Penalties and their effectiveness.

[Aysedasi]

Well, on a very simplistic level, the drivers are the ones with a steering wheel and control over where they put the car on the circuit, aren't they.....? I'm going out this morning down to the shops, I could drive over the curbs here and there and drive over the pavement in places to get me past traffic and potentially get me there fractionally quicker, but I don't, as that would be foolish and it's not allowed as I am supposed to drive on the road. I know that. So do all the other drivers. The fact that the pavement might look inviting to me or give me some advantage due to the design of the road is neither here nor there.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

MotoGP shares some circuits with F1, Quatar is one of them. I confess I know very little about MotoGP, however would not a 2 meter grass strip lining the track be dangerous for riders?

Why would grass be dangerous for riders?

[S griffin]

The problem is the tracks these days allow drivers to get away with more than they did back in the day. But what's worse is now there are places where using the runoff is quicker. So they need to get rid of it in places where an advantage can be gained. It's that simple in my book. These track limit penalties are too much and clearly aren't a deterrent

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

If you are referring to the GP at Qatar, then I do believe that only 3 out of 20 drivers were penalised during the race. I appreciate that you may be exaggerating for effect, so I do believe that you can blame the drivers.

I find it difficult to agree with your proposition that it is always the fault of the circuit, when you can often, or maybe usually, see that the drivers that set the fastest laps of a race are not those that do not constantly abuse track limits. So it does prove that it is the drivers at fault.

Ok - 51 infringements this weekend.

In Austria there were 1,200. Simply telling the drivers to not do it will not work.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fi...n-gp/10490773/

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Ok - 51 infringements this weekend.

In Austria there were 1,200. Simply telling the drivers to not do it will not work.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fi...n-gp/10490773/

Well, I come back to my proposition from earlier in this thread (and countless others): the FIA has to grow a backbone and introduce draconian penalties that actually punish errant drivers which they enforce rigorously or they just ignore track limits and just let the drivers decide which parts of the area they want to drive on as it's obvious that the drivers are incapable of keeping on the track.

[peterelise]

Originally Posted by Richard C

First, apologies for sounding confrontational in this reply. I am just being very frank.


You are technically correct. But it is clear that the cars are meant to drive within the boundaries of the circuit lines. Most curbing is right there at that boundary. The ability to go nearly four wheels off is a LARGE (2m width I believe) extra allowance given to drivers. It is frankly the most you can give before saying... "Yes, you are absolutely and without doubt no longer on the circuit by any possible definition". So to act as if using and going beyond (even if by a fraction) of that 2M buffer and getting a penalty is somehow outrageous or unfair is... frankly nuts. There has to be a line, and the line has been drawn exceedingly courteously in the drivers favor.

Richard

I don’t think I’ve complained anywhere that giving drivers a penalty for exceeding track limits is unfair or outrageous. My observation was that it isn’t surprising to me that they often exceed a track limit that they can’t see.

Your point seems to be that if the penalty was more severe they wouldn’t do it and I agree with this. As it is, the penalty already exceeds any benefit they get for ignoring the track limit. I could be wrong but I think during the race they get 3 warnings and then each successive offence is 5 seconds. Of course in qualy they lose the lap which has been a very heavy penalty.

In summary, I think the current penalty system is reasonable however a system that provided more timely advice of limit breaches would be beneficial.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Well, I come back to my proposition from earlier in this thread (and countless others): the FIA has to grow a backbone and introduce draconian penalties that actually punish errant drivers which they enforce rigorously or they just ignore track limits and just let the drivers decide which parts of the area they want to drive on as it's obvious that the drivers are incapable of keeping on the track.

They are quite capable of keeping cars on tracks other than at certain specific tracks which clearly need a different solution. Handing out 1200 penalties over a weekend would be ridiculous.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by steve_r

They are quite capable of keeping cars on tracks other than at certain specific tracks which clearly need a different solution. Handing out 1200 penalties over a weekend would be ridiculous.

I'm sorry to drag this out, however it's not the fault or design of the tracks. It's simply that the drivers are not driving within the boundaries; they are taking advantage of parts of the construction of the circuit that are supposed to be out of bounds. They should, therefore, adapt their driving to suit what are considered to be the track limits. If that means they may have to enter or exit bends and corners a fraction slower.

And with reference to the 1200 figure, that was not the number of penalties; that was the number of time that drivers exceeded track limits.

Furthermore, in that same article that you gave a link, it also said that both Alonso and Russell "escaped without at least one incident of a track limits violation". Now if those two can do it, why can't the rest?

