[Race] US Grand Prix

[Taxi645]

Karun Chandhok's take on it:

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/driver-insight-united-states-grand-prix-0

I completely agree. Liberty and the FIA together with the two wheel brigade should set a working group to fundamentally address the issues with track design in regards to track limits.

This issue is completely resolvable without penalties when given some due consideration.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Purist

RW, I checked, Max DID have DRS, both into Turn 1 and Turn 12 on the last lap. So, um, no, there was no "easy pass" to be had, not even WITH that device.

Those things sound easy in theory, but they're NOT in practice. You cut the power on a straight, to give back one spot, but slipstreaming/DRS means it costs two or three. You cut power off of a corner, the guy behind doesn't expect it, or goes the "wrong" way, and rams the leading car up the back. And don't label the thing a "limiter", because somebody WILL put the wrong wire to the wrong thing, and you'll have one hell of a surprise in pit lane. And just generally, it's one more electronic gizmo that can malfunction or cease to function.

You're also ignoring human behavior here, especially those on the more aggressive end of the spectrum, like racing drivers. Additionally, it's not like they're going to have this stuff in the lower tiers; at the more entry levels, there's no way they'll be able to afford systems like this. So drivers won't be coming through the ranks with this anyway. And the the good ones may decide they'd rather actually race, somewhere else, if F1 tried to implement something of the sort.

Yes, he had drs. But he wasn't close enough on the last lap. With a few more laps he would have closed up the bit more needed to make it work. And it would have been the pass we would have gotten rather than a spectacular one.

And I can't stress this enough, but I'm just spitballing with the sensor stuff. There's plenty of ways to make the technology at the series fingertips to work for them. But just off the top of my head again (as I'm not researching my replies or anything ), the losing more than one position doesn't bother me, because the loss in time would be relative to the advantage gained. And for drivers behind not expecting it, put "blinkers" below the tail lights and have them start flashing a second or two before and during the loss of power. Imagine on a straight, where you have rightly pointed out that tracks designed as they are now have created an accordion effect, the yellow lights start flashing, the trailing car pulls out from behind, pulls along side thanks to the loss of power, and are side by side going into the next corner - the accordion effect is gone for that corner at least.

As for technology failing, yes, it may fail occasionally, but we don't base other decisions on that. We don't say the pit lane exit sensor in IndyCar can't be trusted because technology fails. We don't say no one should actually ever get a pit lane speeding penalty because their pit lane limiter failed or the radar failed.

And taking subjectivity of humans out of the equation, where you have some wondering if a former Ferrari driver was more lenient on Ferrari than verstappen, or drivers claiming certain stewards have it in for them, and other things like that, can't be a bad thing. Having an occasional technical failure seems much more palatable than those subjective judgments where all sorts of conspiracies can be floated and damage the reputation of the stewards and sport. Plus, humans are way more fallable than computers.

[Akrapovic]

I wasn't familiar with Zhejiang circuit until recently. Blancpain Asia raced there, and it's a fantastic wee track. Brand new modern build. Not Grade 1, it's too small for that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=9X-hA8SLMRc

But it's a modern track and it has grass stripes, wider than a car, so you can't use run off. It has tarmac cut outs, so cars off the road can rejoin. It has tarmac run off, so it's safe. It has gravel where appropriate. All modern kerbing. Why can't circuits be built using concepts like this?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

Racing drivers will go where there is asphalt. If you don't want them to drive there, don't put asphalt there. Any other method of handling track limits is and always will be futile. It defies human nature.

I hear what you are saying, and on the surface it seems correct, but I think there are plenty of examples in other sports (which are just as competitive) in which this isn't true. Others have brought up numerous examples in other sports. Here is another...

Baseball. Is there a rash of players running the bases and cutting the corners and avoiding stepping on bases? No. There is plenty of field for them to run on (to your point about expansive asphalt), and no walls that force them to step on a base as they run. Yet they seem to manage to touch the bags as the go around.

