Driving standards/ stewarding

[Taxi645]

I strongly agree with the first two penalties for Norris and Perez. In fact I think 5 seconds is way too lenient and hardly a penalty considering the cost for the other party. At least 10s would be in order.

The 2nd one for Perez I'm not sure of. In a regime where drivers must leave each other room at all times, it could definitely be justified. In the regime of the past few years, it was a very ambitious move from Leclerc being so far back on the outside. Should the front driver be expected to be able to anticipate and register such a move in such a corner?

I'm very disappointed in the comments of Horner and Norris though. If anything, these penalties aids wheel to wheel racing, not the opposite. The problem are the drivers with poor driving standards, not the rules or these penalties. Wheel to wheel racing is not bashing the other guy off the track, but leaving each other room and may the best man win in the end of the corner sequence. THAT'S exciting to watch, not this shut the door and see you.


Norris says, you shouldn't try to overtake on the outside in that corner. Two things:

1 One Perez was already passed BEFORE the braking zone.

2 If Norris brakes later and then carries too much speed to leave a car width of space on the outside, that is HIS responsibility. Doesn't matter what Perez does, he has to leave the car width or be clear of the car. He did neither, so a penalty was in order. If Perez had steered into the gravel on his own and Norris would have left a car width, there wouldn't have been a problem for him. A 10s penalty would send a much stronger signal to the drivers and hopefully would up the driving standards, which the thread topic justly addresses.

Good of Perez to admit he went too far, unfortunately Norris didn’t show that self-reflecting yet.

[S griffin]

The problem with trying on the outside is there is always a risk and sometimes, due to the turning circle of these cars, you sometimes can't give them room, even on the lock stops. Norris didn't even touch Checo. As for Checo's incidents for Leclerc, the first one looked like he bounced off the kerb after trying to give room to Charles. The second one though I felt Checo could have gone tighter. For me the stewards need to be a bit more lenient at times

Still I'm glad Kimi got punished for his incident with Seb. That was much more blatant and not the kind of driving for a man of Kimi's experience

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The problem with trying on the outside is there is always a risk and sometimes, due to the turning circle of these cars, you sometimes can't give them room, even on the lock stops.

The thing people are confusing is whether something is smart for one guy and if the other guy is braking the rules. The rules require you to leave racing room. The fact that the other guy's move is tactically perfect or not is not important. As said it is Norris his responsibility to leave racing room.

That said, I find the suggestion that Perez should give up a corner while being in front before the braking zone, because the other guy may brake too late to leave racing room as required by the rules, is exactly what is wrong. Driving standards SHOULD be such that Perez should be able to trust the other driver to have the skill, sportsmanship and respect for the rules to leave him racing room in exactly such situation.

Because of poor driving standards, people call a move such as Perez made stupid or too risky. While it should be the other way around, such a move is completely legit and driving standards such be such that it only seldom something like that goes wrong and we can enjoy multi corner wheel to wheel fights. Something that we will likely see more of due the regulations changes the coming years.

Originally Posted by S

Norris didn't even touch Checo.

That is irrelevant, Norris is required to leave a cars width on track (with a few millimetres margin). He didn't, so he did not comply to the rules. You expect Perez to steer towards a collision just to proof a point to the stewards?

Originally Posted by S

As for Checo's incidents for Leclerc, the first one looked like he bounced off the kerb after trying to give room to Charles. The second one though I felt Checo could have gone tighter. For me the stewards need to be a bit more lenient at times

I find the the 2nd Perez Lecerc incident very difficult to call, but in general I lean more to the opposite, leaving room on track should be norm and clear deviations from that norm like those at corner 4 should be punished much harder. We always enjoy passes on the outside, but with current driving standards that indeed is quite brave.

Originally Posted by S

Still I'm glad Kimi got punished for his incident with Seb. That was much more blatant and not the kind of driving for a man of Kimi's experience

Agreed, probably a brain fart.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The thing people are confusing is whether something is smart for one guy and if the other guy is braking the rules. The rules require you to leave racing room. The fact that the other guy's move is tactically perfect or not is not important. As said it is Norris his responsibility to leave racing room.

That said, I find the suggestion that Perez should give up a corner while being in front before the braking zone, because the other guy may brake too late to leave racing room as required by the rules, is exactly what is wrong. Driving standards SHOULD be such that Perez should be able to trust the other driver to have the skill, sportsmanship and respect for the rules to leave him racing room in exactly such situation.

