Driving standards/ stewarding

[Adam43]

Bias which way? Anyway it is an opinion piece.

[Johno.UK]

Interpreting bias is a tricky thing as most people have their own opinions and interpret anything that disagrees with them as bias.

The political mess in the UK is showing that quite nicely. Read a right wing paper and the comment section say the BBC is biased to the left. Read a left wing paper and they said they're biased to the right.

[Born Racer]

Thanks for the link, ScotsBrutesFan, to the conversation between Anthony Davidson and Michael Masi. I thought Michael dealt with the questions clearly and comes across as keen to establish defined procedures for driving standards.

He does, however, raise some concerns for me. Although I don't entirely disagree with the idea that no contact means a less severe penalty, it is open to a change in attitude by the driver on the receiving end of a move like Leclerc's: had Hamilton chosen not to move himself out onto the grass slightly, they would have collided and he could have helped Leclerc get a penalty, thereby ensuring the race win for himself.

There is therefore now more of an incentive for the driver who feels he is wronged to collide.

That is the first thing that is not conducive to what I would call great racing.

The second thing that does not help lead to great racing is the fact that such moves are now being increasingly tolerated. I refer to this point of gert's:

Personally I would have preferred the other option where drivers were obliged to give the other car a car's width of racing room (i.e. Verstappen's action on Leclerc would have been wrong, as would have been Lecler's on Hamilton) but I'm OK with this if they keep on being consistent.
Same on-track action, same (lack of) steward action.

Personally, I am not so in favour of this type of racing because I think that leaving a car's room leads to more exciting racing. What springs to mind is another Monza example - Hamilton on Vettel last year. Vettel left him room and he could conceivably have fought back.

When we see cars side-by-side on compromised lines, we see some fantastic battles. The Toro Rossos in a recent race for several corners is a case in point.

The new problem may not therefore be the lack of consistency, but the lack of a battle as drivers push others wide aggressively in the first instance and accept their black-and-white flag.

Lewis Hamilton has said the following:

"If that's how we are allowed to race then I will race like that," he stated. "As long as we know that you are allowed to not leave a car width for example, as long as you are not contradicting us and there is a clear message.

"So you are allowed to run wide even if someone is there and you only get a warning flag, and you only need that once to potentially keep the guy behind you

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24...lerc-collision

He has been explicit here about what the new gameplan will be for so many. I have no doubt Hamilton will respond in kind to a similar move by Leclerc and others. But it is sad that something may be lost from racing.

It will be compelling to see how this unfolds.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Although I don't entirely disagree with the idea that no contact means a less severe penalty, it is open to a change in attitude by the driver on the receiving end of a move like Leclerc's: had Hamilton chosen not to move himself out onto the grass slightly, they would have collided and he could have helped Leclerc get a penalty, thereby ensuring the race win for himself.

Interesting thought, and one that brings to mind former cases of 'deliberate crashing'.

If the situation can be thought of here, without too much stretch, then surely the teams will also consider the options?

In the recent example of Leclerc vs Hamilton - there is also the 2nd car factor to consider. Had Mercedes been keen to see Leclerc penalised, then they have the option of putting Bottas right behind their 'target', and giving him the instruction to not avoid contact. They are then covered if either the pair crash out, or just contact is made but the drivers can continue.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In the recent example of Leclerc vs Hamilton - there is also the 2nd car factor to consider. Had Mercedes been keen to see Leclerc penalised, then they have the option of putting Bottas right behind their 'target', and giving him the instruction to not avoid contact. They are then covered if either the pair crash out, or just contact is made but the drivers can continue.

This is the kind of thinking teams will factor in, pushing regulations to the limits as always and beyond the 'spirit' of the regulation, as you might expect them to do. But it concerns me, because I think we're going to lose something wonderful.

[Anyopenroad]

I’m uncomfortable with outcome-based penalties in sport. Actions should be judged in themselves, not based on luck or (paradoxically) the skill of the party on the receiving end.

To me Stroll’s rejoin was just as dangerous as Vettel’s. It’s weird to issue different sanctions on the basis that Gasly avoided Stroll better than Stroll avoided Vettel. And as Born Racer says, a late move under braking or squeezing room might now attract a warning flag if the other driver backs out, or a penalty if the other driver holds their ground and a collision results.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Outcome based penalties are a fact of life, and to exclude that from Sport would result in an "unreal" experience for all.
there has to be a degree of flexibility within the penalty applied to a particular offence.

