Penalties and their effectiveness.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Penalties and their effectiveness.

In the aftermath of the Quatar Grand Prix and the plethora of penalties handed out for drivers exceeding the track limits, how effective are the penalties?

[steve_r]

Most races go by without track limit infringements. And other races such as Qatar and Austria and a small number of others have seemingly regular / constant infringements by many / most drivers at some point over the weekend. It's largely the fault of the track layout combined with the interpretation taken of what constitutes an infringement.

Either relax the rules and let ALL the drivers find the fastest way around the track OR put in some way of slowing the cars down if they venture off track - such as slippery Astroturf or raised kurbs.

I doubt any fan wants to see situations where loads of qualy times are deleted and loads of drivers get penalties during the race for venturing one inch over a painted white line.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Most races go by without track limit infringements. And other races such as Qatar and Austria and a small number of others have seemingly regular / constant infringements by many / most drivers at some point over the weekend. It's largely the fault of the track layout combined with the interpretation taken of what constitutes an infringement.

I agree that track configurations seem to drive this and to the second point about what constitutes an infringement, I "think" you are talking about questions of "four wheels off" vs. other ways of looking at what is "outside track limits". I think there is two other (maybe more issues). The third is effectiveness of the penalty and the fourth is timeliness of the application of the penalty.

The classic example of all of this being solved (rather harshly) is street circuits such as Monaco in which "track limits" is frequently defined by a barrier. As to timeliness of the penalty, is it immediate as you know you have hit the wall. As to effectiveness of the penalty it is also very effective as typically be over right on the spot.

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. With solutions ranging from walls to various surface such as gravel and low grip AstroTurf. In the "Rate the GP" thread, Teretonga mentioned the use technology to implement a virtual wall. We have talked on/off about geofencing as well. I like the idea of geofencing, but it would take some work to implement and make it accurate.

As I call out above, there needs to be nearly instantaneous detection and penalty application. I feel like at the moment that the escalation from warning to penalty is too lenient. As mentioned above, the walls at Monaco don't give warnings. Maybe the closest thing to a warning at Monaco is a close brush that doesn't do damage to your car. But a barrier doesn't care if it was your first or tenth mistake on a particular corner.

As mentioned above, it seems some circuits have this problem more than others. And clearly there will be some circuits in which the most optimal line will result in pushing the envelope with regards to track limits which other circuits that optimal line may not create that same level of risk. You could revise circuits so that the risk is reduced or removed, but I think that takes away part of the skill of driving. That part of that is knowing that you sometimes have to give it up in a corner to stay on the circuit as the alternative might be a DNF.

So in short, I like the idea of geofencing if it can be realized in a cost effective and accurate way. I think penalties should be dealt with quickly and maybe even in an automated way (no need for stewards to "review") if the geofencing technology is showing track boundary issues (remember it needs to be accurate... few if any false positives) then the penalty should be costly and immediately applied. As to what that penalty is, I can't say. I think in a perfect world, it would be something like an automatic reduction in car power for a specific period of time. There would need to be work to implement that in a safe and controlled way (you don't want to drop power and cause a car to unexpectantly slow in front of a following driver, or cause the car to become unstable and loose control, etc.)

All of this is looking for a lot of complicated technical solutions. I think they are achievable, but probably cutting edge and maybe not what F1 would want to tackle right now.

Richard

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by steve_r

put in some way of slowing the cars down if they venture off track - such as slippery Astroturf or raised kurbs.

I think this should always be the first choice option. Make it so the drivers don't want to go off track. My preference would be gravel or grass on the outside of every corner, and in tracks where that is impossible due to motorbikes, preferably something temporary to slow them down.

Originally Posted by steve_r

relax the rules and let ALL the drivers find the fastest way around the track

But if that is impossible due to safety reasons, then this is definitely the best option, in my opinion. But to be honest, I don't really mind the plethora of penalties for track limits, for me it doesn't make the sport look silly, it makes the drivers look silly and wouldn't last forever.


The penalty system that most annoys me at the moment is the five second penalties for causing a collision that totally destroys another driver's race at no cost to your own, like Hamilton on Piastri in Monza, Perez on Albon in Singapore. In Suzuka, Lando Norris' best chance of winning would be to accidentally punt Verstappen out of the race at Spoon curve in such a way that doesn't damage his own car, as all he would have got would be a five-second penalty and his margin over Oscar Piastri was much greater than that. Which is a complete joke.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Richard C

The classic example of all of this being solved (rather harshly) is street circuits such as Monaco in which "track limits" is frequently defined by a barrier. As to timeliness of the penalty, is it immediate as you know you have hit the wall. As to effectiveness of the penalty it is also very effective as typically be over right on the spot.

