Driving standards/ stewarding

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

True, there are many offences that occur without contact. But those are incidents that contravene a regulation.

Which rule, or regulation, do you think Hamilton is 'guilty' of breaching? Pèrez was not pushed off the track (he was still inside the white line).
It could be argued that Pèrez was forced into the pitlane - but AFAIK, that isn't an offence as defined in the regulations.

He forced Perez to pass bollard on the wrong side (there wasn't a carswidth between Hamiltons car and the bolland. So I assume, by doing so, he forced him off the track.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

As argued in an earlier thread, I don't think a contact is or should be required for rules to be broken and for there to be an offence.

Fairly said. You did.

Its a difficult argument to make though. If the consequences dont matter, then it almost sounds like drivers should be punished for what they were thinking?

Putting any unease I have towards that notion, how does one even do this without it looking completely arbitrary?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

He forced Perez to pass bollard on the wrong side (there wasn't a carswidth between Hamiltons car and the bolland. So I assume, by doing so, he forced him off the track.

There was a car width between Hamilton and the bollard. So Hamilton never forced Perez off the track.



For clarity - the pitlane is part of the track. And 'wrong' side of the bollard is only relevant if going into the pits.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

There was a car width between Hamilton and the bollard. So Hamilton never forced Perez off the track.



For clarity - the pitlane is part of the track. And 'wrong' side of the bollard is only relevant if going into the pits.

There was not a car width between Lewis and the bollard, that is just the parallax error in the photo.

Here at 32:27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76BbAisy6hk

Hamilton has not left Perez room on the outside of the corner, or at the bollard, however, apparently on this track going around the bollard is acceptable.
All in all a good decision from the stewards to let this go, was good and respectful racing with nobody running into each other.

The Gasly penalty on Alonso though was eye wateringly bad, and then in this context, how did Sainz get away with running into Vettel, who had tried to avoid the Ferrari, but still got hit.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

There was not a car width between Lewis and the bollard, that is just the parallax error in the photo.

Here at 32:27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76BbAisy6hk

Hamilton has not left Perez room on the outside of the corner, or at the bollard, however, apparently on this track going around the bollard is acceptable.
All in all a good decision from the stewards to let this go, was good and respectful racing with nobody running into each other.

The Gasly penalty on Alonso though was eye wateringly bad, and then in this context, how did Sainz get away with running into Vettel, who had tried to avoid the Ferrari, but still got hit.

All the decisions in this were fair and reflected the racing conditions the drivers have to cope with. The bollard is there to indicate the beginning of the pit lane and in dry conditions it is unlikely that any driver would be there unless he was coming in to the pit lane.
but in wet conditions (slower) there is more likelihood of a battle so Perez was given the benefit of any doubt and allowed to continue without a penalty.

What else should he have done?
Should he have crashed Hamilton? That's why some of the questioning of things is just daft.

Personally I don't like the bollard being there but that might result in more people running over the blue area so I guess it is what it is.
But there wasn't really anything else Perez could have done unless he had lifted and dropped in behind Hamilton.
And I'd rather have what we got than that.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by wnut

how did Sainz get away with running into Vettel, who had tried to avoid the Ferrari, but still got hit.

There were no consequences...... Oh wait....

[S griffin]

Sometimes racing incidents happen, just it seems there are less happening in the stewards eyes these days

[Taxi645]

I think the FIA should change two things considering their stewarding:

1 Protect the outside driver more.
2 Don’t claim you don’t consider the consequences of incidents (since you clearly do) and since you do already, consider foreseeable direct consequences in the severity of the punishment.


1 Protect the outside driver more.
Hamilton was forced off by Verstappen in Brazil. Not punishing him set a very unwelcome precedent and other drivers are already stating they will change their future approach to racing as a result of it. Norris for instance, who might perhaps might have learned from his previous penalties for forcing another driver off track now feels his penalty was unjust.

2 Don’t claim you don’t consider the consequences of incidents (since you clearly do) and since you do already, consider foreseeable direct consequences in the severity of the punishment.
The FIA claims they don’t consider the consequences of incidents when considering penalties but they clearly do. Tsunoda got a penalty at T1 Brazil for a move many drivers successfully completed that same weekend without an issue because the other driver did not steer into them resulting in a collision. The consequence of there being a contact, gave Tsunoda a penalty for a more many drivers made.

If you already consider the consequences of incidents, than do it properly. By properly I mean than consider the direct foreseeable consequences by rule breacher when determine the height of a penalty. For instance:
If you force another driver off track you can take the direct foreseeable consequences into account by looking at :
1 What’s next to the track
2 What was the speed at which the incident took place.

1 What’s next to the track.
Something like the following would seem conceivable and fair:
- Tarmac: neutral penalty
- Grass, astroturf and similar: higher penalty
- Gravel, wall: higher penalty still

2 What was the speed at which the incident took place.
- High speed: higher penalty
- Mid speed: neutral
- Low speed: lower penalty

If the penalties are then:
5s,
10s,
Stop-and-go
10s stop-and-go
disqualification


If we then look at a few (high profile) incidents and then apply the above criteria:

Silverstone:
High speed incident (higher penalty) where the outside driver was punted off onto the grass (high penalty. So going from the standard 5s, to 10s for the grass next to the track (instead of the grippy tarmac) and from 10s to stop-and-go for the high speed nature.

Brazil:
Mid-speed with tarmac on the outside so 5s penalty for Verstappen.

Norris forcing Perez into the gravel at Austria:
Midspeed into the gravel so pretty hefty penalty; 10s or even stop and go.

All the above is foreseeable for the drivers involved and forces driver to consider the direct and foreseeable consequences of their actions for other drivers. Making it more fair and promoting fair and longer lasting on track battles.

Now one could argue that race results should not be determined too much by penalties. My counter argument to that would be, that when penalties will be more predictable and severe, drivers will behave better (otherwise it will cost them and their bosses points) and as a result actually less penalties might be given.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Tsunoda got a penalty at T1 Brazil for a move many drivers successfully completed that same weekend without an issue because the other driver did not steer into them resulting in a collision. The consequence of there being a contact, gave Tsunoda a penalty for a more many drivers made.

Just to be pedantic (who would have thought it), the offence of deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track is different to the offence of causing a collision.

I appreciate that the offences differ because of the other driver's actions. But that is also why the offences (usually) carry a different penalty.

Crowd a car beyond the edge of the track - the other car usually is inconvenienced for a momentary passage of time.
Cause a collision - the other car is usually damaged, or unable to complete the race.

So - typically different offences with different penalties.

[ascarracinguk]

Its an interesting concept, however driving standards penalties are a safety issue. The problem with penalising high speed incidents more heavily than low speed incidents is that you can still cause a lot of damage to driver and car at low speed.

Just look at Max at Monza....that was low speed but had the potential to have severe consequences without the halo.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Just to be pedantic (who would have thought it), the offence of deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track is different to the offence of causing a collision.

I appreciate that the offences differ because of the other driver's actions. But that is also why the offences (usually) carry a different penalty.

Crowd a car beyond the edge of the track - the other car usually is inconvenienced for a momentary passage of time.
Cause a collision - the other car is usually damaged, or unable to complete the race.

So - typically different offences with different penalties.

Agreed, I gave the example of the Tsunoda penalty as proof that they DO consider consequences of incidents when considering penalties.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Its an interesting concept, however driving standards penalties are a safety issue. The problem with penalising high speed incidents more heavily than low speed incidents is that you can still cause a lot of damage to driver and car at low speed.

Just look at Max at Monza....that was low speed but had the potential to have severe consequences without the halo.

Yes it can happen, but a low speed offence is less likely to be as dangerous, a driver can foresee that a high speed offence is more dangerous as the consequences are in general more severe. The Monza outcome was a bit of a freak accident.

Take for instance turn 3 at Austria. Drivers often get squeezed off there, but as there is tarmac on the outside and it is at low speed, handing out heavy penalties for crowding a driver off track there would be over the top. The above set up would take this into account.

[Richard C]

First, thank you for bringing the discussion to this thread. While the recent discussions are specific to recent race, and then the discussion is in the race thread. Those discussions tend to move way beyond just what happened in that specific race. So that is why I think a thread like this is more appropriate.


I also tend to not get too emotionally sucked into these discussions. So because of that I tend to not post much on the topic. But one thing you mentioned resonates with a few thoughts I had.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

1 What’s next to the track.
Something like the following would seem conceivable and fair:
- Tarmac: neutral penalty
- Grass, astroturf and similar: higher penalty
- Gravel, wall: higher penalty still

I think that your sliding scale as to penalty also already is reflected by how often a driver will try to make a move on the outside. So for example, who thinks anyone is going to try an outside move on many corners at Monaco! So my point is that we should see more attempts in areas in which the consequences of having to run wide are not terminal.

My suggestion to add to the discussion is that we have talked about geofencing, etc. as ways to expose drivers pushing the envelope for track boundaries. At the same time we have said that the right balance of additional sensors, etc. needs to be set.

But what I do think seems to be a problem is both the wealth of data that the stewards have as well as the level of "late data" that seems to show up either late in, or after the race. We see things that talk about AI predictions as to pit windows, tire performance, etc. which are targeted at the viewers. And I welcome that data. But might there not also be a push to improve the capabilities that the stewards have?

Here is an example. Lets say that the stewards have not just live data (such as steering input, etc.) but also AI analysis (and other tools) that is looking at trends. So for example if a driver makes little or no room on the exit of a corner and someone is on the outside, the stewards should be able to immediately see what the delta is for that lap vs. prior series of laps (as well as other drivers). The data should show if the driver did or did not take a wider line, inputs, etc.. Same goes for overlay of in-car video. Is that not immediately available? All of this in both summary and detail level should be available to them to help guide the stewards to make decisions VERY quickly and hopefully consistently.

Right now I think the have an ocean of raw data. Most is probably available very soon, but some not until after the race. And I think they are currently having to manually wade through that raw data and produce defendable penalties that will be examined by everyone days later and that just takes time. They need some automated aids to help them. These aids would not make the judgement (guilty, not guilty). They would just be tools, but they could help them arrive at accurate and consistent rulings much faster.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Here is an example. Lets say that the stewards have not just live data (such as steering input, etc.) but also AI analysis (and other tools) that is looking at trends. So for example if a driver makes little or no room on the exit of a corner and someone is on the outside, the stewards should be able to immediately see what the delta is for that lap vs. prior series of laps (as well as other drivers). The data should show if the driver did or did not take a wider line, inputs, etc..

I agree this would be helpful, and surely in the 'art of the possible'.

We see so many sports where the tracks of an action are readily available, and a quick chart of Max's 47 laps through T4 at Brazil (for example) would definitely give some context to the decision.

Would it stop the arguments though - who knows?

Here's a cricket example - you can see how the bowler's line varies through an over.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

First, thank you for bringing the discussion to this thread. While the recent discussions are specific to recent race, and then the discussion is in the race thread. Those discussions tend to move way beyond just what happened in that specific race. So that is why I think a thread like this is more appropriate.


I also tend to not get too emotionally sucked into these discussions. So because of that I tend to not post much on the topic. But one thing you mentioned resonates with a few thoughts I had.


I think that your sliding scale as to penalty also already is reflected by how often a driver will try to make a move on the outside. So for example, who thinks anyone is going to try an outside move on many corners at Monaco! So my point is that we should see more attempts in areas in which the consequences of having to run wide are not terminal.

My suggestion to add to the discussion is that we have talked about geofencing, etc. as ways to expose drivers pushing the envelope for track boundaries. At the same time we have said that the right balance of additional sensors, etc. needs to be set.

But what I do think seems to be a problem is both the wealth of data that the stewards have as well as the level of "late data" that seems to show up either late in, or after the race. We see things that talk about AI predictions as to pit windows, tire performance, etc. which are targeted at the viewers. And I welcome that data. But might there not also be a push to improve the capabilities that the stewards have?

Here is an example. Lets say that the stewards have not just live data (such as steering input, etc.) but also AI analysis (and other tools) that is looking at trends. So for example if a driver makes little or no room on the exit of a corner and someone is on the outside, the stewards should be able to immediately see what the delta is for that lap vs. prior series of laps (as well as other drivers). The data should show if the driver did or did not take a wider line, inputs, etc.. Same goes for overlay of in-car video. Is that not immediately available? All of this in both summary and detail level should be available to them to help guide the stewards to make decisions VERY quickly and hopefully consistently.

