US GP Austin

[chavez]

While one may laugh and look down upon the track limit regulations in IndyCar and NASCAR, it would appear, at least at COTA they get it right - no argument, no doubt, no inconsistencies, and perhaps most importantly, the spectator is not left dazed and confused by calls that require an intimate knowledge of the sporting regulations to understand.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

But if they run another driver off in an overtake they get penalized 5 seconds.
If you run another driver off the track and go off yourself, then the other driver regains the track before you do the overtake rule should be negated.
That is common sense.
If we are having a legalistic interpretation of general racing etiquette, then the sport is in a very sad place.
I served 10 years in national competition as a race official and I would NEVER have done what these officials did under general rules of racing etiquette.
Its a nonsense.

Your first two points seem to be judged by the current system on who gained an advantage - if you overtake someone by running them off the track, you gain the advantage and thus if you don't redress, you are penalised. If you are defending and run the other driver wide but the other driver rips off into the run off and regains in front of you, then they have gained the advantage and if they don't redress, they get penalised. The other driver had the choice (in at least some cases) to stay behind as well.

All interpretations by the stewards are legalistic by nature, so we get what we get. I think that the racing rules could be much better than they are and also circuits designed better would assist.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Your first two points seem to be judged by the current system on who gained an advantage - if you overtake someone by running them off the track, you gain the advantage and thus if you don't redress, you are penalised. If you are defending and run the other driver wide but the other driver rips off into the run off and regains in front of you, then they have gained the advantage and if they don't redress, they get penalised. The other driver had the choice (in at least some cases) to stay behind as well.

All interpretations by the stewards are legalistic by nature, so we get what we get. I think that the racing rules could be much better than they are and also circuits designed better would assist.

But obviously I would disagree from a sporting point of view, and I am quite happy to argue the point with the stewards. I think under the regulations they have options to act or to let go and both actions are by choice. There is not an automatic cause to penalize or some things in Austin would have resulted in penalties.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

But obviously I would disagree from a sporting point of view, and I am quite happy to argue the point with the stewards. I think under the regulations they have options to act or to let go and both actions are by choice. There is not an automatic cause to penalize or some things in Austin would have resulted in penalties.

Honestly don't know on that score - although they DID only give Norris a 5 sec penalty rather than the usual 10 sec penalty that applies for overtaking off the track, due to him going off track due to Verstappen's position. So they did in fact show some leniency and allowed for mitigating circumstances.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Honestly don't know on that score - although they DID only give Norris a 5 sec penalty rather than the usual 10 sec penalty that applies for overtaking off the track, due to him going off track due to Verstappen's position. So they did in fact show some leniency and allowed for mitigating circumstances.

I understand that but I would still not have made the decision that they did.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Honestly don't know on that score - although they DID only give Norris a 5 sec penalty rather than the usual 10 sec penalty that applies for overtaking off the track, due to him going off track due to Verstappen's position. So they did in fact show some leniency and allowed for mitigating circumstances.

And McLaren was reported by Mr Piastri to have asked him to drop back so Mr Norris’ position didn’t change…

[Taxi645]

Well, few years ago I criticized the "first to apex" rule precisely for this reason, but few people here seemed to agree back then.

I think that the above point is correct that the car on the inside for to have the right of corner should at least remain on track themselves otherwise you will forfeit your right to the corner. If the rule would've been worded as such then Norris should not have gotten a penalty. Problem is, AFAIK, this additional criterion is not currently in the rules and don't force (or allow?) the stewards to judge accordingly.

Earlier I also proposed the rule that overtaking outside the track is only disallowed if the inside car leaves enough space on the outside. As Verstappen didn't even stay on track such a rule would have surely kicked in.

Yet again, such a rule does not exist. So I think the penalty was not wrong, just that the rules should've been such that it would not have been given.

For a few years I've been arguing for rules that promote side by side racing rather then "right of corner" style rules, but as said, the enthusiasm for it was not that great here. I rather have slightly shorter DRS zones and rules that provide opportunities in corners by promoting side by side fights throughout corners. Question is, can the driver (and their fans) handle it as it goes against their DNA.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Brazil 21 is irrelevant because the racing rules have changed since then, has no bearing on what happened today whatsoever.

With all due respect. you can't keep saying it's irrelevant and ignore the context of why we have new racing rules. That race is why we have these rules, because Max drove another car off the road to keep a position. That race was the catalyst for the entire change.

Max breaks the regulations by making sure he's at the apex first by braking so late that he will beat any car to the apex and force them off the road. It's not only unacceptable driving, it's premeditated. He knows going into the corner that he's taking them off the road.

Or let's put it this way -

George Russell was apparently penalized for forcing another car off the track and gaining an advantage (he took the position).

Yuki Tusnoda was apparently penalized for forcing another car off the track and gaining an advantage (he took the position).

Oscar Pisati was apparently penalized for forcing another car off the track and gaining an advantage (he took the position).

All 3 of these drivers were apparently penalized because their actions of forcing another car off the track allowed them to come out on top. I don't agree with any of the decisions, but that's the logic they're using. You tend to penalize cars for when they gain an advantage right? And this is to right the wrong of what occurred.

