US GP Austin

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I liken Verstappen to a bully, he is just trying to bully other drivers off the track. Sadly, bullies only respond to force, so maybe it takes a driver to stand his ground and have a collision with the man in order to make a point?

is it tho?

revisiting the Austrian GP incident this year...a bit of a dive bomb by Norris but Max also moved under braking/forced Norris wide and created contact and as a result took the penalty for it.

did either driver learn anything from that?

Max still drives like a bully and Norris continues to leave himself hanging on the outside when he doesn't have to. i assume out of frustration because he would have taken Max on the next DRS straight.

i would argue that the best way to fight Max/bully in this situation would have been to use the brain a bit more?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

is it tho?

revisiting the Austrian GP incident this year...a bit of a dive bomb by Norris but Max also moved under braking/forced Norris wide and created contact and as a result took the penalty for it.

Max penalty was ineffective because the damaged caused to Landos car cost Lando more than the penalty did Max. Of course Max didn't learn anything from that - he extended his championship lead.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Your point about not making it to the apex first completely ignores the fact that whilst Max made it to the apex first, it's because he braked so late that he did. not make the corner. Anyone can make the apex before the opposing car if they brake, literally, so late they can no longer keep their car on the circuit.

even if you dismiss that one point, you still havent dismissed the other advantage Norris had in going for that corner, including also breaking late.

so i challenge the assertion that a 'higher standard' set of rules would have afforded Norris more room for that corner. imo he was too late to that corner.

certainly too late to use this as an example of improving the rules.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I also expect the rules to be re-written in a way that means that every time Max is forced into a wheel to wheel situation, it doesn't end up with the entire paddock and internet discussing the accident and/or penalty which has been applied to the inevitable incident that occurred.

with all due respect, changing rules of a sporting event in order to moderate how the internet reacts to things is totally an out there point to make imo. i recognize thats not your main point and may be more of a glib addition then a serious one...but surly that cannot be the metric for change?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

even if you dismiss that one point, you still havent dismissed the other advantage Norris had in going for that corner, including also breaking late.

so i challenge the assertion that a 'higher standard' set of rules would have afforded Norris more room for that corner. imo he was too late to that corner.

certainly too late to use this as an example of improving the rules.

I am not following you on advantages? Whether a car has an advantage or not has nothing to do with the rules on engagement? Max ran another car off the road, and he achieved in a 'legal' manner by driving in a way which meant he himself could not make the corner. That has nothing to do with who has an advantage, and everything to do with basic driving standards.

The rules should not allow you to defend your position by taking a line which means neither car can make the corner.

with all due respect, changing rules of a sporting event in order to moderate how the internet reacts to things is totally an out there point to make imo. i recognize thats not your main point and may be more of a glib addition then a serious one...but surly that cannot be the metric for change?

With all due respect, I think you missed my point. My point is that the rules are written in a way which allows drivers to drive deliberately dangerously and force cars off the track. That is, at the very least, controversial, and at worst, a completely unacceptable situation. My comment regarding it being the talking point was to illustrate the general dissatisfaction from inside and outside the paddock on the current rules of engagement. This would suggest that the rule is not fit for purpose.

And yes - if every time Max is forced to go wheel to wheel, we either have a crash, or a penalty applied in a manner which causes the main talking point to be the incident, then it is absolutely a metric for change as it proves the rule is not fit for purpose.

And regarding the standards - once again - if a French F4 driver drove another car off the circuit, they would be criticized and penalized. Yet here we are, discussing yet another Formula 1 Grand Prix, the supposedly highest standard of motor racing in the entire world, debating on if running cars off the road is acceptable, and who should or should not be penalized in a now semi-regular occurrence, because of the exact wording of a rule book, and the outcome from a steward who has not driven a race car in almost 3 decades.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Max penalty was ineffective because the damaged caused to Landos car cost Lando more than the penalty did Max. Of course Max didn't learn anything from that - he extended his championship lead.