Right now I think the have an ocean of raw data. Most is probably available very soon, but some not until after the race. And I think they are currently having to manually wade through that raw data and produce defendable penalties that will be examined by everyone days later and that just takes time. They need some automated aids to help them. These aids would not make the judgement (guilty, not guilty). They would just be tools, but they could help them arrive at accurate and consistent rulings much faster.

Richard

Interesting point, because the exact positioning of a car is now often a point of discussion when incidents happen. What was the trajectory of the car and how did that differ from other laps? What would be the right sensor set to establish that accurately enough? Optical? GPS?

[Anyopenroad]

Creating complexity in pursuit of fairness doesn't work because of the law of unintended consequences.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

1 What’s next to the track.
Something like the following would seem conceivable and fair:
- Tarmac: neutral penalty
- Grass, astroturf and similar: higher penalty
- Gravel, wall: higher penalty still

2 What was the speed at which the incident took place.
- High speed: higher penalty
- Mid speed: neutral
- Low speed: lower penalty

As someone who has actually raced albeit in saloons, quite successfully and always hard fought racing, it shouldn't make any difference what is next to the track; the circuits are marked quite clearly with a white line around the track and that marks what is supposed to be the racing tarmac. No matter what extends beyond that line, it can be potentially dangerous to be forced to use that because of the actions of another driver. And I say that as someone who was forced to take to the grass to avoid being smashed into by another driver who couldn't slow down sufficiently to take the corner. He was given a ban for that and another incident that he had with another car just after: he also wrote off the car in that incident, and unfortunately the car belonged to his friend.

This is not banger racing where the last car running is the winner; it's not trying to win at all costs.

Secondly, speed should never come in to it; driving in a manner that might be considered a danger to others can be committed at any speed. And, certainly in the UK, a driver on the road can be prosecuted for the offence of dangerous driving no matter at which speed they may be travelling at. Conversely, they can also commit the same offence merely by driving at excessive speed that is way beyond the legal limit.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Creating complexity in pursuit of fairness doesn't work because of the law of unintended consequences.

I rather have a limited amount of complexity that is actually communicated and transparent than untransparent complexity in decision making that leads to randomness as we saw in many recent incidents and their (lack off) penalties.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As someone who has actually raced albeit in saloons, quite successfully and always hard fought racing, it shouldn't make any difference what is next to the track; the circuits are marked quite clearly with a white line around the track and that marks what is supposed to be the racing tarmac. No matter what extends beyond that line, it can be potentially dangerous to be forced to use that because of the actions of another driver. And I say that as someone who was forced to take to the grass to avoid being smashed into by another driver who couldn't slow down sufficiently to take the corner. He was given a ban for that and another incident that he had with another car just after: he also wrote off the car in that incident, and unfortunately the car belonged to his friend.

This is not banger racing where the last car running is the winner; it's not trying to win at all costs.

Mike, actually I very much agree with you. If it were up to me penalties for forcing another driver off track would be so severe no sane driver would ever venture there. However in all sorts of motorsports from karting up to F1, it is something which has been pretty common unfortunately. To come down so hard on it in F1 would be pretty drastic.

Secondly, speed should never come in to it; driving in a manner that might be considered a danger to others can be committed at any speed. And, certainly in the UK, a driver on the road can be prosecuted for the offence of dangerous driving no matter at which speed they may be travelling at. Conversely, they can also commit the same offence merely by driving at excessive speed that is way beyond the legal limit.

As said in general a higher speed accident is more dangerous. As that is foreseeable, I think it should be reflected in the severity of the penalty.

It's not that an offence at lower speed should not be punished, just less severe.

[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.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I rather have a limited amount of complexity that is actually communicated and transparent than untransparent complexity in decision making that leads to randomness as we saw in many recent incidents and their (lack off) penalties.

A 3x3 grid of punishments applied to at least two offences (crowding off track and causing a collision) is not a ‘limited’ amount of complexity. Even that is 18 separate offence/punishment situations. And they don’t have clear boundaries, since speed and proximity to a wall/barrier are each on a continuum. Instead of subjectivity applied by expert stewards at the time you have created subjectivity in the definitions baked into the rules and then again in deciding which combination of circumstances an incident falls under.

