The Great Overtaking & Stewarding Debate

[SgtBhaji]

A few years ago penalties were being handed out for that and we were up in arms because it meant drivers would be afraid to make a move if there was going to be contact, whether intended or not.

This is the situation that I don't want us to get back in to. Not every contact is a penalty, but with that then comes the problem of stewarding and being able to constitantly apply the same punishment for infringements. It's a bit like reffing football where officials may see incidents differently.

As for the Rosberg/Max incident, surely the best way to handle situations like that would be to order Roberg to give the position back rather than the time penalty. Much better than having a penalty that spoils the fight.

 

[Big Ern]

The one I've put up wasn't oversteer, he's straightened out mid corner (illegal) and aimed his car at Ricciardo and pushed him onto the grass, no subtlety about it at all, and far worse than anything Rosberg has done.
But of course it's Hamilton so it's accepted by the steward$$$$$$ and the legions of Hamelots.

 

[Smithers]

The one I've put up wasn't oversteer, he's straightened out mid corner (illegal) and aimed his car at Ricciardo and pushed him onto the grass, no subtlety about it at all, and far worse than anything Rosberg has done.
But of course it's Hamilton so it's accepted by the steward$$$$$$ and the legions of Hamelots.

I don't like the 1 car width rule myself because for it to be effective it has to be for the whole radius of the corner - which is the point you are making. Who decides where that point ends, another opinion that differs depending on the direction of the wind. Also in this example Riccardo is ahead so he immediately qualifies for the other crazy unquantifiable rule of "significantly alongside" - the other Charlie master stroke!

 

[allsaintchris.]

This is the situation that I don't want us to get back in to. Not every contact is a penalty, but with that then comes the problem of stewarding and being able to constitantly apply the same punishment for infringements. It's a bit like reffing football where officials may see incidents differently.

As for the Rosberg/Max incident, surely the best way to handle situations like that would be to order Roberg to give the position back rather than the time penalty. Much better than having a penalty that spoils the fight.

the net result was the same. Rosberg was behind Verstappen after the penalty was taken so Rosbetg was still able to take the fight again.

Surprised how a Merc struggled against the RBR though. Form would suggest it should have made mincemeat of it on the straight but didn't.

 

[Smithers]

We've seen this before with the Merc in traffic although it may have been more Rosberg on this occasion.

Another interesting point and probably one of the main contributors to driving incidents than we openly acknowledge.

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

Anyway great debate and I'm sure this will rumble on!

 

[Justjazz]

This is the situation that I don't want us to get back in to. Not every contact is a penalty, but with that then comes the problem of stewarding and being able to constitantly apply the same punishment for infringements. It's a bit like reffing football where officials may see incidents differently.

As for the Rosberg/Max incident, surely the best way to handle situations like that would be to order Roberg to give the position back rather than the time penalty. Much better than having a penalty that spoils the fight.

I would agree except handing the position back assumes an instant decision, which rarely these are. By the time it is decided in a tighter race there could be several positions between those two drivers. 5 seconds was ok, 10 in very aggressive circumstances. Generally tho Nico's overtakes are untidy to say the least, no respect for safety and poor judgement. They smack of a desperate man.

 

[cosicave]

In my previous post, I thought long and hard about explaining the 'block pass', which as BLS has said, is a perfectly acceptable move when correctly executed. It is very easily misunderstood and really benefits from the aid of properly explained diagrams. To do it justice is a time-consuming amount of work and something best explained interactively in a classroom, so I took the easy way out in avoiding the phrase, hoping that what I said about what is acceptable from the apex onwards would cover it. The important thing here is that we are discussing Rosberg's recent driving tactics which did not involve the block pass at all. But now that Ive mentioned it, I've talked myself into a corner(sic) and will have to expand a little so that it can be seen that this was not what Rosberg even attempted…

The block pass is achieved by an attacking driver taking a tighter, inside line, out-braking a defender, turning in and getting to the apex first*. The down-side is that it requires slower apex speed in order to negotiate the corner and leaves him or her vulnerable to the 'switch-back' (also previously known as an 'undercut' but now too easily confused with aspects of pit-lane strategy). The idea is to avoid being overtaken again on the exit by occupying the space directly ahead of the defender, thus negating the defender's extra speed associated with the wider turn-in by causing him or her to delay acceleration from the apex in accordance with the normal opening of steering. This is not what Rosberg was doing on either of his recently penalised incidents.