While people may be driven by base primal desires, they are also (generally!) not sociopaths who don't care or understand why you should follow rules. What they will do is push the envelope and hope it works. Which is what Max did. I will not go as far as saying Max was trying to go four wheels off. It just worked out that he did in fact cut the corner. Sometimes a pass just doesn't work out.

I fully believe drivers have been told they can exceed track boundaries on the outside, but not on the inside (stewards looking the other way on turn one, lap one is the one exception)

Originally Posted by JHamilton

I hope I didn't insinuate that because that's not what I'd like. Just racing.

My comment about fans looking the other way when it suit their personal agenda (i.e. excitement) wasn't targeted at you specifically. But more broadly at those here (which may or may not include you. ) who feel Max did nothing wrong, but yet will not outright say they are OK with cutting corners in races! I just want them to step up and admit they are proponents for overt cheating! They can't have it both ways.

Richard

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I hear what you are saying, and on the surface it seems correct, but I think there are plenty of examples in other sports (which are just as competitive) in which this isn't true. Others have brought up numerous examples in other sports. Here is another...

Baseball. Is there a rash of players running the bases and cutting the corners and avoiding stepping on bases? No. There is plenty of field for them to run on (to your point about expansive asphalt), and no walls that force them to step on a base as they run. Yet they seem to manage to touch the bags as the go around.

While people may be driven by base primal desires, they are also (generally!) not sociopaths who don't care or understand why you should follow rules. What they will do is push the envelope and hope it works. Which is what Max did. I will not go as far as saying Max was trying to go four wheels off. It just worked out that he did in fact cut the corner. Sometimes a pass just doesn't work out.

I fully believe drivers have been told they can exceed track boundaries on the outside, but not on the inside (stewards looking the other way on turn one, lap one is the one exception)


My comment about fans looking the other way when it suit their personal agenda (i.e. excitement) wasn't targeted at you specifically. But more broadly at those here (which may or may not include you. ) who feel Max did nothing wrong, but yet will not outright say they are OK with cutting corners in races! I just want them to step up and admit they are proponents for overt cheating! They can't have it both ways.

Richard

I would say a better baseball comparison is pine tar used by pitchers. It's against the rules, but almost all of them do it, and it is only enforced if it is disgustingly blatant or pointed out by the other team. In fact, the hitters sometimes prefer the pitchers use it so they know the pitchers can control where it goes better.

Verstappens move wasn't extremely blatant. Other drivers would probably like to know they could push limits in efforts to make a pass. And track limits are not enforced unless disgustingly blatant or complained about enough ovdr the radio by other teams/drivers.

And there were plenty of drivers cutting the inside of the corner at one of the corners in the esses. I'm sure that helped them to stay in drs range to use drs to gain position a few turns later. But wasn't punished.

I'm fine if they want to give out a penalty every single time track limits are exceeded. Then there would be less wriggle room for verstappen right now. But as it is, cars going ten feet wide of the track with no apparent advantage gained, (although there is) with no punishment, while a pass made to the delight of everybody that took going inches over the limit is punished, is backwards as can be.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

I would say a better baseball comparison is pine tar used by pitchers. It's against the rules, but almost all of them do it, and it is only enforced if it is disgustingly blatant or pointed out by the other team. In fact, the hitters sometimes prefer the pitchers use it so they know the pitchers can control where it goes better.

I think that is a fine analogy, but IMHO for a different point. My point was that competitors CAN follow the rules. Especially in scenarios in which not doing so is obvious and that penalties will generally be a foregone conclusion. So even if the entire circuit was nothing but asphalt, no walls, no grass, etc. If the rules were enforced the drivers would adapt to staying within the marked circuit boundaries (i.e. white lines).

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Verstappens move wasn't extremely blatant.

I want to agree with that, but can't. I think the pass attempt was a great one. And missed by likely inches. But... it resulted in a violation that could not be ignored. If you want to assign degree of violation, then I would say that going wide on exit is low on the scale and cutting the corner to pass someone on the last lap is... blatant, extremely blatant, or just whatever adjective you want to indicate about as serious as it gets. I can only think of it being more series if it was last lap, last race and also a WDC deciding pass!

Originally Posted by RWill2073

And track limits are not enforced unless disgustingly blatant or complained about enough ovdr the radio by other teams/drivers.

Currently it is a practicality issue. There just is no way to do it consistently IF you are talking about full enforcement everywhere. So I think they do generally enforce what they say they will enforce. I do agree there are some areas where enforcement is lax (see your point below)

Originally Posted by RWill2073

And there were plenty of drivers cutting the inside of the corner at one of the corners in the esses. I'm sure that helped them to stay in drs range to use drs to gain position a few turns later. But wasn't punished.

Sadly true. IMHO, it CLEARLY provides a benefit to the driver, but if done when alone on track (i.e. not actively trying to pass or defend a nearby car) it seems like drivers tend to get away with it.

I think your baseball pine tar example fits here.

But overall, my opinion is that that type of violation (slight cuts or running wide to shave lap time) should be punished.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

I'm fine if they want to give out a penalty every single time track limits are exceeded. Then there would be less wriggle room for verstappen right now. But as it is, cars going ten feet wide of the track with no apparent advantage gained, (although there is) with no punishment, while a pass made to the delight of everybody that took going inches over the limit is punished, is backwards as can be.

I am assuming your "ten feet" example is the running wide scenario in which that has been blessed in advanced by race officials while cutting corners (even if by a slight amount) is not. I don't see this as backwards. The world is full of examples like that. Here in the US, you probably can get away with speeding 5-9 MPH over the limit on large highways without it resulting in a speeding ticket. Do the same in a school zone with lights flashing and you are likely to get a ticket. Context matters.

My point around the "inches over the limit" part is that really... there is a wide range for drivers to play with before they actually can trigger a penalty. If the circuit limits were defined by hard walls that ran right at the white line, then there is zero tolerance. You run a millimeter off the circuit and you risk a DNF. Now move the wall back for safety and as long as some part of the car is just barely inside the white line you are OK. I think 2017 cars are about 2.4m wide. That is quite a bit of wiggle room that a driver has to play with. But... there has to be a point at which you are no longer on the circuit. Even if just by inches.

Richard

[Richard C]

I am worn out talk talking about circuit limits. But it would make an excellent thread. I know this topic gets discussed semi-frequently and usually is triggered by and event such as with what happened to Max.

In all of my posts on this topic in this thread I have offered no solutions to the problem. I think options put forth by others have been...

1. Walls as a deterrent (both hard and soft examples)
2. Grass as a deterrent
3. Bolt on sausages as a deterrent
4. Geofencing

I tend to think that given safety and multi purpose use requirements that broadly speaking #1 and #2 can't be a solution for all circuits. I think #3 is a relatively practical solution, but typically they are only put in place in areas of common abuse. They can also do physical damage to cars (which is not the goal). I like #4, but most suggestions have been to use sensors placed offline (similar to timing loops) and is probably an expensive/complex solution.

I think if they wanted to go down a geofencing style approach that off track cameras (ideally looking from the top down) along with modern machine learning/artificial intelligence techniques would be able to spot offenses automatically (identify locations of wheels and distance to edge of track). Stewards could then review when notified by the system and then apply penalties as they see fit.

In reality, while we have argued for pages, IMHO, this is not a big enough issue for them to invest in the technology to make it practical to enforce and I expect the status quo to remain for awhile. Maybe at some point the cost will be so low that they will be able to solve it with technology.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

After a superb drive, Max Verstappen was hauled off the podium over his last-lap move on Kimi Raikkonen. Former technical director Gary Anderson believes F1 shot itself in the foot with the decision, and calls on it to overhaul how track limits are applied.

That's directly from Motorsport.com newsletter a couple of hours ago. I'm not a huge fan of news and media sites (especially one doing it's best to control so much of the motorsport news) throwing out opinions written as fact. But it's pretty clear what they think. The Editor-In-Chief has put his name right below that quote. Interesting!

[Sodemo]

Karun has it spot on in my view. He said 5 metres (I said 4) however there needs to be a minimum amount of grass / gravel / mud outside of a corner in order to form some kind of physical deterrant to running wide.

Of course the FIA are spineless, so they wont do anything about it. They will just slap more penalties on people.

[bella]

the fia are stuck between a rock and a hard place. if they start getting rid of tarmac in favour of grass and gravel they'd be doing a complete 180 on a safety modification. can they risk doing that, in effect making the sport more dangerous for the sake of punishing drivers for mistakes, when they've inflicted a mostly unpopular halo on a huge swathe of the sport on those same safety grounds?

[Adam43]

It's very easy for us to criticise, but this isn't a straight forward situation. They may well have ended up at a situation different to what we would all do (which is a huge range of alternatives across the fan base), but to insult them with ana accusation of spineless is too simplistic and unfair.

Give out penalties for every situation without considering the context and that every situation is different? Well that it is more fair (simple) for some, bloody annoying for the flow of the race and others.

Put walls and other deterrents in. Great, but that causes accidents, removes cars from the race and could compromise safety.

As with most things in life there is a middle ground, but as Jeremy Vine tries to demonstrate that is no good as the truth can only be found in a battle of the extremes.

I'm not saying they have got it right, far from it, but I think to explore the solutions it helps to understand why we are where we are.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by bella

the fia are stuck between a rock and a hard place. if they start getting rid of tarmac in favour of grass and gravel they'd be doing a complete 180 on a safety modification. can they risk doing that, in effect making the sport more dangerous for the sake of punishing drivers for mistakes, when they've inflicted a mostly unpopular halo on a huge swathe of the sport on those same safety grounds?

Yes, a safety modification imposed on tracks at likely a very high cost, whilst the street circuits seem to get a free pass on those grounds. You could say that they should never have insisted on those changes (I know I would) but yes, the changes are made now and of course they wont to do an about turn on the tarmac run off. Point one, as you have already suggested they dont want to be seen to make a retrograde step in "safety". Point two, they dont want to lose face because they will be seen as having to revisit and revise aspects that they have been instrumental in creating. Its the same for the grooved tyres. No drivers really liked them, yet they were stubborn and only got rid of them 11 years after they were introduced.

Suffice to say I am really no fan of tarmac run off at all. I fully believe there should be a physical obstacle of some kind on the outside of *most* corners. I'm not suggesting walls, but something like grass or dirt would be enough.

[Greem]

I've just thought of something that I can't recall reading in the largely excellent discussion on the topic of Verstappen's overtake: what if it had been the other way around?

You can bet that RBR (who coincidentally I got a factory tour from today ) would have complained, as would all the folks currently supporting Verstappen. A lot of the noise would be identical with respect to track limits/circuit design etc, but a lot of the points of view would be reversed.

Just observing!

[Adam43]

The street circuit being different from a permanent circuit is fine by me. Variety. Some sources you're worried about hitting a wall, others you aren't. That's good. Also, I'm not sure it is contradictory. The speeds tend to be lower. And there is a consideration about acceptable risk and reducing risk. All should be acceptable, but where possible reduce risk. i can understand that approach and it seems to be the general approach the FIA use.

You say outside of corners. Which is probably very relevant. The example we are discussing about Max was cutting a corner. Not a good place for a wall (not that you are suggesting this) as the angle of impact tends to be greater. That probably strays into unacceptable, as well as being something you can clearly reduce.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Greem

I've just thought of something that I can't recall reading in the largely excellent discussion on the topic of Verstappen's overtake: what if it had been the other way around?

You can bet that RBR (who coincidentally I got a factory tour from today ) would have complained, as would all the folks currently supporting Verstappen. A lot of the noise would be identical with respect to track limits/circuit design etc, but a lot of the points of view would be reversed.

Just observing!

Of course, and it is suggested that the FIA aren't consistent!

(Not all posts by any stretch)

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Greem

I've just thought of something that I can't recall reading in the largely excellent discussion on the topic of Verstappen's overtake: what if it had been the other way around?

You can bet that RBR (who coincidentally I got a factory tour from today ) would have complained, as would all the folks currently supporting Verstappen. A lot of the noise would be identical with respect to track limits/circuit design etc, but a lot of the points of view would be reversed.

Just observing!

I would imagine if it had been verstappen that got passed, red bull would have complained, as is politically necessary nowadays. Some biased fans would have flipped their argument, others would still be in a state of shock that verstappen got passed

[Akrapovic]

I'm not sure I buy into the grass being dangerous thing, given brand new tracks are being built with exactly what we're asking for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=9X-hA8SLMRc

I understand the logic and the argument, I'm just not sure the risk is great enough. And if it was, these brand new circuits wouldn't be built, sanctioned and used. You can have grass and tarmac together. The inclusion of a grass strip means these situations cannot arise, and tarmac run off can still be used.

[Adam43]

The grass proposal seems sensible to me. The safety is probably down to the boundaries?

[Purist]

Not really. The Ferrari, if it was charging like Max was, would have blown by the Red Bull on the straight using DRS.

"In the name of safety" doesn't mean it actually IS safer.

Tarmac sure as hell doesn't do the trick with out-of-control vehicles. And some margin of grass before gravel means that most small mistakes get a time penalty, but the driver can continue without getting stuck.

The FIA has also inflicted this on itself by continuing to maintain the "no outside assistance" rule. Well, if you get stuck in the gravel, and at least fall to the back of the lead-lap runners, that's certainly sufficient penalty in my mind. At that point, I fail to see why you need to take them out of the race altogether.

Taking control of the basic controls of the car out of the driver's hands is dangerous, and antithetical to the whole point of a human competition. And perhaps the biggest problem is, with Race Control having so much power, theoretically, there's FAR too much potential for, at least the appearance of, abuse and manipulation of results. The perception of the whole enterprise would be all too easily tainted.

A high-precision, electronic monitoring system is probably prohibitively expensive, and especially for non-F1 tracks, it will remain so for some to come.

Donington Park is considered suitable for WSBK, and Phillip Island likewise for MotoGP. As such, no, it clearly is NOT needed for the bikes to have those vast paved run-offs everywhere, or necessarily even anywhere.

And I have to be honest about another point. After protecting spectators and participants, preventing damage to vehicles is a DISTANT, tertiary concern. In fact, damage sustained is often a sign of energy dissipation, which helps to protect the driver.

And to head this one off, Mid Ohio, at the very least, has shown that gravel can work very effectively, even in wet conditions.

Tarmac run-off period just bothers me on a number of levels. It's too easily abused. It doesn't arrest out-of-control vehicles. The really expansive stuff covers a large area in a uniform, textureless surface, taking away frames of reference that are necessary for humans to discern speed and direction of movement. They produce a boatload of heat convection, which means, you don't want to run a race there in summer in any location that gets particularly warm, as it will be like a parking lot or airport ramp (i.e. freakin' miserable to be there for everyone).

(And last, since somebody will foist this one, it's ugly; grass is green, a principal color of life, and therefore inherently appealing to humans. Also, gray is the color of stone, which has long been strongly associated with death.)

[bella]

Originally Posted by Greem

I've just thought of something that I can't recall reading in the largely excellent discussion on the topic of Verstappen's overtake: what if it had been the other way around?

easy. it would have ended in a shunt. verstappen would have rather had an accident than let someone past at that stage in the race

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Purist

Taking control of the basic controls of the car out of the driver's hands is dangerous, and antithetical to the whole point of a human competition. And perhaps the biggest problem is, with Race Control having so much power, theoretically, there's FAR too much potential for, at least the appearance of, abuse and manipulation of results. The perception of the whole enterprise would be all too easily tainted.

A high-precision, electronic monitoring system is probably prohibitively expensive, and especially for non-F1 tracks, it will remain so for some to come.

See, I think a group of stewards making human judgments is far more susceptible to at least the appearance of manipulation and abuse of results. If a sensor system was alerted by a car going off, it's pretty cut and dry. Takes a lot of subjectivity out of it.

As for being dangerous or antithetical, we have pit lane limiters. We have a million buttons switching engine mappings and everything else, a quick decrease in power to offset an advantage gained is nothing. It can be done in safe ways, surely. It's not like f1 cars can follow closely anyway :rotate.

Maybe equate it to boxing. Judges are always questioned about their motivations for sketchy decisions... The same thing being done about an ex Ferrari driver and a steward that a driver is calling out for having it out for them. Can you tell me if a system was in place to automatically judge a boxing match through punches landed, force of punches, etc, taking the decision out of a judge's hands, that it would be more tainted?

It may be too expensive though. And I agree with a lot of what you said about track design.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The grass proposal seems sensible to me. The safety is probably down to the boundaries?

Grass could be a safety issue as the car could spin, which some have already pointed out.

I thought of traffic cones outlining the boundaries but someone mentioned Polystyrene, or in American, Styrofoam blocks. They could look like SAFER barrier but without the consequences, or less drastic some form proximity detection, that reports back to race control.

[Purist]

The difference is that the driver operates the pit lane limiter, those engine and diff mappings, and all the rest. At present, pit-to-car telemetry is banned. Hence, having an outside source take control of the car to forcibly implement the reduction in power is, in fact, out of the ordinary, even today.

Unless they're using a spec ECU, which I'm not aware they are, this could also run into issues of proprietary software, mechanicals, and other sorts of IP on the part of the manufacturers. I doubt that that's a legal can of worms that the FIA would really WANT to break in to.

About the only way I see that this might be feasible is to have an added mode or something on the pit lane limiter, and once the penalty has been confirmed, the driver has the standard three laps to respond and take the hit.

And thanks. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking there are some real problems in current F1 track design.

BJS, if you've put it out on the grass in the first place, well, that's on you, the driver. That's why, unless you have VIR-sized, gentle hillsides to work with, the gravel is there to help arrest you before reaching anything solid. But again, if a driver makes a big enough mistake to put him far enough out that he hits the barriers, that's on the driver.

It's a bit like saying you're going to make the track so wide that they just won't need to hit one another. Um, Cleveland wasn't wide enough for that, nor Edmonton. And I'm betting cars made contact from time to time even at Brooklands, which was 100 feet wide for the "oval" configurations.

And it's less of an issue in F1 than some other disciplines, like Prototype and GT racing, but still, paved run-off, especially when there's no separation from the designated track surface, greatly increases the chances of drivers simply pulling right back on, and making unsafe re-entries. And you know, if we can substantially reduce the chances of someone ruining someone else's day that way, and thus also remove the need to penalize said infraction in that instance, that's all to the good.

[Purist]

Let me put it this way. I'm trying to work out how to balance the more apparent aspects of safety, like run-offs and such, with other less obvious safety factors, like maintaining driving standards, and also wanting to need to involve the stewards as little as possible.

Do your underlayments and grading properly, and grass and gravel aren't unduly hazardous. And honestly, if you can't do the foundations properly anyway, why would I trust you to be able lay asphalt properly, either?

[RWill2073]

Wouldn't lining the track with cones or Styrofoam just lead to full course cautions to clean up debris after a lap or two when the ones in crucial areas have been knicked around?

Here's an idea: throw a fresh coat of green paint on the asphalt off the designated track. If a driver gets a wheel off, or all four, there's clear evidence on his tires- penalty. ;p even get the green look for appearance sake haha.

And purist, see, you took my completely thrown against wall idea and already made it more realistic. I like the idea of a limiter the driver could hit within the three laps or so. Then he can pull off line to do so and take away the safety concerns.