stupid and perhaps an artificial idea... How about leading up to an overtake there is a sensor that can tell how close a car is to another and when the overtake is happening and the following car gets up a long side the defending car the defender has a small light on the steering wheel come on. This light would suggest (it would not be the letter of the law) that the overtaking car is sufficiently along side you and it may be dangerous to try and turn in.

Ofcourse I realise this system would be very hard to manage and some people may think it would ruin overtaking but it might create less collision and would offer some (how ever small it is) degree of who is at fault in a collision. I also realise the system wouldn't work in all overtakes but in many that we have seen this year with the slipstreaming and outbraking I think it would have worked on a large number of them.
 
I am about to suggest what is probably a stupid and perhaps an artificial idea... How about leading up to an overtake there is a sensor that can tell how close a car is to another

Great idea, my Ford Fiesta has one of those, but I am a girl and it's well known we have limited depth perception :)
I guess the problem (that FOM will have) with this is F1 is catered generally to the casual masses. They may like overtaking but they love a good crash as well.
 
Great idea, my Ford Fiesta has one of those, but I am a girl and it's well known we have limited depth perception :)
I guess the problem (that FOM will have) with this is F1 is catered generally to the casual masses. They may like overtaking but they love a good crash as well.

Ha I know, I hate it when some of my friends (who will see under 5 GPs a year) go on about how spectacular a crash was and I agree straight away knowing there is no point trying to tell them to watch the actual racing... :givemestrength:
 
I am about to suggest what is probably a stupid and perhaps an artificial idea... How about leading up to an overtake there is a sensor that can tell how close a car is to another and when the overtake is happening and the following car gets up a long side the defending car the defender has a small light on the steering wheel come on. This light would suggest (it would not be the letter of the law) that the overtaking car is sufficiently along side you and it may be dangerous to try and turn in.

Ofcourse I realise this system would be very hard to manage and some people may think it would ruin overtaking but it might create less collision and would offer some (how ever small it is) degree of who is at fault in a collision. I also realise the system wouldn't work in all overtakes but in many that we have seen this year with the slipstreaming and outbraking I think it would have worked on a large number of them.

Yes it is stupid and artificial. What happened to the art of "driving" ?
 
Thanks Chad

As you've guessed I don't do specifics - I just love the magic of racing!
 
Yeah that was one major problem I had with it. Even if I had to power to implement it now I wouldn't do it, it was just my solution to trying to stop people from 'turning in' unfairly.
I think stopping penalising the attacking driver if it was unfair is a simpler solution
 
I think stopping penalising the attacking driver if it was unfair is a simpler solution

I agree but it's a lot easier to blame the initiator in a move, personally I'd like to see the stewards clamp down on the drivers who think it's acceptable to simply 'close the door' much like Massa did at Monaco. (I chose that as it was a recent incident, lets not ruin another thread and that is my opinion and not fact)
 
As it's a race in my opinion anything goes - hence my earlier reference to maybe introducing (amended) BTCC rules. The onus should always be with the overtaker to do his job properly. In a race surely one has the right to do all in one's power to stop somebody from passing you? Why roll over and play dead? Penalties should be abandoned except for obviously dangerous moves. Man up...
 
Back
Top Bottom