*Rosberg did not turn-in in order to even make an attempt to get to the apex, despite having scrubbed off sufficient speed to have sufficient grip to be able to do so. He just 'hung the other guy out to dry' but on the trail-braking entry to a corner(!!) rather than from the apex during the exit phase.

I'm sorry Cosi but I totally disagree…

You "totally" disagree with my post? I'll be happy to listen to what it is I said that you disagree with but your statement is so categoric I scarcely know where to begin!

But I sense how you feel about rules and stewarding, and like many (including myself on occasion), I think your general frustrations are reasonable. I acknowledge there may be valid criticisms of rules and their interpretation (stewarding). This will happen in any sport where refereeing is required and there will be inevitable disagreement which must be addressed and rationalised as far as possible and as soon as possible. But I'd hoped to be clear this was not my point.

I think it might clarify a few things if members of the forum have a good look at something I hope I can find.

I have been reminded of a very good article already in existence by a knowledgeable writer – complete with pretty good diagrams and well-explained rules of engagement – which goes to great length to clarify some of the rules and their subtleties. I will see if I can find it and will provide a link in a separate post if I manage to find it. It as a good, in-depth read, touching on many aspects of overtaking; and I'd recommend it to everyone to gain a better understanding of the thinking involved in stewardship (which really is far more consistent than it used to be!).

Hope I can find it. If not, I'll try to post up bits and pieces over time in a separate article because it might be useful to have some base-line for anyone to refer to at any time. Problem is that to do the subject justice is a mammoth undertaking…

 

[cosicave]

Found it.
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/

 

[cosicave]

In the Hamilton manoeuvre the other driver at least has the option to back off and drop in behind. With Rosberg the driver is forced to leave the track or pretty much stop.

Exactly. This is the crux of the matter – especially since Hamilton was clearly in the forward vision of his 'victim'.

I think I should point out that I am criticising Rosberg's technique, not defending Hamilton's past (which has also incurred the wrath of stewards). The only reason I've spoken of Hamilton in this thread is that a video was posted early on by way of comparison between him and Rosberg. There is no similarity in technique. The recent Rosberg incidents are entirely different and are as black and white as it gets. Some of Hamilton's history has been questionable too, but it must be said that his indiscretions have been far greyer and have left an option for the other driver to lift – especially since all where he was not penalised (to my memory right now, at least) were executed in the forward vision of the other driver.

I know some people do not like this 'subtlety' but it is extremely important. Rosberg has not left any doubt in the minds of 'the ref' as to his sole intention: to leave his victim a choice of frying pan or fire. That is against the etiquette of racing which is the basis for its sad rule-book: a direct consequence of Schumacher taking Senna's example to extremes.

 

[dhel]

In the Hamilton manoeuvre the other driver at least has the option to back off and drop in behind. With Rosberg the driver is forced to leave the track or pretty much stop.

You explain it perfectly......that's exactly what I am thinking. With Rosberg there is no chance to back out of the challenge.....as he just goes straight. With Hamilton's you can back out if you so choose. It's totally different, and you don't have to be an actually racer to understand that...it's a simple commonsense thing.

 

[dhel]

It's exactly the same because the end goal is the same - to block the driver on the outside. Just because one driver goes direct to that point and another driver goes gradually to that point is irrelevant - the intention is the same. The lead car on the inside it entitled to position their car anywhere between the white lines that dictate the race track. That is the fundemental basis of racing.

People are arguing that driver A is culpable because it is a deliberate act, where driver B is not culpable because it doesn't appear to be a deliberate act. The outcome is the same, both drivers gain the same advantage. The point here is not to confuse the situation with driver preference but to logically look at the fact the stewards are inconsistent with their decisions.

You must log in or register to see media

Did you see Hamilton's steering angle..and would you say it was the same as Rosberg's? I think not!

 

[taeleon]

They're not inconsistent at all, Hamilton drives people off the track and they consistently ignore it.

You must log in or register to see images

the red car is Hamilton, trying to take an apex is he? Or is he purposefully and blatantly changing direction mid corner to force someone off the track.