This happens fairly regularly though. Take Silverstone 2021 as an example - Lewis' penalty was similarly ineffective. Of course, the logic from some fans then was that Max deserved to go out, even though the accident was caused by Lewis.


You can only punish the action, not the consequence. Don't forget at Austria both cars had punctures for a small amount of contact. Verstappen was rightly punished for the contact, but the consequence was out of his hands. It was pure bad luck that Norris had to retire.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Beau2

This happens fairly regularly though. Take Silverstone 2021 as an example - Lewis' penalty was similarly ineffective. Of course, the logic from some fans then was that Max deserved to go out, even though the accident was caused by Lewis.

And I'd agree that the penalty did not fit the crime in that situation as well.

You can only punish the action, not the consequence. Don't forget at Austria both cars had punctures for a small amount of contact. Verstappen was rightly punished for the contact, but the consequence was out of his hands. It was pure bad luck that Norris had to retire.

I, respectfully, disagree with each point in this paragraph.

- The FIA has never punished the action and not consequence, at any point in its history. It'd be great if it did.
- The consequences of Max's actions were completely in his hands. He drove into another car.
- Luck was not the cause of Norris retirement. Being driven into by Max was.

[chillibowl]

imo the Austria incident is a far better example upon which to justify amending the rules of engagement as you suggest than the Austin incident.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

imo the Austria incident is a far better example upon which to justify amending the rules of engagement as you suggest than the Austin incident.

That is probably true but many are missing the point that the issue is not in the wording of the rules.
It is in the interpretation of the rules and the mindset in which they are interpreted and enforced.
There is enough provision in the rules as they stand to deal effectively with the situations we saw on Sunday.
It is the mindset under which some people are operating that creates the problems.

When outsiders like fans/supporters/forums get involved in debating the wording they are being quite legalistic about the wording.
But the wording will not change the mindset of the judges (stewards) who will still try to enforce the ruleset in a legalistic manner.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

That is probably true but many are missing the point that the issue is not in the wording of the rules.
It is in the interpretation of the rules and the mindset in which they are interpreted and enforced.
There is enough provision in the rules as they stand to deal effectively with the situations we saw on Sunday.
It is the mindset under which some people are operating that creates the problems.

I really agree with this. It is not the rules, but how the stewards interpret them. And I think it has been said the stewards use some additional guidelines that seem to be used for purposes of consistent application and punishment. Those, I suspect can be changed at any time.

Apologies for the long remainder of this post as I wanted to post what I think is the pertinent rules here. This comes from "CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS" of "International Sporting Code: Appendix L - International Driver’s licenses, medical examinations, driver’s equipment and conduct". I left out sections 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as those cover signals, and dealing with stopped cars, pit entry and exit. There are also sections in the regular sporting regulations that govern things like how to perform starts, various flavors of safety car period, red flags, media commitments, etc. All of those are not relevant to this topic.

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 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 off-line, 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 and may not leave the track without a justifiable reason. 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.

If the FIA has approved the white line being painted on the kerb itself, it is still considered to be part of the track.

Should a car leave the track for any reason, the driver may rejoin.

However, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track. A driver may be reported to the Stewards should they perform any act which results in debris being brought onto 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 disqualification 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.

As best as I can tell, that is everything that exists for on-track overtaking rules. I expect they are other "understandings" between everyone involved as to what is allowable or not that are not spelled out here. But in the end, the above is the foundation.

I am not going to argue that Lando's pass should have been legal, but I think much of the driving style that Max is being called out for is explicitly called out here (2.b - pushing other cars off track and 2.c - lasting advantage gained and even 2.d for grievous examples) for being referred to the stewards. And I think there is little room for the stewards to not penalize. I think the stewards are using a set of guidelines that may not actually fully follow the rules or intent set by the rules for the stewards to act when appropriate.