Because of poor driving standards, people call a move such as Perez made stupid or too risky. While it should be the other way around, such a move is completely legit and driving standards such be such that it only seldom something like that goes wrong and we can enjoy multi corner wheel to wheel fights. Something that we will likely see more of due the regulations changes the coming years.




That is irrelevant, Norris is required to leave a cars width on track (with a few millimetres margin). He didn't, so he did not comply to the rules. You expect Perez to steer towards a collision just to proof a point to the stewards?




I find the the 2nd Perez Lecerc incident very difficult to call, but in general I lean more to the opposite, leaving room on track should be norm and clear deviations from that norm like those at corner 4 should be punished much harder. We always enjoy passes on the outside, but with current driving standards that indeed is quite brave.



Agreed, probably a brain fart.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

1 One Perez was already passed BEFORE the braking zone.

Simply not the case. The video is perfectly clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJXMnYkLsTE

Hmmm. I've read both your posts and don't agree. Unless we're now saying that if someone attacks you on the outside you really have no choice but to just get out of his way. I've watched it again and I don't believe Perez was at any stage more than a wheel in front of Norris. I can see no reason why Norris was obliged to make more room for Perez while at the same time Perez had no responsibility to avoid a potential collision with the car he was overtaking. I still consider the penalty wholly unjustified.

[Aysedasi]

I've just watched the incidents with Leclerc and Perez again as well. Both on this snippet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm4ZmUHdXUs

In the first, Leclerc comes in much tighter than Perez did on Norris and the outcome was pretty inevitable, IMO unless Perez braked and pulled completely to the inside, which was probably impossible.

As to the second, my take is still red mist by Leclerc. Perez couldn't have taken the corner tighter, so is Perez at fault for not lifting off or Leclerc for making a rash and potentially race-ending move? I know what I think....

The first penalty for Perez was inevitable after the Norris 'decision', but there's no way in my mind that Perez should have been penalised for the second. Unless we just want drivers to jump out of the way when the driver behind pushes his luck?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Simply not the case. The video is perfectly clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJXMnYkLsTE

Yes, you are right. I saw the mistake in my wording and meant to say he was in front before the braking zone, but couldn't edit my post any more.

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Hmmm. I've read both your posts and don't agree. Unless we're now saying that if someone attacks you on the outside you really have no choice but to just get out of his way.

You should not get out of the way, you merely should leave racing room. There's a clear difference.

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I've watched it again and I don't believe Perez was at any stage more than a wheel in front of Norris. I can see no reason why Norris was obliged to make more room for Perez while at the same time Perez had no responsibility to avoid a potential collision with the car he was overtaking. I still consider the penalty wholly unjustified.

1 It is not a case of making room, but leaving room. Again a clear difference.
2 Of course Perez as well has an obligation to drive safe and abide the rules. Taking a corner on the outside is not in conflict with either. He would be in conflict if he would have squeezed Norris to the inside by leaving room on tracks to his left. He did not.

At some point if you are too far back it becomes unreasonable to expect the inside guy to leave room. In this case, as Perez was in front before the corner and almost completely alongside during cornering, leaving room was a clear requirement.

Also what do we expect the guy on the outside to do? Being on the racing line, in front. Why should you have to yield the corner beforehand just because the guy next to you could brake too late to leave you racing room? That's not what we want do we?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...icism/6625949/

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

As to the second, my take is still red mist by Leclerc. Perez couldn't have taken the corner tighter, so is Perez at fault for not lifting off or Leclerc for making a rash and potentially race-ending move? I know what I think....

The first penalty for Perez was inevitable after the Norris 'decision', but there's no way in my mind that Perez should have been penalised for the second. Unless we just want drivers to jump out of the way when the driver behind pushes his luck?

I tend to agree. I'm all for leaving racing room, but this was probably a bit too much to expect an inside guy to account for.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Also what do we expect the guy on the outside to do? Being on the racing line, in front. Why should you have to yield the corner beforehand just because the guy next to you could brake too late to leave you racing room? That's not what we want do we?

Actually, I think that is exactly what he should have done. It's called prudence. If you don't exercise it, you take the risk as was clearly demonstrated by Leclerc in the second Perez incident. For me, Norris/Perez was a racing incident. No more no less and like thousands that have gone before it. Perez tried the move and would (should) have known that there was a more than a chance it wouldn't pay off. I think you're making a lot of Perez being 'in front' whereas there was actually little to choose between them. If Norris had slowed or moved over and I'd been his team manager, I'd have been less than impressed. It was never going to happen. Perez needed to have gained significantly more advantage on entry to the corner, say half a car's length before he had the right to expect Norris not to maintain the line he did.