Richard

And in Monaco, the most difficult race track of them all, in wet conditions this year, am I right in saying that not a single driver found the barrier? So they can do it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

And in Monaco, the most difficult race track of them all, in wet conditions this year, am I right in saying that not a single driver found the barrier? So they can do it.

Right. Absolutely they can. The drivers currently exceed track limits because they know they can with very little risk. So the risk vs reward equation is screwed up on tracks without barriers on the edge of circuits.

Richard

[peterelise]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Right. Absolutely they can. The drivers currently exceed track limits because they know they can with very little risk. So the risk vs reward equation is screwed up on tracks without barriers on the edge of circuits.

Richard

The reason they can do it at Monaco is that the physical barrier is visible from where they sit whereas the painted line is not. Why is anyone surprised they go over a painted line, in some cases by millimetres, when they can’t see the line as they get nearer to it? I get that there is a large element of risk v reward so drivers will take much more risk with a painted line track limit than they will with a barrier but even when there was real risk of qualifying being ruined, we still saw lots of extremely capable drivers go over the limit by a tiny amount.

[Rusty Nail]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I think this should always be the first choice option. Make it so the drivers don't want to go off track. My preference would be gravel or grass on the outside of every corner, and in tracks where that is impossible due to motorbikes, preferably something temporary to slow them down.

Agree with that. Maybe the geofencing option could be employed where a reduced adhesion surface is not possible

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by peterelise

The reason they can do it at Monaco is that the physical barrier is visible from where they sit whereas the painted line is not. Why is anyone surprised they go over a painted line, in some cases by millimetres, when they can’t see the line as they get nearer to it? I get that there is a large element of risk v reward so drivers will take much more risk with a painted line track limit than they will with a barrier but even when there was real risk of qualifying being ruined, we still saw lots of extremely capable drivers go over the limit by a tiny amount.

I'm not certain that I can agree with the idea that, because it's possible that the drivers cannot see the white line, they cut the corners or go too wide exiting them. After all, in a right hand car on public roads, I am more than capable of going around a bend or corner without hitting the curb or going over the pavement; and I also cannot see the curb from where I sit. And when I lived in Spain, I also learnt managed to drive a left hand car, also within the roadway.

Driving within boundaries should be instinctive to these drivers, who we are led to believe are at the top of their game. I believe that the truth is that, for the most part, they are just hoping to get away with these things, just as they have been for many years now. They just have to adapt to the rules being more strictly administered; after all, the majority of their fellow drivers managed to do so.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peterelise

The reason they can do it at Monaco is that the physical barrier is visible from where they sit whereas the painted line is not. Why is anyone surprised they go over a painted line, in some cases by millimetres, when they can’t see the line as they get nearer to it? I get that there is a large element of risk v reward so drivers will take much more risk with a painted line track limit than they will with a barrier but even when there was real risk of qualifying being ruined, we still saw lots of extremely capable drivers go over the limit by a tiny amount.

I am sorry, but that logic is laughable. Now, I don't know if they used different (more stringent) rules in Qatar to keep cars off the curb (I don't think so), but you do understand that when a car is exceeding track limits this means that the ENTIRE car is outside of the white lines that delineates the circuit boundary. So a few millimeters is really 2000 millimeters.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I'm not certain that I can agree with the idea that, because it's possible that the drivers cannot see the white line, they cut the corners or go too wide exiting them. After all, in a right hand car on public roads, I am more than capable of going around a bend or corner without hitting the curb or going over the pavement; and I also cannot see the curb from where I sit. And when I lived in Spain, I also learnt managed to drive a left hand car, also within the roadway.

Driving within boundaries should be instinctive to these drivers, who we are led to believe are at the top of their game. I believe that the truth is that, for the most part, they are just hoping to get away with these things, just as they have been for many years now. They just have to adapt to the rules being more strictly administered; after all, the majority of their fellow drivers managed to do so.

Spot on. Millions of drivers every day manage to keep their cars out of the ditches while not being able to see the edge of the road. The drivers know were the circuit boundaries are!