Drivers have to drive according to the, let's call it, the circumstances; just as road users should alter their driving to suit conditions such as heavy rain, or ice and snow. It's really easy to do, and it shouldn't be hard for drivers who are supposedly the cream of the crop.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by peterelise

I don’t think I’ve complained anywhere that giving drivers a penalty for exceeding track limits is unfair or outrageous. My observation was that it isn’t surprising to me that they often exceed a track limit that they can’t see.

Your point seems to be that if the penalty was more severe they wouldn’t do it and I agree with this. As it is, the penalty already exceeds any benefit they get for ignoring the track limit. I could be wrong but I think during the race they get 3 warnings and then each successive offence is 5 seconds. Of course in qualy they lose the lap which has been a very heavy penalty.

In summary, I think the current penalty system is reasonable however a system that provided more timely advice of limit breaches would be beneficial.

Personally I don't think it is, as it hasn't stopped the issue. Instead of 5 seconds for each, have a sliding scale, 5, then 10, then 30, then a minute and at some point - disqualify the driver. If they risked being disqualified it might actually concentrate the mind.... It would certainly concentrate the minds of team principals....

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I am really not missing the point at all. I understand the point. Monaco is not a normal track and is not the best track for comparisons . Why not compare with tracks that have a lot more in common such as Silverstone, Monza, Spa...

Blame drivers if just one of two of them transgress. But when you have hundreds of transgressions by all or almost all the drivers then a solution must be found rather than simply blaming the drivers.

Actually I don't think you are getting the point. By asking me to use some other example from Monaco illustrates that you are not getting the point I am making. Maybe I am communicating my point poorly. But lets move on.

You ask for comments regarding a circuit such as Silverstone. Of which I do explain in that same post. However I talk generically. But if you want specifics, then here is my thoughts regarding Silverstone. But first, a small pre-amble. Generally when track limits are exceeded it is either cutting a corner on the inside or running wide on the exit. And the main issue we see is running wide on exists. But I will talk a bit to both.

Silverstone seems to primarily stop this by strategic red sausage curbs. These are not tempting to ride as the circuit is quick and you typically will have the car on edge and riding those high curbs at speeds will risk damage or crashing. A few corners have walls on the inside such as Copse, but in reality it really is the placement of sausage curbs. I also think the circuit design doesn't have much in then way of "running wide gains time" except for maybe the exit of Stowe. And if I remember correctly this is exactly a place where track limits can be a problem at Silverstone. Lastly, I "think" Silverstone is one of the wider tracks. So the wider the track, the more likely that the naturally fast line will NOT exceed the limits of the circuit. If you were to trim off the outside width on some corners you probably would increase the likelyhood for track limit violations. Especially if the ability to run wide was not risky to the car. I say all of this without really being particularly knowledgeable of Silverstone and might have missed some details. At the end of the day, the same issues apply at Silverstone. I just use Monaco as the example because it is an extreme example with many of it's "curbs" being barriers.

Ok, so apologies for this string of quotes and replies.

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well, on a very simplistic level, the drivers are the ones with a steering wheel and control over where they put the car on the circuit, aren't they.....?

Agree!

Originally Posted by S griffin

These track limit penalties are too much and clearly aren't a deterrent

Agree!

Originally Posted by steve_r

In Austria there were 1,200. Simply telling the drivers to not do it will not work.

Originally Posted by steve_r

They are quite capable of keeping cars on tracks other than at certain specific tracks which clearly need a different solution. Handing out 1200 penalties over a weekend would be ridiculous.

Agree! And if you have to hand out 1,200 infringements, and with the assumption that drivers COULD avoid the vast majority of those, that is an indication that something is wrong in the penalty phase of that system. There is not enough "deterrent" effect in the current system.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

the FIA has to grow a backbone and introduce draconian penalties that actually punish errant drivers which they enforce rigorously

Agree! (sorry for snipping out the rest of your post which is also good)

Originally Posted by peterelise

I don’t think I’ve complained anywhere that giving drivers a penalty for exceeding track limits is unfair or outrageous.

Fair enough. Sorry for that.

Originally Posted by peterelise

My observation was that it isn’t surprising to me that they often exceed a track limit that they can’t see.

Sorry, still not buying that it is a problem of not being able to see the circuit. It is no doubt "a" factor, but not the "primary" factor IMHO. See my comments above about the sausage curbs at Silverstone. Visually they are not particularly large, but the drivers "know" they are there and the consequences of hitting them and somehow they manage to miss them.

