The Racing Line and avoidable accidents

[MCLS]

Maybe because it puts too much stress on the engine, or maybe tyre wear?

 

[Fenderman]

In my post http://cliptheapex.com/threads/the-racing-line-and-avoidable-accidents.2962/page-7#post-58629 Variation Two would be the optimum strategy for preserving the tyres since it is the smoothest way round the hairpin. Variation One or a similar approach would provide for the fastest exit but will be heavy on the tyres due to the heavier braking and sharper turn in on entry and the fairly hard acceleration coming out whilst still "in the corner". There is also the vulnerability to attack from an opponent down the inside on entry.

 

[RevMaxPower]

In my post http://cliptheapex.com/threads/the-racing-line-and-avoidable-accidents.2962/page-7#post-58629 Variation Two would be the optimum strategy for preserving the tyres since it is the smoothest way round the hairpin. Variation One or a similar approach would provide for the fastest exit but will be heavy on the tyres due to the heavier braking and sharper turn in on entry and the fairly hard acceleration coming out whilst still "in the corner". There is also the vulnerability to attack from an opponent down the inside on entry.

I would suggest drivers take different lines at ALL circuits depending whether they're under threat of an overtake or not. Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and last week Button, certainly do..

 

[MCLS]

It would certainly lower the amount of marbles on the track

 

[Fenderman]

I would suggest drivers take different lines at ALL circuits depending whether they're under threat of an overtake or not. Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and last week Button, certainly do..

Yes, indeed and that is what I was saying in my earlier post when I made the following comments:

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

Apologies for burying them in my rather convoluted explanations

 

[Jen]

Interesting point from Mansell on the F1 Forum whilst discussing Schumi's overtake that resulted in a stop go penalty at the British GP - Mansell said that it is always the responsibility of the driver behind to avoid contact. Is this the FIA stance?

 

[Josh]

Interesting point from Mansell on the F1 Forum whilst discussing Schumi's overtake that resulted in a stop go penalty at the British GP - Mansell said that it is always the responsibility of the driver behind to avoid contact. Is this the FIA stance?

Probably. It would make sense, as the driver behind is the one attempting a move and is in a better position to avoid contact.
I can't seem to find anything on the FIA site about this, though.

 

[Jos the Boss]

Probably. It would make sense, as the driver behind is the one attempting a move and is in a better position to avoid contact.
I can't seem to find anything on the FIA site about this, though.

What if the driver infront brake tests him? Is it still the car behind reponsibility?

 

[Josh]

No, obviously not. That's something entirely different.

EDIT:

I believe brake testing isn't allowed.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Indeed it isn't, I believe Alonso was penalised for doing to Coulthard.

 

[VanChallis]

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.

I may be being controversial here, but I'd put them all down as racing incidents. None of the incidents here were dangerous or deliberate (possible exception of Schumi on Hamilton but only he knows that!)
Racing is racing, and in cars such as these, in difficult conditions to say the least, I believe there has to be a certain amount of `give` in the rules. Yes, of course in these incidents one driver can be blamed more than the other, but driving under so much pressure, in the fastest cars in the world, accidents, bumps and scrapes will happen.
Look at the Schumi incident at Silverstone. Yes, he was to blame for the crash, but it was obviously a misjudgement rather than malicious or dangerous, and he had been penalised already for doing the move by having to get a new front wing, (again ) so I find it pointless for the stewards to give him another penalty. I understand that the world is based on safety these days, but it shouldn't be to the detriment of racing action. Huge strides have been taken in circuit and car design to make things safer, the essence of pure racing should not be lost too

 

[Pyrope]

Interesting point from Mansell on the F1 Forum whilst discussing Schumi's overtake that resulted in a stop go penalty at the British GP - Mansell said that it is always the responsibility of the driver behind to avoid contact. Is this the FIA stance?

Just been catching up on my magazine reading after spending a few weeks on top of a mountain in the Yukon, and last night I read an interesting piece by Ed Foster in Motor Sport. In it he was invited to take part in the clubman-level Toyota MR2 championship. One of the major observations that he made was that the standard of driving and driver behaviour was extremely poor. He quotes two drivers he overheard discussing overtaking, and one of them was adamant that the proper etiquette was that whoever had the inside line had the corner. This was contradicted by another driver, but the first driver was adamant he was right. The belief seems to definitely be filtering down from BTCC, and possibly up into F1.

The unwritten, although oft repeated, rule used to be that for a driver to have a reasonable expectation that a leading driver not turn in to the apex the following driver had to be at least half way alongside. These days that means that the front wheel of the trailing car should be level with the lead driver's head.

 

[F1ang-o]

Copy and paste of my comments from another thread. Sorry, I'm feeling lazy!​

Do we want to see drivers racing or do we want to see drivers hanging back because someone turns in on them? I know what I want...​

Put it this way, if I was on a normal road and a car pulls up half way or even a third of the way up on me I would never turn in on them - I know I'm going to have a crash if I do so - even at slow speed there's barely any time for them to react and it would be a silly thing to do.​

On a racing circuit, if you as a racing driver have allowed that situation to arise in the first place by either positioning your car incorrectly or simply because you are unfortunate enough to not have a fast enough car then do you have the right to turn in on the other driver who, by their own merit, with or without DRS or KERS assistance has gotten themselves close enough to attempt the manoevre?​

​

Note: The following comments are specifically related to all the anti-Hamilton overtaking sentiment raised in the media (esp. a certain N. Lauda) and by the drivers (a question asked by Brogan in another thread).​

Hamilton is aggressive, cocksure and has consistently pulled moves most drivers wouldn't make stick nor have the balls to attempt. The reason drivers defend SO HARD when he’s coming up is because they know that it’s almost inevitable he will pass them.​

Most of all though it's a simple as this: in F1 other drivers are scared of Lewis Hamilton.​

This is reflected in the statements they make in general, amongst themselves and most importantly, to the media. This in itself becomes a vicious circle.​

Hamilton won't and shouldn't (in my opinion) change his driving style and other drivers and the media will continue to talk about it negatively because it serves their interests. It feeds itself and is nigh on impossible to stop.​

It really pisses me off that such an exciting talent in F1 is constantly bemoaned for doing the thing 99% of the public moan that they want more of in the sport – EXCITING RACING AND EXCITING RACING DRIVERS.​

YES..YES....YES....did I just have an O.......?....seriously though...my thoughts entirely...
And at Monaco this year...several members of the public interviewed after the race...said it was exciting...because of the overtaking...they were cut short & no discussion.

 

[Pyrope]

Well-timed and bravely executed overtaking manoeuvres are one thing, slinging your car up the inside of a rival from a full length back after they have started to turn in is quite another. Keeping your boot in the throttle in an attempt to literally shove your way past is absolutely crass and inexcusable. Merely having the inside line does not mean that the corner is yours.

 

[Jos the Boss]

Slightly off topic but if somebody turns in to the car behind during an overtake and the car behind is out becuase of it who would be at fault?

 

[Andyoak]

The car behind because 'behind' is the relevant bit. If alongside then the onus is on the car being passed but while still behind then the move can be aborted.