FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Hammer278]

As is the case, people tend to easily misunderstand between BLOCKING and BREAKING THE TOW.

Lewis never blocked anyone. He has the habit of swerving away from the guy behind so the car behind doesn't benefit from the TOW. This is what the thick headed stewards don't get, all they think of is "one move allowed one move allowed".

What Michael did was swerving to BLOCK. This is dangerous. He's run cars of the road, by not giving them space. The mutts officiating the race don't seem to comprehend this fundamental difference between the two actions. Sigh.

[Jensonb]

They gave Hamilton a punishment this year, but last year, when he deserved one blocking Petrov on the straight, he just recieved a warning...

There are tow things wrong with that statement:

First, the warning itself was out of line because there was no such rule for him to break last year. Second, he didn't even break the gentleman's agreement that stood at the time, from which the rule was derived, because the agreement was "only one move in the braking zone". What Lewis did last year was weaving to break the tow - inherently, not in the braking zone.

That being said, he couldn't do that this year if the rule was enforced consistently to the letter, because the rule is more broadly phrased than the agreement ever was, dictating one move to block on the straight full stop. Thus, even if a driver was trying to break the tow, this could be interpreted as a move to block and therefore if more than one move was made, ran afoul of the rules.

[Bubbie]

That is an excellent point. I do see a difference in breaking a tow (which can be countered by a driver being skilled - i.e. racing) and blocking under braking which is much more dangerous.

Shame if the rule this year is so all encompassing.

[Jensonb]

That is an excellent point. I do see a difference in breaking a tow (which can be countered by a driver being skilled - i.e. racing) and blocking under braking which is much more dangerous.

Indeed, the only time I've ever crashed a Kart in a serious manner was when an opponent I was lining up to take around the outside onto the home straight veered right (Into the outside and the place I was aiming for) in the deceleration zone. By that point, I had already carried more speed into the corner, so I couldn't duck around the inside and catch him on the switchback because I'd have wound up smashing into him, or spinning because of the massive change od direction at high speed with low grip (Relatively old tyres, cold track). Thus, I had to let the kart run even wider and inevitably ran out of room.

Moving on the straight? Relatively safe. Moving in the deceleration zone? Asking for trouble.

[WallKart]

All good posts. I think I've already picked up a thing or two I didn't know. I'm still none the wiser on the original question of Vettel's start. I could count two defending moves but I don't know if they need to be defined more than what I seen. You could have argued 3 moves but I think the last is just to correct the braking line into the first corner. I appreciate that there may be other more obvious examples in the race etc but that was what I found myself focussing on in light of them issuing this type of penalty post race in the Alonso/Hamlton incident.

My general feeling is that I must be wrong as the race pole sitter would be too much in the forefront of the action to avoid comment from somebody who knew what they were talking about. Commentary team on the beeb didn't mention it at all either, so I guess I just want to know why I'm wrong...

Do other racing series have provisions similar to this rule regarding overtaking? I only really soak up the F1 stuff, not a full time petrol head. Closest I get to racing is Xbox live.

[Jensonb]

All good posts. I think I've already picked up a thing or two I didn't know. I'm still none the wiser on the original question of Vettel's start. I could count two defending moves but I don't know if they need to be defined more than what I seen. You could have argued 3 moves but I think the last is just to correct the braking line into the first corner. I appreciate that there may be other more obvious examples in the race etc but that was what I found myself focussing on in light of them issuing this type of penalty post race in the Alonso/Hamlton incident.

My general feeling is that I must be wrong as the race pole sitter would be too much in the forefront of the action to avoid comment from somebody who knew what they were talking about. Commentary team on the beeb didn't mention it at all either, so I guess I just want to know why I'm wrong...

I maintain the rule clearly does not apply at the start. You're almost certain to have to move more than once at the start to avoid collisions with the other cars as the entire field jockeys for position through Turn One.

[acosmichippo]

I'm inclined to think the rule was written more to facilitate overtaking rather than safety.

[F1er]

I would advice you to go through the "MALAYSIAN GP THREAD"...its got a lot of opinions and videos in that thread. Instead of starting it all over again here.

Race is over but would like to at least appreciate the whys of it all.

Vettel is Bernie's illegitimate son.

[Jensonb]

I'm inclined to think the rule was written more to facilitate overtaking rather than safety.

IGIARI!


...Sorry, that's Japanese for "I disagree"...I've been playing Ace Attorney and sometimes I find it amusing to yell the Japanese catchphrase (Igiari!) instead of the English ("Objection!")....Anyway, I don't believe that idea is credible. Or, more accurately, that idea isn't developed enough. Theoretically at least, the rule must be related to safety because it was derived from the old agreement regarding moving in the braking zone. HOWEVER...The wording has been manipulated to facilitate overtaking.

Specifically...The rule has been rigged to make the Drag Reduction System work.

To wit: if drivers were, as they have been in the past, free to break the tow, the effectiveness of the DRS would be radically reduced. Anticipating this, the powers that be appear to have manipulated the rules being implemented as a knee-jerk attempt to prevent the kind of dangerous racing we saw going on with Schumacher and Barrichello (Yes, that incident) to make breaking the tow - and thus rendering the FIA's pet gimmick, the DRS, ineffective - illegal.

[WallKart]

All good posts. I think I've already picked up a thing or two I didn't know. I'm still none the wiser on the original question of Vettel's start. I could count two defending moves but I don't know if they need to be defined more than what I seen. You could have argued 3 moves but I think the last is just to correct the braking line into the first corner. I appreciate that there may be other more obvious examples in the race etc but that was what I found myself focussing on in light of them issuing this type of penalty post race in the Alonso/Hamlton incident.