Originally Posted by peterelise

Your point seems to be that if the penalty was more severe they wouldn’t do it and I agree with this. As it is, the penalty already exceeds any benefit they get for ignoring the track limit. I could be wrong but I think during the race they get 3 warnings and then each successive offence is 5 seconds. Of course in qualy they lose the lap which has been a very heavy penalty.

In summary, I think the current penalty system is reasonable however a system that provided more timely advice of limit breaches would be beneficial.

I can't agree that the current system is reasonable, but agree with most of the rest.

I will try to shut up on this topic. I think I have voiced my displeasure enough. I frankly am not really upset about it. I am more interested in potential solutions than arguing details as to the cause.

Apologies if my forceful arguments came across as unfriendly as well.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Richard, you make the valid point that the drivers do not actually have to see where the edge of the track is because they should already have that planted firmly in their minds - I mean, what is the point of drivers doing track walks if not to understand where every things is? - and this is an argument that I have had in various threads concerning our BTCC saloons.

A few of the tracks that these cars race at have tyre stacks at known track limit problems, usually chicanes. Unfortunately, if hit, they cause damage to the cars, but what I have tried to explain is that these stack are static - they don't jump out to catch out the unwary, so the drivers are, or should be, fully aware of them. But they all drive so close to them that it doesn't take long for them to be hit, often by multiple cars in one incident because following drivers, rather than driving their own race, are totally focused on the car/s in front of them.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Why would grass be dangerous for riders?

Grass has less friction than tarmac, so the tyres on the bike will suddenly lose grip if they go onto grass and that will unsettle the bike, especially at speed.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Richard, you make the valid point that the drivers do not actually have to see where the edge of the track is because they should already have that planted firmly in their minds - I mean, what is the point of drivers doing track walks if not to understand where every things is? - and this is an argument that I have had in various threads concerning our BTCC saloons.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

A few of the tracks that these cars race at have tyre stacks at known track limit problems, usually chicanes. Unfortunately, if hit, they cause damage to the cars, but what I have tried to explain is that these stack are static - they don't jump out to catch out the unwary, so the drivers are, or should be, fully aware of them. But they all drive so close to them that it doesn't take long for them to be hit, often by multiple cars in one incident because following drivers, rather than driving their own race, are totally focused on the car/s in front of them.

I really will try to stop talking, but this is also a good point I was thinking about after I posted earlier. I can't name specifics, but there has been the use of "bolt in place sausage curbs" that have created drama in the recent past. And I think chicanes are a particularly tough one. So running solo, drivers should be able to avoid running off the circuit, but if the entry to a chicane is an overtaking opportunity then it creates the situation where if one of the drivers needs to concede the corner at the last moment of a passing attempt and the answer is to abort the pass attempt and then shortcut the chicane to avoid collision, then they might be running over a very high sausage curb! So as pointed out earlier by someone, the answer is probably to not just put physical walls (or high curbs) everywhere as there is the practical concern of car damage and risk of injury.

To pivot this away from cause to solution. I am going to copy-n-paste text from my response to Teretonga in the Qatar race thread. It is about solutions for geofencing ("virtual walls" is the term Teretonga used) and how circuit limit violations could be automatically detected and maybe even with some future method of immediate penalties that provide more of a deterrent than the current solution. I do mention that all of this is not trivial to implement. I think someone mentioned "pressure pads" in this thread. I think that fits into my option #2.

Originally Posted by Richard C

I love this idea, but geofencing has been discussed quite a bit here in the past. How exactly does this work from a technical perspective? I might be missing some potential solutions, but see three main options

1. GPS/DGPS
2. Local circuit boundary sensors
3. Digital image analysis

For the first, native GPS is not accurate enough (~5m). Some type of Differential GPS (DGPS) system could probably get that to a handful of centimeters. Survey level equipment, maybe even better. Each circuit would need a permanent DGPS reference station. A DGPS survey (not difficult) would need to be done to define the exact circuit boundaries. Cars would need a DGPS receiver. Cars would need to be constantly broadcasting their location data gathered from the DGPS receiver onboard the car. The FIA would need to be monitoring and comparing the cars locations against the circuit boundary location (done via software). I don't know what is the state of the art with respect to DGPS, but I do wonder if the type of DGPS equipment that can get that level of accuracy might not be particular small. So I wonder what the impact will be on car installation.

Embedded sensors would be something like transponders in the cars and a series of loops (like timing loops) around the circuit permitter, or maybe something like magnets embedded along the perimeter with sensors in the cars. This would be a challenge from both an accuracy and cost perspective. The cost could be enormous to implement and maintain at each F1 circuit.