Max drove another car off the circuit. That is the wrong. The wrong was immediately righted by Lando taking the position anyway. So surely this is just a NFA situation?

Everyone is obsessed with the "overtaking off the track" which Lando did, but we're going to keep excusing why they were off the track in the first place - car number 1 put them there.

These sort of driving and officiating standards would not be acceptable in a regional Formula 4 event. Yet here we are, again, at a Formula 1 Grand Prix, discussing why it's acceptable for Max to drive in a manner which would have him banned from British F4.

[Taxi645]

I looked up one of the previous discussions:

https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...154427&page=21

With the proposed rule change in post #509.

During a fight for position a driver may maintain or gain position by going off track if not left at least a car width on the outside on track by the competing driver.


Also in post #518 of that thread we read:

These are the current rules in regards to leaving room as commuted to the drivers:

https://the-race.com/formula-1/the-r...-aggressively/

At the start of this year the FIA said if a driver is overtaking on the inside of a corner, they must “have a significant portion of the car alongside” to be given space. There are “various factors” that will determine what it is a “significant portion” but one that is specified is whether their front tyres are alongside the other car by “no later than the apex of the corner”. The car overtaking on the inside must also “clearly remain within the limits of the track” – but nothing is specified for the car being overtaken.
As for overtaking on the outside of a corner, once again the driver attempting the move must have a “significant portion” of their car alongside. In this scenario, though, the stewards will consider if the overtaking car is “ahead of the other car from the apex of the corner”. And in this case, both cars must be able to make the corner while remaining “within the limits of the track”.

I highlighted the important bit. So It seems that if this is still currently in the rules and we know Verstappen did not stay within track limits the penalty should not have been given even by the current rules.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I looked up one of the previous discussions:

https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...154427&page=21

With the proposed rule change in post #509.

During a fight for position a driver may maintain or gain position by going off track if not left at least a car width on the outside on track by the competing driver.


Also in post #518 of that thread we read:

These are the current rules in regards to leaving room as commuted to the drivers:

https://the-race.com/formula-1/the-r...-aggressively/

At the start of this year the FIA said if a driver is overtaking on the inside of a corner, they must “have a significant portion of the car alongside” to be given space. There are “various factors” that will determine what it is a “significant portion” but one that is specified is whether their front tyres are alongside the other car by “no later than the apex of the corner”. The car overtaking on the inside must also “clearly remain within the limits of the track” – but nothing is specified for the car being overtaken.
As for overtaking on the outside of a corner, once again the driver attempting the move must have a “significant portion” of their car alongside. In this scenario, though, the stewards will consider if the overtaking car is “ahead of the other car from the apex of the corner”. And in this case, both cars must be able to make the corner while remaining “within the limits of the track”.

I highlighted the important bit. So It seems that if this is still currently in the rules and we know Verstappen did not stay within track limits the penalty should not have been given even by the current rules.

Great post.

Also consider the wording here. The car making the pass must be significantly alongside "no later than the apex of the corner" - it does not say at the apex (which is what is continuously posted in defense). Lando was a nose ahead into the braking which is before the apex. By this wording, he is entitled to space on the exit of the corner.

It's easy to blame Max for all of this, but he is being enabled by poor officiating. If he was penalized then it would stop.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Great post.

Also consider the wording here. The car making the pass must be significantly alongside "no later than the apex of the corner" - it does not say at the apex (which is what is continuously posted in defense). Lando was a nose ahead into the braking which is before the apex. By this wording, he is entitled to space on the exit of the corner.

I'm not sure this particular bit is correct. I think the wording can only be interpreted as you have up until the apex to get ahead. Which Max did.


I don't agree with that rule as it does not promote side by side racing, but I do feel that bit was applied correctly. Does not seem to matter though as Max went off track and the highlighted bit above should've kicked in.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I'm not sure this particular bit is correct. I think the wording can only be interpreted as you have up until the apex to get ahead. Which Max did.


I don't agree with that rule as it does not promote side by side racing, but I do feel that bit was applied correctly. Does not seem to matter though as Max went off track and the highlighted bit above should've kicked in.

If the rules do say "no later than", then it does open up that debate.

If a bank tells me "Pay no later than August 6th", then I can pay at any point before August 6th.

If the rules say "no later than the apex", then it's any point before, up until, the apex.

I also agree with your last point - the rules were still violated a second or so later anyway.

[Sodemo]

The track is partly to blame. When you have drivers forcing other drivers off the track, they know that 9 times out of 10, the guy on the outside will just relent and take to the run off area. If that run off didn't exist, then you probably wouldn't have them going "shoulder to shoulder" on the exit kerb in the first place because the guy on the outside would have anticipated it and given up the corner way before.

[Mike Harte]

The Stewards have interpreted this matter, as has been stated above somewhere, from the point of view that at the apex" Verstappen had his nose in front. They totally ignored, and possibly didn't look at his previous braking point which other Stewards have done in previous races, the fact that Verstappen was unable to make the corner on the track because he was carrying far too much speed.

It does seem to me that various Stewards, for reasons that are not totally clear to me, appear to not adjudicate Verstappen's on track , or maybe that should be off track, movements in the same way that they do for other drivers. Maybe they fear the wrath of all those that surround Red Bull.