Ironically this apparent objectivity will result in just as much controversy because inflexible application of the grid of punishments will still lead to outcomes that are perceived as too harsh or soft. So then you introduce more criteria to fix those inequities and suddenly your rulebook is a hundred pages long, no-one understands it and it STILL doesn’t cover everything because it is not possible to envisage every combination of track, corner, driver behaviour and outcome.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

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..

I should have said "cascades" down rather.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Interesting point, because the exact positioning of a car is now often a point of discussion when incidents happen. What was the trajectory of the car and how did that differ from other laps? What would be the right sensor set to establish that accurately enough? Optical? GPS?

I am not suggesting to create new methods of measurement and more data, but to optimize and speed up the usage of the existing data. I think the cars themselves generate quite a bit. And there is also lots of video evidence. Be it in-car or via trackside. How can we better use that data if additional analysis (such as by automated systems) is performed and provided to the steward in real (or near real) time.

I like the concept of having better positional data for the cars, but for me, I think that is a lower priority vs. utilizing the existing data better. Figure out how to use the existing data. It should be more cost effective to improve in that area.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Here's a cricket example - you can see how the bowler's line varies through an over.

Yes. Something like that in a way. Imagine a graphical overlay that shows steering, throttle, brake for a corner in question. I know teams have had this for years and potentially the stewards have this as well in raw form. But enrich the data with additional analysis.

If overlaid, of course each lap will be different. Especially if the driver is in a battle and is defending, taking different lines, etc. But if combined with video, with correct timestamp alignment and additional automated analysis, it could help address questions such as "did he unwind the wheel mid-corner" or "turn in less than usual" and make answers available in seconds and not minutes, hours or days.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Would it stop the arguments though - who knows?

Sadly no. But I hope it might reduce the arguments. I also hope it might reduce the likelihood of impacting race results AFTER the race has ended. That penalties can be handed out quickly and maybe with more consistency.

But people will still argue. It's in their nature.

Richard

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Creating complexity in pursuit of fairness doesn't work because of the law of unintended consequences.

Unintended consequences is still the responsibility of the instigator/perpetrator.

Unfortunately though, unintended consequences is often used to absolve a driver of responsibility.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Unintended consequences is still the responsibility of the instigator/perpetrator.

I was referring to unintended consequences of the regulation, such as ending up punishing drivers for incidents that were not within the purview of the rule change. The complexity introduced by factoring in multiple additional components when assessing an incident is so great that such unanticipated outcomes are pretty much inevitable. Those then get solved by adding additional wording in an ongoing game of regulatory whack-a-mole.

I do have sympathy with the underlying motivation for this discussion: a driver being found at fault for a collision which put his rival out of a race, yet going on to win. The problem with trying to regulate away such an inequity is that the regulation has to be so specific that it will probably never be used because it was such a freak one-off, or it will be drawn so broad as to catch far less contentious incidents.

[Sodemo]

I think a rule which states that a driver should not force another driver off the track would be easily interpreted. I think you would get the usual politicking about various incidents (I had oversteer mid corner etc) but it should be a golden rule and a racing no-no and I don't know why its tolerated since I see it most racing weekends now.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think a rule which states that a driver should not force another driver off the track would be easily interpreted. I think you would get the usual politicking about various incidents (I had oversteer mid corner etc) but it should be a golden rule and a racing no-no and I don't know why its tolerated since I see it most racing weekends now.

This is because, as I wrote on another thread, F1 drivers in particular seem to try to interpret the rules and regulations as they see fit and this then cascades down to the lower formula.

It is well beyond time that the FIA started to take draconian action to stop the shockingly poor driving standards in what is supposed to the the pinnacle of motor sport and then it should cascade down pretty quickly. It wouldn't or shouldn't take long at all to get an immediate improvement as long as all stewards/race directors/clerks of the course etc. actually follow through.

And I think that it comes, partly, from drivers (I'm generalising here; fortunately there are many exceptions) not respecting their fellow competitors and also from a sense of the rules not applying to them. Well, they should for both.