The Racing Line and avoidable accidents

[Jen]

Oh btw jenov, I like the idea of the Stewarts getting involved!

God, a Scottish cabal

 

[johnnoble1990]

The code that existed until fairly recently with regard to overtaking and being overtaken was a custom and practise observed by most racing drivers and was simply this: If driver A opens the door and driver B "showed a wheel" - i.e. placed his own front wheel alongside and ahead of driver A's rear wheel - it was accepted practise for driver A to give best and concede the corner.

This code has changed since the arrival Lewis Hamilton and as drivers have closed the door with impunity it has now become custom and practise to shut the door regardless of whether or not there will be contact and risk of damaging one's own car.

I just wish that everyone involved in Formula 1 could read this post that sums up the evolution of overtaking in the last 4 years perfectly. You look at overtaking in 2007/2008, it was beautiful, look at it now and it is just ugly. For whatever reason, the rules have changed - gone backwards to what it was like in the Schumacher era that we all so loved. I think we need to see some of these unwritten rules become written. When analysing a great overtake and a "avoidable collision" the only difference on most occasions is the defensive driver.

The only reason Lewis Hamilton needs to change his style to deal with Formula 1 is because Formula 1 changed its style to deal with Lewis Hamilton.

 

[MCLS]

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...

An anything goes rule would only pave the way for ridicoulous weaving and other manevoures which are even more dangerous.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

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...

That would lead to a significantly higher number of collisions, and if you play the numbers game it's only a matter of time before we have another Henry Surtees on our hands. I'm also sure at some point a WDC/WCC would be decided by this and the decision as to whether it was dangerous would be very marginal. A step too far in my opinion.

 

[Sarinaide]

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 and no, there are other factors like staying right behind the other car through the corners so as to 1] get the slip stream 2] make a pass off the corners, chicanes, hairpins on the subsequent straights.

I have also said that like Malaysia, there are long straights followed by a hairpin, it becomes a duel of braking points, there is an inside and outside line in that race which eliminates the Montreal debate in the firts chicane which to me is a one car only zone, perhaps the immediate straight is a the point to pass if the attacking driver can get a good drive of the other.

I don't say don't attempt to pass, but to coin my legal fraternities jargon, what would a reasonable person forsee or ought to have forseen in attempting to make a pass? It is common sense and again I don't say it is easy.

 

[Road of Bones]

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...

I agree completely with you on this Axle - there is definitely a bit too much of the "penalise the guys who lunge & break their front wings" going on - the simple fact that they need to pit for repairs should be punishment enough. You could argue that Lewis vs Massa at Monaco merited a penalty because Massa subsequently crashed in the tunnel, but di Resta vs Heidfeld didn't, because there was no subsequent accident, and Paul needed a new front wing as a result

Actually, while we're on the subject, perhaps teams should extract the cost of replacement front wings out a driver's salary? You might see a bit more consideration if they know they have to foot the £20k or so that it costs to make a new front wing assembly.

Edit - after reading this, I realised that taking such a simplistic approach would be open to all sorts of abuse, where the leading driver could turn-in just early enough to ensure damaging contact to his attacker...but even then, I suppose there's the unfortunate possibility that the defender may not get off scott-free either...hmm. Drat - needs more thought, doesn't it?

 

[johnnoble1990]

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...

I don't see why people feel not allowing drivers to "just turn in" or "chop" another driver is rolling over? Why can't drivers pick their line early and stick to it, rather than opening a door and then closing it. The onus should be with both drivers, otherwise collisions are going to be common place, like the last couple of races.

 

[Galahad]

The defending driver should have the right to pick his line, and then should stick to it, absolutely.

It then becomes the responsibility of the overtaking driver to get around him, not force him into a situation where he has to jump out of the way to avoid contact.

Anyone can brake too late and show their nose up the inside, that requires very little skill. It's cheap and nasty and I would even go as far as to say cowardly. It shows a complete lack of respect for the driver in front, akin to using the car as a tool to 'battering ram' past. Some drivers, quite rightly in my view, have decided over the years that they're not willing to put up with it, and as a result the others don't 'try it on' with them subsequently.

Driving standards became far too lax in the 1990s and perhaps the early 2000s, and without mentioning any names, several drivers got away with a lot of unreasonable behaviour. It's interesting that penalties are being issued now by stewards who were drivers, for the most part, in the years prior to that period. If this heralds a return to higher standards being expected of drivers, then I welcome it. Why? Because (1) it's unsafe, (2) it's unfair, and (3) most importantly, it sets a bad example to young racing drivers, who do not have the benefit of carbon honeycomb monocoques and impact absorption structures.

 

[RevMaxPower]

It seems to me "would be" overtakers these days go for a pass on a bit of a wing and a prayer, hoping against hope they can intimidate the guy in front enough for him to simply get out of the way and make room for them. So how can you blame the driver in front for having none of it, ESPECIALLY if he's more or less on the racing line. Bullying tactics are not for the race track.

 

[Sarinaide]

It doesn't make any sense to me the arguement that the defender who will likely be on the racing line should buck his position just because another car is trying to pass, the onus is on the attacker to ensure that there is not incident/collision and/or any breach of racing rules.....to me it common knowledge.

I also don't advocate the position that just because it is racing that every point of the track is an overtaking zone, that has been proven folly since the days of Fangio, overtaking to me is really 1] closing distance which relates to the drive the attacker has off the other car (ie: right up his manifold or some distance away) 2] common sense will this pass be a) reckless/gambling or b) calculated pass.

I do make this as a layman opinion and I am sure that there are racers on here that know a lot more, so I like to emphasize that this is not on fact.