The "let them race" stance can't be extended into infinity in such as way that blatant and likely unsporting like actions are ignored and/or repeatedly allowed.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I really agree with this. It is not the rules, but how the stewards interpret them. And I think it has been said the stewards use some additional guidelines that seem to be used for purposes of consistent application and punishment. Those, I suspect can be changed at any time.

Apologies for the long remainder of this post as I wanted to post what I think is the pertinent rules here. This comes from "CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS" of "International Sporting Code: Appendix L - International Driver’s licenses, medical examinations, driver’s equipment and conduct".
Richard

F1 uses its own code of driving conduct, which hasn't been publicly released yet (as it is considered a draft) but it is due to go into the ISC in 2025 apparently.

I understand what you and Teretonga mean about the stewards taking a legalistic approach to making decisions generally, including on driving standards but to me, that's what stewards always do. The vast majority of them that I've dealt with over the years have in fact been lawyers. Bear in mind that many of their decisions can be subject to appeal, and in that environment, it is only natural that they'd take a more legalistic view.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tourer

F1 uses its own code of driving conduct, which hasn't been publicly released yet (as it is considered a draft) but it is due to go into the ISC in 2025 apparently.

I understand what you and Teretonga mean about the stewards taking a legalistic approach to making decisions generally, including on driving standards but to me, that's what stewards always do. The vast majority of them that I've dealt with over the years have in fact been lawyers. Bear in mind that many of their decisions can be subject to appeal, and in that environment, it is only natural that they'd take a more legalistic view.

I agree with what you are saying, but it is not a legal job, it is a sporting one and we need a different approach to ensure that the most important element s of the sport remain sporting, and the outcomes are sporting and just, not legalistic, or the sport we all love will lose its sporting flavor.
Poor decisions are always poor descensions, and time doesn't change their flavor.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I agree with what you are saying, but it is not a legal job, it is a sporting one and we need a different approach to ensure that the most important element s of the sport remain sporting, and the outcomes are sporting and just, not legalistic, or the sport we all love will lose its sporting flavor.
Poor decisions are always poor descensions, and time doesn't change their flavor.

Agree with all that but (not being defeatist) I don't see it changing anytime soon, possibly not ever. Stewards of course do more than make decisions on driving behaviour and other penalties, they are also the "ultimate authority" at a race meeting, have to sign off that a track is safe etc. etc. There is a lot of liability there and a need to constantly dot the I & cross the t under some pressure to confirm to procedure. For example, not being influenced by the FIA Pres.

I just can't see the way stewards doing what they do ever changing - has been the same for as long as I've been around or in the sport, and that's been 50 odd years at this stage (bloody hell, scary to type that - I must be getting "old").

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

F1 uses its own code of driving conduct, which hasn't been publicly released yet (as it is considered a draft) but it is due to go into the ISC in 2025 apparently.

Interesting.

With that lead, I was able to find that a prior version was published in 2022 and, as you say, a newer version exists.

This article talks about the 2024 update to be included in 2025 ISC.

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-drivers...-championships

I broadly assume this is the draft you mention. I also broadly assume it is not in use and that the 2022 guidelines are what are in use today in F1 (layered on top of the 2024 ISC) and that everyone else is just using the 2024 ISC.

Lets look at the 2022 document

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...guidelines.pdf

I will copy-n-paste some content here to help people along as the FIA site has been painfully slow for me today including sometimes failing to load. The document is very small and clearly meant to be a clarification against what is current in the ISC document (which is pretty vague). The document is short and worth reading as it hits a few items. Anyhow, below is the content pertaining to overtaking on the outside...

2. Guidelines for overtaking on the outside of a corner:

“In order for a car being overtaken to be required to give sufficient room to an overtaking car, the overtaking car needs to have a significant portion of the car alongside the car being overtaken and the overtaking manoeuvre must be done in a safe and controlled manner, while enabling the car to clearly remain within the limits of the track. When considering what is a ‘significant portion’, for an overtaking on the outside of a corner, among the various factors that will be looked at by the stewards when exercising their discretion, the stewards will consider if the overtaking car is ahead of the other car from the apex of the corner. The car being overtaken must be capable of making the corner while remaining within the limits of the track.”