Image analysis would be the least impactful to the current cars, but would require a extensive number of cameras to be able to fully monitor the circuit and from multiple angles. Parallax issues would be the challenge (i.e. if you look at it from one angle it might look OK, when in reality the car was out of the circuit limits). Top down views would be the best. This may be a challenge to make work in poor weather conditions. Basically if spray from tires in wet races is enough, you may not be able to get clear images.

I can imagine a few other permutations of the above. Overall, I think any solution would be significant to implement. I think the one with the most promise might be the DGPS solution. In all scenarios, AI could be used to monitor and detect violations. AI would have to be heavily used for the digital image analysis option.

Richard

[chillibowl]

surely stamina, endurance, physical exertion, hydration levels etc etc all also play a part in a driver being able to handle the rigors of a race/track limits. even in less physically taxing sports with far more recognizably marked playing surfaces, athletes struggle with staying in bounds on onside. this is such a common thing in sport.

and if one applies stricter, more extreme draconian measures to curb certain unwanted behaviour (particularly unwanted behaviour that are relatively minor infringements in nature) this can then potentially lead to a solution that is far less acceptable and enjoyable to watch than the unwanted behaviour you are trying to curb in the first place.

i'll add that in my experience, stricter punishments are not necessarily the deterrent many think they are, often being more offensive to the observer (us the viewers in this case) than the recidivist (the drivers).

however, even if one does not agree with that statement, a larger and more practical issue still exists...that if you apply draconian measures to curb minor infractions, then what to you dole out for major infractions?

do we now have to reorder the entire punishment sphere as well? if you DQ someone for a track limit violation then what do you do to a driver who misses a corner and takes out another competitor? a multiple race suspension?

do i think that it should be easier to monitor these situations in real time (literally thousands of camera feeds and angles now days and i suspect some sort of software designed to help monitor this in real time is already in place) and hand out minor time penalties accordingly and quickly?

of course i do and am happy this is largely what we have in place now. i dont see the need to change it. certainly do not see the need to make it more extreme.

i hate penalties, i hate when the refs take it upon themselves to alter or amend the natural flow of a sporting event.

so how much more rigid does the system have to be? how much reactionary behaviour do we want from the officials? how many millions of dollars do venues have to spend in order to appease perceived outrage caused by minor infractions like going out of bounds or even something specific to multiple issues that happened to coalesce around one outlier event?

i dont watch sports to so i can see what the refs are doing!

[Aysedasi]

But are they such minor infringements when they happen so often? What do you do when drivers are incapable of applying the discipline to drive on the actual circuit? Just ignore it and let them do it? Then you effectively 'punish' those who actually drive where they're supposed to. That's far more nonsensical, surely?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

But are they such minor infringements when they happen so often? What do you do when drivers are incapable of applying the discipline to drive on the actual circuit? Just ignore it and let them do it? Then you effectively 'punish' those who actually drive where they're supposed to. That's far more nonsensical, surely?

im not saying they should ignore it (no sport ignores out of bounds). i just prefer a reasonable and incremental penalty system much like the one they currently have in place.

nonsensical for me would be to apply a regressive or zero tolerance approach to penalties particularly in the case of minor infractions.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im not saying they should ignore it (no sport ignores out of bounds). i just prefer a reasonable and incremental penalty system much like the one they currently have in place.

nonsensical for me would be to apply a regressive or zero tolerance approach to penalties particularly in the case of minor infractions.

But the whole point of this thread is because the drivers don't seem to be taking this seriously. And in my mind, taking a short cut or something that makes their way through a corner quicker because they go beyond the track limit is cheating. And you can't just say it's a little bit of cheating; a cheating is cheating, whether little or larger!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

But are they such minor infringements when they happen so often?

but to this point...

lets say an average race is 60 laps competed by 20 drivers each experiencing on average 15 corners a lap. 60*20*15 = 18k corners taken in a race.

so even if there are 1200 infractions (not sure if that was over an entire weekend or just the race mind you), thats was still less than 10% of all corners taken over the course of that race.

so even when it looks to be happening a lot, is it really happening that much?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But the whole point of this thread is because the drivers don't seem to be taking this seriously. And in my mind, taking a short cut or something that makes their way through a corner quicker because they go beyond the track limit is cheating. And you can't just say it's a little bit of cheating; a cheating is cheating, whether little or larger!

first off the reject the premise of defining every infraction as cheating.

but that aside you cant be suggesting that the penalty for going out of bounds (a little cheating in your words) should be the same as intentionally ramming another car off the road (a lot of cheating) because 'cheating is cheating'?

if so, you basically just ended every sporting competition before it even starts. there are nuances to this thing otherwise there would only be one punishment for everything...expulsion from the event.

and even if i agreed with that logic, im not going to kill the goose for it.