That's my opinion and I'm perfectly happy just to disagree......

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

If Norris had slowed or moved over and I'd been his team manager, I'd have been less than impressed. It was never going to happen.

Therefore, there should be more frequent and harsher penalties for not leaving racing room. Then the driving standards will change and a team manager will have a difference appreciation of the risk/reward balance.

Perez needed to have gained significantly more advantage on entry to the corner, say half a car's length before he had the right to expect Norris not to maintain the line he did.

Where in the rules is this stipulated?

That's my opinion and I'm perfectly happy just to disagree......

[chillibowl]

didnt the Perez move happen after the restart? typically dont we have a different set of rules for the first couple of corners after a start/restart? drivers get pushed wide all the time so its a little more let them race sort of thing?

personally i thought Perez was a little aggressive on the restart (fair enough) and was scrappy with the Mercs (also fair enough) before getting to Norris....surely this alone makes the situation different to other penalties issued for moves on the outside?

the flip side of all of this is that they just raced here last week and perhaps having two back to backs at the same venue should mean the stewards expect a better or cleaner approach from the drivers?

really just a racing incident for me as blame is not anywhere close to being clear cut here imo.

[S griffin]

Let’s face it it’s not like drivers deliberately steered into the other guy or did a Nico and make no attempt to turn into the corner. Sometimes drivers can’t help but run wide in the corner, which means these incidents are hard to avoid

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

You should not get out of the way, you merely should leave racing room.

Lots of discussion going on. And I am trying to enjoy my last day off before going back to work, so I will try to not create a long and time consuming post. (of course after typing it out... I have failed miserably! My wife is asking why I am not working on other stuff right now)

I think we argue about what is "right" because the rules are exceedingly vague about all of this. Dig into Appendix L of the Sporting Regulations (Chapter 4) and you will find a quite short section that speaks to driver code of conduct.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi..._mars_2021.pdf

2.b is the paragraph that covers passing.

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 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.

A few items of note:

1. The regulation is vague enough that you can argue or justify any outcome.
2. There is clearly a level of "unwritten" agreement on how this actually works. But as you can see, just like the driver's gentleman's agreement on not passing while queued for a hot qualifying lap. Unwritten agreements are not enforceable.
3. The stewards are the final arbiters and just interpret the rules as they see fit. But you give a different set of stewards the same setup and they could just as easily call it differently and still point to the rules to justify why.

If I was to argue a specific interpretation (which is like reading tea leaves)...

1. The part about "one car width" really speaks to the approach to the corner. Not the exit.
2. As to "crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track". This is a tricky one. Factor in that the rule applies everywhere, but this was on corner exit in which someone was trying to pass on the outside? Isn't the passing driver supposed to make the pass move? (another unwritten rule). The passing driver was not ahead? They didn't touch? In each penalty, did the leading driver make an "abnormal change of direction" on exit? Of course they didn't!

We all know it was a risky move. It would be been brilliant if it had worked, but it would have required the leading driver to make a mistake or incorrectly concede the corner.

My concern here is that you can argue the "one car width" or "crowding a car" to the point that you are effectively unable to run a normal line as the leading driver. There would be no room for "defense". You must just give them room anyplace and any time (or maybe just on corner entry as the rules actually say)

Horner made this argument...

You don't want the equivalent of footballers taking a dive

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...orner/6625924/

The problem here is that it is Horner is making the argument and his driver (Perez) came out the worst this past weekend. So he is biased and it's easy to just say "well of course that is what he would say" and just negate the entire argument. The problem is... He has a very good point.

I think what happened is the stewards boxed themselves into a corner with the first penalty. And then to avoid questions of consistency, they basically tried to convert multiple "wrongs" to make a "right". If this persists, you know drivers will take advantage of it. And we will see drivers flopping. They already are doing it to a degree in that they complain on the radio why someone will not move out of the way, etc. We don't need them to be able to say someone hurt their feeling and didn't let their bogus pass attempt work so they deserve a penalty. And as much as everyone will claim they hate this, the teams will clearly push for penalties if it helps them move ahead on the circuit.

But... there is no resolution on this. The rules will remain vague. They will continue to have a revolving door of stewards who interpret the rules differently from one weekend to the next. The drivers will still have to guess as to how the rules are interpreted from one event to the next. Fans will continue to argue for/against all of this based upon their personal interpretation of... extremely vague rules.

