The Racing Line and avoidable accidents

Brogan said:
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.
Click to expand

1. Yes, a misjudgement by Hamilton, and a particularly poor one given his imperfect knowledge of brake temperature, grip levels etc. at the restart. Allied to the fact he was coming from a long way back, to a corner that is a doubtful passing place anyway, I think a reprimand would be justified at the very least.

2. Schumacher takes the defensive, inside line into the hairpin, then moves out to push Hamilton towards, and almost on to, the grass - this can only be deliberate. On that basis (intent rather than a mistake) a drive-through penalty.

3. I would say Hamilton went for a space that was always likely to close, and should have backed out of it and repositioned himself for a conventional move into Turn One. Button can't be blamed for moving (taking the racing line, which goes diagonally across the track at that point) when it isn't a braking zone. Hamilton's retirement makes a penalty redundant, but allied to the reprimand for (1), I would suggest a suspended grid drop penalty for the next, say, 3 events. In 99.9% of races, that eminently avoidable contact would have very negatively affected Button's race.

4. This is a tough one, as Turn Three is never an overtaking spot, but thanks to the pit exit Alonso and Button arrived there almost together. To me, it seems Alonso is substantially ahead approaching the corner, but brakes somewhat earlier. I can't judge whether Button intends to make a move there, or is caught out by Alonso braking early. If Button intended to try a pass there I'd take a rather dim view of it, but unable to prove intent, I'd have to call it a racing incident - no penalties.
 
Brogan said:
Many thanks G.

Interesting that the one which is a definite penalty wasn't even investigated, but let's not go there...;)
Click to expand

And this is exactly the sort of situation in which expected standards have most sharply changed over the years, in my view.
 
I don't see why who is the overtaker/defender matters when drivers reach the breaking zone. When side by side and entering this zone i think drivers should be on equal footing. I think collisions should be split between those in the braking zone and those happening at full speed. At full speed the rule should be very simply to stay out of each others way. Just pick a line and hold it.

In the braking zone, when drivers enter side by side* they should have rules applied equally, regardless of who was behind coming down the straight. When in the braking zone there is very little the driver on the inside can do to stay out of the way of the driver on the outside other than sticking to the inside line; therefore, the driver on the outside should not cross into the inside drivers path or a collision is the obvious outcome. I think if you make a defensive move whilst in the braking zone you are just asking for trouble, ala Maldonado.

*Side by side is a difficult concept. I'd say if you at least have two wheels ahead of the other drivers back wheels you could call it side by side.
 
To be honest, if you applied the rules as i wrote them there, the only steward's decision it would change would be Lewis-Maldonado incident where Lewis was side by side for most the straight with Pastor moving more than once. Then, when entering the breaking zone together Pastor turned into Lewis.

I don't think the problem is the current rules, i think the problem is how they are written. If drivers better knew their rights and responsibilities then they wouldn't do such stupid things. In the case of Massa-Hamilton you could argue that both drivers were extremely dangerous. Hamilton dived down the inside - and yes i am aware this is different from what i was saying 2 weeks ago - but i think Massa was equally irresponsible during the incident. His move to the inside i can only view as a defensive move to scare Lewis. If Lewis wasn't behind him he would never take that line into a hairpin because it would give him a much slower exit. Massa/Maldonado can't control the actions of another driver so they should've done what was best for their race and taken the normal route through the corner. Lewis might've still hit him, but in that case Massa can feel free to blame Lewis.
 
I think I have figured out at least for me what is or isn't an acceptable attempt at an overtake, and as such what an avoidable collision is.

Initiating an overtaking manoeuvre:
To stick with the previously accepted norm (and I know this has been challenged) an overtaking manoeuvre is initiated when the following car brings their front wheels level to to/beyond the leading car's rear wheel. At this point, for example, the following driver cannot just brake to avoid being turned in on because the front and rear wheels will interlock. Avoiding an accident is both drivers' responsibility from this point onwards.

In the run up to this stage the following driver must consider the likely movements of the leading driver depending upon the racing line. Once a car has pulled alongside to this extent, the racing line is no longer relevant because you have two drivers occupying the same piece of track and the optimal line is likely to be impossible to use without a collision.

For the overtaking car:
In attempting to pass a car on the inside, the overtaking driver must ensure that their speed is capable of making the inside line around a corner. If the overtaking driver deviates from the inside line (as determined by the angle of the car) and causes a collision then they will be penalised for an avoidable collision.