[Mike Harte]

chilli, by going out of bounds, as you say, is classified as gaining an unfair advantage; that in my book, at least, is cheating.

You say you don't like sport being interrupted, but you overlook that in soccer, football or rugby,every time that the ball goes over the line, the referee stops play and gives the other team control of the ball. Surely that is stopping the flow of the game? Or do you think that that is such a minor infraction that the ref should just say "Play on"?

And you cannot differentiate between a little cheat and a larger one. What would you say if one engine supplier just bored out the engine by a few mill, so that it added up to an extra 50cc; that's only a little, so let it go. Or the recent clamping down on flexi wings; in the whole scheme of things, it was only a tiny amount of advantage so let it go!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But the whole point of this thread is because the drivers don't seem to be taking this seriously. And in my mind, taking a short cut or something that makes their way through a corner quicker because they go beyond the track limit is cheating. And you can't just say it's a little bit of cheating; a cheating is cheating, whether little or larger!

That is one aspect but primarily the reason was to discus/examine the effectiveness of penalties, regarding track limitations. Despite penalties being imposed on drivers, they aren't preventing drivers from exceeding track limits.

In your post #13, you say, ''the way to deal with track limits and similar infringements is to introduce penalties that are so severe that drivers won't want to risk getting one.''

I personally think that is the way forward. So in what form would the penalty take and how would it be implemented, so that drivers won't want to risk getting one? Currently, drivers receive two warnings before they are shown a black and a white flag for a third warning. If the regulations are flouted for a fourth time, a five-second time penalty is awarded.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

chilli, by going out of bounds, as you say, is classified as gaining an unfair advantage; that in my book, at least, is cheating.

gonna have to agree to a disagree on that one. not all infractions of the rules are the same and i certainly dont think of all of them as cheating...to be honest imo doing so minimizes the severity of cheating.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You say you don't like sport being interrupted, but you overlook that in soccer, football or rugby,every time that the ball goes over the line, the referee stops play and gives the other team control of the ball. Surely that is stopping the flow of the game? Or do you think that that is such a minor infraction that the ref should just say "Play on"?

to my point, going out of bounds is not cheating but something that happens in the natural flow of an game.

a throw in or side out of bounds is then a procedural event with no penalties being applied because those sorts of infractions are not considered cheating.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And you cannot differentiate between a little cheat and a larger one. What would you say if one engine supplier just bored out the engine by a few mill, so that it added up to an extra 50cc; that's only a little, so let it go. Or the recent clamping down on flexi wings; in the whole scheme of things, it was only a tiny amount of advantage so let it go!

hate to be hard line like this, but there is no way anyone can convince me that a reasonable penalty for going out of bounds should be anywhere near to declassification, expulsion from a series, fines, and/or potential lawsuits...which is what i assume the penalties are for intentionally breaking the homologation rules.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

hate to be hard line like this, but there is no way anyone can convince me that a reasonable penalty for going out of bounds should be anywhere near to declassification, expulsion from a series, fines, and/or potential lawsuits...which is what i assume the penalties are for intentionally breaking the homologation rules.

Challenge accepted. This should be easy.

Just do small loops on and off the circuit right at the start finish timing loop and ignore the rest of the circuit. Your lap times will be very small and you should win a race in just minutes. You are technically going out of bounds by not following the majority of the circuit.



(I am not sure this would work in practice given the potential for the timing loop to extend wide enough to prevent this, but the concept should illustrate the point. I also generally agree with Mike on this. There are valid reasons for going off the circuit, but doing so to gain an advantage is cheating.)

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Bj, I would suggest that the drivers get only one warning and the next time, even if it happens at a different part of the circuit, the driver is given an automatic drive through. If further transgressions happen, the driver has to take a stop and go at the end of the pits without stopping at their garage for tyres for say 10 seconds and that stop time increases if it happens again.

If the track limit abuse happens on the penultimate or last lap, then a time equivalent of a drive through, or stop and go, to be added to the finishing time of the driver.

I would like to think that the team bosses would stop their drivers abusing limits after they see just one driver from any of the teams receiving this penalty.

[Mike Harte]

chilli, there is a penalty to the team that kicks a ball over the line because the opposing team then gets control of the ball; that's the penalty. In soccer, a team will be given a free kick if the opposing team member handles the ball, even if it was unintentional.

There are loads of rules in all forms of sport for even the most minor of infractions; just for example, if a sprinter strays out of his lane by just a few millimetres, he or she will be automatically disqualified, even if he/she doesn't impede a fellow competitor.