Richard

[Lancsbreaker]

I know Norris got two penalty points for his "infringement". Did Perez get similar - for either of his ?

[Taxi645]

Thank you Richard, for another extensive and well argued post.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Lots of discussion going on. And I am trying to enjoy my last day off before going back to work, so I will try to not create a long and time consuming post. (of course after typing it out... I have failed miserably! My wife is asking why I am not working on other stuff right now)

I think we argue about what is "right" because the rules are exceedingly vague about all of this. Dig into Appendix L of the Sporting Regulations (Chapter 4) and you will find a quite short section that speaks to driver code of conduct.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi..._mars_2021.pdf

2.b is the paragraph that covers passing.



A few items of note:

1. The regulation is vague enough that you can argue or justify any outcome.
2. There is clearly a level of "unwritten" agreement on how this actually works. But as you can see, just like the driver's gentleman's agreement on not passing while queued for a hot qualifying lap. Unwritten agreements are not enforceable.
3. The stewards are the final arbiters and just interpret the rules as they see fit. But you give a different set of stewards the same setup and they could just as easily call it differently and still point to the rules to justify why.

If I was to argue a specific interpretation (which is like reading tea leaves)...

1. The part about "one car width" really speaks to the approach to the corner. Not the exit.
2. As to "crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track". This is a tricky one. Factor in that the rule applies everywhere, but this was on corner exit in which someone was trying to pass on the outside? Isn't the passing driver supposed to make the pass move? (another unwritten rule). The passing driver was not ahead? They didn't touch? In each penalty, did the leading driver make an "abnormal change of direction" on exit? Of course they didn't!

No, one driver was just crowded of track.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

We all know it was a risky move. It would be been brilliant if it had worked, but it would have required the leading driver to make a mistake or incorrectly concede the corner.

I disagree, it would have required Norris to abide to the rules and perhaps Perez could've concluded the move at turn 6. Then again, Norris perhaps would've been able to hold ground and we could've seen spectacular wheel to wheel racing through turns 6 to 8. We will never know, because one driver did not stick to the rules and thus ended a potentially interesting wheel to wheel fight prematurely.

BTW, Norris already left no room on track at T1 earlier.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My concern here is that you can argue the "one car width" or "crowding a car" to the point that you are effectively unable to run a normal line as the leading driver. There would be no room for "defense". You must just give them room anyplace and any time

That's the point of wheel to wheel racing in my view, BOTH drivers aren't able to run the ideal line. In general the ideal line is of course outside, inside, outside. In side by side racing the inside guy goes middle, inside, middle and the outside guy does outside, middle, outside. So indeed both drivers are compromised and may the best man win.

In my ideal world ANY driver at ALL TIMES should leave room on track if ANY part of the car is next to another car. This would be easiest to police and would give maximum room for enduring wheel to wheel combat. Now I'm not naive and know this will never happen for multiple competitive reasons and therefore we have this grey area where at a certain stage we say if the guy on the outside is too far back by a certain amount we expect the guy on the outside to yield the corner.

This can be easily abused however by the guy on the inside however, because if the eases of the brakes a bit more he might not be able to leave racing room any more, but he will edge in front and claim it was his corner because he was in front. This is such a hard area to police. At what point is the outside guy still rightly defending his position and when does the corner become the inside guys corner?

You see, that why I like my definition, because it is easier to police; if any part of the other guys car is still beside you, you are obliged to leave a car width. Easier to police, but not compatible with a competitive mind.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Horner made this argument...

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...orner/6625924/

The problem here is that it is Horner is making the argument and his driver (Perez) came out the worst this past weekend. So he is biased and it's easy to just say "well of course that is what he would say" and just negate the entire argument. The problem is... He has a very good point.

I think what happened is the stewards boxed themselves into a corner with the first penalty. And then to avoid questions of consistency, they basically tried to convert multiple "wrongs" to make a "right".

I do agree that the Stewards might have felt they'd boxed themselves in, but it disagree that the first two calls were "wrong". Probably, after the first two, they felt more pressure to appear consistent and that may have influenced their 3rd decision. As said though, I think the first two were spot on, just way too lenient in the amount of punishment.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

If this persists, you know drivers will take advantage of it. And we will see drivers flopping. They already are doing it to a degree in that they complain on the radio why someone will not move out of the way, etc. We don't need them to be able to say someone hurt their feeling and didn't let their bogus pass attempt work so they deserve a penalty. And as much as everyone will claim they hate this, the teams will clearly push for penalties if it helps them move ahead on the circuit.