 

[Hamberg]

That's really interesting G and concurs somewhat with what Jen has said. I started watching F1 in the early 90's and so this lax style of driving is all I've known. As I'm older than the majority of drivers now I can also presume this is the style of driving they've always known. It also seems to be evident that there is a difference in opinion probably a lot to do with age/knowledge of era's on the forum.

Given we're talking c. 20 years of this is it fair to say that driving has evolved in which case the older stewards need to, or should there be a fundamental shake up or clarification favouring the old school style of driving? Whilst I appreciate your third point fully, the cars are safer now so this surely leads to a change in mindset?

 

[Brogan]

The defending driver should have the right to pick his line, and then should stick to it, absolutely.

It then becomes the responsibility of the overtaking driver to get around him, not force him into a situation where he has to jump out of the way to avoid contact.

So if we take four examples from Canada then, in each case how would you apportion blame (if blame needs to be apportioned)?

Hamilton on Webber - Hamilton at fault for braking too late and driving into Webber?
Hamilton on Schumacher - Schumacher at fault for moving in the braking zone?
Hamilton on Button - Hamilton at fault as he was the attacking driver and didn't complete the pass? Or Button at fault for moving over after the manoeuvre had started? Or a racing incident?
Alonso on Button - Alonso at fault as he was the attacking driver and didn't complete the pass? Or Button at fault for braking too late and driving into Alonso, even though he was the defending driver? Or a racing incident?

I've picked those 4 incidents as they are the ones which have been discussed the most, so everyone is familiar with them.
I don't want to start the whole blame game again though so let's all just ignore the drivers and just imagine them as driver A and driver B.

I'm just trying to see how you would assess each of those four cases if you had been a steward, based on your criteria.

 

[RevMaxPower]

A, A, A, and A.

Simple.

A attempts to overtake B and fails. It's a race.

 

[Sarinaide]

Hamilton on Webber - Hamilton at fault for braking too late and driving into Webber?
Hamilton on Schumacher - Schumacher at fault for moving in the braking zone?
Hamilton on Button - Hamilton at fault as he was the attacking driver and didn't complete the pass? Or Button at fault for moving over after the manoeuvre had started? Or a racing incident?
Alonso on Button - Alonso at fault as he was the attacking driver and didn't complete the pass? Or Button at fault for braking too late and driving into Alonso, even though he was the defending driver? Or a racing incident?

RED = A
BLUE = B

1] racing incident as I take turn 1 and 2 to be inside and outside passable zones, but A responsible for not letting B have the line and perhaps coming inside at turn 2

2] B on the normal line although again inside and outside are passable, A attempts to drive outside but driver B forces A wider by moving offline, maybe due to B's attention on the hairpin he doesn't see driver A attempting a pass but would be aware of A's presence in this incident I think B is more responsible than A for an illegal move.

3] Driver A has a better drive of the chicane than driver B, driver be ought to have known that his error opened the door to driver A and that it was likely that A would attempt a passing move on the pit straight. B is responsible for not doing enough to know where A was attempting a pass, A is responsible for seeing a closing window and nevertheless attempting a pass.

4] I don't ever consider driver B to be a defender as he was only ahead marginally(nose) until 50m to the chicane, A is defensive, holds the line (to me he is entitled to it) A has the better drive and traction and can take the chicane at greater speed, driver B is under heavy break force goes over the curb into the intersecting path of driver A. I don't consider driver B to have a line capable of making the entry to the chicane and should have yielded the move earlier. Driver B responsible for causing an avoidable accident.

 

[Brogan]

I was actually after Galahad's unbiased opinion, everyone else and their dog has already set their stalls out over each incident.

 

[RevMaxPower]

I was actually after Galahad's unbiased opinion, everyone else and their dog has already set their stalls out over each incident.

Missed that line in your post. Sorry...

 

[Andyoak]

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.

A few interesting points that are probably dealt with further on (I haven't got there yet...):

• Increased safety has definately contributed to a sense of invincibility and loss of 'good manners' on track. However, as always, there were drivers who have lacked manners in the past (while I have been watching these past 25 - 30 years) before the current exceptionally high levels of car / driver safety.
• With lower levels of pay drivers I suspect driver education is actually very good but the acceptance of 'bad' driver behaviour by teams, and to some extent the stewards in the past, has brought the over-all standard down.
• Spatial awareness must be compromised by the safety requirements in the cars design. The high / wide sides to the cockpit and HANS must compromise visibility compared to earlier generations of F1 cars. Maybe the answer is to increase things like mirrors or have some sort of proximity display available to compensate.

 

[riskitall]

bernie is backing lewis suprisingly,but i agree with him.

http://sport.uk.msn.com/f1/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158251902

 

[Bill Boddy]

bernie is backing lewis suprisingly,but i agree with him.

http://sport.uk.msn.com/f1/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158251902

'"what we want is people racing" and likening his style to Ayrton Senna.'

Last Monday I was returning from a holiday in Spain. During the flight I read the article in Motor Sport about the making of the documentary "Senna". At the end of this are some quotes from Senna. One is quite illuminating:

"Through the karting years, when I hit many other cars and lost many titles, I learned a lot. Today , I try to make fewer mistakes. Often, when I am behind someone, I want to pass immediately. And it may be risky, so I have to hold back. The hard thing is self-control, waiting for the best time to overtake..."

Since Senna is Hamilton's favourite someone should point this quote out to him.

 

[Enja]

bernie is backing lewis suprisingly,but i agree with him.

http://sport.uk.msn.com/f1/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158251902

Why is it surprising?

His comments have conveniently come out just as soon as the furore had calmed down a bit. He's defending him possibly not out of genuine feelings but because he knows it's in his own interest to keep the story going. More publicity, more money for Bernie. And besides I'm sure he'd rather have Hamilton crashing into people than sitting in his car going round and round, providing nothing for 'the show'..