If overtaking around the outside, the overtaking car should not turn in to take the corner apex whilst the leading car has their front tyre in front of the overtaking car's rear wheels. If they do then they have caused an avoidable incident and should be penalised (incomplete overtaking manoeuvre)

For the leading car:
The leading car should no longer attempt to hit (clip?) the apex if on the outside line as this would close the door on a car that is within its rights to occupy that space. If the leading driver does close the door in this manner and an accident occurs, then this is the leading drivers fault, and as such they will be penalised.

If the leading car has the inside line approaching a corner, they should not move towards the outside prior to the apex of the corner. After this point, if the overtaking car is still within the overtaking margin (front/rear wheel alignment) then the car on the inside should not be able to move across and force the outside car off of the track. If they do so they should be penalised.

Some caveats to the above rules would be the following:

If the overtaking car only enters the overtaking window within the braking zone it leads to one possible problem: the leading car is not aware of the overtaking car. In this case if the leading car turns in on the overtaking car it should be considered a racing incident.

If both the leading car and overtaking car are on the boundaries of these rules then any collision would be considered a racing incident, it would be hard to attribute blame in these circumstances.

If there is reasonable doubt about the actions of both drivers then it is a racing incident.

An example of a move this would hope to prevent, whilst making overtaking easier, would be the lunge up the inside.
The overtaking driver only moves into position within the braking zone. It is questionable whether they will be able to hold the racing line. If there is contact then at best it is a racing incident because the leading driver turned in on the inside line having not seen the overtaking driver. At worst the overtaking driver could not control their speed sufficiently to maintain the inside line, in this instance any contact will lead to a penalty for the overtaking driver. A penalty may also be considered if the leading driver has to take avoiding action, e.g. having to go off track, and loses the position. As a result of this the overtaking car must give the place back or suffer a penalty.

I think this covers most eventualities, and is probably also the accepted norm to be honest. The problem is that there seems to be a desire to say it was someone's fault when you cannot be certain. In these instances it must be put down as a racing incident, and quite possibly the stewards need reminding of this. However, just because an incident is investigated does not mean the stewards are doing something wrong. I think there has become a tendency to expect a penalty the majority of times when there is an investigation, when in fact the stewards should be free to investigate all contact even though 90% will probably be racing incidents. They have access to the telemetry which would offer far greater insight into what the likely scenario would have been had contact not occurred, and as such shows whether a driver is to blame or not.

If anyone read that all, hats off! :goodday: For me, I have determined how I judge every incident and overtake - and a good way to appoint blame if the need arises. However, as I have said, I believe most accidents are just that and should go down as racing incidents.


Edit: Long as an FIA document and just as dull. Sorry!
 
An absolutely excellent post Jru and really well thought out.
I only have one very minor disagreement with it...
Initiating an overtaking manoeuvre
I do think that the front wheels should be completely past the rear wheels (ie. an interlocking of wheels is inevitable) before the onus is on the defending driver to keep out of the way. Up to this point I do believe the attacking driver still has the option to brake and avoid an incident.

You also make a very good point about the need to allow stewards to investigate everything without pressure to being seen to act; as you say most accidents are just that and being involved should be punishment enough.
 
Jru said:
Initiating an overtaking manoeuvre:
To stick with the previously accepted norm (and I know this has been challenged) an overtaking manoeuvre is initiated when the following car brings their front wheels level to to/beyond the leading car's rear wheel. At this point, for example, the following driver cannot just brake to avoid being turned in on because the front and rear wheels will interlock. Avoiding an accident is both drivers' responsibility from this point onwards.

In the run up to this stage the following driver must consider the likely movements of the leading driver depending upon the racing line. Once a car has pulled alongside to this extent, the racing line is no longer relevant because you have two drivers occupying the same piece of track and the optimal line is likely to be impossible to use without a collision.

For the leading car:
The leading car should no longer attempt to hit (clip?) the apex if on the outside line as this would close the door on a car that is within its rights to occupy that space. If the leading driver does close the door in this manner and an accident occurs, then this is the leading drivers fault, and as such they will be penalised.

If the leading car has the inside line approaching a corner, they should not move towards the outside prior to the apex of the corner. After this point, if the overtaking car is still within the overtaking margin (front/rear wheel alignment) then the car on the inside should not be able to move across and force the outside car off of the track. If they do so they should be penalised.