But... there is no resolution on this. The rules will remain vague. They will continue to have a revolving door of stewards who interpret the rules differently from one weekend to the next. The drivers will still have to guess as to how the rules are interpreted from one event to the next. Fans will continue to argue for/against all of this based upon their personal interpretation of... extremely vague rules.

Richard

Yes, I also think this will never be clearly resolved even with a fixed team of stewards. Overtaking situations have just too many variables to address with a non-vague set of rules unless you make it extremely strict as listed above.

As to the football/soccer reference from Horner. The difference is that in football a referee has to take a decision on the spot, where as stewards have some time and multiple angles to review and consider the situation. So I'm not afraid of the reference Horner is trying to make will materialise.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Thank you Richard, for another extensive and well argued post.

Cheers. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

That's the point of wheel to wheel racing in my view, BOTH drivers aren't able to run the ideal line. In general the ideal line is of course outside, inside, outside. In side by side racing the inside guy goes middle, inside, middle and the outside guy does outside, middle, outside. So indeed both drivers are compromised and may the best man win.

In my ideal world ANY driver at ALL TIMES should leave room on track if ANY part of the car is next to another car. This would be easiest to police and would give maximum room for enduring wheel to wheel combat. Now I'm not naive and know this will never happen for multiple competitive reasons and therefore we have this grey area where at a certain stage we say if the guy on the outside is too far back by a certain amount we expect the guy on the outside to yield the corner.

This can be easily abused however by the guy on the inside however, because if the eases of the brakes a bit more he might not be able to leave racing room any more, but he will edge in front and claim it was his corner because he was in front. This is such a hard area to police. At what point is the outside guy still rightly defending his position and when does the corner become the inside guys corner?

You see, that why I like my definition, because it is easier to police; if any part of the other guys car is still beside you, you are obliged to leave a car width. Easier to police, but not compatible with a competitive mind.

Lots of good stuff here. I will try to make my reply brief. In short, I think the ideal you are looking for, and with simple rules that can be easily applied, in the end, would redefine what we know as "racing" today. It should remain hard to pass the driver in front unless they make a mistake, or the passing driver is truly faster. The key thing is "pass". When we start to build too many rules that effectively say... "once you are beside them, the deal is done" then IMHO, all is lost and it is a slippery slope away from competition and becoming about being polite.

As you acknowledge, it's hard to do it right. But we should try. And while having a consistent set of stewards may not "fix" the problem. It would be a step in the right direction of reducing the occurrences of them getting it wrong.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

As to the football/soccer reference from Horner. The difference is that in football a referee has to take a decision on the spot, where as stewards have some time and multiple angles to review and consider the situation. So I'm not afraid of the reference Horner is trying to make will materialise.

While they have more time to make a call, it doesn't mean they will get it right. Doesn't football have professional referees as well?

Richard

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

I know Norris got two penalty points for his "infringement". Did Perez get similar - for either of his ?

Seriously? I find that absolutely astonishing.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think the ideal you are looking for, and with simple rules that can be easily applied, in the end, would redefine what we know as "racing" today. It should remain hard to pass the driver in front unless they make a mistake, or the passing driver is truly faster. The key thing is "pass". When we start to build too many rules that effectively say... "once you are beside them, the deal is done" then IMHO, all is lost and it is a slippery slope away from competition and becoming about being polite.

Completely agree.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Seriously? I find that absolutely astonishing.
.

IKR? Norris himself has said dangerous driving should got penalty points, not this

[Aysedasi]

Utterly absurd. (IMO)

[GregUK]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

I know Norris got two penalty points for his "infringement". Did Perez get similar - for either of his ?

Perez collected 2 x 4 points giving him 8 points in a 12 month period.

Norris left the weekend having gathered 10 points in a 12 month period.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think the ideal you are looking for, and with simple rules that can be easily applied, in the end, would redefine what we know as "racing" today. It should remain hard to pass the driver in front unless they make a mistake, or the passing driver is truly faster. The key thing is "pass". When we start to build too many rules that effectively say... "once you are beside them, the deal is done" then IMHO, all is lost and it is a slippery slope away from competition and becoming about being polite.

Maybe the rule should mirror that which we had, certainly for club racing here in the UK back in the 60s, that a driver had to concede the corner if the following car had it's front wheels in front of the rear wheels of the car they were attempting to overtake. It made you have reliable mirrors that you actually used.