Again it works in Monaco not because the drivers can see the location of the barriers (I mean sure they need to see that), but because the drivers know that exceeding the track limits even just with the outside tire (not to mention the entire car) results in hitting the barriers and has an immediate and disastrous result. They exceed track limits elsewhere because doing so provides a reward (faster lap time) and as the risk, the penalties typically come after multiple warnings and in some cases are not severe enough to impact their race. So it would be amazing if they were not exceeding track limits given how competitive the sport is.

Richard

[steve_r]

Everyone seems to be using Monaco with its walls as the basis for comparisons. Monaco is a freak track, and at the risk of annoying absolutely everyone on this thread, I don't think that is the best comparison at all.

We don't tend to get multiple track limit infringements at plenty of "normal" tracks that don't have walls. Why is that?

[TrapezeArtist]

We can absolutely dismiss any idea of forgetting track limits and letting the drivers find the fastest way round regardless. As soon as you open that can of worms every car will spend more time off the road than on it. Take the first two corners at Montreal as an example: they would miss out turn 2 altogether and make turn 1 much less severe.

So the overall issue boils down to several sub-issues:
1. Defining what is a transgression
2a. Preventing a transgression
2b. Detecting a transgression
3. What should the penalty be?
4. Should a penalty be automatic or subject to discretion

1. Except when there is a wall or barrier the current definition is "four wheels off". I think that is wrong. It looks ugly and goes against the idea of driving on the track. In my view the cars remain 100% ON the track.

2a. Although raised kerbs have worked effectively in the past, I don't think they are compatible with modern safety expectations or use of the track by motorbikes. I do wonder whether a relatively low and light temporary barrier would work: something like a long string of tyres strapped together and 2 or 3 tyres high. Otherwise a very slippery band about 2m wide at the exit kerb of every corner should be very convincing. On the apex I think a physical obstacle is required, something like the tyre bundles tried at Monza 20-odd years ago, but tethered to keep them from getting on the track.

2b. If none of the suggestions in 2a would work, some sort of geo-fencing seems necessary. It seems uncomfortably hi-tech and while F1 could afford it, it wouldn't trickle down readily to other formulae and circuits. Or we're stuck with observers trying to make snap decisions.

3. While 2a would negate the need for track limit penalties, 2b plus other things like 'causing a collision" still would. 5 seconds at the next pitstop or added to over all race time has a lot of problems, and is probably not severe enough for some occasions. I would propose either a pitlane drive-through, or a separate penalty chicane located elsewhere on the circuit. Drive-throughs would be much simpler to implement.

4. In one way I would much prefer track limits penalties to be automatic, that would be very harsh on any driver who gets barged off by another. Therefore I think penalties must be discretionary, but judged and enforced very quickly.

[Mike Harte]

I know that I've said this before, and I apologise for being a stuck record, but the way to deal with track limits and similar infringements is to introduce penalties that are so severe that drivers won't want to risk getting one. Possibly, as Trapeze Artist suggested above, a drive through for a second occasion after a warning on the first infringement, and possibly a timed stop and go for further lapses.

And this should be automatic and not subject to discretion unless, of course, the driver did so to avoid a collision. I am quite certain that after the first driver had such a penalty it would have the effect of stopping any other driver doing the same. If a driver does this right at the end of the race, say the penultimate or last lap, then the penalty would automatically be time added to their finishing time plus the time that would have been taken to complete the drive through or stop and go, whichever was applicable.

No ifs or buts.

[Sodemo]

Every track should have a minimum of 2 metre strip of grass which lines the track. What you then have beyond that (tarmac or gravel) is open to discussion but as a means of controlling track limits I can think of no better solution.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Every track should have a minimum of 2 metre strip of grass which lines the track. What you then have beyond that (tarmac or gravel) is open to discussion but as a means of controlling track limits I can think of no better solution.

As we saw on Sunday with the BTCC, grass is not necessarily the answer, and that grass was at least damp if not wet; it certainly was wet on the other side of the track.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Every track should have a minimum of 2 metre strip of grass which lines the track. What you then have beyond that (tarmac or gravel) is open to discussion but as a means of controlling track limits I can think of no better solution.

MotoGP shares some circuits with F1, Quatar is one of them. I confess I know very little about MotoGP, however would not a 2 meter grass strip lining the track be dangerous for riders?

