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.