You keep throwing this image around but never put the context of where it has come from in your statement. Thankfully this is in the link cosicave provided us. The description that goes with this image is:

"On the final lap at Hungary, Rosberg attempted to go around the outside of Hamilton at turn 2. Rosberg came from very far back, but also had fresh tyres allowing him to maintain a higher cornering speed. Midway through the corner, Hamilton spotted Rosberg’s move and suddenly straightened his wheel to aggressively angle out Rosberg before corner exit. This is getting very close to the limit of what could be considered an acceptable defensive line."

I think the key words in that statement are "getting very close to the limit". As in, it's still acceptable but only just. Which is what most people have been telling you. Hamilton is borderline hard but ultimatly fair within the rules (most of the time, yes he has his moments as does every driver).

I have been reminded of a very good article already in existence by a knowledgeable writer – complete with pretty good diagrams and well-explained rules of engagement – which goes to great length to clarify some of the rules and their subtleties.

Found it.
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/

Thank you cosicave for the link.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

the main issue i have is that there are different stewards every race and different agendas at play.

f1 needs to give its head a wobble.

that was a good pass by rosberg. if it had been another driver against him they'd not have stuck to the outside and tried to defend as hard and would have not been off the track.

At worst the stewards could say you could have turned 0.25 seconds earlier there.

Its largely irrelevant as rosberg lost the title in the first corner but f1 has lost any semblance of a proper racing sport with this stuff.

they need to fire the whole structure of decision making where vested interests all over the place insert rubbish and take this back to a small group, make a rules book, hire proper stewards and tell whiting to man up of get lost (starts under safety car etc etc) and get on with having a proper consistent sport.

 

[eddie_squidd]

I think Rosbergs move doesn't resemble Hamilton's squeezing as much as it resembles Senna going straight on at Suzuka 1989. Rosberg does eventually turn but only after leaving his opponent no choice but not to turn in at all.

 

[Smithers]

Did you see Hamilton's steering angle..and would you say it was the same as Rosberg's? I think not!

Yes I did, but they are two different radius corners. I've never defended Nico in fact I have gone as far as to say he should have been excluded for his contact with Lewis. My point is that a driver blatantantly running a driver out of road and a driver subtly running a driver out of road are the net same result - gaining an advantage.

If you have to give 1 cars width where does that end? Lewis didn't give Nico 1 cars width at turn 1 in Suzuka, Austin and Canada, nor did he give Riccardo 1 car width on exit in the example shown and nor did Riccardo leave Nico a 1 car width on the exit in the other example.

It doesn't state in that rules where the 1 width car rule ends, except logic states that it would be a racing line at exit point - but that then enters the world of perception and opinion. However drivers can now go off track with the run offs and claim to have been "forced off track", when in fact in racing terms they haven't yielded the corner.

So in black and white facts Nico has replicated the outcome by holding the inside line and driving to the exit of the track not leaving 1 cars width. Deliberate or Subtle the outcome is the same. Pretending to turn, inducing under steer and hitting someone unententionally is irrelevant - the outcome is the same, contact and an advantage.

Here's a question. If Verstappen had slowed down and tried to switch back (as Nico did on Riccardo in the other example) he wouldn't have left the track, so hence Nico wouldn't have "forced him off track" - hence no penalty? Does that make the move acceptable? And the opposite, if Nico had gone off track round the outside of Riccardo would he then have "been forced off track" hence a penalty for Riccardo?

 

[Smithers]

In my previous post, I thought long and hard about explaining the 'block pass', which as BLS has said, is a perfectly acceptable move when correctly executed. It is very easily misunderstood and really benefits from the aid of properly explained diagrams. To do it justice is a time-consuming amount of work and something best explained interactively in a classroom, so I took the easy way out in avoiding the phrase, hoping that what I said about what is acceptable from the apex onwards would cover it. The important thing here is that we are discussing Rosberg's recent driving tactics which did not involve the block pass at all. But now that Ive mentioned it, I've talked myself into a corner(sic) and will have to expand a little so that it can be seen that this was not what Rosberg even attempted…

The block pass is achieved by an attacking driver taking a tighter, inside line, out-braking a defender, turning in and getting to the apex first*. The down-side is that it requires slower apex speed in order to negotiate the corner and leaves him or her vulnerable to the 'switch-back' (also previously known as an 'undercut' but now too easily confused with aspects of pit-lane strategy). The idea is to avoid being overtaken again on the exit by occupying the space directly ahead of the defender, thus negating the defender's extra speed associated with the wider turn-in by causing him or her to delay acceleration from the apex in accordance with the normal opening of steering. This is not what Rosberg was doing on either of his recently penalised incidents.