Lets take a random race incident, rather naming drivers, teams or previous actual events.

Unsafe pit release causing another driver to take avoiding action.
Unsafe pit release loose wheel that remains connected ... driver stops before leaving pitlane.
Unsafe release loose wheel that remains connected, but driver perhaps unaware at that point leaves the pitlane.
Unsafe pit release loose wheel come off endangering safety of others.
Unsafe pit release pulling equipment out into the pitlane.

The offence is Unsafe release, but the outcome has to be taken into consideration, because no one penalty would be appropriate for all these scenarios.

[S griffin]

Sometimes though you need to make a decision before the wrong outcome happens. You need to punish the actions more than the consequences

Certainly unsafe pit releases are at the stewards discretion and it depends what happens. Obviously default penalties work if used. And I can’t think of many occasions when flexibility has been needed

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Sometimes though you need to make a decision before the wrong outcome happens. You need to punish the actions more than the consequences

Certainly unsafe pit releases are at the stewards discretion and it depends what happens. Obviously default penalties work if used. And I can’t think of many occasions when flexibility has been needed

Maybe this is obvious, but I think a core issue is that offenses (or potential ones) fit on a scale that ranges from...

Highly Objective ...... High Subjective

For example a wheel that is not connected and falls off the car before leaving the pit... Hard to say that is anything but highly objective. The wheel either did or did not fall off!

Did someone make too an extra move in the braking zone. That can be very subjective at times. Extensive examination of data (video, telemetry) are attempts to convert the subjective to objective. But even then I expect there is always a subjective element of the analysis.

Richard

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

I’m uncomfortable with outcome-based penalties in sport. Actions should be judged in themselves, not based on luck or (paradoxically) the skill of the party on the receiving end.

To me Stroll’s rejoin was just as dangerous as Vettel’s. It’s weird to issue different sanctions on the basis that Gasly avoided Stroll better than Stroll avoided Vettel. And as Born Racer says, a late move under braking or squeezing room might now attract a warning flag if the other driver backs out, or a penalty if the other driver holds their ground and a collision results.

Perhaps the "lesser" penalty for Stroll was also applied because he had already suffered a significant time penalty due to being punted off by Vettel ? If he'd been given a 10 second "stop and go" he would effectively have received a much greater penalty than Vettel, courtesy of Vettel's lack of care.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

Perhaps the "lesser" penalty for Stroll was also applied because he had already suffered a significant time penalty due to being punted off by Vettel ? If he'd been given a 10 second "stop and go" he would effectively have received a much greater penalty than Vettel, courtesy of Vettel's lack of care.

Maybe I'm missing the point, while they were obviously both numpties, Vettel was rejoining the circuit from the grass while Lance never left the track, he was rejoining the racing line but never left the track. At the time I assumed that was the reason he got a lesser penalty rather than the difference in contact.

[S griffin]

I don’t think Leclerc getting a black/white for forcing another driver off the track would have been such an issue, if Vettel hadn’t got that 5 second penalty for arguably less in Canada. As Monza showed bringing out the black/white flag means the battle isn’t ruined, so it’s shame it’s come too late to change Canada

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Maybe I'm missing the point, while they were obviously both numpties, Vettel was rejoining the circuit from the grass while Lance never left the track, he was rejoining the racing line but never left the track. At the time I assumed that was the reason he got a lesser penalty rather than the difference in contact.

I’m fine with the difference too.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Maybe this is obvious, but I think a core issue is that offenses (or potential ones) fit on a scale that ranges from...

Highly Objective ...... High Subjective

For example a wheel that is not connected and falls off the car before leaving the pit... Hard to say that is anything but highly objective. The wheel either did or did not fall off!

Did someone make too an extra move in the braking zone. That can be very subjective at times. Extensive examination of data (video, telemetry) are attempts to convert the subjective to objective. But even then I expect there is always a subjective element of the analysis.

Richard

The issue of not leaving a car width from the edge of the track to a car alongside you though would appear to be absolutely clear cut, perhaps some painted lines on the track designating a car width from the circuit edge would be in order. You can weave as much as you like, but you must stay on one side or the other of the marked line.

