Finding racing ‘rules of engagement’ that work
Discussion
For at least decade now, F1 has struggled to formulate (and enforce) rules that the drivers could follow that i) enable racing ii) prevent unsportsmanlike behaviour/cheating and iii) fairly punish (or compensate affected competitors for) mistakes by drivers.
The problem emerged in modern F1 as the safety of the cars and circuits increased. Previously, the behaviour of drivers (with a few notable exceptions) when racing wheel to wheel was effectively self-regulated. The impetus for that is clear: any collision or mistake was much more likely than today to mean severe injury - or worse - for you, your competitor or the crowd. (This is still true, of course, but the risk of injury, death, etc. is much reduced.). No competitor wanted to die, or cause the death of their fellow competitors. They regulated their behaviour and on-track actions appropriately.
So reading the ‘Russell’ thread last night gave me an idea, sparked by somethingRB Will wrote.
Get side by side into a corner and you should leave eachother room and carry the fight through the corner until it is resolved with one clearly ahead.RB_Will identifies that what we need is a situation where no driver has a ‘right’ to anything in a corner. An overtake, in effect, needs to be a complex, dynamic, negotiation between two drivers. Will is saying that in an overtaking situation, he thinks the drivers share responsibility for not colliding. I agree. Sow how can we ensure that? What’s the idea?
In any collision between two (or more) drivers as a result of an overtake attempt, penalise BOTH drivers automatically.
The result:
i) there is reduced benefit in ‘risking’ a collision in attacking - you will automatically be penalised if you do collide.
ii) there is reduced benefit to defending too hard or playing chicken - you will automatically be penalised if you do collide.
iii) drivers have to be reasonable in how they defend or attack, they HAVE to make sure that their opponent can negotiate the corner.
I believe a rule like this could actually enable racing by making ‘do/die(crash)’ defending untenable.
One issue I have thought of - teams using one driver to deliberately collide with a championship opponent of their other driver to remove them from the picture in races.
The problem emerged in modern F1 as the safety of the cars and circuits increased. Previously, the behaviour of drivers (with a few notable exceptions) when racing wheel to wheel was effectively self-regulated. The impetus for that is clear: any collision or mistake was much more likely than today to mean severe injury - or worse - for you, your competitor or the crowd. (This is still true, of course, but the risk of injury, death, etc. is much reduced.). No competitor wanted to die, or cause the death of their fellow competitors. They regulated their behaviour and on-track actions appropriately.
So reading the ‘Russell’ thread last night gave me an idea, sparked by somethingRB Will wrote.
RB Will said:
Muzzer79 said:
I think George's point was that, under the 'new' overtaking regs, it was his corner and Perez should have yielded.
This is the problem. If you get 2 cars side by side in any arrangement, possession of the corner/ racing line should not be awarded to anyone and nobody should have the right to claim it and force the other out. Get side by side into a corner and you should leave eachother room and carry the fight through the corner until it is resolved with one clearly ahead.
In any collision between two (or more) drivers as a result of an overtake attempt, penalise BOTH drivers automatically.
The result:
i) there is reduced benefit in ‘risking’ a collision in attacking - you will automatically be penalised if you do collide.
ii) there is reduced benefit to defending too hard or playing chicken - you will automatically be penalised if you do collide.
iii) drivers have to be reasonable in how they defend or attack, they HAVE to make sure that their opponent can negotiate the corner.
I believe a rule like this could actually enable racing by making ‘do/die(crash)’ defending untenable.
One issue I have thought of - teams using one driver to deliberately collide with a championship opponent of their other driver to remove them from the picture in races.
JoelH said:
F1 doesn't exist in isolation in the motorsport world. All the things they constantly mess up are handled very nicely in other series all over the world.
The issue F1 has is not defining rules but actually enforcing them consistently.
Do you not follow MotoGP? The inconsistencies are just as bad and arguably worse than F1. Some want Freddie Spencer gone.The issue F1 has is not defining rules but actually enforcing them consistently.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff