Driving standards/ stewarding

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Was there even one investigation in Qatar? There were a few moments where you could question what constitutes track limits, but overall people kept it clean and/ or the stewards are trying to be hands-off as we reach the business end of the season with Max and Lewis. The tricky situation is the bed they make with leniency in Max's Brazil incident - there's a lot of other stuff they can't punish either.

I don’t think there was even one incident during the race that was worth investigating. Everyone kept it clean throughout, despite the close racing

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Was there even one investigation in Qatar? There were a few moments where you could question what constitutes track limits,

The only reported summons is Horner.
Alonso and Ocon had lap times deleted for T2.
Gasly, Vettel and Giovinazzi had lap times deleted for T16.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I agree that higher speeds can potentially lead to more severe accidents. However, the results from lower speed incidents can often be more severe: I have known high speed crashes where the occupants came out relatively unscathed, and low speed incidents where lives have been lost.

As for why it should start in F1, it is because by being more severe at the top tends to percolate down to club level; it doesn't work the other way around. The problem is that, theoretically, a club racer can say 'Well, if X,Y or Z can do it in F1, so why can't I?'. You wouldn't expect to hear, say, Hamilton or Verstappen say to the stewards 'Well I saw Joe Bloggs do that at a clubbie the other day without punishment, so why should you punish me for doing the same?' They are, for better or worse, supposed to be the shining examples for all the lower classes from Karting right up to WEC and GP2.

Again personally I'm on your side with this. I'm just trying propose something that is acceptable to fair racing purists like you and myself and the let them race school of thought. The scheme as proposed could be easily applied in any class of motor racing and promote consistency and fair racing throughout.

We need to protect the outside driver because if you don't in stead of saying: "What a brilliant move around the outside!" we should be saying: "What an idiot on the inside not forcing the other guy of track". If you don't have strict rules on forcing others off track, it just boils downs to the kindness of the guy on the inside in stead of the brilliance of the one on the inside.

[ascarracinguk]

Interesting discussion.

The central issue here is bias or percieved bias.

We used to get this in Ice Hockey a lot. Decisions were made on post game penalties with what people percieved as lack of consistancy. In reality, every situation was nuinced.

What they did was actually explain each decision thoroughly with a short 3 minute video, showing what the judges were looking at and why they applied the ruling. Its a bit like in Rugby these days. Very rarely do fans get annoyed at the Refs, because with live replays from the 4th official and micced up refs, you can see and more importantly hear their exact thought process.

Personally i would prefer an experienced and trusted ex racing driver to oversea the stewards, someone like Pirro, Mcnish, Franchitti etc. and then bring in a new Youtube channel where their judgments can be openly and transparently be shown. This way, we get consistancy but more important clarity, from a 'judge' that drivers and fans respect along with added accountability becuase the stewards cant hide behind a piece of paper.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Interesting discussion.

The central issue here is bias or percieved bias.

Typical comments of permanent stewards were:

'The only problem with a consistent full time driver steward would be that certain teams would claim bias shown in decisions made.'
'Permanent stewards would belong to the highest bidder - be it Red Bull or Ferrari. So, no.'
'I'd rather have consistent inconsistency than consistently bad decisions...'

[chillibowl]

Hockey/NHL is an interesting comparison in that about a decade ago they created a system where all replays were watched and ruled upon by a single group of officials operating out of a centralized control room.

This was done specifically to create consistantcy in calls across the many league games.

And its proven to be so successful that baseball, baskeball, and i think NFl as well have all adopted versions of it.

There is just too much data to be analysed and an audience which requires immediate that a specialied professional crew is needed.

Local tracks/driving clubs nominating their own officials is a practice of a bygone era imo.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Hockey/NHL is an interesting comparison in that about a decade ago they created a system where all replays were watched and ruled upon by a single group of officials operating out of a centralized control room.

This was done specifically to create consistantcy in calls across the many league games.

And its proven to be so successful that baseball, baskeball, and i think NFl as well have all adopted versions of it.

There is just too much data to be analysed and an audience which requires immediate that a specialied professional crew is needed.

Local tracks/driving clubs nominating their own officials is a practice of a bygone era imo.

There is a lot of data, youre correct but im sure they could work out a way of extracting video, steering angle, throttle and brake traces easily enough, its something that is on the live feed already.

[Richard C]

First, let me say thanks for reading a page of discussion without people at each other's throats. Recent content here has made me consider taking a break from the forum.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The Max fans would be apoplectic in their criticism of the stewards, and making insistence that they are replaced because they are clearly biased.

It seems the problem they are either consistent and biases, inconsistent and non-biased and frankly... what I think people say today is inconsistent AND biased. I think they should move to full time stewards.

Regarding Taxi645's matrix. I like the idea when it is used as a guidance, but not a hard rule. It makes it more objective, but there will always remain a level of objectivity. For example how do you define low, mid, high corner speeds? You could attach numbers, but in reality, I think we are using corner speed as a surrogate for perceived level of danger. Meaning... accidents in low speed corners are less dangerous than those in high speed corners. Which is a generalization that is mostly true, but we can no doubt find specific examples in which that may not be true. And in this case, it means maybe sometimes an offense in a low speed corner may need to be punished higher than the matrix might otherwise suggest.

My point is that there should be "rules" that are expected to have full compliance. And under that might be more formal "guidances" in which the stewards would use to make decisions, but may decide to ignore or adjust the output +/- depending upon other factors.

I have no doubt that under the covers those that run the events have a set of "unwritten rules" that they use as guidances, but this is an informal process. The level of wiggle room used for determining jump starts is an example. But think they should not be afraid to make those more public and formal.

Today, those unwritten rules are reversed engineered by everyone who maps action to consequences. Just like Taxi645 has done, there is some type of multi-dimensional matrix that can be constructed that says if you do X, Y and Z, the penalty should be Q.

I just think those internal rules, logic or as I call them guidanes, should be make public. Maybe not all of them. I know they want to keep some secret so the teams don't game the system (jump start), but the driver penalties for on track behavior, should be publicly known. Having them public may also help with consistency.

Will any of this stop the complaints around bias, inconsistency, fairness, blah, blah, blah. Of course not. That will always exist. There will always be someone shouting insults at the referee during the game. But it should ideally take the overall noise level down a bit.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

There is a lot of data, youre correct but im sure they could work out a way of extracting video, steering angle, throttle and brake traces easily enough, its something that is on the live feed already.

And I made this exact same point earlier in the thread. The data exists. It needs to be made to easily facilitate quick and accurate (defendable) decisions.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

For example how do you define low, mid, high corner speeds? You could attach numbers, but in reality, I think we are using corner speed as a surrogate for perceived level of danger. Meaning... accidents in low speed corners are less dangerous than those in high speed corners. Which is a generalization that is mostly true, but we can no doubt find specific examples in which that may not be true.

Agreed - and as a specific example we have one such high-profile case this season.

At what speed did this incident occur?


Alonso is in the camp that it was low speed, so not dangerous:
"But it is low speed, you know, they go at 30 or 40km/h, there is no danger, there is nothing. So I don't think it was a big deal. At Silverstone it probably was, but this one, it was just a racing incident."

I don't agree with Alonso - but if an F1 driver holds that view based on the speed of contact, I think that inevitably opens up a rabbit-hole.

[Mike Harte]

Unfortunately this behaviour has been building since the days of Schumacher, or maybe even Senna, and a prime example of this is when Michael crowded his brother towards the pit wall with Ralph having to take to the grass verge just after the exit at one race.

I cannot remember which event it was, but I can remember being appalled by his tactic, especially to his own brother. And I also cannot remember whether he was penalised for it, either.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

And I made this exact same point earlier in the thread. The data exists. It needs to be made to easily facilitate quick and accurate (defendable) decisions.

Richard

indeed you did and i love the idea!

the use of AI and machine learning can and should be used to pull and collate data in a much faster fashion and then these advanced analytic tools could be used by (human) stewards in order to facilitate better and faster decisions.

i would assume FOM is already moving in this direction. certainly the teams must be at their strategy control/data centers.

but ultimately, one needs people trained to/experienced with using these tools for it to be effective.

[ascarracinguk]

When anyone tells me low speed isn’t dangerous, I remind them of poor old Dennis Welch at the Silverstone Classic. Small clash of wheels around a hairpin and it’s all over in a few seconds.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

indeed you did and i love the idea!

the use of AI and machine learning can and should be used to pull and collate data in a much faster fashion and then these advanced analytic tools could be used by (human) stewards in order to facilitate better and faster decisions.

i would assume FOM is already moving in this direction. certainly the teams must be at their strategy control/data centers.

but ultimately, one needs people trained to/experienced with using these tools for it to be effective.

Agreed. Basically like a complicated Hawkeye, but with an experienced driver to interpret the data correctly

[Tourer]

There is a spectrum to the questions around perceived bias and also lack of consistency due to rotating steward panel members.

Essentially, the more that people are experienced and REALLY understand the sport, data & driver behaviour, the more there is risk of bias accusations - as to get the experience and understanding, they've been around the sport for some time.

On the other hand, having different stewards to have less perceived bias at every race (some with little F1 exposure depending on the local ASNs pool of people) means less understanding of F1, data, driving, recent history - so potential for reduced consistency is high.

As with many things in life, there tends to be oscillation between the ends of the spectrum depending on recent circumstances. Right now there are some (many?) complaining of lack of consistency but when there was a permanent stewards panel, there were some (many) complaining about or perceiving bias.

Neither the FIA nor the stewards can win - but any steps such as better data understanding (may already exist - stewards might have techs assisting them with some of that) has got to be a good thing.

[Casper]

Tell the drivers to stay between the white lines with absolutely no allowances and install overhead cameras to monitor the corners. It isn't that hard to fix the problem they just don't have the will power.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Regarding Taxi645's matrix. I like the idea when it is used as a guidance, but not a hard rule. It makes it more objective, but there will always remain a level of objectivity.

Yes it is a framework for the stewards to work with. That framework should then be transparent to the drivers and wider public. They can deviate from it, but they are required to explain why so everyone, including the drivers, understand why.

For example how do you define low, mid, high corner speeds? You could attach numbers, but in reality, I think we are using corner speed as a surrogate for perceived level of danger. Meaning... accidents in low speed corners are less dangerous than those in high speed corners. Which is a generalization that is mostly true, but we can no doubt find specific examples in which that may not be true.

Yes, as the penalty system is pretty course, you can't realistically have a very finely defined speed system, so basically, slow, mid and high, but again it is a framework to work with.

And yes your above judgement is correct. I think it is good to remember why this matrix was proposed. As explained earlier, in my view the FIA unfortunately publicly does not discriminate between foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences of incidents. At least that was their main line, although we know and now also have it confirmed by Masi that they actually do.

My point has been, that foreseeable direct consequences of incidents SHOULD be weighted when deciding on the penalty. This in order to promote safety and to make the penalty system more fair to the driver on the receiving end. Now, probably because they have always publicly denied that they consider consequences, the way they work is probably underdeveloped and surely not public or even well known to the drivers. So this makes inconsistency more likely and drivers don't know what to expect and when rules are not clear basic instinct on the track prevails. That basic instinct is, "I want to come out of that corner ahead of the other guy". If the penalty is clear and significant to the driver, there is more chance he will consider it when initiating an on track action.

Example of foreseeable direct consequences:
- If you force someone off into a gravel trap it can be easily foreseen by the offending driver that has more consequences for the other driver than when you do the same with tarmac on the outside.
- If you cause a collision at high speed it can be foreseen that on average that is more dangerous cause more kinetic energy is going to be dumped somehow and if that's a against a wall, another car or a violent high speed dig in and roll over in the gravel the result mostly are not nice. Hamilton could not foresee Verstappen's car spinning out of control skipping over the grass and impacting hard into the tire wall, so one should not appoint a penalty on that basis. What he COULD foresee that a high speed collision is inherently more dangerous and the penalty should be in accordance.

So yes, danger can come from other sources than speed and can be used by the stewards to increase a penalty, but for a simple matrix that incorporates foreseeable direct consequences, speed is one in my view which one could incorporate. What you want is for drivers to take extra care at such speed to avoid mayor incidents.

And in this case, it means maybe sometimes an offense in a low speed corner may need to be punished higher than the matrix might otherwise suggest.

My point is that there should be "rules" that are expected to have full compliance. And under that might be more formal "guidances" in which the stewards would use to make decisions, but may decide to ignore or adjust the output +/- depending upon other factors.

I have no doubt that under the covers those that run the events have a set of "unwritten rules" that they use as guidances, but this is an informal process. The level of wiggle room used for determining jump starts is an example. But think they should not be afraid to make those more public and formal.

I suspect the same and yes it should be made public. Deviation is possible, just explain why.

Today, those unwritten rules are reversed engineered by everyone who maps action to consequences. Just like Taxi645 has done, there is some type of multi-dimensional matrix that can be constructed that says if you do X, Y and Z, the penalty should be Q.

I just think those internal rules, logic or as I call them guidanes, should be make public. Maybe not all of them. I know they want to keep some secret so the teams don't game the system (jump start), but the driver penalties for on track behavior, should be publicly known. Having them public may also help with consistency.

Will any of this stop the complaints around bias, inconsistency, fairness, blah, blah, blah. Of course not. That will always exist. There will always be someone shouting insults at the referee during the game. But it should ideally take the overall noise level down a bit.

Richard

Yep, that's the idea.

[crmalcolm]

Carried on from the uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4 thread.

Should messages from Race Control to teams - and subsequently teams to drivers - that relate to matters regarding handing back of places be shared with all stakeholders simultaneously?

[chillibowl]

what would be the reasoning behind not telling all the teams simultaneously?

[Richard C]

Pulling your comment from the TV thread over here.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm not sure I fully agree with that. Why? The Stewards' Document:

'Whilst accepting that the driver of Car 44 could have overtaken Car 33 when that car first slowed, we understand why he (and the driver of Car 33) did not wish to be the first to cross the DRS. However, the sudden braking by the driver of Car 33 was determined by the Stewards to be erratic and hence the predominant cause of the collision'


For me, the lack of communication may have been a contributing factor, but the root cause was the sudden braking.
On commentary, it was observed that Verstappen's position on the track may have come from him driving to his mirrors - and knowing Hamilton was immediately behind him he applied 69 bar resulting in 2.4g deceleration.

So I don't want to get into the topic too deeply of Max on the brakes. That has been extensively discussed. And to be honest, I have mostly ignored it just because it's a bunch of fighting I don't care to read about. But it puts me in the position of maybe being not particularly informed on one area. And that is... "Did Lewis know Max had been instructed to give the position back or not prior to the collision?"

The wording of the stewards decision sort of tries to have it both ways. For example... They act as if the ultimate goal is to be the trailing car and within detection zone. No, the goal is to be the leading car. Yes, yes, I know there is real games to play around ensuring that you as the driver are within 1 sec of the driver in front of you. Hence the desire for them both to not be the leading driver at the detection point. But... that logic ONLY makes sense when BOTH drivers are aware a position swap in happening. And if that is going to happen, you would also be aware that the leading driver is going to slow. And this helps you avoid a collision.

This past weekend is NOT the poster child (good example) for this scenario because Max was playing game with car position, braking level and the entire issue around the DRS detection line. But as a general statement, I cant imagine any scenario in which the trailing driver "should not know, or have a delay in knowing" that the leading driver has been instructed to do a position swap. Why surprise the trailing driver?

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

what would be the reasoning behind not telling all the teams simultaneously?

I think it comes from the wording of the sporting regulations.

'At the absolute discretion of the Race Director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track.'

So the radio communication form the Race Director to the team is an offer to take the opportunity, not an order to comply. The team have it within their discretion to not take the opportunity, and await referral to the stewards.

This option was alluded to at Jeddah, when Coulthard (and others) were suggesting that Red Bull might wish to retain track position and look to establish a greater than 5 second margin.

If you broadcast that to all teams, it is before the decision to hand back the place has been made.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

But as a general statement, I cant imagine any scenario in which the trailing driver "should not know, or have a delay in knowing" that the leading driver has been instructed to do a position swap. Why surprise the trailing driver?

Is part of it from the fact that the instruction to the driver is from the team. To broadcast that to all, the team has to:
A) be broadcasting their message to all teams (technically possible)
B) be open about broadcasting that message, and remember to broadcast to all


There is also another situation - and we saw an example in this race.
There was a further moment between Verstappen and Hamilton, where Verstappen slowed to let Hamilton past on Lap 42 and Lap 43. There was no instruction from the team or Race Control, Verstappen felt he had to as a result of leaving the track earlier.

I think this example shows that (on occasion) the driver themselves may make the decision to hand a place back - should the driver radio their intention?

Further case - what about when a radio fails? The team may give an instruction via the pit wall board.

That is why I think it is better handled with clear direction on the driver's actions when handing a place, rather than controlling the messaging.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I don't see why there can't be a common (one way) channel from the race director (or their assistant) that can be used to to pass information simultaneously to all teams as an addition to the messaging and updating timing screens.

For example in Sports cars, we often here the race director on a common channel advising of incidents or updating teams. Even countdowns to the end of Sports car Slow Zones. Because we know these are informational they are often broadcast live.

I don't think this should be fed directly to the drivers (although have that capability available for extreme circumstances) but to their race engineers. The race engineers can still speak to the driver whilst hearing such a message, the onus would be on the team to advise the driver as near simultaneously as possible.

Team would still have their own discrete channel to "call race direction" as necessary.

[Mike Harte]

Richard, to answer your question about whether Hamilton had been told that Verstappen was going to give up the place, the answer appears to be that he wasn't, and the earliest that he could he been advised of the fact would determined by one of our contributors to be approximately 3 seconds after he collided with Verstappen.

This is why I suggested on the other thread that it cases such as these that the two, or more, teams should be advised of what should happen simultaneously. Obviously any discussion with the "errant" driver's team would be with only that team, and just the final decision would be broadcast to the concerned teams.

[Richard C]

Dup