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I know that I've said this before, and I apologise for being a stuck record, but the way to deal with track limits and similar infringements is to introduce penalties that are so severe that drivers won't want to risk getting one. Possibly, as Trapeze Artist suggested above, a drive through for a second occasion after a warning on the first infringement, and possibly a timed stop and go for further lapses.

And this should be automatic and not subject to discretion unless, of course, the driver did so to avoid a collision. I am quite certain that after the first driver had such a penalty it would have the effect of stopping any other driver doing the same. If a driver does this right at the end of the race, say the penultimate or last lap, then the penalty would automatically be time added to their finishing time plus the time that would have been taken to complete the drive through or stop and go, whichever was applicable.

No ifs or buts.

If the FIA introduced this, I would be very happy. Which just leaves the question of what constitutes an infringement and how do you reliably detect it.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As we saw on Sunday with the BTCC, grass is not necessarily the answer, and that grass was at least damp if not wet; it certainly was wet on the other side of the track.

I agree that grass is not slippery enough. In my head I am picturing some sort nylon or teflon plates screwed down into a tarmac or concrete base. Then if necessary they could be removed for MotoGP. However the bikes are also beginning to demonstrate a track limits problem and that slippery border would definitely be a serious disincentive to running wide. Unfortunately deliberately installing something that will almost certainly cause bikes to crash may be a step too far.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

If the FIA introduced this, I would be very happy. Which just leaves the question of what constitutes an infringement and how do you reliably detect it.

The simplest technology, and I would imagine comparatively inexpensive when taking into consideration the sanctioning fees for the F1 circuits, would be the touch sensitive pads, or whatever they are that are used on Dr Palmer's tracks in the UK.

And the infringement would be any wheel on or beyond the white line. If you assume the white line is the equivalent of the curbing on public roads, then when you were driving, you wouldn't want to bash your wheels on the curb because the likely result would be a severely damaged wheel if not a puncture or certainly a damage tyre.

This really doesn't need to be over thought. Simple answers are often the very best.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Everyone seems to be using Monaco with its walls as the basis for comparisons. Monaco is a freak track, and at the risk of annoying absolutely everyone on this thread, I don't think that is the best comparison at all.

I think you are missing the point of using Monaco as the example. The point is... in some places in Monaco the edge of the circuit is lined with barriers. There may be a hypothetical "faster" line, but that would include driving through the barriers. Somehow, magically, the drivers manage to not hit the barriers all the time. That is the point. The drivers CAN keep the cars on the circuit if incentivized enough.

Originally Posted by steve_r

We don't tend to get multiple track limit infringements at plenty of "normal" tracks that don't have walls. Why is that?

Why? The optimal racing line does not take out outside of the circuit limits. In short, the driver doesn't have to "give something up" (slow more, different apex, etc.) to make the corner work optimally. One answer (and maybe a valid one) is to dumb down all of the circuits. If people run wide in a corner, then widen the exit on the outside. And I do think some corners might need some adjustments if they are egregious and pervasive offenders. But in general IMHO they should use a light touch when doing this. Why make it so much easier for the driver? We already complain that F1 is "too easy" for the drivers.

Imagine if there were little or no curbs on circuits and everything was well paved. Just painted lines. Chicanes would be shortcut to the fullest extent. Everyone would run super wide on fast sweepers that lead to long straights in attempts to carry as much speed through and out of the corner. And not all corners are equal with respect to impact on lap time. So we will see some corners be problems more than others.

Richard

[peterelise]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I am sorry, but that logic is laughable. Now, I don't know if they used different (more stringent) rules in Qatar to keep cars off the curb (I don't think so), but you do understand that when a car is exceeding track limits this means that the ENTIRE car is outside of the white lines that delineates the circuit boundary. So a few millimeters is really 2000 millimeters.


Spot on. Millions of drivers every day manage to keep their cars out of the ditches while not being able to see the edge of the road. The drivers know were the circuit boundaries are!

Richard

The rule says they are on the track as long as one tyre is inside or on the white line. They are not two metres off the defined track when the fourth tyre goes over by an inch.

And do you really think it a realistic comparison to say that millions of drivers manage to avoid the kerbs in their daily life with (in most cases) the very best drivers in the world exceeding a “barrier” they can’t see when their teams expect them to wring every last tenth out of the car? In my opinion you are grossly over simplifying the issue. And I’m not a fan of them exceeding track limits and I agree there should be sanctions for it, or ideally even a better way of either helping the drivers avoid the limit and/or forcing them to leave a bigger margin for error even if they are unable to see the line.