Some caveats to the above rules would be the following:

If the overtaking car only enters the overtaking window within the braking zone it leads to one possible problem: the leading car is not aware of the overtaking car. In this case if the leading car turns in on the overtaking car it should be considered a racing incident.

If both the leading car and overtaking car are on the boundaries of these rules then any collision would be considered a racing incident, it would be hard to attribute blame in these circumstances.

If there is reasonable doubt about the actions of both drivers then it is a racing incident.
Click to expand

Nice post

1] Physics - two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, that said if one car is on the racing line and the other isn't I don't see how it becomes irrelevent unless it is a straight or long enough section for the overtaking car to pass and get onto the race line in front of the other car.

2] I just need clarification on how the defending car will defend his position and / or stay on track if he cannot deviate.

3] It seems a lot of responsibility for the defending driver, as he has to a) concentrate on racing b) avoid collision...I think the other way around is more suitable position, the attacking driver should take all measures in assessing the availibility/possibility of a pass and not cause an accident.

Lastly the attacking driver would be responsible if he aggressively and beyond reasonable doubt intends to cut off or block another drivers path where there was a reasonable or probable pass.
 
Sarinaide said:
Nice post

1] Physics - two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, that said if one car is on the racing line and the other isn't I don't see how it becomes irrelevent unless it is a straight or long enough section for the overtaking car to pass and get onto the race line in front of the other car.

2] I just need clarification on how the defending car will defend his position and / or stay on track if he cannot deviate.

3] It seems a lot of responsibility for the defending driver, as he has to a) concentrate on racing b) avoid collision...I think the other way around is more suitable position, the attacking driver should take all measures in assessing the availibility/possibility of a pass and not cause an accident.

Lastly the attacking driver would be responsible if he aggressively and beyond reasonable doubt intends to cut off or block another drivers path where there was a reasonable or probable pass.
Click to expand

1] I agree that the racing line is relevant until the driver is alongside. Once the overtaking driver has reached this point then the leading car cannot simply expect to be able to drive wherever they want. However if the overtaking driver reaches the overtaking zone within the braking zone for a corner, there is at least mitigation for the lead car if they still try and follow the racing line. To my mind this is the most contentious area and probably needs further thought and description.

2] Defending moves should be performed before the driver is within the overtaking position. It is fine to block a move with the following driver behind your car, it is not fine if they have reached that position alongside! That is just playing chicken at hundreds of miles per hour!

3] I agree that it is difficult but ultimately I have only said that the lead driver needs to be aware of the following car. On straights that should not be difficult (except for rain! and this isn't about ... that!) and if the following car pulls alongside within the braking zone of a corner I have said that punishment for the lead driver should be rare for turning in and causing an accident. They have too much to concentrate on taking the corner, but again it is a difficult area. Ultimately you just have to follow the rules and hope that no one wants to cause an accident! You do not want to encourage turning in on cars but you cannot expect a driver to be able to focus on braking, turning, down shifting, looking in his mirrors and gods knows what else all at once every time. That said, if they have someone breathing down their necks, you would have to say that they need to know what is happening behind them.
As for the following driver, if they can pull alongside legitimately, they should be able to expect the leading car not to wander move across on them - otherwise there would be no overtakes at all! But yes, in moving alongside all responsibility is with the overtaking driver.

I agree about being over aggressive when there is a clear difference, but it is very hard to define this.
 
I think it's difficult to know in advance whether a driver is going to get "alongside" (however you define that) you or not. These cars are on the limit of adhesion under braking (or they are if the driver is doing his job properly) - sudden changes of line aren't really an option. Allied to the fact that the racing line almost invariably goes from the outside to the apex of the corner.

Jru has made some excellent, lucid points. But again, I worry about giving the bully boys carte blanche to stick their noses up the inside and expect the guy in front to jump out of the way. I don't know what the answer is.
 
I notice that there is still this fixation with the racing line as if it is something cast in stone. Unfortunately, it isn't and different drivers not only adopt different basic racing lines according to their preferred style of driving but the best drivers als vary their racing lines according to their circumstances in a race.

Ignoring possibilities for varying racing lines on straights I will illustrate my point by focussing solely on just three of the possible variations of negotiating a corner.