My takeaways from that with respect to Max's current strategy...

1. Positioning the overtaking car a "significant portion" alongside seems to be fully a responsibility of the overtaking car.
2. The overtaking car must be capable of making the corner.

That sounds logical right? But... there is nothing that says the defending car must be able to make the corner. Therefore the defending car can always effectively prevent the overtaking car from being appropriately alongside by mirroring the overtaking cars depth into the corner and relative position. This can be done even to the point of going off the circuit. If done right, this should prevent any outside passing.

Edit: Ugh, actually it DOES require the defending car to be capable of remaining on the circuit. So I don't know what the stewards were thinking.

Regardless, smarter and more experienced people than myself could work out the appropriate way to address this. I think the 2022 guidelines above clearly don't cover all necessary situation. And I wonder if the 2024 work does or not.

Richard

[hondafan37]

I sincerely believe at this moment that Verstapen should be slammed against the wall like Hamilton did in Silverstone 2021, to lower his arrogance, I suppose Norris would never do this but I would sincerely love him to do it!!!!
excuse me for my bad english....

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Agree with all that but (not being defeatist) I don't see it changing anytime soon, possibly not ever. Stewards of course do more than make decisions on driving behaviour and other penalties, they are also the "ultimate authority" at a race meeting, have to sign off that a track is safe etc. etc. There is a lot of liability there and a need to constantly dot the I & cross the t under some pressure to confirm to procedure. For example, not being influenced by the FIA Pres.

I just can't see the way stewards doing what they do ever changing - has been the same for as long as I've been around or in the sport, and that's been 50 odd years at this stage (bloody hell, scary to type that - I must be getting "old").

If it's never going to change Tourer, that is being defeatist.
There is no reason to have what we are currently experiencing.
It can all be done much better than this and to an equally robust or higher level of outcome and performance if the right people are in charge of it.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Edit: Ugh, actually it DOES require the defending car to be capable of remaining on the circuit. So I don't know what the stewards were thinking.

Richard

I believe that this part, in particular, is why the McLaren pitwall team felt that it was totally unnecessary to tell Norris that he needed to hand the place back.

[Greem]

Taking a very very broad look at the current problem, as it stands, it may be with referring to Rugby Union's TMO (television match official).

In all top level sport now there are infinite amounts of infinitesimally detailed data/telemetry, endless slow motion/close up/even 3D video feeds, all of which can allow incredibly close analysis of an incident or event. This is all great, except it removes something from the analysis - the humans involved.

Going back to the TMO, they may ask or be asked to look into a collision between two players but they always, *always* run it in real speed from multiple angles alongside the slow mo detail. That gives them a far better impression of intent, mitigation and outcome than just looking at the small detail.

Maybe we've simply got too much data being presented?

It should be easy to look at a piece of TV footage and decide that a driver was playing silly beggars. Brake traces etc aren't always relevant.

And yes, I have some small experience of stewarding (rather than marshalling) at UK club championship level, where we don't have instant access to all the data in the universe.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

I sincerely believe at this moment that Verstapen should be slammed against the wall like Hamilton did in Silverstone 2021, to lower his arrogance, I suppose Norris would never do this but I would sincerely love him to do it!!!!
excuse me for my bad english....

Max has been taken out in the past and I don't recall there was such a furore as this. I think it was in 2021 after the Silverstone race. If I recall correctly early in the race Bottas outbraked himself and slid towards a bunch of cars (which included his team mate Hamilton) and the car he took out was Max. I can't remember if Bottas was penalised.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by morninggents

I can't remember if Bottas was penalised.

He was.

My view of this incident is to compare it with lots of incidents where both cars run off track onto the grass. In that instance, they rejoin the track and continue in whatever order they got back on. The only difference here is it's not grass.