[Richard C]

First, apologies for sounding confrontational in this reply. I am just being very frank.

Originally Posted by peterelise

The rule says they are on the track as long as one tyre is inside or on the white line. They are not two metres off the defined track when the fourth tyre goes over by an inch.

You are technically correct. But it is clear that the cars are meant to drive within the boundaries of the circuit lines. Most curbing is right there at that boundary. The ability to go nearly four wheels off is a LARGE (2m width I believe) extra allowance given to drivers. It is frankly the most you can give before saying... "Yes, you are absolutely and without doubt no longer on the circuit by any possible definition". So to act as if using and going beyond (even if by a fraction) of that 2M buffer and getting a penalty is somehow outrageous or unfair is... frankly nuts. There has to be a line, and the line has been drawn exceedingly courteously in the drivers favor.

Originally Posted by peterelise

And do you really think it a realistic comparison to say that millions of drivers manage to avoid the kerbs in their daily life with (in most cases) the very best drivers in the world exceeding a “barrier” they can’t see when their teams expect them to wring every last tenth out of the car?

Yes, where does that comparison break down? The comparison is meant to mean that... keeping it within the boundaries is doable (see last comment). People driving every day don't drive on sidewalks and in ditches just like drivers don't try to drive through barriers at Monaco because... of the consequences.

Originally Posted by peterelise

In my opinion you are grossly over simplifying the issue.

How? The issue is exceedingly simple. Solutions might be complex however.

Originally Posted by peterelise

And I’m not a fan of them exceeding track limits and I agree there should be sanctions for it, or ideally even a better way of either helping the drivers avoid the limit and/or forcing them to leave a bigger margin for error even if they are unable to see the line.

I think the point we are clearly missing is... I think you are saying they are missing the line because they can't see it. My point is that its not because they can't see it, its because they know the penalty for going over it is low.

Again, while drivers do occasionally hit barriers at Monaco, they somehow manage to keep the cars off them on a regular basis. And it is not "primarily" about their ability to see them (yes, it helps) but rather that they know the penalty is harsh.

We will never know, but I am fully confident that if you provided a system for the drivers to know how close they were to the line with millimeter precision but yet kept the penalty soft, they would continue to exceed track limits on a regular basis! That would be because the risk vs reward equation says it is beneficial. It is absolutely human nature.

Richard

[VIVA GT]

I'm (just) old enough to remember race circuits (or have at least seen films/pictures) where there were no kerbs at the edge of the track. I seem to think that they were introduced to prevent the grass at the edge of the track being worn down by drivers cutting the corner and creating a dangerous hole at the side of the circuit.
I've also seen a picture somewhere of Copse Corner at Silverstone from the mid to late 60's (it was of a Mark 1 Escort Saloon Car) where the inside edge of the track was lined with square breeze blocks! You wouldn't want to go near to those...

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I think you are missing the point of using Monaco as the example. The point is... in some places in Monaco the edge of the circuit is lined with barriers. There may be a hypothetical "faster" line, but that would include driving through the barriers. Somehow, magically, the drivers manage to not hit the barriers all the time. That is the point. The drivers CAN keep the cars on the circuit if incentivized enough.

Richard

I am really not missing the point at all. I understand the point. Monaco is not a normal track and is not the best track for comparisons . Why not compare with tracks that have a lot more in common such as Silverstone, Monza, Spa...

Blame drivers if just one of two of them transgress. But when you have hundreds of transgressions by all or almost all the drivers then a solution must be found rather than simply blaming the drivers.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I am really not missing the point at all. I understand the point. Monaco is not a normal track and is not the best track for comparisons . Why not compare with tracks that have a lot more in common such as Silverstone, Monza, Spa...

Blame drivers if just one of two of them transgress. But when you have hundreds of transgressions by all or almost all the drivers then a solution must be found rather than simply blaming the drivers.

If you are referring to the GP at Qatar, then I do believe that only 3 out of 20 drivers were penalised during the race. I appreciate that you may be exaggerating for effect, so I do believe that you can blame the drivers.

I find it difficult to agree with your proposition that it is always the fault of the circuit, when you can often, or maybe usually, see that the drivers that set the fastest laps of a race are not those that do not constantly abuse track limits. So it does prove that it is the drivers at fault.