Variation One: "Hard Slow In and Fast Out" - Approaching the corner one stays wide, brakes hard for a late entry turning in sharp, aiming for a late apex, accelerating quite hard whilst still in the corner and making a tight exit.

Variation Two: "Gentle Slow In and Smooth Fast Out - Approaching the corner the driver aims for a smooth, constant arc through the bend, maintaining a high corner speed throughout with gradual acceleration having clipped the apex, implementing hard acceleration - usually just coming out of the corner - once the car is pointing down the straight.

Variation Three: "Fast In Slow Out" - Approaching the corner the driver makes a tight entry, with an early apex losing speed in the corner leading to a wide slow exit. it is slow out as acceleration is from a lower "baseline" speed.

In deciding which of these variations to use, drivers will consider the circumstances of the race.

In other words if there is no challenge to ones position variation one, variation two or a combination of variations one and two will provide the best option for the corner. Variation one is the faster if the corner exit takes you onto a straight but exiting one corner into another or a chicane requires a combination of the two approaches. This is because although one sacrifices speed on entry one can accelerate earlier and harder through the exit. Those variations will be most often seen in practise and qualifying. In race a race they will also be the preferred options when cars are running unchallenged.

Variation Three is commonly used in an overtaking maneouvre when the overtaker occupies the inside of the corner. Often referred to as a lunge down the inside it actually isn't. A "lunge" suggests a late acceleration into the overtaking position. In fact the overtaker is braking later on the inside whilst the driver being overtaken is on a line consistent with Variation One or Two, leaving the door open. Variation Three is also the line taken by a driver defending his/her position to prevent the opposition from occupying that space.

If you think that the above is complicated then consider that the variations are in fact infinate and depend entirely on the imagination and dexterity of the driver. So, as I said in an earlier post, the term "racing line" refers to the fastest way around a race track. The line for a particular driver at any one time will depend on a host of variables that I haven't even touched on and the best drivers will adapt to changes in track conditions and the racing environment, often with split second decision making. Therefore the racing line can never be used as a guide to judging infractions since it is constantly variable (sometimes only subtly but often dramatically) throughout a race. Hence when one looks at a racing line on a drying race track it always appears sustantially wider than the track of a race car.

Finally, a quick note about "fixed" variables affecting drivers choice of line. These are details such as the radii of corners, whether the corner tightens or opens out, leads into another corner or complex of corners and the cambers of the corners and changes in camber through corner complexes. The corners are "fixed" but the variables involved derive from how a car behaves in negotiating them. I'm not going to off on that one as that'll get totally out of hand.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't. Sorry.:wave:
 
Essentially a point to deduce out of this is sure everyone makes mistakes and may be deemed a little more responsible than others, but at 300 km/h I don't really think it is that easy to be perfect unless [sarcasm] you are God or Chuck Norris to which I have belief they are the same being.
 
I personally think having a few overly aggressive collisions may be good for a drivers future races. If you send out a clear message "if you turn in on me we will crash" then drivers might think twice next time when you send one up the inside. It is a bit like poker in a way, where sometimes you need to lose a few pots to create an image for yourself.
 
johnnoble1990 said:
I personally think having a few overly aggressive collisions may be good for a drivers future races. If you send out a clear message "if you turn in on me we will crash" then drivers might think twice next time when you send one up the inside. It is a bit like poker in a way, where sometimes you need to lose a few pots to create an image for yourself.
Click to expand
That doesn't seem to have worked too well for Hamilton so far this season, does it? Let's see how the next few races go, see if you're right.
 
i have a question, in the chinese grand prix drivers at the turn 14 hairpin were able to turn in quicker and get on the throttle quicker meaning they outdragged the car to the next corner. if its so quick why doesnt that become the racing line
 

Similar threads

C
The heck do they call champagne?
Replies
5
Views
481
FB
FB
F1Brits_90
  • Article
Grand Prix 2024 Japanese Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
2 3
Replies
46
Views
993
RasputinLives
RasputinLives
cider_and_toast
"Not racing him today" an expletive filled rant.
    • Like
Replies
13
Views
901
Chris Tea
Chris Tea
FB
  • Article
Grand Prix 2023 Mexican Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
    • Haha
    • Love
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
P1
P1
FB
Grand Prix 2024 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
cider_and_toast
cider_and_toast
Back
Top Bottom