I am aware that the braking efficiency of cars is now far superior allowing drivers to dive down the inside, often without any drama ensuing, but I am sure that something like our old rule of the circuit shouldn't be beyond the wit of the FIA. And yes, it must be one that is easily monitored and consistently enforced.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Maybe the rule should mirror that which we had, certainly for club racing here in the UK back in the 60s, that a driver had to concede the corner if the following car had it's front wheels in front of the rear wheels of the car they were attempting to overtake. It made you have reliable mirrors that you actually used.

Crikey, that would change things a bit. I could see a lot of late braking with no-hope manoeuvres being turned into enforced passes or penalties.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Crikey, that would change things a bit. I could see a lot of late braking with no-hope manoeuvres being turned into enforced passes or penalties.

I found that it made you, as a driver, to be aware of what was happening around you. The C of C would always remind everyone at the early morning drivers' briefing of the rule, and that he (I can't remember any female C of Cs) expected everyone to respect this and they mostly did, along with taking the correct action of the blue flags.

As far as I can remember, and I raced pretty well every other weekend for about 5 years, only one fellow actually dived down the inside when he was unable to negotiate the corner without hitting me if I hadn't taken drastic avoiding action. That was a race at Snetterton that I was leading, and this chap dived down the inside at the hairpin at the end of the Norwich Straight to try to take the lead. I realised that he was going far too fast to get around the corner with me anywhere near him, so I took to the grass verge on the exit of the corner to get out of his way.

It didn't do him any good, though. As we passed the pits on the start of the following lap, he ploughed into a three backmarkers who were fighting to not come last. He expected them to clear out of his way whilst I actually slowed down, but they were busy trying to pass each over, and were abreast down the straight. He ended up in the corn field with a severely damaged car which didn't please his friend who owned the car.

It turned out that this was his first, and I believe his last, race and he was brought before the C of C who gave him a real dressing down for both the accident and also his manoeuvrer on me which had been reported to him by the marshals on the corner. And after all the drama, I won my first overall victory.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by GregUK

Perez collected 2 x 4 points giving him 8 points in a 12 month period.

Norris left the weekend having gathered 10 points in a 12 month period.

Thanks for the info - so Norris got 2 points for the initial incident, but Perez got 4 points for each of the incidents with Leclerc ?



I understand 2 of Norris's points expire before Silverstone.......

[Adam43]

https://www.fia.com/documents/season...hampionship-14

Perez got 2 points for each offence.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Cheers. Thanks.

Lots of good stuff here. I will try to make my reply brief. In short, I think the ideal you are looking for, and with simple rules that can be easily applied, in the end, would redefine what we know as "racing" today.

Indeed it would and all for the better in my book. As Mike explained, it would to a totally different, much more subtle (and in my view interesting) interaction between drivers. In the many years I've simraced (also on the higher end and in bash friendlier tintops) I've always strived to uphold the mantra of always leaving a car width beside me. This always made for the most interesting fights for track position. Sometimes, as attacker, you couldn't make it stick and the next turn the defender still next to you got in front again. Or you would only be able to make it stick after three or four corners. You really had to look out for which lines the opponent was taking, where to position your car to create an opportunity.

To me that's so much more interesting than the so called "let them race" "bash-boom" DRS dive bomb, cut off that never really develops in to prolonged wheel to wheel racing and only makes for heated debate after the race about penalties and such.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

It should remain hard to pass the driver in front unless they make a mistake, or the passing driver is truly faster. The key thing is "pass". When we start to build too many rules that effectively say... "once you are beside them, the deal is done" then IMHO, all is lost and it is a slippery slope away from competition and becoming about being polite.

In my hope of how things would be Perez would not have DRS his way in front (because there would be no DRS with the new 2022 cars), but would have had "his nose in". Then Norris would left a cars width and the fight would've probably prolonged up to corner 6 or more. That's what I miss about racing, wheel to wheel fighting that last more than one corner.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As you acknowledge, it's hard to do it right. But we should try. And while having a consistent set of stewards may not "fix" the problem. It would be a step in the right direction of reducing the occurrences of them getting it wrong.



Richard

That's probably true.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by GregUK

Perez collected 2 x 4 points giving him 8 points in a 12 month period.

Norris left the weekend having gathered 10 points in a 12 month period.

Of which two will be over the 12 month period by the time Silverstone starts so in reality he also has 8 by the time the next race weekend starts. (That is how I have read it reported.)
Edit: Just noticed "Lancs" had also posted same