Red Bull Ring - Track Limits

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Not really saying I’m against gravel or for prioritizing commercial/entertainment concerns…it’s more of an issue with handing out f1 equivalents of red cards for relatively minor mistakes I do think there is a sporting argument to be made against overly penalizing track limits….in this case particularly when hard racing is going on.

Dont know what the answer is, but I certainly dont think it’s as clear cut as others.

Surely this is now different to saying that drivers on public roads should be penalised for driving on side-walks (pavements in the UK). We have raised curbs that mark the limits of the roadway in the same way that racing tracks have designated markings that mark the extremes of the racing area. If drivers go over those places, then they should expect a penalty; likewise, if they force another driver to exceed those areas, then they should also expect to receive a penalty.

[chillibowl]

Problematic to compare things to the rules of public roads and also I’m not against penalties.

Just saying that gravel and track limits can at times create extreme or disproportionate penalties. Agree to disagree but there is not a one stop solution to every scenario imo and that sporting values do need to be balanced with entertainment.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

What this weekends events have shown is that for the most part having gravel there is a deterrent and that the cars stayed mostly on course.
My issue is that a track is defined as between the white lines, so why does the gravel have to be a full cars width away from the outer edge of the white line.

Put it less than a cars width away, make the kerbs less than a cars width. Force them to keep 2 wheels well within limits rather than counting millimetres to see if a cars inside tyres stayed on the line.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Put it less than a cars width away, make the kerbs less than a cars width. Force them to keep 2 wheels well within limits rather than counting millimetres to see if a cars inside tyres stayed on the line.

How are you planning to define, and then police, "well within limits?"

[Adam43]

I initially thought that well within was a problem here, but then I re-read as I assumed I’d probably not taken the time to understand what was being meant.

ScotsBrutesFan is saying that if the kerbs are narrow then the (inner) 2 wheels would be well within those limits. Hence no need for police, or define. The driver will be choosing not to go any further because it would be bad for them. He can confirm if I’ve read that right.

[peebee2]

So, they could be within legal track limits and in the gravel at the same time? That’s really not going to work!

[Adam43]

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Adam43

ScotsBrutesFan is saying that if the kerbs are narrow then the (inner) 2 wheels would be well within those limits. Hence no need for police, or define. The driver will be choosing not to go any further because it would be bad for them. He can confirm if I’ve read that right.

Correct Adam

If the driver want's to push to the very edge of the track remember as I said in my first post the track is defined as WITHIN the white lines. If a driver wants to run on the white lines with their inside tyres then the outer tyres will be on the gravel.

[peebee2]

I understand the good motives but that would be total mayhem, and completely unworkable anyway.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

I understand the good motives but that would be total mayhem, and completely unworkable anyway.

Why would that be total mayhem and unworkable?

[peebee2]

Many reasons that I think are fairly obvious. Let’s start with the legal and indemnity implications for the FIA on safety if a car can be defined routinely as being on the track in regulation and in a gravel trap simultaneously..

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Many reasons that I think are fairly obvious. Let’s start with the legal and indemnity implications for the FIA on safety if a car can be defined routinely as being on the track in regulation and in a gravel trap simultaneously..

That argument doesn't stand up as there are circuits where cars bounce off the Armco but yet "be defined routinely as being on the track in regulation"

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Correct Adam

If the driver want's to push to the very edge of the track remember as I said in my first post the track is defined as WITHIN the white lines. If a driver wants to run on the white lines with their inside tyres then the outer tyres will be on the gravel.

Or just go back to the ways of the 50s/60s/70s where you had a white line with grass immediately beyond. However, it was usually worn out and would commonly be rutted, meaning that drivers would do all they could to not get on to it as the results could be really unpredictable.

Further more, you also never had curbing that is on a slope which is just designed to help the drivers go around corners/bends quicker than if they did not exist. So why not take them away, as well? Or go back to the banking of tracks like Brooklands, because if you went beyond the track limits there you went out in to no-man's-land!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

My issue is that a track is defined as between the white lines, so why does the gravel have to be a full cars width away from the outer edge of the white line.

Put it less than a cars width away, make the kerbs less than a cars width. Force them to keep 2 wheels well within limits rather than counting millimetres to see if a cars inside tyres stayed on the line.

That's exactly what they did at turns 9 & 10 this weekend - 1.5 metres from the white line to the gravel (the cars are 2m wide). Hopefully we see more of it in the future as it worked really well compared to last year.

Originally Posted by peebee2

I understand the good motives but that would be total mayhem, and completely unworkable anyway.