*Rosberg did not turn-in in order to even make an attempt to get to the apex, despite having scrubbed off sufficient speed to have sufficient grip to be able to do so. He just 'hung the other guy out to dry' but on the trail-braking entry to a corner(!!) rather than from the apex during the exit phase.


You "totally" disagree with my post? I'll be happy to listen to what it is I said that you disagree with but your statement is so categoric I scarcely know where to begin!

But I sense how you feel about rules and stewarding, and like many (including myself on occasion), I think your general frustrations are reasonable. I acknowledge there may be valid criticisms of rules and their interpretation (stewarding). This will happen in any sport where refereeing is required and there will be inevitable disagreement which must be addressed and rationalised as far as possible and as soon as possible. But I'd hoped to be clear this was not my point.

I think it might clarify a few things if members of the forum have a good look at something I hope I can find.

I have been reminded of a very good article already in existence by a knowledgeable writer – complete with pretty good diagrams and well-explained rules of engagement – which goes to great length to clarify some of the rules and their subtleties. I will see if I can find it and will provide a link in a separate post if I manage to find it. It as a good, in-depth read, touching on many aspects of overtaking; and I'd recommend it to everyone to gain a better understanding of the thinking involved in stewardship (which really is far more consistent than it used to be!).

Hope I can find it. If not, I'll try to post up bits and pieces over time in a separate article because it might be useful to have some base-line for anyone to refer to at any time. Problem is that to do the subject justice is a mammoth undertaking…

I disagree with subtlety being an excuse or justification.

I agree that the leading car is entitled to exit the corner especially if they have held the inside line of advantage - but that conflicts with the rule of 1 cars width or where that rule ends. In the Riccardo Lewis video, Riccardo is always ahead, so does that justify Lewis "opening the steering" and making contact?

The Lewis overtake in Germany 2014 has so many similarities, he is late and tight on entry and takes Kimi's entry line away. Lewis's turn in point is now so affected he I s never making the true apex and the lock of wheels is exaggerated by the extra turn lock and extra brake pressure being applied in a shorter braking distance. Hence he hits Kimi and then runs to the outside of the track which is the physics off not being on the optimum line. Come on mate your a racer, I'm not trying to be pedantic I'm just trying to give some insight as a driver that you know when you compromise yourself that your actions are no longer within your own control.

 

[eddie_squidd]

I do think the following car should have some sort of expectation of being able to turn in. You say they should slow down but if you look at the angles involved we are talking about being forced into a complete stop, or off the track.

 

[Smithers]

I do think the following car should have some sort of expectation of being able to turn in. You say they should slow down but if you look at the angles involved we are talking about being forced into a complete stop, or off the track.

That's why I used the Riccardo Nico example, because it appears that the differing drivers decisions has resulted in a penalty for one and not the other and that's fundementaly flawed if so.

In relation to a complete stop it's more common than you think, Massa did it at least once when defending at the weekend. I think it's part of racing, but I would have no objection if a rule was put in place, however there isn't one at present so it's perfectly legitimate.

 

[eddie_squidd]

Stretching the point perhaps, but in the case 0f Senna versus Prost 1989, was the accident Prost's fault for turning in where he felt entitled to? Should he have stopped and tried to go round Senna? I actually really do think the two incidents only differ in degree.

 

[Smithers]

I don't know that's a tough one, in today's rules he is significantly alongside so would be entitled to a cars width, although arguably 2 cars don't go through that chicane, but I think you have probably touched on a key point here although maybe inadvertently?

It's probably easier to establish fault when there is an accident, so in the past with less run offs it's was a case of crashing or yielding. Today we don't have the same peramiters because we have the option of running off track and continuing at racing speeds. Decisions are now being made on what might of happened if a driver had done this and the 5 sec penalty is that negligent it's hard to justify appealing. However, a post race exclusion would be appealed and I think won based on how lose and inconsistent the rules are - they simply wouldn't stand up in a court.