My general feeling is that I must be wrong as the race pole sitter would be too much in the forefront of the action to avoid comment from somebody who knew what they were talking about. Commentary team on the beeb didn't mention it at all either, so I guess I just want to know why I'm wrong...

I maintain the rule clearly does not apply at the start. You're almost certain to have to move more than once at the start to avoid collisions with the other cars as the entire field jockeys for position through Turn One.

You appear to be 100% right. The commentary team of Brundle and Coulthard confirmed that at the race start it doesn't apply. They weren't sure themselves how much of the start they allow to be free from the ruling but it looks like def the first few corners at least. It seems many folk had seen the weaving and asked the question though email or whatever.

10 gold stars to Jensonb

[sennasational]

All good posts. I think I've already picked up a thing or two I didn't know. I'm still none the wiser on the original question of Vettel's start. I could count two defending moves but I don't know if they need to be defined more than what I seen. You could have argued 3 moves but I think the last is just to correct the braking line into the first corner. I appreciate that there may be other more obvious examples in the race etc but that was what I found myself focussing on in light of them issuing this type of penalty post race in the Alonso/Hamlton incident.

My general feeling is that I must be wrong as the race pole sitter would be too much in the forefront of the action to avoid comment from somebody who knew what they were talking about. Commentary team on the beeb didn't mention it at all either, so I guess I just want to know why I'm wrong...

I maintain the rule clearly does not apply at the start. You're almost certain to have to move more than once at the start to avoid collisions with the other cars as the entire field jockeys for position through Turn One.

You appear to be 100% right. The commentary team of Brundle and Coulthard confirmed that at the race start it doesn't apply. They weren't sure themselves how much of the start they allow to be free from the ruling but it looks like def the first few corners at least. It seems many folk had seen the weaving and asked the question though email or whatever.

10 gold stars to Jensonb

Well with that level of ambiguity who knows when the rule comes into play. If it isn't defined and it doesn't apply at the start, surely any incident which breaks this rule could be appealed against. Unless the rule states it isn't applied at the start (which it doesn't) then all incidents which break the rule should be given the same consistent punishment. This is of course be stupid and impossible to monitor at the start of a race, so the rule definitely needs clarification.

[WallKart]

I'm genuinely surprised that the rule could be that vague. In what effectively is a high cost competition it's odd that they'd resolve it this loosely. I guess they see the call as being best made by the stewards at the time of the event but it needs to be plain and understandable by not only the drivers but the viewers of the sport. As a viewer I can't then know if a driver has made an illegal move or not... It's too complicated it seems. I'd rather it was less fair but more clear to understand who it applies too.

[smokin]

I'm genuinely surprised that the rule could be that vague. In what effectively is a high cost competition it's odd that they'd resolve it this loosely. I guess they see the call as being best made by the stewards at the time of the event but it needs to be plain and understandable by not only the drivers but the viewers of the sport. As a viewer I can't then know if a driver has made an illegal move or not... It's too complicated it seems. I'd rather it was less fair but more clear to understand who it applies too.

It applies to the car in front...

I think they should take into account whether the move is dangerous to the following car: liable to cause a crash, likely to push the following car off the track/into a wall, etc. Or it should only apply on the straight; cars are moving around all the time in the approach to a corner, getting themselves into the best position for entry.

The main problem with the rule is that it is subjective. It's an opinion most of the time so should only be applied in the most blatant examples of blocking.

[WallKart]

I'm genuinely surprised that the rule could be that vague. In what effectively is a high cost competition it's odd that they'd resolve it this loosely. I guess they see the call as being best made by the stewards at the time of the event but it needs to be plain and understandable by not only the drivers but the viewers of the sport. As a viewer I can't then know if a driver has made an illegal move or not... It's too complicated it seems. I'd rather it was less fair but more clear to understand who it applies too.

It applies to the car in front...

I think they should take into account whether the move is dangerous to the following car: liable to cause a crash, likely to push the following car off the track/into a wall, etc. Or it should only apply on the straight; cars are moving around all the time in the approach to a corner, getting themselves into the best position for entry.

The main problem with the rule is that it is subjective. It's an opinion most of the time so should only be applied in the most blatant examples of blocking.

It would still leave it as subjective to take those things into consideration. My main issues with the rule are that it's subjective and inconsistent. Either have the rule and ensure that it's enforced without bias and with solid guidelines for what constitutes a violation or don't have it at all. It's far too vague as is.

There must be alternative ways of enforcing such a rule or handling it completely differently in order to deal with excessive blocking. For examples sake the rule could be removed and to compensate KERS and DRS could be used to specifically counter the problem (This would mean not using these for anything other than overtaking). They could alter things to allow following cars within a certain distance to fully use DRS and KERs in order to pass and allow the leading car to block as much as they like. 150hp on any given passing situation should allow an advantage and get rid of stupid activation zones as well. Blocking shouldn't be regarded as a crime, it should be integrated in the sport and managed, not sidelined as unskilled and looked upon as bad for racing.

I understand that folk could argue that this would make passing fake. I really don't think that it makes it any more fake than the current tire wear situation does. We just saw Hamilton and Webber both benefit out of better tires and it made them look like stars in the Chinese GP. Effectively they could pass because of the technical limitations of tire wear and the strategies they chose to follow in the race. They're passing wasn't skill based but we accept it as part of the sport.