Worked really well this weekend, I expect that they'll do a review but it seems on first blush like they've come up with a good solution.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Many reasons that I think are fairly obvious. Let’s start with the legal and indemnity implications for the FIA on safety if a car can be defined routinely as being on the track in regulation and in a gravel trap simultaneously..

And yet - it is not a problem at the moment and we have cars being simultaneously on the track and in the gravel.




If I read SBF's post correctly - it is just being suggested that the kerb is made less than a car's width more consistently.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

That argument doesn't stand up as there are circuits where cars bounce off the Armco but yet "be defined routinely as being on the track in regulation"

To be fair, I think you might have a good point there!

[steve_r]

I think that it worked well. Apart from Piastri of course who felt hard done by. Certainly it was an marked improvement on last years debacle.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

That's exactly what they did at turns 9 & 10 this weekend - 1.5 metres from the white line to the gravel (the cars are 2m wide). Hopefully we see more of it in the future as it worked really well compared to last year.

Thank you for posting this. I was re-reading this thread and it was clear there was not a clear understanding of how the new solution was structured. I had read the original article days ago (which speaks to this 1.5 vs 2m distance) and I think some missed that detail.

Richard

[morninggents]

I think the gravel traps at that circuit were a success. Compare the number of violations this year to last year. Last year was farcical.
Oscar may feel hard done by but was over the limit if only fractionally.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Having watched the race and now looking at those photos, it doesn't look like total mayhem, or completely unworkable.

[S griffin]

It’s good to have more gravel in places, but we still have the problem of the corner where Oscar got pinged harshly. And the acres of tarmac in turn 3

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

My issue is that a track is defined as between the white lines, so why does the gravel have to be a full cars width away from the outer edge of the white line.

Put it less than a cars width away, make the kerbs less than a cars width.

Of course.

FIA and Red Bull Racing are aware of this, the kerbs already existed and there wasn't time to modify them.

As the kerb width at the Red Bull Ring is two metres and there wasn’t enough time to remove the kerb and switch it for something similar to what was installed in China this year (a one metre kerb and then gravel), the FIA have artificially shortened the width of the kerb by moving the white line onto the kerb.

Now as the kerbs are red and white, that makes it tricky to see the white line clearly – so there is also an additional blue line behind just to make it easy for marshals.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...T3HHpwuEJ7PoHw

Originally Posted by S griffin

It’s good to have more gravel in places, but we still have the problem of the corner where Oscar got pinged harshly.

Disagree, rules are rules. The uniform white line rule has been welcome compared to the mess of different rules at different corners.

The kerb width from the white line to the gravel was less than 2m, if Oscar had stayed with his tyre entirely on the kerb he would not have been pinged.

Instead Oscar had about a third of his rear tyre on the gravel -- fortunately for him the level of the gravel was below the level of the kerb (perhaps due to other drivers messing up the gravel previously).

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Many reasons that I think are fairly obvious. Let’s start with the legal and indemnity implications for the FIA on safety if a car can be defined routinely as being on the track in regulation and in a gravel trap simultaneously..

Suggesting that having two wheels beyond the white line and simultaneously being "on track" is ludicrous. It's just that is has been permitted in F1 for so long. Four wheels within the white line is "on track".

After watching corners 9 and 10 during Austrian qualifying, the drivers' ability to run across the kerb to the very edge of the gravel was highly impressive. It demonstrates that wide kerbs are not a necessity for safety and are just an encouragement to go beyond the track.

The only downside to placing gravel right up to the edge of the track is that it will get scattered onto the track when a car runs slightly wide. So I think a 1 metre gap between track and gravel is a sensible compromise. Then any driver who is marginally "over track limits" by the current definition will have half his car in the gravel and will lose a lot of time. Track limits penalties then become unnecessary.

Large gravel traps do have the potential to cause car to beach which is a problem for the entertainment value of a race even if I don't have much sympathy for a driver who gets himself in that position. So I would be quite happy have fairly narrow gravel traps and tarmac run-off beyond. The system of having to rejoin the track at a certain place (already used at some corners) is a good one and could be further developed to ensure that any off-track excursion suffers a substantial penalty (more than they were getting at the Wall of Champions chicane in Canada).

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Suggesting that having two wheels beyond the white line and simultaneously being "on track" is ludicrous. It's just that is has been permitted in F1 for so long.

No, it’s the rules. Be it F1 or any other car racing discipline.

Anyway I accepted above that maybe being “on track” and in the gravel simultaneously could be possible, and might well work.