The problem is that many of the stewards decisions don't stand up to any examination for consistency.

Jolyon Palmer puts it reasonably eloquently here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-331N72Iu0

On a separate note.

I thought the case of Sainz junior bumping Alex Albon off the road was also subject to debate, Sainz admitted that he had lost the rear and "oversteered and hit Alex without purpose", pushing Alex off the road.
The incident was not even looked at by the stewards, yet Sainz had hit Albon and knocked him off the road whilst Albon was trying to overtake him. Why should Sainz's mistake and contact with Albon advantaged Sainz and disadvantaged Albon.

[Adam43]

What penalty should have been applied to that?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by wnut

The issue of not leaving a car width from the edge of the track to a car alongside you though would appear to be absolutely clear cut, perhaps some painted lines on the track designating a car width from the circuit edge would be in order. You can weave as much as you like, but you must stay on one side or the other of the marked line.

The problem is that many of the stewards decisions don't stand up to any examination for consistency.

Jolyon Palmer puts it reasonably eloquently here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-331N72Iu0

I know what you mean but I disagree with the idea of painted lines on the track surface - just one more thing to cause traction loss and in wet conditions simply adds to risk.

I think that one of the things many get wrong when discussing consistency (including Mr Palmer in the video) is comparing stewards decisions now with those taken in previous years. There's a new rule book issued each year, fresh briefings and changes made to how the sport is run, even though sometimes those changes are minor. We can see that right now for example with the re-introduction of the "bad sportsmanship" flag being used in Grands Prix.

I also think that the Vettel penalty in Canada this year was something of a watershed and it certainly appears that the approach taken to judging on-track moments has altered since then - no doubt discussed at some length in drivers briefings.

Consistency should be judged over a shorter period due to the changing and evolving nature of the sport itself and the development of rules and interpretations. Personally I like that the shackles have been loosened somewhat although it may still all end in tears whilst drivers work out the new limits and no doubt some will overstep and either go beyond the "warning" point or worse but if we get better racing from it, less in-depth over-analysis and a bit more "edge" back in the sport (without risking driver safety) then it seems to me that it's a good thing.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What penalty should have been applied to that?

As in most of the overtaking scenarios, penalize the one who screwed up, so I would say give the place back Adam.

Give the place back should generally be the rule for overtaking sins.

Thoughts?

[S griffin]

They do that in the BTCC. Not sure it would necessarily work in F1

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I know what you mean but I disagree with the idea of painted lines on the track surface - just one more thing to cause traction loss and in wet conditions simply adds to risk.

I think that one of the things many get wrong when discussing consistency (including Mr Palmer in the video) is comparing stewards decisions now with those taken in previous years. There's a new rule book issued each year, fresh briefings and changes made to how the sport is run, even though sometimes those changes are minor. We can see that right now for example with the re-introduction of the "bad sportsmanship" flag being used in Grands Prix.

I also think that the Vettel penalty in Canada this year was something of a watershed and it certainly appears that the approach taken to judging on-track moments has altered since then - no doubt discussed at some length in drivers briefings.

Consistency should be judged over a shorter period due to the changing and evolving nature of the sport itself and the development of rules and interpretations. Personally I like that the shackles have been loosened somewhat although it may still all end in tears whilst drivers work out the new limits and no doubt some will overstep and either go beyond the "warning" point or worse but if we get better racing from it, less in-depth over-analysis and a bit more "edge" back in the sport (without risking driver safety) then it seems to me that it's a good thing.

The telltale line for leaving a car width would not have to be either a heavy line or a continuous line, so I think its effect on traction should be very minimal.

If the stewards do not exhibit consistency over at least the duration of the championship they are manipulating the championship.
They may be able to change horses in-between seasons, but changing the rules during the season would seem to be unacceptable from a championship point of view as it affects points allocations.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

They do that in the BTCC. Not sure it would necessarily work in F1

Why not Griff?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

The issue of not leaving a car width from the edge of the track to a car alongside you though would appear to be absolutely clear cut, perhaps some painted lines on the track designating a car width from the circuit edge would be in order. You can weave as much as you like, but you must stay on one side or the other of the marked line.

Can someone point to me any documentation as to the exact understanding of this rule? I know there is more to it than just a "cars width". See my concerns below...