Had Max been able to stay on track, then Norris may not overtake whilst off track. If both cars are off track then they continue in the order they rejoined, and Lando rejoined first probably because he was actually in control and Max was lairing it up the inside because he only needed to stop Lando overtaking.

And then comparing to Austria before the collision when Max had a problem with Lando chucking it up the inside and unable to stop.

In the end the two things I dislike in this are inconsistency and hypocrasy.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

I sincerely believe at this moment that Verstapen should be slammed against the wall like Hamilton did in Silverstone 2021, to lower his arrogance, I suppose Norris would never do this but I would sincerely love him to do it!!!!
excuse me for my bad english....

Nah mate - can't excuse your "bad English", hoping that a driver gets slammed against the wall isn't acceptable, regardless of who the driver is. Very poor on your part - childish too.

Sorry to be so blunt and accept that English is not your first language but desire for violence / injury and death threats from Argentinian "fans" of Indycar driver Agustin Canapino were roundly condemned and what you have said here also should be condemned - I'm happy to be the first (or maybe only) person to do so.

Unacceptable.

[NaBUru38]

Villeneuve vs Arnoux at Dijon 1979 should be the golden standard.

Each driver should give room to any car on their sides, no matter who overtakes whom.

[chillibowl]

while i dont disagree about the philosophy of leaving room, i do question what the lead/defending driver is supposed to do when the overtaker also late brakes into a corner at the end of a DRS zone? is the defender meant to break earlier, slow down more, take a tighter line in order to facilitate being passed for position?

of course if Max is the defender it seems obvious what the principle should be (the opposite of what Max is currently doing) but if you take Max out of the equation does the need for a rule change/clarification logic remain?

my thoughts on this started with my first impression that Lando was overly aggressive but as this convo evolves i find myself more interested in the nature of DRS and how this might be a contributing factor into relative speed differences/closing distances as two cars approach a corner....rather does DRS actually encourage/require aggressive defense by the lead driver because the overtaking driver can start their attack from further back and thus also claim fair space into a corner?

and not just because of DRS but also as a function of modern track design?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

while i dont disagree about the philosophy of leaving room, i do question what the lead/defending driver is supposed to do when the overtaker also late brakes into a corner at the end of a DRS zone? is the defender meant to break earlier, slow down more, take a tighter line in order to facilitate being passed for position?

(my bold for emphasis).

You mean in order to facilitate staying on the race track and not having an accident? Yes. That is exactly what they are supposed to do. Otherwise we have a situation where no overtake can ever happen because the defender can just run everyone off the road and/or cause an accident.

What is the defender supposed to do? Stay on the race track and not drive into the car beside him. If that means they lose the position then we're describing almost every overtake to happen since the second car was built and two people decided to race them.

[chillibowl]

i dont want to keep on repeating myself and sorry for making you repeat yourself, but IMO Lando went into that corner hot and to me that doesn't entitle him to space or that corner....i suppose this view point is making all other considerations/larger concern points moot to me on this?

so for sure im getting the sense that i am very much in the wrong here...might be time to add a poll to let everyone vote on just how far off the plot i am on this one?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i dont want to keep on repeating myself and sorry for making you repeat yourself, but IMO Lando went into that corner hot and to me that doesn't entitle him to space or that corner....i suppose this view point is making all other considerations/larger concern points moot to me on this?

so for sure im getting the sense that i am very much in the wrong here...might be time to add a poll to let everyone vote on just how far off the plot i am on this one?

Norris may have gone in hot, but how do we, sitting behind keyboards, know that he couldn't have actually made the corner. Or, maybe he guessed, correctly as it turned out, that Verstappen would also overcook it and not be able to make the corner, i.e. exceed track limits on the exit.

He may have also known the driving standards protocol that should have meant that he didn't gain an unfair advantage because Verstappen would, like him, exceed the track limits. Which is what the McLaren pitwall team believed.

But then the Stewards decided to interpret the protocol in a way that it wasn't written to mean.