Originally Posted by Tourer

I know what you mean but I disagree with the idea of painted lines on the track surface - just one more thing to cause traction loss and in wet conditions simply adds to risk.

While the traction issue is one practical concern, there are others. Where do the lines start, where do they end? Then, that only speaks to "width". How do we measure relative location of one car to the other? Do we need calibrated graduations to be painted on the cars so that we can see just how far one car is up on the other? What about perspective of the camera vs. centerline of the track. The list of complexities going on and on.

IMHO, this is an extremely pedantic approach and very much counter to what most (not all) people want to see. I do realize that for the "rules is rules" folks (which I fit into that group, but mostly on the technical regulations side), my comments might be viewed as heretical and an anathema to all that is "driving standards".

I also don't think the sky is falling with the introduction of black/white flag. That all of a sudden "all is fair and all you might get is a black/white flag".

Originally Posted by Tourer

I think that one of the things many get wrong when discussing consistency (including Mr Palmer in the video) is comparing stewards decisions now with those taken in previous years. There's a new rule book issued each year, fresh briefings and changes made to how the sport is run, even though sometimes those changes are minor. We can see that right now for example with the re-introduction of the "bad sportsmanship" flag being used in Grands Prix.

I also think that the Vettel penalty in Canada this year was something of a watershed and it certainly appears that the approach taken to judging on-track moments has altered since then - no doubt discussed at some length in drivers briefings.

Agree. Its clear that both "how" the stewards work and the desired outcome are different now than before. If this is a true inflection point, then it's really impossible to compare before vs after and expect consistency because by definition... they should be different.

As we had consistency issues before, there is no reason to not think it will happen now as well. And with any change, it may be rocky for awhile. And who knows... after awhile we all (including myself) might decide it was a bad idea. Or we might love it!

Richard

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by wnut

Why not Griff?

Because you’re looking at two different series

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by wnut

If the stewards do not exhibit consistency over at least the duration of the championship they are manipulating the championship.
They may be able to change horses in-between seasons, but changing the rules during the season would seem to be unacceptable from a championship point of view as it affects points allocations.

Whilst in an ideal world you'd be right, when it comes to driving standards, various decisions / approaches / restrictions are discussed at driver briefings and changes are made on a rolling basis.

If for example, the driver group has an issue with a driver changing lines in the braking zone and not being penalised and the much greater risk overall if all of them start doing it, restrictions and allowances are changed to prevent a problem.

Or if the consensus in the briefing room and through the sport is that a particular incident was not handled well and is over-regulation then the FIA might agree to loosen the shackles somewhat for future races.

In most cases, the changes are relatively subtle and shouldn't wait for an entire season to be run to be rectified, sometimes from a sporting point of view, sometimes from a risk management point of view.

If a decision is a "bad" one, it makes no sense to keep making the same bad decision in the same circumstances purely for the sake of consistency.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Can someone point to me any documentation as to the exact understanding of this rule? I know there is more to it than just a "cars width". See my concerns below...

Richard

I think this is what you are looking for Richard?

copied and posted relevant piece of Appendix L relating to river conduct as it is relevant to this thread.

Appendix L International Sporting Code
International Drivers’ Licences, medical examinations, drivers’ equipment and conduct – 2019
Chapter IV Section 2 pages 39 and 40
2. Overtaking, car control and track limits

a) A car alone on the track may use the full width of the said track, however, as soon as it is caught by a car which is about to lap it the driver must allow the faster driver past at the first possible opportunity.
If the driver who has been caught does not seem to make full use of the rear-view mirrors, flag marshals will display the waved blue flag to indicate that the faster driver wants to overtake. Any driver who appears to ignore the blue flags will be reported to the Stewards.

b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried out on either the right or the left. A driver may not deliberately leave the track without justifiable reason. More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position offline, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner. However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards.

c) Drivers must use the track at all times. For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not.
Should a car leave the track for any reason, and without prejudice to 2(d) below, the driver may rejoin. However, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any advantage. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track.

d) Causing a collision, repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the track) will be reported to the Stewards and may entail the imposition of penalties up to and including the exclusion of any driver concerned.

e) It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Because you’re looking at two different series

This is not really a valid explanation of anything.